Andréanne Larouche
Shefford, Quebec · Bloc Québécois · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, I would also like to join my colleagues in wishing the member a happy retirement. As women in politics, she and I help make up barely 30% of Parliament. I truly wish her a wonderful retirement. Although we do not always share the same values, we live in a healthy democracy.”
“Mr. Speaker, with just two weeks to go before July 1, hundreds of people still cannot find housing and are at risk of becoming homeless. Municipalities are investing to address the unprecedented homelessness crisis, including Montreal, which has tripled its budget. Quebec has also increased funding for this issue in its latest budget.”
“Mr. Speaker, June 15 is World Elder Abuse Awareness Day. At a time when fraud targeting seniors is gaining attention, let us remember the importance of staying vigilant and taking action against the various types of abuse, including financial abuse.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have a quick comment and then a question for my colleague, whom I thank for her speech. I will add my thoughts on this democratic issue. While the government was busy manufacturing its majority, it did not accept any of the 11 recommendations from the Bloc Québécois.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to echo the sentiments of my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord and reiterate another point. Certain groups have written to us because there has been a great deal of disinformation coming from the Conservatives.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. I listened carefully to my colleague. Does he believe that the amendments proposed in committee will really ensure that the bill effectively addresses this hate speech that should not even be happening in the first place? Does he believe we have the necessary tools to tie all this together properly?”
The complete record
Every one of 640 lines we hold for Andréanne Larouche, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 13.
“Mr. Speaker, I would also like to join my colleagues in wishing the member a happy retirement. As women in politics, she and I help make up barely 30% of Parliament. I truly wish her a wonderful retirement. Although we do not always share the same values, we live in a healthy democracy. Of all places, this is the very space where we should be able to debate. More importantly, we must not be afraid to debate.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is always ready to work, but the moral of the story is that I will no longer listen to the men when casting my vote today. That is the end of that. I confirm that I, too, am voting against.”
“Mr. Speaker, with just two weeks to go before July 1, hundreds of people still cannot find housing and are at risk of becoming homeless. Municipalities are investing to address the unprecedented homelessness crisis, including Montreal, which has tripled its budget. Quebec has also increased funding for this issue in its latest budget. The only government that is not doing more is the federal government. All that Ottawa has done is to renew its unsheltered homelessness and encampments initiative, which it had irresponsibly scrapped. With just two weeks to go before July 1, will the Liberals increase their funding?”
“Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. I listened carefully to my colleague. Does he believe that the amendments proposed in committee will really ensure that the bill effectively addresses this hate speech that should not even be happening in the first place? Does he believe we have the necessary tools to tie all this together properly?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to echo the sentiments of my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord and reiterate another point. Certain groups have written to us because there has been a great deal of disinformation coming from the Conservatives. At the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, the Bloc Québécois tabled certain amendments it felt were essential. During one debate, I even heard people go so far as to say that people would no longer be able to protest. Normally, a protest is a legitimate exercise of freedom of expression. I do hope, however, that if a protest is intended to incite hatred, there will be tools available to intervene.”
“At a time when we need to invest in our infrastructure and social programs, we just deprived ourselves of a source of revenue. Moreover, experts are saying that there is a risk of forest fires this summer because of climate change and global warming. What does my colleague think about that?”
“Mr. Speaker, I have a quick comment and then a question for my colleague, whom I thank for her speech. I will add my thoughts on this democratic issue. While the government was busy manufacturing its majority, it did not accept any of the 11 recommendations from the Bloc Québécois. In such a context, the government should have talked to us and listened to us. However, this government has a tendency to move further and further away from listening and from democracy. Now, here is my question for my colleague. In terms of the measure in the economic statement on suspending the excise tax on gasoline, some economic experts, including Luc Godbout from Quebec, maintain that it is not a good decision, from the perspective of both a balanced budget and the environment.”
“Mr. Speaker, June 15 is World Elder Abuse Awareness Day. At a time when fraud targeting seniors is gaining attention, let us remember the importance of staying vigilant and taking action against the various types of abuse, including financial abuse. Seniors between the ages of 65 and 74 face age discrimination, since they do not receive the same pension amount as seniors aged 75 and above. This is ageism, another form of abuse. However, rising inflation and housing problems directly impact people living on a fixed income. While there is also growing concern about isolation among seniors, the new requirements of the New Horizons program are making it harder for volunteers to organize activities to help them break out of their isolation. Let us stop ignoring the needs of seniors so that they can age with care, compassion and dignity.”
“Mr. Speaker, July 14 is just around the corner. No one asked for this New Horizons reform. This is a complete nightmare for volunteers working to improve the well-being of seniors. Community organizations that still do not have a business number will not have time to register by July 14, and that is not to mention the hundreds of others at the local level who simply cannot register because of their structure. That is something else we learned at the briefing. This reform is not designed to address the reality facing Quebec organizations and seniors. Will the government extend the deadline so that the new criteria do not adversely affect seniors' projects?”
“Mr. Speaker, the reform of the New Horizons program is putting community projects for seniors at risk. Our organizations have one month to submit their projects. In the meantime, Ottawa now requires them to register as a business, which can take up to 10 months. In addition, the criteria exclude small groups like some local FADOQs and Cercles de fermières; their parent organizations are registered, but they are not. Ottawa needs to give organizations time to meet the requirements and ensure that none of them are disqualified due to the new criteria. Will the government postpone its reform?”
“That would have been much more effective than simply adding aggravating factors, which may not really help the drivers. What does my colleague think?”
“Mr. Speaker, I will ask my colleague a question in my capacity as vice‑chair of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. The committee is concerned about homelessness and is currently conducting a study on the subject. One of the issues raised by the Bloc Québécois regarding Bill C‑14 has to do with the provision making it an aggravating factor to commit assault against a public transit driver. I have a great deal of respect for public transit drivers. That said, the attacks they are subjected to are often related to mental health issues and even homelessness. The Bloc Québécois believes that, rather than creating aggravating factors, it would have been better for the government to invest in health care to take care of these people and truly protect drivers.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is true that people often view a legal ruling as a magic wand that will fix everything. What we keep hearing in committee is how important it is to focus on prevention. I mentioned this just yesterday to the Minister of Women and Gender Equality . I also told her about an important study on the rise of masculinism and anti-feminism, and that the Standing Committee on the Status of Women will hold a press conference and eventually release its report. I asked her if she would be interested in seeing the recommendations included in that report. Could my colleague comment on the importance of working proactively on prevention?”
“Mr. Speaker, tonight we are debating Bill C‑16 , tabled late last year. What still impresses me, however, is the timeline. For months, if not years, the Standing Committee on the Status of Women has been calling for progress on a number of issues: court delays, the criminalization of coercive control and, as the Bloc Québécois and other stakeholders have also urged, the issue of intimate AI-generated images and deepfakes. People have been calling for all that for weeks, months and years. It took a press conference by the Standing Committee on the Status of Women where we displayed non-partisanship, where members from all political parties sitting on that committee called on the government to criminalize coercive control and take action on violence against women. It is an important first step, but why did it take so long?”
“Why not say that we will pass this bill and then work to propose additional measures? We could also address the broader ecosystem, in other words support groups, tackle the housing issue, and continue to work on the Criminal Code. We really need to look at this as a continuum of services.”
“Mr. Speaker, based on what I heard tonight in this debate, I am not sure if my Conservative colleague has consulted with his colleagues. There are two things I have taken away from the testimony we heard at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women's recent meetings on the issue of violence against women. First of all, the victims said that Bill C-16 was a necessary step. They said that we needed to take action and make the Criminal Code more effective. Earlier, I heard someone say that we were 99% in agreement. Once we get there, the remaining 1% can be addressed and worked out in a non-partisan manner. The other thing, of course, is that this bill does not solve everything. I acknowledge that, the Bloc Québécois acknowledges it too, and I told the minister so. We will come back with the amendments we proposed.”
“The Bloc Québécois wanted to include provisions regarding an objective test. Such provisions would have enabled the judge to take into account the full context, the abuser's history, coercive behaviour and threats against loved ones and pets. That is what the offence itself does. However, even though the amendments we proposed were logical, the Liberals voted them down. I would suggest that everyone calm right down because, seriously, the way we are handling Bill C‑16 right now is not at all in the public interest. Let us keep in mind that the purpose of Bill C‑16 is to find real solutions so there will be no more victims.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will try to restore some calm because I am ashamed right now. Unfortunately, I am reliving a scene I witnessed at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, where, instead of listening to victims, my Liberal and Conservative colleagues were bickering back and forth. The victims left in tears, and I am reliving that moment. Members on both sides can laugh and argue about this, but Bill C-16 addresses an issue that is far too important to victims for me to be witnessing what I am seeing right now. I feel ashamed on behalf of victims and survivors. I would like to come back to something. During the study of Bill C-16, the Conservatives filibustered while the Bloc Québécois was trying to be constructive and propose amendments. For example, we consulted legal experts to try to fix a mistake in this bill.”
“In this case as well, to avoid further delays in the court system, the government must seriously consider providing the provinces and Quebec with additional resources so they can administer this new legislative framework properly. What are my colleague's thoughts on that?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is true that committee members worked as non-partisanly as possible. In the course of our other proceedings, members of various parties asked questions of the victims and the witnesses who appeared. Incidentally, as part of other studies, we asked people whether Bill C‑16 should be passed. Everyone we heard from asked us to vote in favour of Bill C‑16 and explained to us why it is such a huge step forward. I would like to point out another step forward. During the previous Parliament, the Bloc Québécois introduced a bill to address the impact of the Jordan decision on court delays. Bill C‑16 addresses this issue too.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would say that listening to victims is what works best. As the representatives of many police forces said, the first step in addressing coercive control is to include it in the Criminal Code so that police have the tools they need. Otherwise, it is too difficult for them to act or to be proactive and act sooner. That is what this does. Recognizing coercive control means recognizing that there are warning signs and that police need be able to intervene much sooner. In order to achieve that, we need to criminalize this behaviour and listen to victims.”
“Mr. Speaker, there is a bit of disinformation because the bill we are studying this evening essentially reiterates the Bloc Québécois's proposal to restore mandatory minimums for serious crimes. It also echoes the Bloc Québécois's idea about the potential recruitment of young people at earlier stages and about deepfakes. This bill is making progress on a lot of fronts. I think we have reached the point where we need to put this to a vote. It is time to move forward. I know there is room for improvement. We will have to continue to monitor progress, as I said, because this will not be like waving a magic wand. However, I think that the disinformation needs to stop and that we need to work on making progress, recognizing victims and helping survivors find their way and rebuild their lives.”
“After second-stage housing, where do these women go and what do they do? Often, they have their families. We want to ensure that these people are housed safely and with dignity. Sometimes they need supportive housing to ensure follow up. In short, all the steps are being delayed. This is a key issue because it is often the reason why a woman feels she cannot get out. She feels that she is stuck in a cycle of violence because she does not know where to go with her children. It is a huge concern.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member is right: Representatives from those Quebec organizations did indeed come to testify about shelters. What we are seeing at this point in time is that wait lists keep getting longer. When I say that waving a magic wand will not fix things, Build Canada Homes is a prime example of that. We do not really know what it will amount to; it is still very unclear. We have a lot of questions. One thing we know for sure is that wait lists are getting longer. More and more women are turning to emergency resources. Without a space in a second-stage shelter, they are stuck at the emergency shelter stage, meaning that other women who need emergency resources cannot get them, so they stay home and cannot access emergency resources. Other women who are ready for that second stage cannot access it because there is no space.”
“Mr. Speaker, as I said, the Bloc Québécois proposed amendments to try to avoid some of the inconsistencies we see in Bill C-16. As I said in reference to section 810 of the Criminal Code, we want the criteria to be more objective than subjective. That was one of the amendments that had been proposed by my colleague to address this situation. That is the kind of amendment we would have liked to include in the bill, but unfortunately, the Liberals voted against it. So, we will definitely have to bring it up again. The issue of section 810 of the Criminal Code will need to be addressed, because it is clear that this section is not doing its job of ensuring that victims are safe. The Bloc Québécois will continue to closely monitor the issue of section 810 of the Criminal Code.”
“However, we must guard against believing that the Criminal Code can fix everything and that it is some kind of magic wand. A woman needs effective justice, safe housing, a bed in a shelter, adequate income and quality psychosocial support. As I told the minister yesterday, the Bloc Québécois will be here to make sure nobody forgets the amendments our party put forward at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. The best way to protect women is not only to punish abusers, but also to give victims the practical means to get away and rebuild their lives with dignity. We owe them that because there must be no more victims.”
“The Criminal Code is a federal law, however, whereas the application and administration of justice are the responsibility of Quebec and the provinces. I said that to the Minister of Women and Gender Equality yesterday, and I asked her to discuss it with her colleague, the Minister of Justice . If the government does not arrange for money to be transferred to Quebec for the administration of justice, in acknowledgement of the fact that a much bigger burden is going to be placed on Quebec's justice system, it is going to be passing laws that cannot be enforced. There will not be enough resources to take care of victims and survivors properly. In conclusion, the Bloc Québécois will support Bill C‑16. It is a real step forward for victims.”
“Staff are exhausted, and they need resources and means to care for these victims and care for survivors. Bill C‑16 is not perfect, so the Bloc Québécois had moved some amendments, particularly regarding section 810 of the Criminal Code, which is still far too subjective. At the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, I moved, in collaboration with my Conservative colleagues, that we conduct a study of section 810 of the Criminal Code. The Bloc Québécois wanted to take that aspect out of Bill C‑16, because it has been proven that section 810 conditions can give victims a false sense of security. We moved amendments, and there are some amendments that could have been made to Bill C‑16. However, our chief concern is that the Criminal Code be strengthened and that new offences be created.”
“What is concerning is that some women endure violence perpetrated by a spouse, a caregiver, or even an adult child. Data also show that there has been a significant increase in cases of domestic violence against older adults in recent years. The system must be able to recognize these specific realities. I also want to talk about the importance of respecting Quebec's areas of jurisdiction, because social services, shelters and housing fall primarily under Quebec's jurisdiction. Let us not forget that. The federal government must financially support these networks without imposing its own conditions. Quebec organizations are familiar with the realities on the ground and already meeting victims' needs. It is therefore important to look at what is being transferred to help the organizations that work with victims.”
“Even under the best laws, a woman who cannot afford housing or food for her children remains vulnerable. We absolutely need to work toward women's economic empowerment, because we cannot break the cycle of domestic violence if a woman, even after years of trying, cannot accumulate the financial resources needed to escape that violence. She remains trapped in a cycle, in an endless spiral, where the man, to meet his own needs and expectations and to control his victim, exerts financial control over her. We must also consider women's economic empowerment and ways to ensure women can fully take control of their financial lives. Another point that came up during the testimonies before the Standing Committee on the Status of Women is that we cannot overlook older women. Coercive control also affects older adults.”
“Tackling coercive control is an important step forward. The Bloc Québécois welcomes the creation of a coercive control offence. This recognition is essential. It follows on a study that the Standing Committee on the Status of Women did on my suggestion following a request by the Quebec National Assembly and members who had worked on a report on rebuilding trust. However, Ottawa did not budge. Late last year, after a number of years went by, the Standing Committee on the Status of Women held a press conference pointing out that one of the main recommendations in my report was to criminalize coercive control. This recognition is essential. Violence does not always leave visible wounds. The wounds can also be psychological, economic, social, digital or emotional. (2205) Financial dependence is often an integral part of this type of control.”
“Despite this, officials still identify the lack of affordable housing as one of the main obstacles to a sustainable escape from violence. Research shows that women who have access to second-stage housing are much more likely to rebuild their lives and avoid returning to their abuser. Sexual violence remains vastly under-reported. In fact, nearly nine out of 10 sexual assaults are never reported to the police. In 2024, 81 women were killed by an intimate partner in Canada, including 25 in Quebec. There have already been 10 femicides in 2026. One of the first occurred in Rougemont, in the riding of Shefford. I also mentioned coercive control. I would like to talk about some of the progress this bill will achieve after first discussing the importance of offering abused women more extensive help.”
“The evidence we heard at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women served as a reminder of this. Shelters are true places of recovery. They provide shelter, psychosocial support, legal assistance, financial aid, support for children and assistance in building autonomy. For many women, it is the first night in a long time that they can sleep without fearing for their lives or those of their loved ones. Housing is also a public safety issue. A woman who leaves an abusive partner often has to choose between returning to her abuser or living in precarious conditions. It is absolutely terrible. She has to wait months for affordable housing. As long as this reality persists, no reform of the Criminal Code will be enough. I have some telling statistics. In 2024-25, Canada had approximately 561 residential shelters for victims of violence.”
“Justice is essential, but our committee also heard over and over that justice alone is not enough. I will begin by talking about the housing issue. I will then move on to the improvements that Bill C‑16 contains. I will close by talking about what makes Quebec different in this domain. A woman fleeing violence first needs a place to live. Behind every criminal record and every case file is a woman who has made the extremely difficult decision to leave her abuser. This decision often means giving up her home, leaving her job, uprooting her children and losing her financial security. Without a housing solution, many women remain trapped in their situations. What we heard at committee from survivors is that shelters are more than just places of refuge.”
“This is the third time I have talked about this bill, though I am not a member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. This bill ended up being extensively discussed by the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. I have already talked about it a lot. I may come back to Bill C‑16 , but I also want to use my speech to talk about the fact that protecting women also requires better housing and local services. I will come back to that. The Bloc Québécois obviously supports the principle of Bill C‑16 , which contains a number of important improvements for better protecting victims of violence. In particular, it recognizes coercive control. It strengthens certain victims' rights and modernizes criminal law. However, one fundamental question remains: Can a woman be truly safe if she has nowhere to go after escaping violence?”
“Mr. Speaker, speaking of what happens behind the scenes, it certainly does look like someone is hiding behind the curtain. I will leave it at that. Bill C‑16 is the topic of discussion tonight. In all seriousness, this bill seeks to better protect women. However, the problem I see from the outset is that this bill will not solve everything. I will be talking about that, and I know that my colleague from Laurentides—Labelle , with whom I will be sharing my time, will also be talking about that.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I know that he has taken an interest in the issue of women's safety. He even participated in a few meetings of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. Bill C‑16 incorporates many of the recommendations made by the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. These recommendations are based on requests from survivors and victims, particularly with regard to court delays and the criminalization of coercive control. The Standing Committee on the Status of Women made these recommendations and they have been incorporated into Bill C‑16. Did he discuss this with his Conservative colleagues?”
“Does my colleague not agree that it would have been better to just transfer the amounts to Quebec and the provinces, since they are likely more attuned to their communities' housing needs?”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and fellow member of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, which is examining Bill C-20 , the Build Canada Homes act. We heard that Quebec, through the Société d'habitation du Québec, will have the final say on the Build Canada Homes projects. However, several witnesses who appeared before the committee told us that there is a lot of uncertainty surrounding Build Canada Homes. How is affordability defined? Will rural municipalities get their share of the market? What will happen with seniors and women who are facing housing challenges? In short, there is still a lot of uncertainty.”
“With regard to inequality, according to the OECD and several academic studies, declining unionization accounts for between 20% and 30% of the increase in wage inequality observed since the 1980s. Highly unionized sectors generally exhibit smaller income gaps, less wage discrimination, and greater access to pension plans. When it comes to health and safety, unionized workplaces report more workplace accidents. Workers in these settings are more likely to have access to joint health and safety committees, training, and grievance procedures. Here are a few more statistics to wrap up: Between 1981 and today, the proportion of unionized workers in the Canadian private sector has fallen by about 40%. Despite this, unions still represent more than four million workers in Canada.”
“In addition, respect for workers should never be negotiable. That is why the Bloc Québécois will support Bill C‑259. I would like to close with additional statistics on unionization in Quebec. Quebec has one of the highest unionization rates in North America. In 2024, 39.2% of Quebec workers were unionized, compared to about 28% in Canada. More than 1.6 million Quebec workers are covered by a collective agreement. We can see that these numbers and the impact of unions have an effect on wages. According to Statistics Canada, unionized workers earn on average 10% to 15% more than comparable non-unionized workers. The gap is even wider among women, young people, and workers with less education.”
“A union must belong to the workers, not the employer. Workers must be able to freely choose their representatives. They must be able to freely negotiate their working conditions. They must be able to defend their interests without fear of reprisal. The Bloc Québécois has always defended workers' rights. We have done the same with regard to EI and seasonal workers. I keep saying that the Bloc Québécois will return to the fray with a bill for a comprehensive reform of EI to better protect seasonal workers, amongst others, but it is much broader in scope than that. We have also done the same for workers affected by the use of replacement workers, and we continue to monitor that situation. We will continue to do so because a fairer society means fairer workplaces. A healthy democracy requires free and independent labour organizations.”
“We pass laws to protect workers before their rights are violated. This bill sends a clear message. Employers must negotiate with legitimate worker representatives. They cannot create or control the organizations meant to represent workers. The Bloc Québécois fought for this improvement. However, we believe there is still a blind spot. The problem is the lack of data. The Canada Industrial Relations Board does not produce detailed statistics on specific cases of employer interference or on employer-controlled unions. If we want to improve the laws in future, we must be able to assess the reality of the situation and properly document cases. We therefore hope that more data will be collected and made public. This could certainly be a worthwhile goal to aim for in future. In conclusion, at its core, this debate is simple.”
“Sections 12 and 13 of our labour code explicitly prohibit any form of employer interference in union activities. (1830) Quebec also pioneered several major reforms. For example, it banned replacement workers. For years, Quebec led the way while Ottawa was slow to act and the Bloc Québécois was calling for action. Even now, the federal government often follows suit on protections already recognized in Quebec. The Bloc Québécois sees Bill C‑259 as yet another example of that. Vigilance remains necessary. That is why we need Bill C‑259. Some might say that company unions are rare today. That may be, but when it comes to basic freedoms, we must never wait for a problem to become widespread before taking action. As lawmakers, our role is also preventive. We pass laws to prevent abuses. That is exactly what they are for.”
“It clearly defines employer domination and influence as the employer contributing financially to the union, controlling union leaders, interfering in union elections, or making promises or threats intended to influence members. In other words, we are moving from a general principle to concrete criteria. The bill also provides for the revocation of certification of an employer-dominated union, the possible nullification of a collective agreement entered into under such conditions, strengthened remedies before the Canada Industrial Relations Board, and fines of up to $100,000. It really sets clear guidelines. Third, I want to talk about Quebec as a model. Quebec has often been a pioneer in this area. For decades, the Quebec Labour Code has protected union autonomy.”
“It is a union dominated, controlled or influenced by the employer, a union that no longer truly represents the workers' interests, a union that essentially becomes an extension of the employer. Historically, this practice has been used to prevent the emergence of bona fide labour organizations. The company would create a fake union, negotiate with that fake union, and then claim that the right to organize was being respected. However, in reality, the workers were losing their genuine bargaining power. Second, what does Bill C‑259 accomplish? The Canada Labour Code already prohibits employer interference, but the current provisions are relatively general. The bill clarifies the rules.”
“Unionized workplaces also have fewer workplace accidents and more prevention measures in place. That is not insignificant. Some might believe that this is not a major issue in federally regulated sectors, but that is not the case. Federally regulated sectors include banking, telecommunications, airlines, railways, ports and interprovincial transport. More than 900,000 workers are covered by the Canada Labour Code. Approximately 34% of those workers are covered by a collective agreement. In certain strategic sectors such as rail transportation or postal services, the unionization rate actually exceeds 70%. Union independence in these sectors is therefore a major issue. At its core, the bill we are debating this evening is all about company unions. What is a company union?”
“Lastly, I will talk about Quebec's progressiveness in this area. First, why are unions important? All too often, we forget everything that unions have helped us achieve. Think of paid leave, annual holidays, pension plans, health and safety protections, parental leave, anti-harassment measures and decent wages. None of that appeared out of thin air. Those gains were achieved thanks to generations of workers who organized collectively. Even today, unions play a vital role. They help reduce inequality. They promote better working conditions. They help to reduce the gender pay gap. They ensure better protection for the most vulnerable workers. According to Statistics Canada, unionized employees, on average, earn more than non-unionized workers in comparable jobs.”
“Madam Speaker, I rise this evening to speak to Bill C‑259 , an act to amend the Canada Labour Code regarding fair representation. I thank my colleague for tabling it. We are debating a fundamental principle of our democracy: the freedom of workers to organize freely. This right is not a privilege. It is a right that has been recognized by the courts, by international conventions and by our own laws. When employees choose to join a union, they must be able to do so without intimidation, pressure or interference from their employer. Bill C‑259 would ensure just that. The Bloc Québécois supports the principle of this bill. I will start by talking about the importance of unions and why we are talking about them here tonight. I will then talk about the changes set out in Bill C‑259.”
“Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech and her bill. I will have an opportunity to speak about it later, but I have a question for her. Around the world, we are seeing democracy losing ground in an uncertain economic context. Unions exist. We know that, in times of economic uncertainty, it is essential to stand up for workers independently of management. In a context where democratic rights are being rolled back, that is important. How important are these two principles and her bill for democracy and for standing up for workers in an uncertain economic context?”