Translate Politics Parliament in plain language.

MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT

Marilène Gill

Bloc Québécois Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan 55 statements translated

Follow by RSS

Gill works on Indigenous and northern affairs and on the forestry and aluminum sectors of her region, backing the modern treaty implementation bill, a plan to fix a shortage of 10,000 housing units in Quebec First Nations communities, and 50% refunds of the duties forestry producers pay the U.S. She argues carefully and in detail, holding back where the facts stop: “I do not wish to speculate on the government’s intentions.”Written by AI from their statements. Updated .

Average grade
B+
84 / 100 over 49 statements
Signal 73 / 100
Relevance 78 / 100
Respect 100 / 100
Clarity 95 / 100
Loses points more than most for Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business.1.7 times as often as most members.What the tags mean ×1.7 Loses points less than most for A promise with no date, no measure and no one responsible.Less often than most members.What the tags mean A story that illustrates instead of making a point.Less often than most members.What the tags mean Averaged over the 49 of 55 statements graded so far.

Statements 55

Government Orders ·

Commissioner for Modern Treaty Implementation Act

In response to a question from Gérard Deltell

“I leave treaty decisions to the government of Quebec. I want Quebec to become its own country, but no country can be built without First Nations. First Nations need to be part of every discussion. Both Quebeckers and First Nations care about running their own affairs, and we can work together to build a country.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, this has no bearing on the bill, but yes, there are modern treaties. As a Bloc Québécois member, I leave it to the Government of Quebec to reach its own decision in this regard. Personally, I believe that no country can be developed without the first nations, even a country like Quebec. My colleague is well aware that I am a sovereignist. The first nations have a tremendous role to play. I also believe that the Assembly of First Nations Quebec-Labrador wants that too. First nations need to be part of every discussion. As I see it, that is extremely important. We have an opportunity to rewrite history in way that is fair, equitable and mindful of culture and language. My colleague knows that the Wendat nation is reviving its language. When a language comes back to life, it affects culture too. Obviously, I see this as a promising sign. I believe that sovereignty and the self-determination of peoples are important for both Quebeckers and first nations, but there are ways to work together, maybe even to create a country together.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A– View analysis

In response to a question from Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault

“This bill needs improvement, and the government should listen to other parties to fix it. A new commissioner is not enough. The government must actually want to carry out these treaties on its own.”

  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 34 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it has been seven years since I have sat across from a majority government. I imagine it should be pretty easy for the government to pass legislation quickly. However, it is important to listen to the opposition parties. Even though I do not necessarily agree with everything my colleague says, the fact remains that this bill could use some improvement. I would also like to remind members that, irrespective of the bill, the government must be willing to move forward on modern treaties. It is not only the commissioner who must push this forward. If the government were willing to do so, there would be no need to even vote on this bill.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade C View analysis
“I want the House to pass this bill to create an independent watchdog for modern treaties. First Nations and Inuit helped write it and have asked for it for over twenty years. The government often fails to keep its treaty promises, which forces small communities to spend a lot of money fighting in court. This watchdog will hold the government accountable and help make sure treaties are actually followed.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here today. This is the first time that I am rising this fall, and I realized this morning that this is the 11th year that I have had the privilege and honour of coming to the House to serve the people of Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan. I want to give a shout-out to them. I met people all across my immense riding this summer, and I want to assure my constituents that I am still passionate and enthusiastic about representing them. That is what I will do during this parliamentary session, which certainly looks like it will be a very exciting and busy one, even though it may not seem that way yet. I imagine there will be some twists and turns. I represent a huge riding where 15% of the population is indigenous. Of course, seeing as I am the critic for indigenous and northern affairs, this bill is of particular interest to me. I am therefore pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-10, an act respecting the commissioner for modern treaty implementation. The Bloc Québécois said right from the start that we support this bill. Now, at third reading, following the study in committee, we still support this bill, which I must point out is the result of a request from first nations and Inuit. This bill reflects these communities’ request for a commissioner or some structure to serve as their watchdog for modern treaty implementation. This is something they have been asking for for years—more than 20 years, in fact. Today’s topic of discussion is something that has been called for for decades. If I may briefly digress, I would point out that the same can be said of practically all bills and topics brought before the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs: that they have been called for for decades. That is a really long time to wait for results. Now, having reached third reading, we are on the verge of achieving a result. I therefore urge all of my colleagues to vote in support of this bill, despite the criticism we heard in the speeches. Obviously, we are here for the same purpose: to critique the bill by analyzing its weaknesses. First nations and Inuit have been calling for the creation of a body to hold the federal government accountable, because some of its obligations have been objectively unmet. This has been going on for decades. It is discouraging for first nations and a waste of their resources, which is obviously something we would like to avoid. I will come back to that later. The bill to create the position of commissioner for modern treaty implementation would help reduce these delays, or at least, that is our hope, and that is the intent of the bill. It would ensure that less time, resources and energy are wasted on processes that should be conducted not necessarily quickly, but efficiently. I think we all know that we would not be discussing this bill today if the federal government were actually fulfilling its obligations. First nations and Inuit are simply asking for what is rightfully theirs. They are being told that the government is going to work on modern treaties and sign treaties and that this work will continue for several years to come. If the government had been committed to this and had worked diligently, always in consultation with first nations, treaties would have been signed faster and there would have been no need to go to court, for example, to resolve certain issues. I would say that this bill is a step in the right direction, specifically toward delivering the accountability required of the government when signing a treaty and ensuring seamless implementation of modern treaties. Obviously, even beyond this specific bill, the Bloc Québécois supports self-determination for nations. We know that this bill is the result of a commitment to reconciliation, which we also agree with. This is one measure that could improve the situation. We still hear about colonialism and assimilation today. This is something the government can do to break the cycle. Based on that principle alone, without going into the details of the bill itself, this is another reason why the Bloc Québécois supports the bill, that is, to move the government away from its paternalistic approach, which, obviously, dates back to the beginning of Canada’s history and even before that. In committee, we heard testimony about the bill from several first nations. Naturally, they are all in favour of this bill being passed, particularly given that it was co-drafted. First nations and Inuit were consulted when the bill was being drafted in order to ensure it reflects their wishes and expectations. Several organizations told us that the federal government is stepping back from implementing treaties or is only implementing them in part. That is why they want a commissioner. The government is failing to honour its own commitments to first nations and Inuit communities. They want to cast off the shackles of colonialism, but they cannot because the government that should be helping them is in fact putting obstacles in their way. I am paraphrasing, but that is what we were told in committee. I just realized that I am only on page three out of 10, and I may not have enough time, so I will have to cut my speech short. In short, the testimony we heard leaves the impression that the federal government is signing treaties to try to satisfy first nations or that, at the very least, it is working on drafting treaties, but the work is extremely slow. As I was saying earlier—and I will say it again, because it is important—the issue of money often came up in committee. Communities have to pay thousands of dollars to take the federal government to court in hopes of winning their case. As I said, that takes a lot of resources, both financial and human, and it really gets the communities’ hopes up. People sometimes forget this, but these communities do not have millions of inhabitants. They are sometimes very small communities that obviously do not have the same resources as the federal government. This is really David versus Goliath. They are like dwarves going up against giants. It is very difficult for first nations or Inuit communities to see these extremely demanding legal proceedings through to the end. These communities sometimes have a fairly small population, and, as I was saying, they do not have all the necessary means. As I said, these cases can sometimes drag on for decades. It is easy to imagine the consequences that these legal costs can have on the communities. These are financial choices that they also have to make. First nations and Inuit also pointed out in committee that the commissioner will not have any enforcement powers. The Bloc Québécois also raised that same criticism of this bill. Yes, the commissioner is there to act as a watchdog for treaty implementation. They can shine a light on shortcomings, such as departments’ lack of understanding or the government’s inability to act in the best interests of nations that want to be able to use their resources to help, but that is not enough. The commissioner cannot force the government to act. The trouble is that, although the commissioner can draw attention to what is not working, there is not necessarily an immediate solution. In fact, this goes beyond the government’s mere willingness to act, even though we agree that, without this willingness, there would be no results at all. There is work to do on understanding modern treaty implementation, as we heard at committee. Aside from the government itself, the departments are also involved. As one might expect, treaty implementation does not only involve the Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and the Department of Indigenous Services. Multiple departments must address the issues at the same time. This is often done in silos, which means that interpretations differ from one department to the next. Since the interpretations are different, the work is not done in the same way. Obviously, their approaches should be harmonized, but that cannot happen at the end either. That also causes delays. I mentioned the government’s willingness, but it is a question of finding solutions to ensure that departments can work together. They are already working together to a certain extent, but interpreting the treaties themselves is a huge problem. I do not wish to speak on behalf of civil servants, but this means hours of extra work for them. We need to find solutions that enable dialogue and harmonization. As I said, that is exactly what needs to happen so that treaties can be implemented more quickly and efficiently. The trouble is this silo mentality. As we can see, there is a willingness that may be symbolic, to a certain extent. As one of my colleagues mentioned earlier, there are issues or difficulties that are already on the table, but the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs is already aware of them. We will share some of the shortcomings in a report. However, there is still work to be done, whether it be to give the commissioner an enforcement role or to address the issue of harmonizing different departments’ interpretations, amongst other things. In closing, I humbly reiterate the Bloc Québécois’ support for Bill C-10. I am the Bloc Québécois critic for indigenous and northern affairs. It is a special role, because it means acting as spokesperson for another nation within a government that is obviously a colonialist government. It is still a colonial government in the eyes of first nations and indigenous peoples. Being their spokesperson requires me to display humility and to be willing to set aside or suspend my biases in order to try to understand what they want. It requires me to speak on behalf of those communities, which, in this case, are asking for a commissioner who can defend their interests and expedite treaty implementation. We support the establishment of this office. We do not support creating yet another agency with more expenses and more red tape, as some of my colleagues have incorrectly said. We just need to know what is happening. First nations and Inuit want to know. They are asking us to shed light on what is happening. As I said earlier, if this can push the government to act more promptly and effectively, then we are certainly on board. That is what first nations and Inuit are asking for. To conclude, I hope that all the parties will agree with the bill so that we can pass it. We have been discussing it for more than one Parliament. That shows just how long certain processes can take. There is still work to be done to establish the office itself, but I hope it will be set up in the coming years so that modern treaties can be implemented faster, with the simple goal of improving the well-being of first nations and Inuit communities.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A+ View analysis
“This bill has flaws. Even with a commissioner, it might still ignore what First Nations and Inuit communities want.”

  • Question or comment in debate

    Clarity 0 of 100

    Much of this statement used imprecise wording, lacked details on timing or responsibility, or made broad claims without support.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question about the bill’s shortcomings. Obviously, we are here to debate. However, although the government is saying that the bill will fully address the demands of the various indigenous communities, we know that there are problems with it that could result in the demands or desires of first nations and Inuit not being taken into account, even if there is a commissioner.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade F View analysis

Government Orders ·

Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act

In response to a question from Yves Perron

“Indigenous communities need ports and airports to travel, as well as better housing and clean water. The government is not listening to or consulting First Nations.”

  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 44 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, when I spoke about ports and airports, I was referring to indigenous communities. I am thinking of the Innu communities of Unamen Shipu, Pakuashipi, Nutashkuan and even Mingan and Ekuanitshit, which need this infrastructure to develop. We are already aware of the needs in these communities, particularly when it comes to housing. We have also discussed infrastructure issues related to water and employment and all manner of issues. There are already a great many areas where we need to take action. Now the government is saying that we might not be able to get out anymore. It is the same for the communities of Nutashkuan, Unamen Shipu and La Romaine. In short, this shows a lack of respect for first nations. It means the government is not listening to them, and it is certainly not consulting them.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade B– View analysis

In response to a question from Michael Chong

“The government's plan has no clear vision. It does not spend enough to help local economies, and it creates funds without money just to look good.”

  • Reply to a debate question

    Signal 21 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
Official Hansard

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. I am sure my colleague feels that the government’s current proposal lacks vision. The way I see it, creating a sovereign wealth fund without actually having the money suggests a lack of vision. They have no idea what they are trying to achieve, but they want to look good. It is meaningless. It is basically the same thing. What are they trying to accomplish? How are they going to fix the situation? What is the government’s vision? Maybe that explains the figures we are seeing, but I hope this does not become a bad habit.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade D+ View analysis
“People in my region do not want the government to sell or close 15 ports and airports. The government should not sell off infrastructure and take on more debt to create a sovereign wealth fund. Other countries pay for their funds with budget surpluses.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I will answer my colleague’s question in two parts. First, when I hear that all Canadians have been heard, I would really like my colleague to come to the lower north shore. I invite him to come to the lower north shore and Minganie this summer to tell people that the 15 ports and airports that his government would like to sell off or perhaps even close is really what they asked for. They did not ask for villages to be shut down. Then, on the subject of the sovereign wealth fund, we are told that all countries have one. However, my colleague is overlooking one small detail: The other countries that have such a fund are funding it with their budgetary surpluses. They are not selling off infrastructure to scrape together a bit of money to set up a sovereign wealth fund. That is the huge difference. Canadians did not ask to be saddled with more debt.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A+ View analysis
“I do not support this bill. It does nothing to help forestry and aluminum workers in my riding. It also plans to sell off local airports and wharves. Remote communities in my region rely on them for food, mail, and medical care. Private companies will not buy them, so the government is just abandoning these towns. The government needs to keep and repair this infrastructure. It also needs to stop cutting off debate on this bill.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I was slow to rise because I was delighted with my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé’s comments. We just talked about another topic, infrastructure and airports. Obviously, I have a lot to say about Bill C‑30. I am thinking, for example, of the work done by my colleague from Jonquière on everything to do with the industry. In my riding, workers in the forestry and aluminum sectors need help. The industry also needs help, but the government is doing absolutely nothing. That affects us back home. Budgets, economic updates and supplementary estimates address a number of issues, but a lot of other issues are left out. When I go back to my riding this summer and speak to people, they will not know what the government has done for them, all the more so because it has put their jobs at risk. The Prime Minister said he would come to the aid of all these industries ahead of the CUSMA negotiations, which are dragging on, yet nothing has been done. The suggestions we made—the entirely reasonable proposals put forward by the Bloc Québécois—have fallen on deaf ears with the government. I do not even know if it has looked at them. As my colleague for Berthier—Maskinongé said, we were not consulted on what should be included in these supplementary estimates. I see this as evidence of contempt on the part of government. An opposition is not there simply to oppose. Yes, that is what we are called, and we are on the other side of the chamber, but we also have proposals to put forward. We see what is missing and what is being done wrong. We see how the government is improvising. That is why we are here. We are also here to improve things, for our constituents, of course, but I think we can also help the constituents of the ruling party. My colleague demonstrated this on the issue of pesticides: the government decided to shift its priorities. I do not even know if the economy is as important as public health or if it has become even more important. In my view, it is a truly dangerous practice to allow a minister to listen to lobbyists and ultimately decide that a once-banned pesticide is acceptable after all and can be authorized, regardless of the health implications. They can argue that this is truly more important for the economy, but there is also a connection to be made between the economy and security. This is very concerning. Most of my colleagues have mentioned this, but it is very concerning. The public may not realize it, but it is our role to point out that this is concerning, that the public’s health is being put on the back burner to accommodate certain lobby groups that are exerting significant pressure on the government. That is our job. I said I would talk about transportation, and I also spoke about contempt. I would like to remind members that I represent a huge riding. I cannot help that my riding covers 350,000 square kilometres and is mostly along the river, stretching 1,400 kilometres along its banks. It also includes remote areas, since it is a northern riding. Some of these areas are so isolated that they are almost like islands, and obviously do not have access to the services available to people in major urban centres. 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. In my region, on the north shore, particularly in the eastern part, on the lower north shore, there are 15 airports and ports that the government wants to divest itself of. That is a big deal to me. Yes, it is a big number, but it is also huge in terms of its significance and the message it sends to the people of my region. The government says it has an amazing $25-billion sovereign wealth fund. We have no idea how it will be funded because the government does not have a surplus. What it does have is record deficits. Maybe it needs some ideas. What can it do? It can sell the furniture. It can sell its assets. It can try to squirrel away a little cash, then say that the sovereign wealth fund is funded and will make some amazing projects possible. In regions like mine, this worries people. Some people may not know this because they are not familiar with every riding, but, in my riding, airports are the only link to the outside world. When we say they are people’s only link, that means they are the only way to access health care. Anyone about to give birth or in need of medical care has to get on a plane. If we want to get mail from Canada Post, for example, it has to come by plane. If we want workers, they have to come by plane. 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. On the one hand, these are not major ports or airports, and private companies see no benefit in buying them. They really have no interest in doing so. What worries us is that the government wants to divest itself of assets. We are fine with that if it can make money from it, but, on the other hand, we have seen that the only way for the government to make money is to make cuts across the board. It is not creating wealth; it is scraping together a bit here and there, asking where it could find a bit of money, given that it cannot manage to create any. 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. People board boats there too. Their safety is already at risk, and the government is not putting enough money into this infrastructure to maintain it and keep people safe. Now, the government is saying that it is going to try to sell that infrastructure. It is going to try to sell this rundown infrastructure to someone when it does not bring in any money. That does not work. What is the government telling people in my riding? It is saying that it is simply going to stop taking care of that infrastructure and just abandon it. 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. It is actually in Labrador, but that is where I have to fly into, like many other workers, doctors, nurses and so on. That airport is critical for us. I think it is contemptuous to turn up like that and make a big announcement saying that the government is going to find $25 billion by selling infrastructure without even telling the public about it. The government should reassure the public by saying that, even though the lower north shore is not profitable, the government will keep its ports and airports and make the necessary updates. 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. By depriving these communities of key infrastructure and the funding that goes with it, the government is telling these communities to close their doors and towns and not engage in development. There would be thousands of square kilometres where absolutely nothing will get done, even though there is extraordinary potential there. What is more, people are already developing these regions. Imagine the effect of such news on these communities when no one calls the developers. Neither the Minister of Transport nor his parliamentary secretary has given an answer to these communities. Are they supposed to wait on their development projects? We need wharves for development. We need an airport to attract residents. We are trying to develop our tourism industry, but no one will be able to get to our communities anymore, unless they come by rowboat, and they can only do that two weeks out of the year, because the water is too rough the rest of the time. It is the opposition’s job to speak out against this. It is my role as the member of the riding to say that this does not make sense. I have to ask the Liberals to answer our questions. I would really like for the minister to ask me questions about these airports and ports so that I can discuss the situation with him. However, this should not be done with contempt. The government should not be leading people to believe that it is going to make all kinds of money by selling infrastructure that is not sellable and that no private buyers will be interested in. All of that is just part of what is in Bill C-30. That is the substance. It is unbelievable. As for the form, the government does not even want to discuss it in the House. This is an authoritarian government. I do not like using that word, but it is increasingly applicable. Ten years ago, I would never have thought that I would have to say this. I spoke about arrogance and contempt. The government does not listen; it puts blinders on and does whatever it wants, even though the members sitting on my side of the House say on behalf of the people of Quebec and Canada that this is not what they want. I would like the government to listen to us and to give us the proper amount of time to debate. The Liberals are setting a new record for the number of closure motions. Meanwhile, silencing members means silencing the people in my riding and in Quebec.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A+ View analysis

Government Orders ·

Government Business No. 12—Proceedings on Bill C-30

“The government is bad at managing its time and is rushing our debates. It acts like a dictator by cutting our work short. If it organized its schedule better, we would not have to hurry through our business at the end of every session.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I must say that this is fascinating. I too am a member of the opposition in the House and have been for 11 years. As my colleague said earlier, the Conservatives have been in opposition for 11 years. The Bloc Québécois will always be in opposition. The opposition is necessary. The opposition stops the government from becoming a dictatorship, although it has been acting like a dictator in committee ever since it secured its majority and got to set the agenda. We are also seeing dictatorial behaviour in the House, where the government wants to cut our debates short. I think that there is a fundamental problem in the House, and I have been experiencing it for 11 years: The government has a hard time managing its legislative agenda. If it were more organized, we would not be forced to rush through business at the end of every session under the threat of not being able to go home. I think that this is disrespectful to the public. They do not expect us to rush through our work. They expect us to manage our time properly. Take today, for example. If we had simply started with Bill C-9 this morning and debated Motion No. 12 after question period, we would have saved two hours. That would have given the government two extra hours for its legislative agenda. In my opinion, the government is having a hard time being efficient. We were discussing heat recovery earlier. If only we had a time recovery system, we could be more productive not only for all members of the House, but also for the public. That would be nice. I offer that as food for thought for my colleague across the aisle.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A+ View analysis

Private Members' Business ·

Income Tax Act

“I support sending this bill to committee to study it. Giving businesses a tax credit to reuse wasted heat is a good idea. However, we need to know how much it will cost and which companies can get it. I do not think oil and gas companies should get another tax credit when they already get billions from the government.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-269 on behalf of the Bloc Québécois. First of all, as a proud resident of the north shore, I would like to thank the people back home who work in the energy sector. My riding is the second-largest producer of hydroelectricity in Quebec and in Canada. Obviously, energy is a big part of our identity. I mentioned hydroelectricity, of course, but I am also thinking about projects such as the one in Pessamit, where there are plans to build wind turbines. We want that, too. I am very interested in that work. I also feel a sense of pride because the north shore, like Quebec, built this hydroelectric network on its own, without financial assistance from the government. It is a source of pride for me. I would like to extend my heartfelt thanks to all the workers in the industry, particularly those at Hydro-Québec. There are privately owned dams, but there are also Hydro-Québec dams. In fact, Hydro-Québec suffered a major power outage back home this morning, and they are still working on it. I wanted to mention that. It is affecting a lot of people in our region, and I want to thank them. They support Quebec’s entire economy and industry. I just wanted to express my thanks. It has to be done, and it has to be done properly. As for the bill, considering what I just said, I cannot object to my colleague’s bill, which proposes offering a tax credit. The bill is relatively simple: It amends the Income Tax Act to grant a heat recovery tax credit. It is as simple as that. The details may be more complicated, but overall, the bill is straightforward. The Bloc Québécois supports studying this tax credit, which goes hand in hand with the other existing credits. Despite having done so a number of times in the House, we would like to remind members of what the term “heat recovery” means. Obviously, we must agree on a definition before we can move forward. Heat recovery is “the principle of reclaiming heat which would otherwise be lost from a system and, instead, capturing and using it elsewhere to reduce energy consumption”. We hear a lot about reducing energy consumption, but some would argue that it is a matter of optimization. This is definitely about heat that would be lost. This is not about producing more energy, but rather recovering energy and putting it to good use. We hear a lot about productivity, which is something we care about. Why not make use of the energy that already exists? I will digress briefly to talk about hydroelectricity. These days, with climate change, we are facing a number of challenges that we have seen on the horizon for a while, but they are becoming even more apparent now, particularly with regard to water levels, which are going down. Some folks are wondering whether new dams should be built. Do we need more? These discussions have been on the back burner for a while, but we have been thinking about it. If energy usage could be optimized, there would be less demand on the system. Of course we encourage that. In Quebec, Hydro‑Québec already offers financial support programs to encourage businesses to install heat recovery technologies in buildings. Depending on the type of system, up to 85% of the heat energy can be recovered. There are different options, including water loops, cooler heat recovery systems, and plate, cassette-style or thermal wheel heat exchangers. It depends on the system that is used, but the recovery rate can reach 85%. For some methods, it is 20%. It varies, but this is still an opportunity to recover a significant amount of energy and convert it into added value. There are several projects across Quebec. Some have already been launched and are under construction. There is one right near here, in Gatineau. The Zibi complex is working with Kruger to reuse the plant’s waste water in winter to meet the community’s heating needs. It is right next door, so why not take advantage of that opportunity? There are also several greenhouses, in Drummondville, for example, or Île d’Orléans, where energy is being used. This is happening in many different places and across different sectors. I just mentioned the food industry and greenhouses, but there is also the whole issue of residential heating. These are other possibilities. That said, we agree. Through the government‑owned utility Hydro‑Québec, the Government of Quebec is already helping businesses and manufacturers modify their systems for energy recovery. What we actually want to know is which companies will be eligible for the tax credit. Not all businesses have started working on improving their greenhouse gas emissions. We want to know which ones will be targeted, which ones will be eligible. Again, the Bloc Québécois supports the bill introduced by my colleague from Calgary Centre. That said, we have concerns about the measure’s effectiveness. Since there are other measures to support energy efficiency, we wonder whether this one is as good, whether it is better, or whether it is ultimately worth our while to adopt it. What we would like is for the bill to be sent to committee so that we can discuss it, debate it, and, of course, draw on the expertise of experts and scientists in various fields. For example, Environment Canada itself could shed some light on this by telling us the cost of such a measure, which might be difficult to estimate. The tax credit does not exist right now, but we know that it is not mandatory, so we do not know who will use it or on what scale it could be used. At the same time, there is the whole issue of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Of course, we want to generate power using this recovered energy, but we need to look at what the benefits will be, because we also want to see results. We see that the government has begun dragging its feet in the fight against climate change, so we would really like to know what additional benefits this would produce. As I said earlier in a question to my colleague, this bill is very broad, and we are being told that the entire industry will benefit from it. However, the way we see it, even though the oil and gas sector accounts for 4% to 6% of Canada’s GDP, it is responsible for 30% or 31% of the air pollution. We see an imbalance there. We want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but we are also talking about one of the most heavily subsidized industries, which already receives billions of dollars in investment tax credits. We wonder if this will be added as well, because this industry already has everything it needs to make changes and start recovering heat energy, for example, in order to contribute more to the fight against climate change and to improve its carbon footprint. That is what we are wondering. If this is intended to help oil and gas companies, we would like to know that because we do not think that this is the best way to do it. They already have the ability to do this. That is the main issue and the reason why we want the bill to be referred to committee. We are really acting in good faith, so that we can study this objectively and responsibly. I would remind my colleague that the Bloc Québécois supports the principle of the bill and that we will support it so that it goes to committee, where we can discuss it and learn more about all the sectors that could benefit from the technology. We also want to hear from all the stakeholders in those industries that wish to apply for this investment tax credit to improve their productivity and to reduce their carbon footprint. That is why I hope that we can study this bill in committee.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A View analysis
“Oil and gas companies already get many tax credits. Would this bill let them get this new tax credit too?”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his bill. I will have an opportunity to talk about it a little later. I have a question about oil and gas companies, which already receive tons of investment tax credits. Does my colleague believe that these companies would also be included and that they would also be able to benefit from the tax credit he is proposing in his bill?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A View analysis

Statements by Members ·

Hugo Jobin

“I want to celebrate Hugo Jobin on his 10th birthday. While fighting cancer, he created a giant painted rock snake in Baie-Comeau to try to break a world record. He has beaten cancer, and I want to thank him for inspiring our community.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, visitors strolling through the Parc des pionniers in Baie-Comeau will see a 1,150-foot-long snake winding its way across, made up of some 34,000 rocks painted by people from around the world, like a fantastical creature emerging from the nearby sea. This immense creature sprang from the genius of a young boy, Hugo Jobin. At eight years old, when leukemia was threatening his childhood, Hugo chose to bring his rock snake to life, because he decided then that he would beat not only leukemia, but also a Guinness world record. Two years later, Hugo has beaten cancer and has already beaten every possible record for love and solidarity, alongside an entire community and, of course, his parents, Mélanie and Nicolas, as well as his little sister. I want to thank Hugo for showing us that the act of creating gives us even greater strength. He is 10 years old today. The Bloc Québécois is celebrating life with him and, soon, his Guinness world record.

View on ourcommons.ca View analysis

Government Orders ·

Business of Supply

“I want to know if the Conservatives think a wealth fund built on debt causes inflation. I also want to know if they think government spending on major projects and western pipelines causes inflation.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, we can see my colleague’s love for his constituents and his desire to ensure that Canada’s economy comes out okay, if not better. I did not get a satisfactory answer to my questions when we talked about rigour and transparency. The Conservative Party is talking about inflationary measures, and I was wondering whether my colleague thinks that a sovereign wealth fund is an inflationary measure since the government’s sovereign wealth fund is not being created with money that has already been saved. It is a debt. I am wondering the same thing about the government’s major projects and the pipelines in western Canada. The government is spending money, but do the Conservatives consider that to be inflationary spending?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A– View analysis
“People are struggling, but the government's plan borrows $25 billion for secret projects like pipelines. These add huge debt and do not cut pollution. I want to know if my colleague agrees that this spending will make life more expensive.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, someone mentioned rigour and transparency earlier in the debate. I must admit that I am hearing a lot of rhetoric today. Some folks are trying to simply persuade people, rather than using real ideas to convince them. Yes, some Quebeckers and Canadians are struggling to make ends meet, and I would like to see some solutions brought forward. A $25-billion sovereign wealth fund has been proposed. This is a debt that will be used to finance other major projects, with all decisions being made behind closed doors, without any input from the public. These include pipelines, which entail huge debts and do nothing to reduce our carbon footprint. We know there is no official definition of the term, but I would like to know whether my colleague agrees that these are inflationary measures.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade B View analysis

Private Members' Business ·

The Criminal Code

“I want the House to pass this bill quickly. It changes the Criminal Code to make sterilizing someone without their consent a serious crime of assault. It protects women, especially Indigenous women and women with disabilities, while still protecting doctors who perform emergency or life-saving care.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today. This will be my first time speaking to Bill S‑228, an act to amend the Criminal Code with regard to sterilization procedures. We are now at third reading. As the Bloc Québécois critic for indigenous relations and northern development, I must say I have heard from a number of witnesses at the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs. It is hard not to be moved by what indigenous women, as well as women from ethnic minorities, have gone through. We know that these women, including women with disabilities, are the most affected by something that simply should not exist. It is unacceptable, even terrifying, for women. I think the fact that I am here today on behalf of the Bloc Québécois to offer our support for the quick passage of this bill is a victory in and of itself, a victory that belongs to all women and their loved ones. We know that when tragedy strikes, we are all affected by what those around us are going through, so this will be their victory too, because I believe that there is agreement on both sides of the House to finally pass this bill, which is actually very straightforward. This bill amends the Criminal Code to clarify that, for the purposes of subsection 268(1), a sterilization procedure is “an act that wounds or maims a person”. The bill defines a “sterilization procedure” as “the severing, clipping, tying or cauterizing, in whole or in part, of the Fallopian tubes, ovaries or uterus of a person or any other procedure performed on a person that results in the permanent prevention of reproduction, regardless of whether the procedure is reversible through a subsequent surgical procedure.” This constitutes aggravated assault. As we have already done with regard to rape, we want to specify in the Criminal Code that this indeed constitutes aggravated assault. We want to ensure that, even though some people have talked about symbols, we want to go beyond symbols. We really want to ensure that we always strengthen the protection of those women whose bodily integrity is threatened. We want to ensure they are protected and we also want to assure them that they will be able to access the same health care as any other woman and that their free and informed consent will be required and taken into account. Certainly, as critic, I wanted to ensure that unintended consequences of medical procedures would not be included. A number of people provided testimony and some expressed concerns. We want to ensure the bill has the desired effect. That is indeed what we tried to do, to allay any possible fears about the bill, and we have done so. Some of the fears were expressed by the medical community, but all the answers provided were able to, as I said, allay people’s fears. For example, the definition I read in the bill earlier requires the primary purpose of the procedure to result in the “permanent prevention of reproduction”. One of the examples we considered is that of a patient who consents to chemotherapy, which could indirectly result in sterilization. We ensured that this would not be covered by the bill. It would therefore not be included in the Criminal Code. Once again, the purpose of the bill ensures that it applies only to acts that are intentionally sterilizing. I gave one example, but there are others. The idea is really to target intentional acts, acts that are performed without the patient’s free and informed consent. We really wanted this provision to apply both to doctors and everyone else. Situations resulting in sterilization as a side effect are not covered by the bill. Then there was section 45 of the Criminal Code. Section 45 protects doctors who are trying to save lives in emergency situations. Indeed obtaining free and informed consent in an emergency can be extremely difficult. It is certainly a different matter when a life is at risk and action must be taken. It is not considered a violation of the Criminal Code. Section 45 protects the medical profession. That was pretty much the idea we put forward in the last study. The goal was to dispel any fears people might have because not knowing the potential impact is always scary. That could make people reluctant to support the bill. Both sides of the House now agree that the bill should be passed, particularly in light of all the testimony that has been heard. It is important to remember that, while witnesses appeared before the committee in this Parliament, the bill was also examined during the previous Parliament, so we have been working on it for a long time. We have broken down several barriers. Now we are coming to the very end. That means that there is a consensus. I believe that this is the most rigorous and responsible approach, even though, deep down, we fully support a bill like this one, which seeks to put an end to all discrimination regarding sterilization. However, we also need to listen to all community stakeholders and there is a strong consensus there too. To wrap up, I will not read out all of the statistics that I have in front of me or all of the international calls for action. For example, the United Nations is calling for the enactment of legislation to protect all women from this type of injustice or, quite frankly, this type of crime. We are merely strengthening the Criminal Code. I hope that we can also provide the necessary resources. Yes, this is enshrined in the Criminal Code, but we are well aware that not everything can be solved through the Criminal Code. This is an extremely complex issue. Therefore, we need to be able to support women while engaging in dialogue and collaborating with various governmental and non-governmental organizations to ensure we address the full scope of the issue. As I was saying, for me, the recurring theme is truly protecting women, being able to assure them that their bodies belong to them and that no one can make choices for them. What I am saying applies to just about every indigenous affairs issue that comes before the House and that we are involved in. We must consult with women, respect them and ensure that they are stakeholders in the decisions being made on their behalf. In closing, I would like to pay tribute to all the women listening to us.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A View analysis

Oral Questions ·

Indigenous Affairs

“Indigenous communities still do not have enough safe housing. In Quebec alone, they need ten thousand new homes and thousands of repairs. The government promised to fix this by 2030. I want to know when the government will work with communities on a real plan to get it done.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the indigenous housing crisis has been denounced for decades by every community. It is not just a matter of housing. It is also a matter of human rights, education, health, safety and dignity. It has been five years since the government took on an obligation under international law to address this crisis. The Assembly of First Nations Quebec-Labrador has already calculated that there is a shortage of 10,000 housing units in Quebec alone, not to mention the fact that 8,000 housing units need to be renovated and 4,000 others need to be decontaminated. The federal government promised that this would be fixed by 2030. When will they work with communities to come up with a predictable and achievable plan?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A+ View analysis

Government Orders ·

Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 2

“I want to know why the government left key supports for women out of the budget and the update. We need changes to employment insurance, seasonal worker benefits, money for seniors, and more health care funding.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I have a friendly question I would like to ask about women, and more specifically about EI reform, benefits for workers in seasonal industries and ending discrimination against seniors of all ages. We know that women, especially senior women, are more likely to find themselves in a precarious situation. There is also the whole issue of health transfers. We know that many women work in health care and that the government has decided to continue cutting health transfers. Why were these constructive proposals on areas that fall under the federal government’s jurisdiction not taken into account in the drafting of the budget or even in the recent economic update?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A View analysis
“I have questions about what the member said about women. The Bloc Québécois has suggested ways to help women, including fixing employment insurance.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I have a few friendly questions for my colleague regarding what she said about women. The Bloc Québécois proposed several measures to help women, including the EI reform we have been waiting for for several—

View on ourcommons.ca View analysis
“The forestry industry in my area is hurting, and many people have lost their jobs. We asked the government to pay back half of the U.S. duties forestry companies pay each month to give them cash right away. It would cost the government nothing. Why did the government reject this idea?”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I have a question about the forestry industry. This is one of the Bloc Québécois’s demands. The industry back home is being hit hard. Many people have lost their jobs and a lot of families are being impacted. We proposed a number of measures. One of them was for the government to refund 50% of the monthly antidumping and countervailing duties paid by forestry producers to the U.S. to give them immediate liquidity. This measure would be cost-neutral. I would like to know why the government did not consider it.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A+ View analysis

Private Members' Business ·

Offender Rehabilitation Act

“I support this bill because education and job training help inmates stay out of trouble once they are released. But the government must also fund prisons properly. Right now, prison training programs use outdated tools, and budget cuts will make things worse.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-240, the offender rehabilitation act, at second reading. I would like to begin by reminding members that the Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-240, which was introduced by the member for Kitchener Centre, and we look forward to discussing it in committee. The bill essentially seeks to allow the courts to prescribe measures that offenders must take, such as participating in educational, training or treatment programs. It also addresses addiction to drugs and other substances, and finally, the bill seeks to ensure that the objectives of these programs are met, which could affect eligibility for parole. As I was saying, we support this bill. The bill seeks to amend three acts. First, it would amend the Criminal Code itself so that courts can “prescribe measures that the offender is to take during the custodial period of their sentence, which may include participation in educational, training or treatment programs.” It would also amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act because, in order to meet the program objectives, offenders must be required to undergo training during the custodial period of their sentence and such training must be included in the correctional plan developed by the head of the correctional facility. Assessments conducted by the parole board must also take into account these programs when determining whether to grant parole. Finally, the bill would amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act so that, when a person is convicted of trafficking in fentanyl, the court can consider large-scale trafficking as an aggravating sentencing factor. That, in a nutshell, is what passing this bill would mean. We will see later what will happen when, I hope, the bill is considered and debated in committee. I hope it gets that far. It is one thing to say that we agree on passing a bill. Obviously, the rehabilitation of offenders is the very foundation of the justice system. The Bloc Québécois believes in that. However, the government must always ensure it has the means to match its ambitions. Let me explain. In terms of rehabilitation, we can look at the annual report tabled in 2019 or 2020 by the Correctional Investigator of Canada, Ivan Zinger. That report specifically criticized the academic and vocational training provided by Correctional Service Canada. For example, in 2020, 54% of inmates had not completed grade 10, and most inmates did not have access to education. At the same time, other reports have noted the impact of training on rehabilitation. According to Correctional Service Canada, someone who completes at least one level of an education program shows a 75% reduction in the rate of conditional release failure for a new crime, compared to offenders who had educational needs but did not participate in an education program. The impact of these programs is significant; their very availability is significant. The federal, provincial, and Quebec governments have conducted several studies on this. The numbers are compelling and they say this has a major impact. Later in my remarks, I will address the way Correctional Service Canada calculates this positive impact, but, generally speaking, we can agree that it is a positive impact. The annual report also noted that although training was being offered, inmates considered it outdated. The same observation was made about prison work. One of the examples in the report was quite striking. It mentions inmates who have access to computers that are often completely outdated. I am not talking about computers from five years ago, but computers that still use floppy disks. I cannot remember if I have ever used floppy disks from the 1980s. I do not think so. They have enough capacity to hold a single modern photo. These are the tools the correctional service is using to teach the inmates in the penitentiaries. While it is often said that these training programs have a positive impact, we must ensure that resources are available to offer training that is not merely symbolic, but that can have a real impact on inmates’ lives and on their rehabilitation once they have served their sentences and are released. In fact, the correctional investigator concluded that the training was so ill-suited to the job market that it would not help them find work upon release. Obviously, in light of the floppy disk example that I gave, I do not believe that people would be able to find work with such training. That is just one example. The training is much broader, but it all points in the same direction. For example, as I said, no real skills are being developed. People cannot find a job if they have not developed any skills. Post-secondary training is almost completely overlooked. The books are outdated, and that applies to e-books as well. In short, all the textbooks that talk about knowledge and training are out of date. The government is failing to give prisoners the tools they need to reintegrate into society. I will provide a summary, which speaks volumes, from Canada’s correctional investigator, Dr. Zinger: The investigation into learning behind bars looked at access to education and skills training in the federal correctional system. What is important to note from this study is that Canada is falling further and further behind the rest of the industrialized world in terms of digital learning and skills training behind bars. There are increasing signs of decline, given that little action has been taken to implement dozens of my office’s previous recommendations in this area. These are the words of the correctional investigator. I will not list all the findings, but a few are equally meaningful and compelling. The report mentions that 6% of the incarcerated population is engaged in a prison industry through the CORCAN program. It also says that the work does not always lead to the acquisition of skills. It is bad enough that only 6% participate, but worse still that no skills are being learned. Furthermore, enormous waiting lists create a bottleneck for those wishing to participate in a training program. They have to wait a very long time. Clearly, not enough is being done to provide appropriate training that will, in fact, have the desired positive impact. Of course we fully support this bill. The Bloc Québécois does support it, but we want something else, too. The government decided to cut Correctional Service Canada’s budget by 15% this year. I should mention that my riding is home to a federal penitentiary. Port-Cartier Institution is located on the north shore, in my riding. I know the management team very well, and I know the union representatives very well, too. I am aware of the difficulties and challenges they are currently facing, especially since the government is not supporting them. The government is cutting the budget by 15% right now. This means that not only are the inmates not getting the support they need, but workers in this sector are also not being properly supported. In my view, that is dangerous. Urgent action is needed. It is dangerous for the inmates, for the employees and, of course, for the public, because the sector does not have the resources needed to meet its objectives. I welcome the bill tabled by my colleague from Kitchener Centre, and I hope the government will listen. I hope it will show courage in its budgets. I believe we need to be forward-thinking and commit to looking after the public. Security is definitely an issue. I hope the government will support all prison staff, management, the officers working there, plus the people in our community. I hope we can move this bill forward. A CIRANO study also noted that Quebec is a world leader thanks to the training program being introduced in its prisons. I look forward to seeing how this bill progresses.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A+ View analysis