Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 30 of 39
View Marilène Gill Profile
BQ (QC)
View Marilène Gill Profile
2019-06-18 15:07 [p.29312]
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice said yesterday that Bill 21 violates fundamental rights and individual freedoms and that he would always defend the charter. He was basically saying that he intends to challenge the Government of Quebec's secularism law.
My question is simple. Is the minister going to wait until after the election to challenge Bill 21, for fear of alienating Quebeckers?
View Marilène Gill Profile
BQ (QC)
View Marilène Gill Profile
2019-06-18 15:08 [p.29312]
Mr. Speaker, the government already dictates what people can and cannot wear. Soldiers, RCMP officers and prison guards all wear uniforms. Male MPs have to wear a tie in order to be recognized in the House of Commons. I do not hear the Minister of Justice objecting to those rules.
What is the real reason that the Minister of Justice wants to challenge a state secularism law that is supported by the people of Quebec?
View Marilène Gill Profile
BQ (QC)
View Marilène Gill Profile
2019-06-17 15:05 [p.29188]
Mr. Speaker, last night Quebec passed its secularism bill. Finally.
Will the Prime Minister now undertake to respect the will of Quebeckers and their National Assembly and neither challenge the new Quebec bill in court nor fund legal challenges?
View Marilène Gill Profile
BQ (QC)
View Marilène Gill Profile
2019-06-17 15:06 [p.29188]
Mr. Speaker, the chair of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, completely out of touch with Quebeckers, has already dragged out his “it is a sad day for Quebec”. It took less than 24 hours.
Whether he likes it or not, it is a good day for Quebec. This is a great day, and the culmination of over 10 years of debate on secularism in Quebec. The fight is not over, however. We still have to make sure that Ottawa will not drag this matter before the courts.
Will Quebeckers get a solemn commitment that the federal government will respect their will and not challenge this secularism legislation either directly or indirectly?
View Marilène Gill Profile
BQ (QC)
View Marilène Gill Profile
2019-05-16 15:08 [p.27954]
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois submitted a brief on Bill 21 to the National Assembly.
Our message to Quebec's elected officials is simple: Ottawa can hardly wait to use the court challenges program to bankroll a challenge of the secularism bill.
Can the Minister of Justice guarantee that he does not intend to directly or indirectly challenge Quebec's secularism bill?
View Marilène Gill Profile
BQ (QC)
View Marilène Gill Profile
2019-05-16 15:09 [p.27954]
Mr. Speaker, the answer was not clear.
The Bloc's position is clear. We support the religious neutrality of the Quebec state. We believe that people should give and receive services with their faces uncovered. We support the ban on public workers in positions of authority from wearing religious symbols.
In the meantime, the chair of the justice committee is waiting for Bill 21 to be passed before initiating legal challenges.
Will you respect the will of Quebec and not challenge Quebec's secularism bill, yes or no?
View Marilène Gill Profile
BQ (QC)
View Marilène Gill Profile
2019-04-11 15:06 [p.27010]
Mr. Speaker, in response to my question yesterday, the Prime Minister said that there is no place for discrimination against our citizens, as though the bill on secularism introduced by the state of Quebec were discriminatory.
The bill sets rules for everyone. It is not discriminatory. The same rules will apply to everyone.
Is the Prime Minister accusing the Government of Quebec and the millions of Quebeckers who support this bill of discrimination? Have the Liberals really sunk that low?
View Marilène Gill Profile
BQ (QC)
View Marilène Gill Profile
2019-04-11 15:07 [p.27010]
Mr. Speaker, whether the minister likes it or not, it is up to Quebeckers to decide what works for them.
The secularism of the state of Quebec will be decided by Quebec, not by Ottawa and not by the House, which even refuses to condemn the shameful remarks of the mayor of Hampstead, who has compared the secularism bill to ethnic cleansing.
Will the Minister of Justice respect the will of Quebec and undertake not to challenge Bill 21 or support any legal challenges?
View Marilène Gill Profile
BQ (QC)
View Marilène Gill Profile
2019-04-10 15:11 [p.26933]
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Quebec, a majority government, finally has the opportunity to address the issue of secularism. If all goes as planned, the bill should be passed by the summer.
Unfortunately, it appears that this Liberal government might well be the biggest obstacle opposing the will of Quebeckers. Could the Prime Minister, the member for Papineau, in Quebec, commit to respecting the will of Quebeckers and promise not to challenge Bill 21 on secularism in the courts or support any legal challenges?
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
View Monique Pauzé Profile
2019-04-10 15:12 [p.26933]
Mr. Speaker, I believe that, if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: that this House condemn the comments made on April 5 by the mayor of Hampstead, William Steinberg, who described Bill 21 on secularism, passed at the National Assembly of Quebec, as ethnic cleansing.
View Marilène Gill Profile
BQ (QC)
View Marilène Gill Profile
2019-04-09 15:10 [p.26887]
Mr. Speaker, the member for Mount Royal finally dissociated himself from the shameful statements his friend, the mayor of Hampstead, made comparing secularism to ethnic cleansing. The Minister of Justice was asked to condemn the statements yesterday, but he chose not to.
Insulting Quebec is apparently okay with the Minister of Justice.
Will the minister condemn the statements made by the mayor of Hampstead and pledge not to challenge the secularism bill in court?
View Marilène Gill Profile
BQ (QC)
View Marilène Gill Profile
2019-04-09 15:11 [p.26887]
Mr. Speaker, every time we ask a question we see the Minister of Justice and Attorney General pick up his notes and repeat the answers written by the Prime Minister's office. That says a lot about the independence of the new attorney general vis-a-vis the Prime Minister. Could we please get a straight answer to a simple question?
Will the Minister of Justice challenge Bill 21 or support a legal challenge, yes or no? It seems to me that he does not need notes to answer the question.
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
View Monique Pauzé Profile
2019-04-08 15:08 [p.26816]
Mr. Speaker, when it comes to secularism, tone is just as important as substance. Well, the problems have already begun.
On Friday, the mayor of Hampstead, in the presence of the member for Mount Royal, called Bill 21 nothing short of ethnic cleansing.
Will the Minister of Justice condemn these unacceptable comments and ask his colleague from Mount Royal to set the record straight? If not, are we to conclude that this is the Liberal government's position?
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
View Monique Pauzé Profile
2019-04-08 15:09 [p.26816]
Mr. Speaker, the member for Mount Royal did not condemn the unacceptable remarks, and I get the feeling that the Minister of Justice does not condemn them either.
The member for Mount Royal was clear about the government's intentions. He said, “Legal action cannot be taken until the bill is passed”. In other words, as soon as the Quebec National Assembly passes the bill, Ottawa will challenge it in court.
Quebeckers deserve to know the truth.
Will the Minister of Justice promise not to challenge the bill in court or support a court challenge?
View Marilène Gill Profile
BQ (QC)
View Marilène Gill Profile
2019-04-04 15:07 [p.26692]
Mr. Speaker, 12 years ago, Quebec was thinking about religious neutrality as part of the Bouchard-Taylor commission. Six years ago, Quebec was debating secularism following the introduction of the Quebec charter of values. Those passionate and necessary debates led to the introduction of Bill 21 on secularism last week. Today, Ottawa wants to prevent us from resolving that issue.
Why is the government trying to prevent Quebeckers from setting guidelines to protect the religious neutrality of the Quebec state?
View Marilène Gill Profile
BQ (QC)
View Marilène Gill Profile
2019-04-04 15:08 [p.26693]
Mr. Speaker, the secularism of the Quebec state falls under the jurisdiction of Quebec and Quebec alone. It is not up to Ottawa, which is out of touch with Quebeckers' priorities, to decide what is good or bad for Quebec.
The Minister of Justice refuses to give any assurances that he will not challenge Bill 21 before the courts. However, Quebeckers elected the current government, their government, because they wanted to resolve this issue once and for all.
Will the Minister of Justice finally commit to respecting the will of Quebeckers, yes or no?
View Marilène Gill Profile
BQ (QC)
View Marilène Gill Profile
2019-04-02 15:08 [p.26593]
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, my colleague from Repentigny asked the Liberals three times to commit to honouring the will of Quebeckers and not challenge the Quebec law on secularism before the courts. Three times, the Minister of Justice refused to commit. He thinks that Quebec's desire for a secular state is discriminatory. I will try a fourth time.
Will the Minister of Justice commit to honour the will of Quebec and not challenge the law on secularism before the courts?
View Marilène Gill Profile
BQ (QC)
View Marilène Gill Profile
2019-04-02 15:09 [p.26593]
Mr. Speaker, that was not the question.
The Liberals just do not get Quebec. This has nothing to do with discriminating against anyone. We want clear rules that apply to everyone. Rules that apply to everyone are not discriminatory; they are the opposite of discriminatory.
Will the minister pledge to respect what Quebeckers want, or will the federal government once again deny Quebec the right to make its own choices?
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
View Monique Pauzé Profile
2019-04-01 15:05 [p.26522]
Mr. Speaker, the Quebec government has finally decided to set clear guidelines to protect secularism. Quebec believes that the best way to protect all religions is for the state to have no religion. However, the secularism bill had not even been introduced and the Prime Minister was already attacking it.
Will the Prime Minister promise to respect the will of Quebec and not undertake any legal challenges of Bill 21?
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
View Monique Pauzé Profile
2019-04-01 15:06 [p.26522]
Mr. Speaker, when I hear that it is clear to me that the government does not care about Quebec. If it did, it would know that we have been thinking about secularism since the Quiet Revolution. This is nothing new.
To the Prime Minister, Quebec's secularism legislation is discriminatory. He said, “It's unthinkable to me that in a free society we would legitimize discrimination against citizens based on their religion.”
The opposite is true. This is an anti-discrimination bill since the rules apply to everyone.
Will the Prime Minister promise not to challenge Bill 21 in court?
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
View Monique Pauzé Profile
2019-04-01 15:07 [p.26522]
Mr. Speaker, all I understood from that answer is that Canada is anything but secular.
We know that the Prime Minister has already made up his mind and put the Quebec government on notice. He said that everybody knows he will defend the Canadian charter and that Mr. Legault and all Quebeckers know that his position on this is very firm.
Is that a threat?
Will the government respect the will of Quebec and agree not to file or fund any legal challenges to Bill 21?
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
View Monique Pauzé Profile
2018-11-20 10:05 [p.23581]
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table petition e-1673 on behalf of the Association féminine d'éducation et d'action sociale, better known as Afeas. The petition was signed by 639 people, and more signatures will soon be arriving on paper. This petition calls on the government to sign the order to bring into force Bill C-452, which seeks to combat human trafficking and sexual exploitation.
We are losing precious time. The bill was passed unanimously and has already received royal assent. Other petitions on this subject have been circulated over the past three and a half years, and the Quebec National Assembly passed a unanimous motion in this regard.
How long will it take and how many young girls will have to become victims before the Prime Minister signs the petition?
The purpose of the petition is to get the government to sign the order to protect teenage girls from criminal prostitution rings.
View Xavier Barsalou-Duval Profile
BQ (QC)
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government is providing funding to the Quebec bar association to strike down Quebec laws under section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867. Canada does not care about French and has violated its Constitution for 35 years. The Constitution Act, 1867, is in English only. There is no official French version even though that is required by the Constitution Act, 1982.
Can the Minister of Justice admit that Canada is violating its own Constitution with impunity?
View Marilène Gill Profile
BQ (QC)
View Marilène Gill Profile
2018-04-23 15:07 [p.18610]
I would like further clarification, Mr. Speaker.
In order to give the French version of the Constitution of 1867 the same legal weight as its English version, section 55 of the Constitution Act, 1982 provides that a French version of the Constitution of 1867 be passed as expeditiously as possible. Thirty-five years is not what anyone would call expeditious.
For the sake of consistency, since there is no official French version of the Constitution of 1867, will the Minister of Justice suspend enforcement of section 133 until an official French version is adopted?
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
BQ (QC)
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
2017-11-02 15:06 [p.14890]
Mr. Speaker, to call that answer vague would be an understatement, and I am nowhere near convinced. If the government does not provide health and security services to the people, it should hand that tax revenue over to the provinces, which do.
On another matter, today the media reported that Quebec's religious neutrality law could be challenged as early as tomorrow. Quebec has the right to make its own decisions about rules governing the relationship between the state and its people. That is a fundamental right.
Will the government respect Quebec's jurisdiction, as stated in the motion we adopted, and will it promise not to pay for any legal challenge to Quebec's religious neutrality law?
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
BQ (QC)
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
2017-10-26 15:06 [p.14584]
Mr. Speaker, it is up to the National Assembly alone to pass legislation in areas under its jurisdiction, and that includes religious neutrality within the Quebec government. It is not up to Toronto, Calgary, or Ottawa to decide, it is up to Quebec. The Prime Minister does not seem to understand this concept yet.
The Minister of Transport was quoted as saying that the government has no intention of meddling with an act passed by the National Assembly. Could he let the Prime Minister know?
There seems to be some confusion over there.
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
View Monique Pauzé Profile
2017-10-26 15:07 [p.14584]
Mr. Speaker, I do not think that made things any clearer. Rather than getting briefed by the heritage minister, perhaps the Prime Minister should have been briefed by the Minister of Families. Yesterday, the Minister of Families was quite clear when he said that it was not up to the federal government to tell Quebec how to do things.
It is not difficult. Quebec makes its own laws and Ottawa does the same. It is as simple as that.
Will the Prime Minister listen to his Minister of Families instead of his Minister of Canadian Heritage and let Quebec legislate in areas under its jurisdiction?
View Rhéal Fortin Profile
BQ (QC)
View Rhéal Fortin Profile
2017-10-24 15:02 [p.14474]
Mr. Speaker, it is up to the National Assembly and the National Assembly alone to legislate in areas under its jurisdiction.
It is not up to Calgary, Toronto, or Ottawa to make the rules for life in Quebec. It is within the rights of the National Assembly to decide that people cannot receive Quebec government services unless their face is uncovered.
Is it asking too much of the Minister of Canadian Heritage to respect the Quebec National Assembly's jurisdiction, or does she believe that she is above the law, as she did in reaching an agreement with Netflix?
View Rhéal Fortin Profile
BQ (QC)
View Rhéal Fortin Profile
2017-10-23 15:05 [p.14398]
Mr. Speaker, on September 21, this House unanimously adopted a motion reiterating Quebec's right to debate and legislate on any matter within its jurisdiction.
It has taken less than a month for the Liberals to renege on that motion. It was inevitable: as soon as Quebec turns its attention to religious neutrality, Ottawa goes berserk.
Will the Prime Minister confirm that he recognizes that religious neutrality within the Quebec government falls under Quebec jurisdiction, and not federal jurisdiction?
View Rhéal Fortin Profile
BQ (QC)
View Rhéal Fortin Profile
2017-10-23 15:06 [p.14398]
Mr. Speaker, we have a National Assembly in Quebec City whose members pass laws on issues under Quebec jurisdiction, and the people pay them for their service. Meanwhile, some here in Ottawa want to challenge those laws, even though they, too, get their paychecks from Quebec taxpayers. This is yet another example showing that federalism does not work.
Will the Prime Minister promise not to use Quebec money to challenge the Quebec government's own Bill 62?
Results: 1 - 30 of 39 | Page: 1 of 2

1
2
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data