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 12 of 13.
“This week, thanks to my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord , we once again raised the issue of the process for appointing judges, which should be challenged from time to time.”
“Mr. Speaker, I look forward to seeing the bill that the government will be introducing this fall. The Standing Committee on the Status of Women briefly discussed the fact that this bill would be introduced. It looks like we will have another opportunity to talk about it. In the meantime, I would like to address another issue. In her speech, my colleague spoke at length about the justice system, and one of the federal government's roles is to appoint judges. Right now, it is taking unreasonably long to do it, but that should not be the case. The problem is that the federal government has not fulfilled its role of appointing judges in a timely manner to ensure that the justice system can function properly. This creates delays and undermines victims' confidence in the justice system.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is also very concerned about rising crime. We will therefore be partners when it comes time to discuss this issue. However, I would like to draw my colleague's attention to another very troubling statistic. In 2024 alone, 274 cases were dropped in Quebec because of the Jordan decision. If we want to restore the confidence of victims and the public, would it not be better to have a law that addresses the issue created by the Jordan decision and that reforms the justice system, rather than a populist law?”
“Mr. Speaker, there is one thing on which the Bloc Québécois is in agreement with the Conservative Party. We are partners in that we also view rising crime as a major concern. We will therefore be partners when it comes time to discuss this issue. However, I would like to draw my colleague's attention to another statistic. In 2024 alone, 274 criminal cases were dropped in Quebec because of the Jordan decision.”
“Mr. Speaker, I consider my colleague from Rivière‑du‑Nord an ally. As the Bloc Québécois critic for the status of women, I have had discussions with him on the issues of violence against women. My colleague talked about the possibility of occasional exceptions, and bringing back certain mandatory minimum sentences. We talked about that during debate on Bill C‑5 . We will come back to it because in committee our next study is on clause 810 and whether it is appropriate in cases of violence against women. In any case, the issue of Bill C‑5 will be brought up. I would like my colleague to talk about the fact the Bloc Québécois really wanted to act on the issue of sexual offences and violent crimes against women, propose this exception and restore some minimum sentences.”
“I would like to ask my colleague if she would be willing to support the bill introduced by the Bloc Québécois, which seeks to create guidelines for the use of the Jordan ruling for serious crimes, particularly against women.”
“Madam Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, this issue of rising crime is deeply troubling, and women in particular are being targeted. At the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, we will be resuming the studies we started in the previous Parliament that were interrupted by the election. We will be resuming one study on gender-based violence and another on coercive behaviour and the criminalization of such behaviour. These issues are crucial to addressing crimes against women. During both of these studies, several witnesses raised the issue of the Jordan ruling. According to them, the Jordan ruling does nothing to help restore victims' confidence in the justice system. Among other things, they are asking for guidelines to be issued for the use of Jordan.”
“My colleague's bill is all well and good, but are the Conservatives going to take note of the serious study that the Standing Committee on the Status of Women will be carrying out on this matter?”
“Madam Speaker, I will ask my question in a non-partisan spirit. The issue of rising crime is worries the Bloc Québécois. On a more personal level, as the status of women critic, I have seen the numbers showing the rise in crime and particularly crimes against women. This is what drove me to move a motion, which will be the first motion before the Standing Committee on the Status of Women this fall when we get back to work, specifically to determine whether section 810 of the Criminal Code adequately protects women in the justice system. In the spirit of non-partisanship, I even allowed my motion to be amended. At the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, we will be working together to consider issues relating to Bill C‑5 and Bill C‑75 .”
“Mr. Speaker, I have a quick question. We are getting into the details, which is why the Bloc Québécois supports further study of this bill in committee. We are talking about security, and the concept of security includes the notion of theft. If it is not feasible to search every container, how can we be sure that these new measures will actually tackle the root causes of theft and will not just be window dressing?”
“Mr. Speaker, we are debating a 130-page bill to strengthen border security, but the government is still refusing to act on something that the Canada Border Services Agency union is demanding, namely the right to act between ports of entry. The customs union has been clear about this demand, which does not even require a legislative change. A simple regulatory change is all it would take. Why is the government refusing to give officers this flexibility when doing so could bolster efforts to fight fentanyl, contraband and vehicle smuggling? All they are asking for is a regulatory change.”
“Mr. Speaker, as the Bloc Québécois's status of women critic, I was obviously paying close attention to the part of my colleague's speech where she talked about violence against women. We have been hearing about this since this morning. We are talking about it, but the reality is solving this issue will require multiple solutions, including shelters that can help women escape the cycle of violence. My colleague talked about how poverty traps women in a cycle of violence. Being able to offer them housing is essential and important for getting them out of this cycle. This summer, we heard that the federal government was holding back funds for CMHC, which meant shelter projects were delayed. Would my colleague agree that we should ensure that funds earmarked for shelters are transferred so that these projects can be implemented?”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech addressing the issue of criminal gangs and border security. I would like to point out that the Bloc Québécois has already raised this issue, particularly through the bill introduced by my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord , which sought to cut off funding to criminal organizations. I should point out that one of the purposes of the bill was to make it easier to seize property belonging to anyone convicted of an offence involving criminal gangs. To help fight organized crime, the bill also provided for the creation of a list of criminal organizations. As a matter of principle, we would be happy to go back to committee to study Bill C‑2 , in particular by taking a constructive approach to improving it. Has my colleague had a chance to look at the bill my colleague introduced last fall?”
“Madam Speaker, in his speech, my colleague touched on border security. I live in an area not far from the border with the United States, and I have had the opportunity to look into the issue of border crossings. The major issue is that there were job cuts at the border crossings under the Conservatives. The Liberal government boasts about being a new government and having a fresh vision. It is now proposing improvements to border crossings, but without hiring additional staff for the Canada Border Services Agency. Quebec is calling for this, and so are we. Additional staff is essential to really address this security issue. What does my colleague think about that?”
“Madam Speaker, my colleague talked about confidence. She referred to foreign interference and confidence in the democratic system. Many articles have been published on the issue of how to restore public confidence. The government is currently a minority government. This is what the voters have chosen. The government members should act accordingly. They should try to listen to the opposition parties and have a discussion. As for the members of the official opposition, they should use a constructive tone in their discussions. In terms of confidence in the electoral system, there is the issue of foreign interference but also how we behave here in the House. What does my colleague think about that?”
“Mr. Speaker, I will make a brief comment and then ask a question. My colleague spoke about border security. I would like to remind everyone that a little over 10 years ago, when I was an assistant, the Conservatives made cuts to border posts. That had an impact on border security. I, too, did a lot of work on the ground this summer. While people are indeed concerned about security, they are also worried about the cost of living. The vision at the federal level, from both the Liberals and the Conservatives, is focused on centralization. There is a tendency to implement programs, particularly in the areas of homelessness and housing, that are unsuitable for rural communities like the ones in my riding of Shefford, though it does include one major city, Granby. The money is not reaching our communities.”
“The judge has set a new deadline for the fourth time: November 20. Has my colleague analyzed the impact of not complying with this decision from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice?”
“Mr. Speaker, much has been said about the impact of the immigration system on constituency offices, so before I ask my question, I would like to commend the invaluable Christiane Dupuis, who has helped constituents navigate the immigration process. Now she is now retiring. I want to extend my best wishes to dear Christiane on her retirement. I look forward to celebrating with her as the summer holidays approach. I want to thank her for helping the people who have chosen to settle in Granby and Shefford. That being said, like my Conservative colleagues, I see problems with the immigration system. Nonetheless, we think Bill C‑3 is a step in the right direction for the Citizenship Act. Much more must be done, of course, including a complete review of the act. Nonetheless, this was our fourth extension.”
“Mr. Speaker, I note that the Conservatives are using this debate on Bill C-3 to criticize the problems at the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. Wait times are very long. I see these problems in my constituency office as well. These are some of the most serious cases. In fact, cases are getting worse. It is a very outdated department. We agree on that, and we share the Conservatives' criticism of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. However, that is not what Bill C‑3 is about. Bill C‑3 actually seeks to respond to an Ontario Superior Court ruling and correct historical injustices against individuals. Is my colleague casting doubt on the justice system?”
“Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to meet my colleague through the organization À voix égales, which promotes the place of women in politics. In fact, I am sorry to see that there are fewer women in the new Parliament. That is what I wanted to say. She may answer if she wishes. I have a more specific question for her. During her remarks, my colleague talked about her family's arrival in Canada. Does she think that women arriving here in 2025 have access to all the services they need to assist them when various studies have shown that women arriving here are often penalized, especially francophone women?”
“We are talking about electric vehicles today; we are not here to hurt agricultural producers. Finally, when a target is voluntary, that means there is no target. I will quickly give an example. In 2005, automakers and the federal government had a voluntary agreement. They committed to reducing their greenhouse gas emissions. Since there were no penalties, the target was not met. They missed it by 95%. Perhaps it is time to set some standards and rules for moving forward.”
“Madam Speaker, I also represent a rural riding. I have family members working in construction, and there are agricultural producers all over my riding. I am very involved in this issue of the rural reality and land use. There are three points I would like to raise. First, I think it is shameful that we are debating a motion today that seems to completely ignore the issue of climate change. In fact, my Conservative opponent did not even show up for the environmental debate during the election, which I think is also shameful. Second, when the member talked about standards, my colleague from Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères and I exchanged glances, because today's debate is about electric vehicles, not tractors, which our farmers do need on their farms. Members should avoid spreading disinformation.”
“Madam Speaker, my colleague talks about the importance of vehicle electrification and technology development. I get the feeling that she is talking out of both sides of her mouth. I just found an email that Annie Chagnon from Chagnon Honda sent me during the election campaign. In the email, she criticizes the end of, or cuts to, the incentives for zero-emission vehicles that goes completely against transport electrification and the government's EV production requirements. By dithering on the issue of incentives, the government may have caused fewer people to buy EVs. It would be important to get back to promoting them.”
“Madam Speaker, I would like to remind the House that the automotive industry is very important to the Shefford region. There are many dealerships in Granby. I would like to give a shout-out to Annie Chagnon of Chagnon Honda, who was named person of the year at the Haute-Yamaska chamber of commerce and industry's recent 2025 Desjardins distinction gala. I would like to commend Annie for her community involvement. I met with her on Zoom during the election. She told me about the challenges facing the industry. I made a commitment to her keep the lines of communication open and meet with other people in the industry to continue to discuss their concerns. What they talked to me about most was the impact of the tariffs on their industry. The question I have for my colleague is this.”
“Does my colleague agree that, when it comes to the economy, there are many other issues that should be addressed well before this one?”
“Mr. Speaker, since this morning, much of the discussion has focused on the economic aspect of the issue. I am keeping a close eye on this issue, particularly with regard to the automotive industry. The riding of Shefford, including the city of Granby, is known for its many car dealerships. This industry is very strong in Shefford, so I keep abreast of the situation and meet with dealerships on a regular basis. I found an email that the Automotive Industries Association of Canada sent me recently. I was checking to see what issues there are with zero-emission vehicles, electric vehicles. However, the email mentioned the right to repair cars, but also, and more importantly, the impact of tariffs on the automotive industry.”
“Instead of investing in oil companies, would it not make more sense to direct those funds into helping manufacturers develop electric vehicles?”
“Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague. First, once again, today's debate shows that Quebec clearly has a much greener and transition-centred vision to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Ultimately, that will save us billions of dollars in public health costs and investments in insurance and infrastructure that are affected by climate change events. Now, in Canada, we have Electric Mobility Canada, an organization that, over time, has really increased its expertise and credibility. In fact, we see that it is not the electric vehicle availability standard that will destroy jobs in the Canadian auto sector, but, rather, the lack of technological development over time. At the moment, we do not produce electric vehicles in Canada.”
“We have a Prime Minister who wants to act by fiat and could not care less about democracy, since imposing closure at this stage, without a single second of debate, is unacceptable in a democracy. How will my colleague be able to look at himself in the mirror tonight if he votes in favour of this closure motion?”
“Mr. Speaker, before I ask my question, I want to share an observation. What is happening in the House right now is fascinating. The Conservatives and the Liberals are making a show of arguing when, actually, the Liberal-Conservative coalition is working together to impose closure on this bill. The Conservatives are saying that the Liberals stole their plan and that is why they got elected. The Liberals are saying that they were elected to fulfill their current mandate. The truth is anything but. In my riding, and I think many of my colleagues from Quebec can relate to this, people told me they were going to vote Liberal because they were worried about getting a prime minister who would act like Mr. Trump, in other words, someone who would govern by executive order, with no regard for democracy. Ultimately, that is what we are seeing now.”
“First it was mothers in distress, and now seniors are in danger of not receiving their pensions. What are my colleague's thoughts on that?”
“Mr. Speaker, something one of my colleagues said reminded me of one of the first requests I received from a constituent after I was elected in 2019. This poor mother came to my office with her little one in a car seat. She was no longer getting paid and was in distress. I realized then just how incompetent the federal apparatus is. Other examples include ArriveCAN and the CBSA assessment and revenue management system. There have been issues around managing and wasting public funds. In March, just before the election, articles were published about the new Cúram platform, which is used to manage the old age security system. The article suggested that the new old age security software might be the next Phoenix. The same kinds of mistakes keep happening, which suggests some degree of systemic incompetence.”
“Mr. Speaker, when we looked at the GC Strategies issue during the last Parliament, I remember us coming to the realization that these firms could easily change names to win other contracts. This is what happened with GC Strategies, which was initially called Coredal Systems Consulting. We realized that it had been hired by the Department of Transport between 2010 and 2015 under the Conservative government. Governments come and go and seem to repeat the same mistakes. This fuels public cynicism. What can be done today to address this? The solution would obviously be to repay the money, but beyond that, we must also ensure that this does not happen again in the future.”
“When I asked my question, the government responded that the reason was a lack of expertise in the public service. I would like my colleague to explain this lack of vision to me. Why were outside consultants being used with the excuse given that there was a lack of expertise—”
“Mr. Speaker, as I listen to the back and forth today, it feels like I caught my daughter with her hands in the cookie jar and I am hearing her trying to make excuses for emptying it. It feels like that is what the government is doing right now. They are trying to clear their conscience while those who were in the former government are still here. I will pick up on the question that my Conservative colleague asked about a disturbing trend. I replaced one of my colleagues on the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates a year or two ago. At the committee, I asked questions about the government's increasing use of outside consultants, because the media had published a figure about it. Using outside consultants costs more and is subject to fewer rules, less oversight and less accountability.”
“Quebeckers have collectively paid for this election gift, but we are excluded from receiving a cheque because we have our own system. What does my colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île have to say about that?”
“Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the debate since this morning. Clearly, the Liberals are having a hard time understanding. They are the ones who wrote these election cheques. There seems to be some confusion; they do not seem to understand the process. During debate, after the member for Beloeil—Chambly asked a question, it was clear that even the Liberal leader does not understand the system. This taxation is upstream, that is, it happens on the front end. People receive money even though they have not paid the tax yet. When the government gives money to people even though they have not paid the tax yet, it does not take an economics expert to understand that this money comes from everyone's taxes, from the public budget.”
“Mr. Speaker, it seems like a desperate move. It seems like a government on its last legs that miscalculated the impact of the fear caused by the U.S. election that put Donald Trump in office. The impression that I got on the ground during the election campaign was that, amid all this turmoil, voters really did not support the Conservative leadership choice they were being given. At the same time, they had questions. I do not think that Canadians voted for this. We can see it in what was promised during the election campaign. The Liberals did an about-face after that. They are backing down on their decisions and doing things that they did not talk about during the campaign. I think that people were sold a bill of goods in this election.”
“Mr. Speaker, she is talking about consequences. She is talking about spending. What concerns me at the moment is that the government is announcing spending, without any explanation of where the funds will come from. The government is not tabling a budget or an economic update. That is why I talked in my speech about a Harry Potter budget. As I said earlier, I met the hon. Lloyd Axworthy yesterday. He is not exactly a member of the Bloc, and yet he has spoken out about this situation. The Liberals are not tabling a budget and they announced a tax cut and a vote-buying cheque that was supposedly a carbon tax rebate. He spoke out against that by saying that this showed a total lack of economic credibility.”
“Mr. Speaker, a green and eco-friendly transition is obviously what we should be pursuing. Funding pipelines and oil companies will not achieve that transition. I forgot to say something in my speech. In 2023, the World Bank enumerated 73 carbon pricing mechanisms in 53 countries. That is five more than in 2022, 12 more than in 2021 and 69 more than 20 years ago. At the end of the day, if Canada does this, it will be the first to choose this path. That is not in everyone's interest, because we want to remain competitive internationally and expand into new markets.”
“(1210) I want to say one last thing. All the federal parties want to scale back carbon pricing for purely electoral reasons.”
“In conclusion, in addition to sabotaging their own climate policy and making it even less likely that Canada will honour its international climate commitments, the Liberals also managed to instantly perpetrate an economic and financial injustice on Quebec consumers and taxpayers. We must therefore rebuild Canada's climate policy without delay and rid ourselves of the oil sector's propaganda and lies. I am not exaggerating when I say that the flaws in the Liberals' logic are obvious here, making it impossible for the Liberal government to rationalize its decision. The Prime Minister 's response confirms that Quebec is being treated unjustly, so the Bloc Québécois is wholly justified in moving its motion today in the House to correct an injustice that indicates the government's desire to fight climate change is waning.”
“This is a fact recognized by all experts, including the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Carbon pricing gave Canadian households about 90% of the revenues generated by the pricing system. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, eight out of 10 Canadians actually received a larger rebate that what they paid in carbon fees. Only the wealthiest paid a bit more than what they paid at the pump. This system, we must remember, was used to fund a federal policy that in the most effective way produced real reductions in greenhouse gases and truly contributed to the decarbonization of the economy.”
“For at least three years now, the Bloc Québécois has been pointing out these negative effects, explaining why it was not in the best interest of Quebec and Quebeckers for the federal government to do away with its carbon pricing in the rest of Canada. However, that did not stop Quebec Conservative MPs from supporting their leader's lies and using every possible, often desperate, means to convince Quebeckers that it was in their best interest to axe the carbon tax. It is now clear to everyone that it was not and that the Bloc Québécois was right to warn people against the Conservatives' claims about carbon pricing. It did not stop the Liberal Party of Canada from bowing to the success of Conservative propaganda in swaying public opinion in Canada and destroying its own climate record, either.”
“Canada can change the terms of its pollution pricing policy if it realizes that its old system was too complex and too costly. However, getting rid of carbon pricing is another matter entirely. Obviously, it is causing price distortions and creating an inequitable situation with respect to Quebec. The federal government can no longer continue to support the unacceptable situation it has created, despite repeated warnings from the Bloc Québécois, where there is such a big price difference between gas purchased in Quebec and gas purchased outside Quebec. This adverse effect of the federal government's decision to scrap federal carbon pricing ends up punishing Quebec for having the wisdom to adopt a good carbon pollution pricing system.”
“One concrete example of that problem is, first, the obvious inequity between Quebeckers and the rest of Canada when it comes to prices at the pump. It should be noted that, of all the existing pricing systems in Canada, the Quebec carbon market had the lowest impact on gas prices. That simply means that Quebec's policy was better designed than Canada's. We are reducing greenhouse gas emissions while imposing fewer impacts on consumers than the federal policy did. That is one of the reasons why the Bloc Québécois has repeatedly reminded the House that any provinces or territories that were unhappy with the federal policy were already free to opt out and either create their own system or join the Quebec‑California carbon market. That invitation was officially extended by the Government of Quebec itself.”
“It will therefore also oppose any reduction in industrial emissions pricing in Canada outside Quebec, which would reduce Quebec's comparative advantage. That is because Quebec accounts for one-third of Canada-Europe trade and accounts for nearly 40% of European investments in Canada. Quebec certainly has an advantage, and it is a bridge between North America and Europe. The Bloc Québécois hopes that Quebec will be able to double its trade with Europe, including the UK, within five years, increasing it from $42 billion to $84 billion. Third, we must point out that this request from the Bloc Québécois is just a modest request to correct an obvious one-time injustice. We will then need to deal with the real root problem created by getting rid of carbon pollution pricing in Canada.”
“If it scraps or reduces carbon pricing for industries, it will undermine Quebec's efforts to diversify its exports and increase its trade with Europe. Since Quebec businesses are part of a country with low carbon pricing or none at all, there is a risk that their exports will be taxed. (1205) Both the European Union and the U.K. have put in place a system of exemptions. If an exporter comes from a country with no or low carbon pricing, they can be exempted from the tax if they can demonstrate that their emissions have actually been priced. The Bloc Québécois will oppose any federal measure that would thwart Quebec's efforts to diversify its export markets to counter the negative effects of the Trump administration.”
“Right now, they want to diversify their export markets, and Europe is implementing a carbon border adjustment mechanism for goods coming from irresponsible countries like Canada. During the election campaign, the government promised to increase the carbon tax for large industrial emitters. However, there is nothing about that in Bill C‑4 . As of January 1, the European Union will impose an import tax on goods produced in countries where it is free to pollute or where the cost to pollute is not high enough. With Donald Trump making access to the American market uncertain, now is not the time to cut off our access to the European market. As I was saying, Bill C‑4 now proposes to formalize this decision by completely removing the Canada carbon rebate from federal legislation. By doing so, Canada is choosing to go back to the 20th century.”
“What is more, the Quebec National Assembly unanimously adopted a motion calling on all federal political parties to commit to giving Quebec back its share of that payment, which it estimates to be over $800 million, with no strings attached. However, the Liberal Prime Minister refused to commit to responding to the National Assembly's request. The Liberal leader not only refused to recognize that the last round of rebate cheques came from public funds, but he also sidestepped the issue by talking about something that had nothing to do with the matter at hand, namely, his election promise to lower taxes. If we add to that Canada's decision to abandon the carbon tax, this poses a threat to Quebec's economy. I have been hearing about it from businesses in Shefford.”