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 3 of 4.
“We will have to adjust and ensure that there are sufficient resources. Earlier, I was talking about existing organizations. I would be remiss if I failed to mention an organization in Mont‑Laurier that is very important to me: La Passe-R-Elle. This organization is over 30 years old. In fact, I believe it just celebrated its 40th anniversary. It is an emergency shelter where women can go when they feel so threatened that they need to leave their homes to go into hiding. For decades, this organization has been providing support and guidance so that these victims can take back control of their lives. I feel sure that the organization has helped prevent femicide, even though there is probably no data to prove it. Furthermore, right now, in 2025, the organization is taking the next step.”
“Women aged 15 to 24 are the most at risk. I will conclude by saying that four out of 10 victims report coercive control before physical violence occurs. What is coercive control? Today's technology makes it possible to learn a lot about a person, but also to monitor their activities and to use that information to limit their privacy and freedom. Today's discussion needs to be about what can happen when, six months after a breakup, an intimate partner still has an unhealthy attachment and attempts to control or dominate their former partner. This domination can be financial or verbal. It has to stop. When people talk to us about this type of situation, they ask if there are enough resources. In my opinion, we need to agree from the outset on the need to legislate and make significant changes to put a stop to this.”
“Bills were proposed in 2020 and in 2023, and then came the prorogation and the election. I think, however, that we are going to get to the finish line quickly. I would like to move on to talk about statistics, because I am not convinced people are fully aware of the situation. Every 48 hours, a woman is killed by an intimate partner in Canada. That number comes from the Canadian Femicide Observatory for Justice and Accountability for the year 2024. Furthermore, according to Statistics Canada data for the year 2023, 76% of victims of domestic violence are women. More than 127,000 cases of domestic violence were reported to the police in 2022. This is an increase of approximately 5% over the previous year. (1135) I have three more statistics to share. Indigenous women are three to four times more likely to be victims of domestic violence.”
“Unfortunately, as my colleague from Shefford mentioned a few minutes ago, the number of victims is on the rise. The number of reports is also growing. Action must be taken. The bill could have completed all the steps in the legislative process a few years ago, but here we are today, still dealing with this matter. I would note that this proposal originally came from the NDP, and now the Conservative Party is picking up the baton. This tells me that we need to sit down at committee and fine-tune the bill to ensure that it is consistent with all our values. I am very pleased this morning, and I would really like victims to know that we are doing all we can to help them. When a bill dies on the Order Paper, we have to start over, but I am sure that we will move forward. I spoke a bit earlier about the parliamentary context.”
“This bill would amend the Criminal Code to “create specific offences in respect of intimate partner violence”. Second, it would “prohibit a peace officer from releasing a person arrested for an intimate partner offence if the person has committed an intimate partner offence in the preceding five years or is at large on a release order in respect of an intimate partner offence”. Third, it would “increase the detention period of things seized under section 490 of the Act from three months to one year and...provide for circumstances in which notices to the person from whom the thing was seized may be dispensed with”. All of this seems quite complicated, but I hope that this bill leads to the creation of better measures that will help all victims, who have my full sympathy and support this morning. This sort of thing should never happen.”
“Mr. Speaker, we are discussing a very important topic today, and I find it reassuring that we are able to talk about it. I hope that we will be able to vote on this bill quickly. In my speech this morning, I will explain the content of Bill S-225 , but I will also talk about what I experienced before becoming an MP. Members may not be aware, but I worked in community organizations for many years. I served as the director of community organizations in the Antoine‑Labelle RCM. Laurentides—Labelle is home to many extraordinary organizations that will have to adapt to this bill if it is passed. This bill is sponsored by the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola . I am very pleased that this bill is coming back in another form and that it was tabled by my Conservative colleague.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to ask my colleague a question. The Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates met with the Parliamentary Budget Officer. I had a very simple question for him, namely, what is an investment? He replied, of course, that it is capital put into equipment or a means of production, and that it therefore falls under the category of assets. I was also told that the new unit of measurement is similar to that used in Quebec, and I think my colleague is very familiar with the difference between Quebec's infrastructure plan, the PQI, and current expenditures. Here is my question. With all this talk of owning equipment, what does the federal government really have to show for its so-called investment?”
“We are going to go home to our ridings, where the forestry industry is one of the economic drivers and where people are concerned about climate change, so I would ask my colleagues to stop talking about whether they voted for or against the budget. What does my colleague think?”
“Madam Speaker, thank you for maintaining order here in the House. That is the way it should be. I want to highlight that and tell you how much I appreciate it. I just came from a committee meeting where, once again, there was a lot of partisan behaviour. It was all very performative. I am tired of the debate focusing on whether or not people voted against the budget. Can we please talk about the real issues? When I go home to my riding, people ask me if the government is abandoning the forestry industry. When I ask my colleague a question, I want to hear actual facts. I want to hear constructive ideas, specific measures.”
“Madam Chair, when I hear my colleague say that her government will fight, that it will help, that it is aware of the problem, that this is an important issue and that it is dealing with climate change, there is definitely something I do not understand. Does the government really care about this? If it did, it would already be taking concrete actions in connection with the measure my colleague did such a good job of describing, which we have been talking about for three weeks now. People talk about loan guarantees. Seriously, given everything that happened in the auto industry, which is one of my files, if the government is confident and believes the forestry industry matters, it should be taking action starting tomorrow after this debate.”
“Madam Chair, I was actually a victim of one of those crises. I lost my job in 2005. I worked for a company with 222 employees. The same thing is happening now. Groups came forward with solutions a few weeks ago. If this trend continues, if the government does not wake up, there will be no more companies left to Build Canada Homes. Has the government considered the fact that, eventually, if there are no more businesses, even a magic wand will not enable us to meet the objectives? Can we actually give forestry companies all the help they deserve?”
“Madam Speaker, I am very disappointed in the budget. From 2009 to 2011, I was a political staffer for the Hon. Johanne Deschamps, the member for Laurentides—Labelle at the time. Even back then, we had concerns about employment insurance and felt there was a need to reform benefits for serious illness. Now it is 2025. We have been waiting for a complete overhaul since 2015. Some 50,000 workers will be eligible for it. What about the people of Quebec? Does my colleague agree that a comprehensive reform should be included in the budget, especially for regions where there is a lot of seasonal work, whether in the forestry or tourism industries, for example?”
“Madam Speaker, I would like my colleague to explain something to me. For years, the Bloc Québécois has done everything in its power to end the discrimination against people between the ages of 65 and 74. Again this weekend, these people told me that they understand why the Bloc will be voting against the budget: This measure does not appear anywhere in the budget. I could also mention the 6% escalator in health care transfers. Why was this measure not included in the budget?”
“Madam Speaker, this is a big day. I can feel the excitement in the air. With regard to the new calculation for investments, did my colleague check to see whether the deficit would have been the same had this model been applied in previous Parliaments since 2015? If not, how can amortization be valid in a budget like this, when the government is not investing in anything that will become an asset?”
“Madam Speaker, I want to commend my colleague from Montcalm for all the extremely important work he has done for the health and safety of consumers, as well as for the time he has dedicated to this issue over the past few Parliaments. We all know people who work in small and medium-sized businesses in the natural health care sector. In Val‑David, in my riding, I visited the facilities of Clef des Champs, a company that has been around since 1978. The first thing the people from that organization told me was that they had imposed some criteria and that Health Canada was technically failing to do its job by not imposing the same criteria. We hope that the bill will be amended so it can help all businesses continue their work.”
“We will always choose being constructive and democratic over being populists. Our commitment to democracy has always been at the heart of our national project. We will always be committed to the independence of our institutions.”
“This would make it easier to prove when a crime is committed for the benefit of a criminal organization. We also propose facilitating the seizure of assets by reversing the burden of proof to prevent the dissipation of assets when an individual belonging to organized crime is arrested. We also propose prohibiting criminal organizations from parading their insignia. Currently, criminal organizations parade with impunity and promote their organization. Finally, we propose creating a specific offence to criminalize the recruitment of young people to commit crimes. This new tactic has become the modus operandi of organized crime. It ruins lives and families. We must crack down harder on those who abuse our young people. (1440) Understandably, the Bloc Québécois will vote against the Conservative Party's populist bill.”
“Our responsibility as parliamentarians is to maintain this balance between respect for rights, confidence in institutions and public opinion. To do that, we need to be clear, we need to educate and we need to listen, not play petty populist games or use baseball analogies to talk about a subject as important as the law, justice and public safety. Our Conservative colleagues can keep repeating “three-strikes law” all they want, but it does not make this issue any less complex. I would say to my colleagues in the official opposition that if they want clear and concrete proposals for fighting crime, they can adopt the Bloc Québécois's proposals. We propose creating a registry of criminal organizations, like the registry for terrorist organizations.”
“Section 33 states that “Every accused person is presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law.” We must avoid any attempt to do otherwise at all costs. It is crucial that we not revert to a time when mob justice ruled, emotional outbursts held sway and justice was unfettered by clear, impartial and humane rules. Any breach, however small, could set a precedent and allow the risk of seeing our rule of law and justice system left violated and broken. Democracy and the rule of law are based on a fragile balance between citizens' confidence in their institutions and the weight of popular will and reason. Our democracies are already under attack by harmful ideologies. All we have to do is look around us to see what is happening.”
“For years, the Conservative Party has been capitalizing on fear and criticism of judicial institutions. Its leader even makes dubious connections and disturbing conflations about the separation of powers. It is therefore no surprise that we are seeing the Conservative Party's desire to inject another dose of populism into our institutions with Bill C‑242 . The Bloc Québécois is committed to a number of principles. First and foremost, it believes in the presumption of innocence, the foundation of our justice system, which holds that all people are considered innocent until proven guilty. This principle is clearly set out in our charters, in paragraph 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and in section 33 of the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, or the Quebec charter.”
“Mr. Speaker, in a democracy, there are fundamental principles that distinguish true democratic regimes from states that merely claim to be democratic. The rule of law is based on rules, values and principles that are non-negotiable. The current mood among certain political parties, thinkers and columnists seems to be more about vengeance in the justice system than true justice. It is sometimes more about seeking likes on social media than creating social peace, showing compassion and being thorough. The current mood criticizes dialogue, moderation and the search for balance. Looking at things in black or white pays off for some. Being nuanced and thoughtful is seen as an expression of weakness in society. I do not subscribe to that ideology. As I often say, I support democracy, justice and the law.”
“Let our concerns not be fleeting, but let us always keep in mind the living conditions and survival of those who have committed to defending the values that are so dear to us. November 11 and supporting our veterans is not just about attending ceremonies. It is about truly listening to veterans. People have to be at the heart of decision-making. I want veterans to know that I see them, I hear them, I listen to them and I will always be an ally.”
“I hope that we have reached the point where we are not only taking note of what we offer our veterans, but also taking action. Remembering is important, but November 11 is also an opportunity to talk about the present and the future. The present is about recognizing what is not going well, but it is also about apologizing and rolling up our sleeves to say that we will do better. Of course, we have heard from many people who have told us how proud they are to have served. However, they are suffering at the moment. The future lies in ensuring that these men and women are respected. They have the right to dignity, not just for one day, but 365 days a year. As members of Parliament we need to grasp the true meaning of Remembrance Day.”
“Madam Speaker, November 11 is an opportunity to remember the sacrifices made by our veterans. The symbol we wear, the poppy, represents the fields of Flanders, in Belgium, where so many battles of the First World War took place. This moment of remembrance is important. Symbols are important, yes. What really matters, however, is that we take care of our own. It might come as a surprise that a member of the Bloc Québécois is interested in veterans. However, it is in our DNA to take care of our own, to want the best for them. Anyone who truly wants the best for the people who matter to them will make an effort. It is important to listen, to support and to act in the best interest of those who need it, not in one's own interest, obviously. I note that we have had 10 veterans affairs ministers since 2015.”
“Madam Speaker, let us talk about public safety. There are ways of making that work. Bill C-14 covers six major points that the Bloc Québécois thinks are very worthwhile. The Conservatives see everything as black or white. Quite honestly, we need to take the time to properly evaluate the weight of this bill in committee in order to legislate on public safety and appropriately modernize the law.”
“Madam Speaker, my colleague just mentioned that it is important to have strong legislation, rules and laws as long as we give judges the opportunity to make an assessment. Think about a criminal who has stolen a car for the first time versus one who has committed acts of physical violence against other people or even caused death. I think we can agree that those are two very different things. It would be nice if we could conduct an in-depth study of this bill in committee. I am wondering whether my colleague would be willing to accept the Bloc Québécois's amendments.”
“Mr. Speaker, culture in the regions is fundamental to creation, dissemination and our artists. Today, I would like to pay tribute to Sonia Piché, the former director of Théâtre du Marais in Val‑Morin. She is now retired, but she can be proud of her legacy as we celebrate the theatre's 25th anniversary. At the celebration last month, she said, “Culture nourishes people. It does people good. There should be no more doubts about the need for organizations that promote the performing arts, theatre and dance, because these art forms are food for the soul. They're good for people's health.” Today, October 30, I want to remind the House that Quebec culture is at the heart of who we are as a nation. It reflects our identity and our uniqueness. Congratulations to Sonia Piché.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is easy to point fingers at the government in power but I would like to ask my colleague a question. How is it that the Conservatives had the nerve to appoint a chief of the defence staff whose record was not unblemished?”
“Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech and I thank him for it. However, I would like to share an additional concern with the House. We hope that there will be some changes in committee to allow for impartiality when there is a ruling. This being said, the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs is currently studying the issue of suicide among veterans. Does my colleague agree that, beyond just the current legislation, there is a cultural phenomenon that exists and that we absolutely need to make a complete 180°?”
“Mr. Speaker, with respect to the objective of this bill, all we need to do is think about a person who files a complaint against someone who has the authority to retaliate or make threats and change their life. Essentially, we have been waiting 10 years for this problem to be addressed. This is a first step. I am certain that in committee, among parliamentarians, all members will be able to work out the best course of action for victims.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would rather not go into detail on that, because, on top of everything, based on what we are hearing at the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs in particular, there is a knowledge gap when it comes to the services available and the process for either filing a complaint or pursuing legal action. We need to take stock, to determine whether we have everything we need to support victims and decide how we will do that in a respectful and dignified manner, as I said earlier.”
“Mr. Speaker, we simply need to look at how the complaints process works. Even here, in the House of Commons, we have a system that prevents us from being unethical and stopping anyone from reporting an incident and filing a complaint. The process will be specifically designed to allow the people who examine and analyze these situations to function as a wholly separate and impartial justice system.”
“Jonathan Vance, who had sexual relations with a subordinate, allegedly boasted about how the victim could not file a complaint because he had full control over military investigations. As I said at the outset, we are currently studying suicide prevention at the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. We are talking about the trauma experienced by our veterans. I have one major wish. Now that we are closing this gap, it is essential to respectfully provide these people with all the necessary services and supports. They have serious needs.”
“With that as our moral foundation, every person must be treated with dignity, never simply as a means to an end. These women and men were not treated with dignity. Bill C‑11 aims to close this appalling loophole where man and system are one and the same. Under this bill, the government would select the provost marshal of the Canadian Armed Forces, the director of military prosecutions and the director of defence counsel services. This would transform the appointment process into a political process instead of leaving it in the hands of military leadership. These individuals would therefore be immune from any form of blackmail. This is what I want to draw my colleagues' attention to.”
“How must they have felt knowing that their attacker was Canada's highest-ranking military officer and that he was untouchable, and then finding out that, on top of that, the minister was going to give him a pay raise? A person cannot be both judge and jury. I think of all those who have chosen to enlist in the Canadian Armed Forces. We can only commend them for their decision with dignity and respect. Whether they are actively serving, reservists, or even retired from the forces, we owe them respect, and above all, we must protect their dignity. It is always good to get back to the heart of the matter. Dignity is an intrinsic value of being human. It is what makes people worthy of respect, regardless of their circumstances, actions or social position.”
“Sajjan would intervene to protect the victim, who was Mr. Vance's subordinate. He could have easily derailed her career. (1600) The crux of the matter is that the chief of the defence staff was at the centre of the military prosecution process. That does not even meet minimum ethical standards. He then became toxic toward anyone who had the misfortune of being in his sights or who spoke out about issues. To be clear, I would call it a military #MeToo. The then minister of defence, a career soldier, wanted to protect chief of the defence staff, General Vance. What is more, he gave him a $50,000 pay raise. He did not just turn a blind eye. He did worse than that. Let us put ourselves in the victims' shoes for a moment. They must have thought that something did not add up and that things did not make sense.”
“This report discusses the existence of a sexist culture, as my colleague the member for Shefford would say. I would like to think that this culture does not exist anymore. The military turned a blind eye to these inappropriate behaviours for many years, starting in the backrooms. I think everyone knows about Jonathan Vance, who has been the subject of much discussion. He had just been appointed the future chief of the defence staff. At the time, the investigations went nowhere. The system was protecting itself. In 2018, military ombudsman Gary Walbourne held a private meeting with the then minister of national defence, Mr. Sajjan. Mr. Walbourne tried to discuss a case of sexual misconduct involving Mr. Vance. The victim had decided not to pursue the matter out of fear of retaliation. It was hoped that Mr.”
“Bill C-11, or the military justice system modernization act, seeks to address gaps and systemic wrongs that directly affect the lives of many women and men. For the record, I would like to highlight an important article published in April 2014 in L'actualité by Alec Castonguay and Noémi Mercier, which alerted us to cases of sexual misconduct. The article talks about Lise Gauthier, a 51-year-old woman from Sherbrooke who spent half her life in the Canadian Armed Forces. I would like to quote the first paragraph of the article: “Lise Gauthier does not have enough fingers to count the number of times that she was raped, assaulted or sexually harassed by her fellow soldiers.” On March 27, 2015, former justice Marie Deschamps released a scathing report on sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces.”
“Mr. Speaker, today, it is my turn to address the House, and I do so as the Bloc Québécois critic for veterans affairs. Because of my background in psychosociology, I see victims in a very specific light. The Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs is looking at various issues facing veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder. For instance, these men and women may attempt suicide or develop substance abuse problems in response to the trauma they have experienced. Bill C-11 , which we have been discussing for several days now, deals with a truly important topic. We must address it seriously and with empathy, and honestly, we need to consider the purpose of the bill from an intellectual perspective. As I was saying, we need to address this topic with the dignity and respect it deserves. That is my hope today as I address all my colleagues.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Government Transformation likes to remind us that there was a strike at Canada Post a year ago. He keeps repeating that the government is losing $10 million a day with Canada Post, but he forgets that during last year's strike, independent businesses criticized the government's inaction because the strike was costing them $100 million a day. By causing the postal services to grind to a halt, does the minister realize the damage he is doing to our small businesses, our regions, and our most vulnerable citizens?”
“Mr. Speaker, before the Liberals got involved, mail was being delivered. Since they got involved, the postal service has ground to a halt. The regions, small businesses and the most vulnerable are paying the price. Before the Liberals got involved, Canada Post was presenting serious offers. Now, we have never been further from an agreement and we wonder how the parties are ever going to agree. We have the Liberal Party of Canada to thank for this fiasco. Will the government acknowledge its full responsibility in the Canada Post crisis?”
“Mr. Speaker, the postal crisis is getting worse, and it is entirely the federal government's fault. Canada Post presented its workers with a new collective agreement offer on Friday. That offer was worse than the previous one, which had been rejected. Canada Post is taking advantage of the balance of power it has thanks to the federal government to intimidate its employees and try to force them to back down. The minister keeps saying that both sides need to negotiate, but by meddling in the conflict, he has poisoned the discussions. Does he realize that it is his fault that no one is getting their mail today?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is rare to see all the parties agree to move a bill forward through the legislative process. From what I understand, everything will get done in committee. I see that there is goodwill and that members want to make good recommendations and pass a good bill. Will my colleague's party lend a hand so that we can finally carry out this agenda that should have been implemented years ago?”
“Mr. Speaker, earlier, I asked my colleague whether anything would be done to address the needs of people with post-traumatic stress or people who have been the victims of physical harm. Obviously, she told me that there definitely would be. How is my colleague going to manage things with an upcoming 5% increase in defence spending and only a few days left to check and see whether funds will also be available for prevention and treatment? What is he going to do to ensure that funding is made available for that purpose?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is quite a thing to deliver a speech about something one has experienced first hand. My question is very simple. Everyone knows that this bill was desperately needed. However, will my colleague also be able to devote all her energy to helping everyone who may have been or may become victims, both our veterans and employees of National Defence? Can she ensure that she will be there to help our people?”
“Mr. Speaker, I must say that my colleague clearly explained the events that took place. Earlier, I tried to explain what happened with both parties here, and I hope this bill will not die on the Order Paper. Why? Every week, I meet with people who say that they have been the victims of alleged sexual misconduct, harassment and so on. For veterans who are watching at home right now, does my colleague agree that we need to invest not only in legislation but also in services for victims?”
“Mr. Speaker, let us just say right off the bat that this issue should have been resolved decades ago. When I hear people say that the government has not been proactive enough since the recommendation was made in 2021, I feel like answering that both parties need to look in the mirror. The Bloc Québécois obviously agrees that it is about time. I am vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs and I would say that we are dealing with something really important here, especially if the government plans to increase its national defence spending to 5%. I urge the minister to listen to the testimony of people who have attempted suicide because they feel abandoned by the system.”
“Mr. Speaker, thousands of postal workers are wondering if their job is disappearing. They were not consulted. Thousands of men and women who are waiting for a cheque, a passport or another important document are wondering how they will get it back. They were not consulted. Thousands of businesses, SMEs especially, are wondering how their products will be distributed. They were not consulted either. Does the Prime Minister realize what a mess he has made?”
“Some 55,000 Canada Post workers are on strike, wondering if they will still have a job tomorrow. All this because the government did not see fit to hold consultations. That is why we believe it is essential to hold an emergency debate so that we can work together to find solutions to the conflict that began on September 25.”
“Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, September 25, the Minister of Government Transformation, Public Works and Procurement announced a major overhaul of Canada's postal services. Even though Canada Post and its employees have been negotiating for two years, the government intervened in the negotiations, leading to a general strike by postal workers, which has had a significant impact on the entire population. People waiting for cheques from the Quebec government will have to go to a Quebec service centre to pick them up. There has been a negative impact on the distribution of medication outside major centres. Distribution services for thousands of small and medium-sized businesses have been shut down. Passports are stuck in post offices. The general election in Newfoundland and Labrador has been postponed. Municipal elections in Quebec are at risk.”