Marie-Hélène Gaudreau
Laurentides—Labelle, Quebec · Bloc Québécois · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, the Laurentians were developed thanks to the P'tit Train du Nord, the cherished dream of Father Labelle. It was a railway line that made it possible to open up the territory and build our communities. For the past 30 years, this iconic route has sustained another mode of transportation.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Department of Natural Resources warned on Thursday that wildfire activity will increase throughout the summer. With hot temperatures expected, 300 mayors are calling on the federal government to abandon its plans for new pipelines, stating in their declaration that more communities are likely to burn to the ground this su…”
“Mr. Speaker, my question is very simple. I would like to know if my colleague opposite, the government leader, has seen or read the remarks by the National Assembly's cybersecurity lead, Stéphane Le Bouyonnec, and if he noticed any red flags. In committee, Mr.”
“Mr. Speaker, I think we are all starting to feel a little worse for wear—sitting here until midnight, constantly voting and dealing with closure motions. In short, we are all in the same boat, and we are all telling ourselves that we need to be strong, that we will get through this. I am going to ask my colleague a very simple question.”
“Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague. I served on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for over two years. Yes, we had begun considering this issue before any foreign interference occurred. It took up some 70 meetings; I remember it like it was yesterday. My question is very simple.”
“Mr. Speaker, it has been a long time since we sat on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for a number of meetings. We were just starting the study, and I am pleased to have an outcome like this. My question for my colleague is quite simple.”
The complete record
Every one of 193 lines we hold for Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 4.
“It is a tribute to our ability to transform our heritage into a collective resource and look ahead to a bright future. This summer, I encourage everyone to come visit the Laurentians.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Laurentians were developed thanks to the P'tit Train du Nord, the cherished dream of Father Labelle. It was a railway line that made it possible to open up the territory and build our communities. For the past 30 years, this iconic route has sustained another mode of transportation. Today, cyclists, trekkers, runners and cross-country skiers can enjoy this long trail winding like a ribbon through our mountains, along our lakes and rivers and between our villages. Stretching over more than 230 kilometres, the P'tit Train du Nord linear park has become a key piece of tourism infrastructure for the Laurentians. It raises our region's profile, supports local businesses and encourages active transportation and a healthy lifestyle. The P'tit Train du Nord has been part of our regional identity since the late 19th century.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Department of Natural Resources warned on Thursday that wildfire activity will increase throughout the summer. With hot temperatures expected, 300 mayors are calling on the federal government to abandon its plans for new pipelines, stating in their declaration that more communities are likely to burn to the ground this summer as we double down on fossil fuel expansion. As another wildfire season approaches, will the Liberals finally drop their obsession with oil?”
“Mr. Speaker, it has been a long time since we sat on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for a number of meetings. We were just starting the study, and I am pleased to have an outcome like this. My question for my colleague is quite simple. What is missing from this bill that would make it even better, although maybe not perfect?”
“However, there have been reports in the media about fundraising events where people are invited to meet the Prime Minister in exchange for a contribution of $1,500. How is it that this limit has not been lowered?”
“Mr. Speaker, I think we are all starting to feel a little worse for wear—sitting here until midnight, constantly voting and dealing with closure motions. In short, we are all in the same boat, and we are all telling ourselves that we need to be strong, that we will get through this. I am going to ask my colleague a very simple question. How is it that, when the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs had the opportunity to consider this issue, it did not give more thought to or examine political party financing more closely? My colleague knows very well that Quebec National Assembly settled this issue long ago. During an election year, a member may make two contributions of $100.”
“Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague. I served on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for over two years. Yes, we had begun considering this issue before any foreign interference occurred. It took up some 70 meetings; I remember it like it was yesterday. My question is very simple. I am surprised, even disappointed, when we talk about loopholes for foreign funds. When we seek impartiality and transparency, what are the consequences of not being able to block money that we cannot detect?”
“Mr. Speaker, my question is very simple. I would like to know if my colleague opposite, the government leader, has seen or read the remarks by the National Assembly's cybersecurity lead, Stéphane Le Bouyonnec, and if he noticed any red flags. In committee, Mr. Le Bouyonnec talked about the risks associated with insufficient digital sovereignty. In the case before us, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs held 70 meetings before finally securing an independent public inquiry that confirmed there has been interference in our elections. If Quebec says it is not sufficiently equipped, how can we think we have nothing to worry about here when 85% of the infrastructure is owned by south-of-the-border interests?”
“Mr. Speaker, tonight, it is clear that there is a party line. I can tell what my colleague wants. There are consequences to voting against this bill because it falls short and is not broad enough. We can analyze the situation and decide that the bill can be reassessed. Has there been any progress? If the answer is yes, can victims be kept safe right now? If the answer is yes, then I beg them to please hold a free vote.”
“I think I am bothering some people in the House, Mr. Speaker. I was talking about my colleague across the way. He is coming back and bothering us. It is 10:30 p.m. We are tired. Seriously, we are talking about respect and dignity for women, and that is what we are doing tonight. I think some of my colleagues need some interpretation, because they are not understanding what I am saying at all. In short, the provinces and Quebec should be getting all the resources they need to implement these measures to ensure the respect, dignity and safety of women.”
“Mr. Speaker, I was just talking about partisanship. Partisanship has its limits. Not agreeing with a decision or voting nay is one thing. In my opinion, however, using social media as an election platform is unacceptable. I do not even want to know how much money was raised. Ultimately, what this shows is a lack of seriousness. We may think of ourselves as seasoned parliamentarians representing our constituents, but I am sorry, people are forgetting the essence of what it is to be human.”
“Mr. Speaker, I understand that there is some parliamentary gamesmanship going on. There are procedures that can be used to carry out or slow down our processes, but I implore my colleagues to realize that, on some issues, there is no room for partisanship. I am telling all members of the House that when it comes to issues like safety, crime or even medical assistance in dying, we must set partisanship aside and put people at the centre of our decisions.”
“Our society is changing, our mores are changing and our means of communication are changing. I am terrified that this could happen to any of us these days, and with complete impunity. We must act now, through other means that can address certain shortcomings. Let us take care of ourselves, and let us ensure that justice is done.”
“I watched hundreds of hours of pornographic content depicting women being filmed against their will while engaging in sexual acts, whether consensual or not. These women did not even know they were being filmed, let alone that the footage would end up online. As a mother of two young adults, I cannot tolerate the fact that there are brutes, people with no sense of decency, who seriously film videos of these women, and men too, without their consent during sexual acts. Imagine how that can destroy a person's life, career, family and self-confidence at an age when people are still developing as human beings, when they are building their self-confidence. Let me be clear: Committing such an act against people aged 37, 45 or 75 is just as reprehensible and must be deemed both criminally and ethically unacceptable.”
“An aggravated sentence was also created for the non-consensual distribution of intimate images when the image was produced in the context of aggravated sexual assault. (2220) Two decisions made at committee leave gaps that warrant attention because they make the bill less coherent and could jeopardize the safety of the very people that Bill C‑16 seeks to protect. Let me come back to the non-consensual distribution of intimate images when the image was produced in the context of aggravated sexual assault. During the 43rd Parliament, I served as the vice‑chair of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. We conducted a study on the online pornography giant Pornhub.”
“Unfortunately, partisanship is leading to attempts to obstruct our work. By introducing a litany of amendments that are clearly beyond the scope of the bill, our colleagues in the official opposition engaged in a series of delay tactics. Some were posted on social media for purely partisan purposes, effectively turning the committee's work into an election platform. What else can we expect from them? Sometimes I wonder if they even care about being constructive. Despite it all, the work got done and that was in large part thanks to my colleagues from Rivière-du-Nord and Shefford . Protection for the loved ones of victims of coercive control has been expanded to even include pets. That is a good thing. It is good news.”
“Now is the time to say enough is enough: no more femicide. The Bloc Québécois will continue to support the bill. Obviously, we do have some reservations. I still think that Bill C-16 represents a very significant step forward in protecting people from intimate partner violence and sexual offences. The Bloc Québécois strongly supports the changes regarding court delays, specifically the issue of mistrials. We support the new Criminal Code offence of recruiting a young person to commit a crime, the introduction of a safety valve for minimum sentences, and the strengthening of the Criminal Code provisions regarding harassment and sexual violence, which primarily affect women. As I said earlier, the committee study of Bill C‑16 took place despite the deliberate attempts by our Conservative colleagues to do what they think is their duty.”
“Bill C-16 , an act to amend certain acts in relation to criminal and correctional matters with regard to child protection, gender-based violence, delays and other measures, has reached third reading. As my colleague mentioned earlier, this bill amends the Criminal Code to create a new offence that prohibits engaging in a pattern of coercive or controlling conduct toward an intimate partner. It also provides that murder known as femicide when committed against a female person is first degree murder in any of the following circumstances: the murder is committed against an intimate partner in the context of a pattern of controlling or coercive behaviour; the murder is committed in the context of domestic violence; the murder is committed in the context of human trafficking; or the murder is motivated by hatred.”
“Mr. Speaker, in the last four months of 2026, Quebec has mourned 10 victims of femicide. This number rivals the annual average for the past decade. That is horrific. I hope that my colleague on the other side of the House is aware of that, because these are tragedies. This is really an unacceptable number of domestic tragedies. I find the increase extremely alarming, perhaps more so than my colleague across the way. Advocacy and civil society groups are reacting the same way, because at this rate, 2026 could exceed the record 16 femicides committed in 2021. We do not want that. Words matter here: “Femicide” is not a trivial matter; it is a serious societal issue.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am deeply moved by the remarks made by my colleague from Shefford. We are talking about taking back control of our lives. Just a few hours ago, during the debate on Bill C-20 , we were talking about building Canada. I asked the following question: How could a program be implemented to the point of jeopardizing or suspending the activities of organizations that help abused women, even as they were in the process of setting up shelters for them? When my colleague says that the government must absolutely work in a way that is consistent with Quebec, I would like to know if there are, in fact, concrete steps that can be taken.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague the following question. The Bloc Québécois proposed an amendment that would correct a mistake and improve legal support. I would like to know why the government members voted against that amendment when the rationale behind our proposal was sound and justified.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to know my colleague's thoughts about the study in committee of Bill C-16 . The Conservatives made a lot of deliberate attempts to obstruct the work. While purporting to bring amendments beyond the scope of the bill, our colleagues engaged in endless filibustering. Considering that we made some progress and that we support the bill, even though it may not be perfect, what does my colleague think of the Conservatives' behaviour?”
“Mr. Speaker, I have a very simple question for my colleague. I would like to know if she is aware of the impact that this new administrative structure, the so-called Build Canada Homes, has had in places like Laurentides—Labelle, where projects have not been allowed to move forward, leaving women who are victims of violence without the safe havens they need. Construction has been put on hold while people figure out where the funding is, and I am not sure it will ever be completed. Is my colleague aware that, if transfers to Quebec had not been suspended, women who are victims of violence would not have been left out in the cold?”
“Mr. Speaker, in the span of two weeks, the Prime Minister announced that he will undermine democracy in a referendum by disregarding the 50%-plus-one rule; he announced, together with Alberta, a new pipeline that crosses the territory of another province without that province's consent; he forced the former environment minister to resign over his shift toward the oil industry; and he proved himself to be an anti-democratic Prime Minister and a proponent of predatory federalism in the service of the oil industry. All of this happened in just two weeks. How can the Liberals support this?”
“We are proud of Claude Lemieux in Mont-Laurier, where he grew up. I am also thinking of Mr. and Mrs. Lemieux and Jocelyn. My heart goes out to them.”
“Mr. Speaker, he touched our hearts on Monday night as he carried the torch ahead of the Canadiens game. Then our hearts were broken by the news of his sudden death. Claude Lemieux, the most formidable playoff performer in history, passed away at just 60 years old. He was a four-time Stanley Cup champion, including in 1986 with Montreal. Claude Lemieux was the playoff MVP with New Jersey and a symbol of the 1990s rivalry between Colorado and Detroit. He embodied the spirit of Quebec. He was proud, he was a fighter, and he refused to give up. When the chips were down, he could be counted on to deliver. His 80 playoff goals rank him ninth all-time in hockey history. On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I offer our deepest condolences to his wife, Deborah, and his children, Brendan, Claudia, Michael and Christopher.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is true that seniors are facing difficulties. We have been saying for many years that seniors aged 65 to 74 are being discriminated against by the government, and we expected that this situation would be rectified. Instead of offering a poisoned chalice in the form of election-time handouts, the government could have helped people in this age group. What are my colleague's thoughts on that?”
“Mr. Speaker, earlier I dared to speak my mind loud and clear, and I will say it again: One day the government will have to get its house in order and become experts on the “Buy Canadian” policy, among other things. I digress, but it will soon be clear why, as that is my question for my colleague. How is it that government investments have a direct impact when we have free trade agreements, and how is it that the government is saying to buy Canadian when the goods will be manufactured abroad, in Europe, for example? This is somehow allowed under these agreements. Can we have a clear framework? The deputy ministers will be appearing before the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, and we expect them to be clear, straightforward and precise.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have a very simple question for my colleague. We are talking about consistency in government planning. I serve on the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. The Liberals are talking about Build Canada Homes, and they want to build more homes. Our party has made concrete proposals and, right now, the industry's survival is in serious jeopardy. Does my colleague agree that it would have been a good idea to include the wage subsidy in the economic statement, or even to fix the spring gap for businesses?”
“Mr. Speaker, I also appreciate my colleague's work. Why is this not done on a case-by-case basis? Proposals are heard, a preliminary study is done, there is an assessment, and then a decision is made based on need and on what is proposed. When we all agree and then they say that it is wrong, that we should forget about it, that is like telling the minister that he will have the right to do whatever he wants. Seriously, we are going to have to change that, and we are going to do it together.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals give the impression that they are listening, while silently thinking to themselves that they have a trick up their sleeve. They even said that we were traumatizing the people who came to give evidence all over again. I have heard that so many times. Then, when they realize that this sort of incident is not an isolated one, they have to keep it under wraps. What do they do? As they now have considerable powers, they cut short the proceedings, move on quickly, avoid discussion and turn a blind eye to what they have seen and heard. I have hope. I hope they reverse course, because it is true that the Bloc Québécois and the official opposition have constructive and compassionate proposals.”
“Mr. Speaker, everywhere we turn, we hear about investments or about “building Canada strong”, whether during elections or government announcements, while the veterans affairs budget has been cut by 15%. Do not try to tell me that the government sees them, hears them, believes them. The government definitely does not want to help veterans.”
“Yes, the military can accept them, but it has to adapt. It has to realize that women can be victimized. That means we have to avoid creating a justice system that tells them straight off, or at least, that gives them the impression, that the die is cast and the system is rigged. I am thinking of all the female veterans I have met in my role as critic for veterans affairs. I see them. I hear them. I believe them.”
“I do not understand the logic. I really need an explanation, and people need to talk to one another. In our democracy, we must negotiate and vote, even if the government has a majority. I do not have much speaking time left, so I will conclude my speech. The bill has been drafted and introduced with the express aim of putting an end to a system where people protect one another, where complaints are swept under the carpet, where victims do not feel heard, believed or respected. Is that what the government has heard from the victims? Has the government really listened to the victims? Has it read the reports by Louise Arbour and Morris Fish? Once these questions have been answered, I can say that military culture will have to adapt to the 21st century. Military culture has to recognize that women are part of the forces.”
“I am really trying to contain myself right now. I want to talk about an amendment the Liberals brought forward. It might put some people to sleep, but it is important. It states: That Bill C-11, in Clause 17, be amended by replacing line 10 on page 10 with the following: 17 (1) Subsection 165.17(3) of the Act is replaced by the following: (3) The Minister may issue instructions or guidelines in writing in respect of a particular prosecution. ... The last point I read is the part that folks really need to pay attention to. Let me explain what that means. The Liberals are changing something that was not even amended by the committee and that was not even discussed. Seriously, that is what is happening. Worse still, they are even proposing to give the minister the power to issue instructions regarding a particular prosecution.”
“(1655) The government now has seven members on committees, giving it a complete majority, but it had assured us that this would not prevent it from working collaboratively. Seven days later, it is clear that that is not going to happen, which is appalling. Normally, I struggle to get all my tasks done in a day, but for the past week, committee meetings have lasted only 20 minutes or have been cancelled. When there is an event, we do not resume the meeting later. Some votes will be held tomorrow, and I am convinced that the majority will decide to cancel the meeting, since there will be only one hour left. Is that democracy? Victims are speaking out loud and clear, and it is not just individuals who are speaking out. Factual, concrete reports and situations also exist. What are the Liberals afraid of?”
“The role of the justice system is to take what is happening in the Canadian Armed Forces and deal with it in the civilian system. That is what it needs to do in general. The committee looked into this and made some recommendations. I even heard two of my committee colleagues say that some of the votes had been unanimous. I feel as though we are in a bad movie. I was obviously not a member of Parliament from 2015 to 2019, but I get the impression that we are reliving a situation where the public is unaware that parliamentarians are being hit with one time allocation motion after another because the government is scared that we will bring up more scandals. We saw it earlier with Cúram. I have also seen it on the other committees I serve on. The government's approach is to be secretive and forget about transparency.”
“This veteran, this woman, has to bear her suffering day after day and has to rebuild her life, knowing that there is a system in place to protect her. That is what we are talking about. How many years has it been? It has been over 10 years. What just happened? I am vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. We just completed our most recent report on the unacceptably high rate of suicide among veterans, which was tabled last week. Right now, we are looking into Lifemark, the rehabilitation program for our veterans, to see how it is working. This program is due to be re-evaluated shortly because the contract is renewed every six years. Some veterans have received good services, but there are a lot of problems with the program and that is what I am concerned about.”
“Just the sight of a uniform or a medal triggers her. When I say it triggers her, I mean she exhibits disorganized behaviour. It was clear that it was the sight of male authority that triggered an indescribable feeling in her. We saw it. I was there. Five minutes later, she managed to put it into words and explain what happened. As she told us, she has been living with this ever since that day, even after undergoing therapy. She had to repeat her story because there were so many changes. She met with an administrative officer, a caseworker, and another caseworker. She kept having to repeat her story. She knows full well that she will have to live with this for the rest of her life. I commend her courage. I can speak to this from my perspective as a social psychologist in the House today.”
“Mr. Speaker, not long ago, on October 8, I spoke here in the House about Bill C‑11 . My background in social psychology means that I have a specific perspective when it comes to victims, actions and their impact. In particular, I want to commend my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton because he and his colleagues had an opportunity to meet with victims, which allowed them to see that the recommendations in the Arbour report needed and still need to be implemented. I thank him for that on behalf of all our military personnel, but also on behalf of veterans, many of whom are victims of wrongdoing and criminal acts. I would also like to share the story of a female veteran. I will not mention her name, but I want to commend her resilience. This veteran was the victim of multiple rapes while she was in the Canadian Armed Forces.”
“A committee is currently meeting. If we can speak openly together, people will understand that this bill makes no sense if the goal is truly to hold those who act maliciously toward people at the end of life accountable.”
“Right now, we are learning that some specialists do not have what it takes to support veterans, because they do not understand the realities, the trauma or the wait times veterans face. Some veterans have to wait three years. I can understand when someone comes to the point where they are no longer able to endure what they went through after serving their country. They were told that they mattered, they dared to defend their homeland to the point of risking their own life, and then when they came home, they were told to take a number because they could not be served right away. We are currently assessing whether the program is worthwhile and whether the service providers have the skills to meet the standard that veterans deserve. I think it is truly unfortunate that another tactic is being used today to avoid addressing the core issue.”
“We should be examining the behaviour of certain people who are supposed to show compassion to those at the end of life but who engage in unacceptable behaviour, such as systematically suggesting MAID on the grounds that the person seems to no longer be able to endure their suffering, as if we could simply offer them a way out. It is not as simple as that. I have experienced it. Those who raised their hands earlier have experienced it too. There is a problem, and I hope that we will really take care of it. We are talking about treatment and care. We have been hearing about this for quite some time. The Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs is currently studying the partners in Canadian veterans rehabilitation services program.”
“Mr. Speaker, we all have different abilities to focus. I tend to hear everything and see everything. It may be a character flaw, but noise bothers me. Members do not have to listen, but I would ask them to be quiet. I will continue by sharing what I experienced and what I have seen over the past few years. I hope that my colleague who introduced this bill has had the opportunity to openly discuss the scope of the issue we are talking about. If someone is pushed to seek MAID as a way to escape suffering, that is of course unacceptable. We all agree on that. However, in this case, the bill seeks to punish someone for having a discussion about possible care options that a person may turn to over the course of their life. That is something else entirely.”
“When the time came, when his physical and psychological suffering became unbearable, it made perfect sense to talk about it, but it was still extremely difficult. Here is what I learned. I could not imagine losing my father, who was of sound mind but was suffering. He was the one who told me that we needed to talk about it and learn what options were available. (1805) I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but this is a very sensitive subject for me, and I can hear people having conversations. If they want to discuss medical assistance in dying, we can talk about it later outside the House—”
“I would like to share my own story. It will make it clear that our issue is not with proposing a change to the Criminal Code. In 1997, I was very, very young. I still am, but that will not last forever. In 1997, we received devastating news. My father was diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Those who knew Mauril Bélanger, who was a member of the House of Commons, know that it can progress very quickly. In my case, in our family's case, it lasted 20 years. Over the course of 20 years, my father gradually lost his ability to move and take care of himself, and he had to rely on others. I had many discussions with my father. We never had an inclination to talk about the reality of what happens to all of us, that is, that we are born, we live and then we die.”
“Not only was it a human-centred process, it involved a highly collegial approach to human dignity. I want to commend Véronique Hivon for setting partisanship aside. Today, that approach is paying off. In 2014, three years before my father passed away, the minister of health and social services, Gaétan Barrette, was spearheading this file with Ms. Hivon. All parties in the National Assembly reached an agreement, because they showed a willingness to understand. No one can understand what the individual is going through. Even I cannot understand, and I lived this experience for 20 years. Quebec is not alone. MAID is also available in Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Colombia, Spain, Switzerland, Austria, Portugal and several of the U.S. states, to name just a few. Some of those places have had it for decades.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am deeply moved by the topic of our discussion. Allow me to explain why. I will start by asking those present and those watching at home to raise their hand if they have cared for someone at the end of their life who sought medical assistance in dying. We are not alone. We can ask people who have lived through the experience and people who are as afraid of this word as they are of the name “Voldemort”. Some people are afraid of discussing death, but death is part of life. This evening, we are talking about a change to the Criminal Code and a serious offence because it involves talking about death. That is exactly the issue. I would like to look back over Quebec's experience. The Parti Québécois opened the debate on medical assistance in dying back in 2012, as my colleagues will remember.”
“Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech. The intent of the bill is to amend the Criminal Code to make it an offence for certain people, in an end-of-life situation, to initiate a discussion about all the options available to a person who is suffering. This is based on discussions. Instead of the offence being based on an employee's behaviour, something else should be done. There are people everywhere, maybe even here, who would not be beyond reproach, yet this bill would amend the Criminal Code to make that an offence. It makes no sense.”
“Earlier, I asked if the government was looking for more work, but I will go even further than that. The government wants to interfere. It wants to be the overseer even though the provinces have what it takes. Do not tell me that a cross-jurisdictional approach is what will help specialized workers in their respective fields. I would really like Quebec and the other provinces to have their own lists, and I know it is working very well in Quebec. They are even asking for more. They want the money for EI benefits to be managed properly by experts in the field, like professional development and, of course, education are. If not, I will go work at Quebec's National Assembly managing specialized trades.”