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 31
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 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?
View Xavier Barsalou-Duval Profile
BQ (QC)
Mr. Speaker, today, the National Assembly passed a bill on religious neutrality. Whether the federal government agrees or not, that is the National Assembly's absolute right.
Will the Prime Minister commit to not doing what was done with Bill 99? Will the Prime Minister commit to not challenge Bill 62 in court and to not to fund potential challenges of this bill?
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
BQ (QC)
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
2016-12-02 10:37 [p.7567]
Mr. Speaker, our amendments to Bill C-29 all have the same objective, which is to uphold the rights of Quebec and the rights of Quebeckers. For those who may not know this, we often do great things in Quebec. For instance, Quebec has the best consumer protection laws anywhere in the Americas.
It is precisely these kinds of Quebec differences that Bill C-29 threatens. The banks have always found that Quebec's Consumer Protection Act favours ordinary people too much. The banks have always relied on their ally in Ottawa to try to get around it. This is simply a new chapter in the showdown.
Bill C-29 is a legislative and constitutional power grab. It is a Christmas gift from the federal government to the banks, on the backs of Quebeckers. We cannot let this happen.
In this mammoth bill, the current Liberal government buried an amendment to the Bank Act that includes a mysterious new financial consumer protection framework. The effect of this new clause is clear: Ottawa wants the banks to be above the law in Quebec. Government officials confirmed this before a parliamentary committee.
We have to go back to the early 2000s to understand what is happening now. An unpleasant surprise awaited Quebec consumers returning from vacation: their banks had started charging fees without telling them. This despite the fact that the Consumer Protection Act prevents banks from claiming costs “unless the amount thereof is precisely indicated in the contract”. Ripped-off consumers who tried in vain to get their banks to reimburse them turned to the banking ombudsman, who did nothing.
The consumers then availed themselves of the recourse provided in the Consumer Protection Act and filed a class action lawsuit in 2003. Their case made it to the Supreme Court, culminating in the Marcotte decision in 2014 after 11 years of litigation. The banks were forced to pay back $32 million to the people they tried to swindle.
I would like to comment on the Marcotte case because it led to Bill C-29. The ruling made it clear that, while the Bank Act governs the banks' operations, it does not govern their consumer relations. That was a Supreme Court ruling. The federal law and Quebec's law can therefore both apply because Ottawa's law governs the banks' operations and Quebec's law governs consumer rights, and that is where Bill C-29 comes in.
Now that the federal legislation will contain a tiny section called the “Financial Consumer Protection Framework”, the banks will be able to claim that the Canada Bank Act also covers consumer protection. They will therefore be able to argue before the courts that they basically need not comply with Quebec law. At present, consumers can turn to the Quebec Office de la protection du consommateur to assert their rights, which has a simple and effective process. It is free, which ensures that even the most vulnerable can access it.
If that is not enough, consumers can initiate class proceedings and ask a judge for a ruling. This bill would eliminate all that. From now on, consumers would only be able to approach the banks' ombudsman, an officially neutral employee, but one appointed and paid by the banks. What is worse, the ombudsman cannot make recommendations and cannot impose a penalty or fine.
That is how the Liberals are going to eliminate all the legal protections enjoyed by Quebec consumers with respect to hidden fees, unilateral changes to fees or services by the banks, the requirement to provide a contract in French, the ban on misleading advertising, and the possibility of cancelling an unfair contract. This will only benefit the banks.
Our rights are being pushed aside on a promise that Bay Street will be nice to us. That says it all. Justice is being replaced by an ombudsman appointed by the banks, someone whose authority is limited to handing down a slap on the wrist. This is very serious. It is an attack on Quebec and Quebeckers. In English Canada, there is minimal consumer protection when it comes to the banks. Outside Quebec, Bill C-29 will have little impact. Back home, this will be terrible.
I want to address the 40 Liberal members from Quebec. Instead of reading a French translation of a press release that was written in Toronto, they should be defending their people and telling their colleagues how good our system is for regular people. They should be educating their colleagues instead of acting like doormats.
Yesterday, during question period, I was quite troubled to hear the response of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance. He said that the Marcotte decision called on the government for a response and that Bill C-29 is that response. It is incredible.
In Marcotte, the court was not calling on the federal government. It was addressing the banks. When the Minister of Finance confuses the banks and the federal government, that is saying something. To him, it is six of one and half a dozen of the other. Personally, I am siding with regular folks and not the minister's friends who work on Bay Street.
That is not all. Not only is the government siding with the banks and against Quebec's consumers, but it is creating a loophole that every profiteer is eager to exploit. Today, it is the banks that the federal government is putting above the law. What will be next? Are wireless service providers going to ask for Ottawa's help to double how much they charge, without warning? Are internet service providers going to ask the same? Are we no longer going to be able to go after airlines to get our flight reimbursed if it is cancelled? Is that it?
Our amendment resolves all of these problems. It ensures compliance with the Consumer Protection Act, the best in the Americas. In contrast, Bill C-29 opens the door to abuse. It opens the door to court challenges. For 10 years, Quebeckers will not know what law protects them. For 10 years, Quebeckers will be better off abandoning their banks in favour of caisses populaires and the legal certainty under which they operate. At the risk of overstating the case, the federal government is even harming banks.
I urge my colleagues to support the amendments I proposed. If I understand correctly, the NDP and the Conservatives already support them. Our job is to represent Canadians, not powerful lobbies.
View Luc Thériault Profile
BQ (QC)
View Luc Thériault Profile
2016-05-17 16:28 [p.3493]
Madam Speaker, first of all, as I have done in the past, I would like to thank everyone taking part in this debate, as they are clearly demonstrating great compassion for persons with disabilities, diseases, or grievous and irremediable medical conditions.
However, as I have already said, just because we are compassionate does not mean that we are helpful. We are not being helpful when we affect a person's autonomy and thus the principle of self-determination. That is the basis for the amendments we are moving.
By deleting paragraph 241.2(2)(d), after all the discussions we have had about the “reasonably foreseeable natural death” criterion, we are complying with the ruling in Carter. As soon as a person has a grievous and irremediable disease or disability that causes them enduring suffering that is intolerable and that cannot be relieved under conditions that they consider acceptable, which is the purpose of our second amendment, we cannot claim that we are not affecting their self-determination.
Earlier I heard my Conservative Party colleagues talking about harmonizing this bill with Quebec's legislation. What they failed to mention is that the Quebec law was not intended to cover something made necessary by the Carter decision, namely assisted suicide.
It is important to distinguish terminal illness from the end-of-life stage, which Quebec's legislation placed within a continuum of palliative care. A person may very well be receiving good palliative care, yet still request death. They are at the end-of-life stage, when the dying process has already begun and is irreversible.
The question in the Carter decision is the following: What do we do with people who are terminally ill but not yet at the end-of-life stage? That is the question we needed to answer. By insisting on keeping the “reasonably foreseeable natural death” criterion in its bill, the government is going against the Carter decision.
I am not the only one to say so. The Barreau du Québec said so. The lawyer who argued the case before the Supreme Court said so. They won. The Carter family's lawyer said so. Kay Carter would not have had access to medical assistance in dying under the “reasonably foreseeable natural death” criterion unless, as some have been forced to do recently, she had gone on a hunger strike. In that case, natural death is reasonably foreseeable. That is totally inhumane.
Her other option would have been to argue her case right up to the Supreme Court. That is the road the government is currently going down. It says it is going to leave those who are suffering from a grievous irremediable illness with the burden of going to the Supreme Court to win their case. It is perfectly clear that this bill, as worded, flies in the face of what the Supreme Court said in its decision.
According to the Supreme Court, section 7 of the charter includes three rights, the right to life, liberty, and security of the person, and these three rights are affected by the total prohibition and the “reasonably foreseeable natural death” criterion. The Supreme Court indicated that the right to life is being undermined because some individuals are being forced to take their own lives prematurely rather than wait until their suffering and their lives have become intolerable. This bill does not address that issue.
That is why this bill will be ruled out of order and unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Many people are certain of that. Why then is the government insisting on making this compromise?
That is what legislators did with regard to abortion in the 1970s. What the Supreme Court said in 1988 in the Morgentaler case is exactly what is happening with this bill.
When a law sets out exceptional and exculpatory measures in an attempt to respect rights and fundamental values, those measures have to be real. People have to be able to access them. We cannot take away a person's ability to decide for themselves. No one can make that decision for them. No one here should compare one life to another. It is not about that. No one here should get to decide for a patient what his or her quality of life is.
However, this bill attempts to do so because, to a certain extent, it attempts to qualify a person's death based on a foreseeability criterion. Unless her age was a factor, Kay Carter was not facing a natural, reasonably foreseeable death. That is the danger with this bill. The danger is that someone will either have to go on a hunger strike, which is inhumane, or else we will have to take their age into account. However, spinal stenosis, for example, can be just as intolerable at 42, 62, or 52 years of age.
What does this bill do about all the people who have degenerative diseases and do not want to die? People are not living with a disease that makes them suicidal. They are living with the disease. What they do not want is for someone to decide what is right for them.
Throughout our lives, we have the right to self-determination, meaning that no one can undermine our integrity. In the case of an emergency at the hospital, patients have to give their free and informed consent before they receive any treatment.
Why, then, at the most intimate moment of a human being's life, that person's own death, would anyone presume to do such a thing? On what basis would it be done? On the basis of the common good? Would a neighbour agree to die in that person's stead?
Some would presume to tell a person what to do and take away the right to self-determination when that person is most fragile and vulnerable. That is what the Liberal Party is condoning because it lacks the political courage to do what the Carter ruling asked it to do. It lacks the political courage to make a decision.
We may soon end up with a judicial democracy, but it is not up to the Supreme Court to legislate. That is a job for legislators, and each one of my colleagues opposite is responsible for shaping laws in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
I repeat, according to the principle of fundamental justice, found in section 7 of the law, exculpatory measures must be real; they must be genuinely available.
Anyone who wants to vote against these two amendments needs to prove to me that the bill, as currently written, will fulfill the requirements I just discussed.
Results: 1 - 30 of 31 | Page: 1 of 2

1
2
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data