Marilène Gill

In response to a question from Luc Berthold

“Mental pain is just as real as physical pain, even if we cannot see it. People in a sudden crisis cannot ask for medically assisted dying anyway. We should not ban people with mental illness from accessing it without having this discussion.”

“Mr. Speaker, I was just talking about empathy. Some issues are painful and resonate differently with each and every one of us. We need to be open to others and to the many different stories we encounter. I have often heard the issue framed in terms of access to health care. I would not want that expression to be reduced to a caricature. We see it in our society: There is a hierarchy of suffering. Physical suffering is recognized, but when it comes to psychological suffering, people question whether it is real, even if they may have legitimate reasons for doing so. We do not have access to another person’s thoughts. In fact, I certainly hope no one has access to mine. We cannot see inside a person’s mind, and that can indeed make things difficult. It is not something tangible. We are dealing with something intangible. Sometimes, we find it hard to understand. Nevertheless, these debates need to happen. We are not talking here about someone in crisis. The health care system takes charge of people in crisis. A person cannot request medical assistance in dying while in crisis or while in need of services. However, I agree with my colleague that we need to have this discussion in order to help the people who can be helped.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 33 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Jacques Ramsay

“We want to debate including people with mental illness in medical assistance in dying, not ban them. We also want to make sure federal rules are not stricter than Quebec's rules.”

“Mr. Speaker, since we are talking about things that the members opposite consider to be vague and uncertain, I will let the Quebec National Assembly have that discussion. I think the Bloc Québécois has been quite clear. The first thing that we are calling for is not to exclude people with mental health issues. We are asking to debate that issue. We are also asking that the federal framework not be more restrictive than Quebec’s framework. That is what we are calling for right now.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 46 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →
• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 43 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →

“We should slow down and not rush this bill. Completely banning people with mental illness from medical assistance in dying may be unconstitutional, and the government should ask the Supreme Court about that. We could split the bill so we can approve advance requests now. Also, this federal law must not limit or override the advance requests that Quebec already allows.”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I will of course continue in a similar vein. I also want to thank my colleague, the member for Montcalm, for all the thoughtful and empathetic work he has put into this, because that is what is needed on this kind of bill. We are talking about human suffering. He has done comprehensive and rigorous work on MAID over the past seven years. I know for a fact that he made a significant contribution to all the legislation that we have discussed and passed since then. I say “since then” because, obviously, this is an ongoing discussion. There is one criticism I have for the government, and I am sure many will agree with me. The report was tabled in the spring, the government introduced the bill, and now it is urging the House to pass the bill fast, even though we have been talking about this issue for years. This may be a new way of doing things, now that the government has a majority. The government may not be as interested in hearing what the opposition on the other side of the House thinks. However, majority government or not, I think we should take the time to study bills like this one, which, as I said, deals with human suffering. This issue is a very human issue. We should take the time to go further, instead of imposing something and saying that it is this or nothing. That is more or less what is happening. One of the first things I would like to discuss about the bill is its constitutionality. We are being asked to take a position on a bill that is basically twofold: the issue of permanently excluding mental disorders from the legislation and the whole issue of advance requests for MAID. When we know that this is discriminatory or, to keep things hypothetical—despite knowing for a fact that it is discriminatory—when we suspect that discrimination is involved, we have to determine whether the bill is constitutional. Voting for something unconstitutional would not advance the cause of people who are suffering. The government has had years to seek an opinion on the matter from the Supreme Court, but it has not done so. To me, that is irresponsible. It should seek the court’s opinion so we do not end up needing to repeat the same work again or forcing people in pain to prove that they deserve access to certain end-of-life services. That is one of the first points I want to make. I am not saying that it outweighs the others on substance, but on form, at least. We are already up against a problem here, and the government is trying to impose a solution without even knowing whether it is constitutional. Furthermore, no proposal is being made to divide the bill and, for instance, introduce one bill that we could vote on and seek an opinion for the other. We will now move on to the bill’s two purposes. The first is the matter of shelving the bill indefinitely or perhaps even permanently. I heard a member opposite say that the bill was not necessarily being shelved permanently and that we could maybe come back to it one day. Unlike him, I would say that we should strike while the iron is hot, because there are people who are still suffering right now. There are people who are suffering who are being excluded from the legislation. I spoke about discrimination earlier. They are being excluded, and we need to discuss that now. Just because a discussion is difficult and just because there are differences of opinion does not mean that we should put off having these difficult and demanding debates. It is difficult because it is a matter of beliefs. It is an emotional issue. There are, of course, various schools of thought on the matter, but the fact remains that these decisions must be reasonable, rigorous and science-based. As my colleague said several times, no one here is a psychiatrist. We need to hear from everyone. Even during the committee study, I do not think that we heard from everyone. We did not hear from people who are struggling with mental health issues and who are currently excluded from the bill. We heard from other witnesses. If we want our work to be completely objective and we really want to deliberate responsibly, then we need to hear from everyone. Perhaps, first and foremost, we should be listening to those who may wish to request MAID at some point, regardless of whether that request is ultimately granted. In Quebec, we believe that every individual has the right to choose for themselves what constitutes a healthy and dignified life. That is one thing. I get the impression that the reluctance to ask difficult questions stems from preconceived notions. That is why it is important to conduct an objective study and to engage directly with those affected in order to better understand the issue. What I heard earlier astonishes me. It shows me exactly where we have landed in certain aspects of the debate. We are talking about access to mental health care. That needs to be improved. However, I see that a sort of calculation is being made, and the assumption is that greater access to mental health care will mean less need for MAID. That alone tells me that the very premise of what MAID is has not been understood. That is a huge issue. I believe we need to talk about that, particularly given that we are dealing with stereotypes and preconceived notions here. People think that someone is going to walk into a doctor’s office and say that they are depressed, that they are having dark thoughts and suicidal ideations, so they want MAID. I have heard that before in the House. I am paraphrasing, those are not the exact words, but we can certainly find that in the Hansard. That is where things stand, to a certain extent, so we must not stop discussing this. At worst, let us split the bill, because there are people who are suffering. We want the advance requests to move forward, but we also need to resolve this issue. We cannot hide behind the excuse that it is too difficult and that we cannot address it. The second point is in fact the issue of advance requests. My colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé talked about it already. Advance requests are available only in Quebec. What we in the Bloc Québécois fear is that the federal law, which takes precedence, will be more restrictive than what already exists in Quebec. We want the laws to be harmonized. My concern is that the government may not agree with what Quebec is doing now. Why would the government not use terms that have already proven effective in Quebec and with which the members of the Bloc Québécois and Quebeckers in general agree? In any case, 80% of Quebec’s population agrees with MAID and advance requests. We have a strong consensus. Let us just say that the percentage of people who support this is higher than the percentage of voters who supported the government in the last election. In short, people agree and they are open to the idea, but we do not want to lose out. We do not want the federal government to set us back or cause more people to suffer. I am also thinking about doctors. What will they do? Through the Criminal Code, the federal government will have the power to dictate what Quebec does. It would restrict what is permitted to less than what we currently have. This is truly a huge concern for us. The minister said earlier, in response to my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé, that he was ready to talk. Well, my colleague from Montcalm has raised this matter several times. He has already brought it up. I think we need to take the time to discuss this. We cannot be steamrolled into rushing this discussion. We need to see what will be done so we can ensure that we are properly defending our constituents. As I said, we do not want to go backwards. I would like to make one final point. This addresses a concern that one of my opposition colleagues raised earlier. He said that doctors did not agree and that there was a medical consensus. However, the Collège des médecins du Québec agrees that a blanket ban should not be considered. Everyone in Quebec is ready to have this discussion. We in the Bloc Québécois are ready to have this discussion so that certain individuals with mental health disorders can benefit from this measure. Again, this does not apply to everybody. There needs to be a discussion. I urge all members of the House to show the utmost compassion, to strive to set aside their biases and to get informed. We are talking about science here. The people on whom our health care system depends are fully capable of telling us what could be done in this case. I hope that the bill will respect Quebec and, of course, respect those who are suffering.”

• Reasons given
  ?

  Speech on a bill

  Reasoning 100 of 100

  This statement drew 7 conclusions and gave a reason for each one.

  See full analysis →

“I oppose this bill. It lets pipeline projects skip environmental reviews, suspends environmental laws on certain land, and rushes consultations with First Nations to one year. This will cause major public backlash.”

“Mr. Speaker, Bill C-39 is a major departure. It allows pipeline projects to bypass environmental impact assessments. It would allow swaths of our territory to be designated as being of national interest, thereby suspending the application of environmental laws. It also limits consultations to one year. This means that Ottawa could build the Marinvest pipeline in Quebec without an environmental impact assessment, by suspending environmental laws and rushing through consultations with first nations. Do the Liberals realize that they are gearing up for a social acceptability crisis?”

In response to a question from Marie-Hélène Gaudreau

“I want Quebec to become its own country because I do not expect this government to change. The government keeps promising to get things done and then backing down. It introduces new bills that undo its own promises, including clean drinking water for First Nations.”

“Mr. Speaker, I do not have a lot of hope that change will come. That is why I want Quebec to become a country. I get a sense that the government is playing a kind of bait and switch game. One minute we are talking about the Broadcasting Act and the government’s obligations under it, and then suddenly it backtracks. The same thing happens all the time. We see it with Bill C-5 and with Bill C-39, which threatens other bills that are currently on the table. The government says it is getting things done, but then reverses what it accomplished. It says that it is going to get the first nations drinking water issue moving, for example, but then tables Bill C‑39, without being sure what impact it will have in that regard. It could nullify parts of the bill. The government acts as though it is making progress, but ultimately, it always backs down, in every sense of the word.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 33 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Harb Gill

“I agree with my colleague. The Prime Minister backed down and let down our artists and Canadians. He will not defend our identity and culture. He promised $600 million, but no one has seen any of it, and that amount is not enough anyway. I hope he fixes this.”

“Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague. Personally, I think that someone who backs down like this is not someone I would send to war to defend my own identity and my own culture. In short, it is a recurring theme for us in the Bloc Québécois. Yes, the Prime Minister has let down artists and Canadians. I hope he will be able to make amends. Once again, we are talking about the $600 million, but no one has seen a cent of that. Again, throwing out numbers is all well and good, but we have not seen a cent of this money, and the amount is not enough.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault

“I want the House to pass our motion to pay $600 million to the cultural sector. The government should make big tech companies pay for this instead of using taxpayers' money.”

“Mr. Speaker, the motion on the order paper today calls for an interim payment of $600 million, and it could have been more. This money is coming out of the pockets of taxpayers, when, instead of making Canadians pay, the tech giants could have been made to pay. That would have given us more money. Allocating a certain amount is one thing, but why not seek more and make sure that taxpayers do not have to pay anything? I think a responsible government would do exactly what our motion calls for.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 46 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Marilyn Gladu

“I want the House to pass this motion to support our culture. Big foreign tech companies make billions in profit, but the government gave in to American pressure and let them off without paying levies. Instead, the government is using $600 million of taxpayers' money to help our creators. Taxpayers should not pay for this. Big tech companies should pay, and Quebec must protect its own language and culture.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on behalf of the Bloc Québécois on the issue of web giants, culture more broadly, Quebec identity and, of course, the funding that the Liberal government should provide, but not at the taxpayers’ expense. First of all, I would also like to congratulate my colleague Meggie Richard, an MNA from my region, on the Côte-Nord, who has just been appointed minister responsible for regions and land use and minister responsible for the Côte-Nord region. As my colleague, the member for Laurentides—Labelle, said, we are very proud to see in our National Assembly, which is my own parliament, MNAs and ministers who care deeply about our culture, language and identity, and who will defend them tooth and nail, just as we in the Bloc Québécois do here in the House of Commons. Obviously, what happens here has an impact on what happens in Quebec. I would also like to take this opportunity to congratulate our minister of culture, communications, and the French language, Pascal Bérubé, who was appointed minister yesterday. Of course, I know that he will also be a staunch defender of Quebec’s identity. That brings to mind words often repeated by my leader, the member for Beloeil—Chambly, who has said on numerous occasions that a nation must not place all authority over its culture, its language and its identity in the hands of another nation. To do so is to put them at risk. The only nation that can protect and promote a culture, a language and an identity is the nation itself, the one that lives through that identity, that language and that culture. For us, of course, being able to debate the motion before us on this opposition day is essential. I could summarize that motion, but I will simply take a moment to read it into the record. It is very brief and, in essence, reiterates the points I made earlier: That, given that, (i) culture is central to Quebec’s identity, (ii) the cultural sector plays a critical role in Quebec’s economy, (iii) the media and cultural production sectors are facing serious pressures that hamper their development, (iv) the government nevertheless abolished the Digital Services Tax levied on the U.S. digital corporate giants, the House call on the government to: (a) uphold the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission’s decisions imposing levies on streaming services, as set out in the Broadcasting Act; and (b) make the interim payment of $600 million promised to the cultural sector for the current year. The term “interim payment” mentioned in the motion is important. My colleague brought up an issue that my colleague from Repentigny also raised in his questions, and that is the government’s weakness when it comes to cultural measures. The government wanted—at least that is what it said—to ensure that levies were paid so that the money could be used to help our cultural enterprises and broadcasters. The government decided to simply cave to the U.S. government. At least, that is the pretext, if not the exact reason. It said that it might be a good idea to perhaps give in on this point to facilitate negotiations. That is a huge sum. As we have heard, these companies made $4 billion in profits last year. In this country, they pay nothing. At the same time, they will be competing, unfairly I would say, with our own cultural enterprises and creators. The government agreed to levy a tax to help our broadcasters, enterprises and creators to create content here at home. As I said earlier, creating content here at home meets our need to show our identity and continue to increase its vitality. As I was saying, there was some political will. The companies, however, refused to give in to that. The Conservative Party, meanwhile, decided to stand up for the Americans and the billion-dollar corporations. The government overturned the CRTC’s decision to collect these amounts. I talked about nations earlier. No one else can defend and promote our culture as well as we can ourselves. It sounds obvious, but we still have to debate it here. Even though it seems evident, we still have to fight these battles. Quebec’s identity is already in the hands of Canada. After that, it is in the hands of the United States, to a certain extent, since we are caving in to pressure from the Americans as well as from businesses. We are a long way from having the tools we need to defend and promote our culture and to create content here at home that can be broadcast here, in accordance with our own needs and preferences. We are a long way from that. I would say that it goes even beyond governments, because we are bowing to pressure from foreign, multi-billion-dollar corporations, which care less about our culture and more about their profits. Our culture is not part of their mandate or their primary objective. We are a long way from cultural sovereignty. I will echo what my colleague from Laurentides—Labelle said. She talked about the “Canada strong” thing that some people go on and on about here in the House. A nation with an identity fights for that identity and is prepared to defend it at every turn. It will never yield to blackmail by governments or corporations. That is out of the question. Identity is not for sale. In my opinion, this is proof. A lot of people talk about how the Prime Minister is standing up to the United States very vigorously. This may be a cliché, but I think the government is just talking the talk. It is not walking the walk, and we believe that jeopardizes Quebec’s culture and its development. That is one point. Next, it seems that, to put it simply, in an effort to defuse the situation, the government is admitting that it has yielded to pressure from the U.S. and the tech giants, and is asking the CRTC to back down, but it will provide $600 million. My colleague from Jonquière—Hébertville—Pays-des-Bleuets said earlier that it is less than what we would get in royalties. That $600 million is already not enough. That is not even what we would have had with the levies. What is more, these $600 million come from taxpayers’ pockets. One of the arguments used by the government and the Conservative Party was that it would cost far too much, as a member opposite mentioned earlier. However, academics and researchers have debunked the argument that the services we get from the tech giants would be less affordable. Currently, measures are being implemented in Europe, and the costs have not actually changed. However, taking those $600 million from taxpayers’ pockets is really just taking their money instead of taking the tech companies’ money. That is basically what it is. The government is paying for these companies and covering them instead of doing its job as a sovereign state when it comes to culture. That is really what it is doing. That is why the Bloc Québécois is not simply asking for $600 million. I mentioned at the outset that the word “interim” is important. At the end of the day, we want the tech giants to pony up that money. We do not want the government or ordinary citizens to foot the bill. We want the tech giants to do so. We also want—and I emphasize this because it is absolutely fundamental to us—to retain control over our culture, content discoverability, our creative output and our language. We need that funding to support our culture. I hope that my colleagues will vote for what sounds to me like common sense.”

• Reasons given
  ?

  Speech on a motion

  Reasoning 100 of 100

  This statement drew 4 conclusions and gave a reason for each one.

  See full analysis →
• Echo ×4

  A repeated line

  “As set out in the Broadcasting Act.”

  Said 4 times by 4 members since October 22.

  Every time it was said →

“The government is winging it. One bill creates an agency to solve a problem, but another bill cancels that same agency before we even finish debating it. The government should have prepared a finished plan. Why did it give up on its first idea so quickly?”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons about winging things. My colleague from Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères spoke to this earlier. It was one of the concerns he had about the bill. As we saw in Bill C-31, the government is trying to create an entity to address the problem currently under debate. At the same time, Bill C-40 scraps the idea the government proposed in Bill C‑31. If that is not winging it, what is? Either the government is not ready to propose an idea, or it is proposing an idea that is still being debated. This morning, Bill C‑31 was discussed in committee, yet here we are in the House debating a different bill, Bill C‑40, that discards what is set out in Bill C‑31. Seeing both ideas up for debate at once, without either of them having been tried and critiqued, makes me wonder why the government did not simply prepare something that was finished, rather than something that requires corrections along the way. Can my colleague tell me why the government no longer wants to go through with what it had previously proposed in Bill C‑31?”

In response to a question from Jamie Schmale

“This bill lacks real power. It might just create more government bureaucracy to point out failures. The government should simply follow its modern treaties. This bill will not work unless the government agrees to cooperate, but MPs can keep pushing to make sure these treaties are respected.”

“Mr. Speaker, I may not always agree with my official opposition colleagues, but that is what I said in my speech. I said that the lack of teeth is what could ultimately give us an additional structure but that we do not know exactly what it might contribute, besides calling attention to the government’s shortcomings. We hope this will not be necessary and that the government will simply meet its modern treaty implementation obligations. However, we are going a step further, though it will do no good unless the government is on board. Naturally, as MPs, we can keep working in committee or in the House to ensure that these treaties are implemented effectively.”

In response to a question from Rhéal Éloi Fortin

“I want the government to prioritize debate and vote on this bill now. We all agree on it, but the government keeps delaying it. These delays hurt First Nations and Inuit communities. The government must pass it before this session ends.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague and congratulate him in turn on his 11 years of representing the citizens of Rivière-du-Nord so diligently and passionately. Of course, I too am wondering why this bill keeps reappearing in a new form. The government is always the one that drafts it, and there is relative consensus, as I believe the bill will be passed. We have to wonder why it has not been passed more quickly. This always results in delays for first nations and Inuit. In this case, Bill C-10 is causing further delays, and the government is fully aware of that. I do not wish to speculate on the government’s intentions, but I hope that this time will be different. It is up to the government to prioritize consideration of the bill, the debate and the vote. If it wants to, it could ensure that the bill does not die on the Order Paper at the end of the current parliamentary session.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 95 of 100

  Of this reply, 93% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →