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 13 of 13.
“As I said earlier, the rebate was always paid in advance of the period when the charge, which some people call "the tax", was collected. This means that the $3.7 billion in CCR cheques that were issued in April were not funded by carbon pricing applied to Canadian consumers. Canadians never paid the amounts that they received. Second, this issue helps fuel cynicism and has led to what are now known as the Liberals' Harry Potter budgets. The $3.7 billion in question came straight out of the government coffers. This public money belongs to Quebeckers too, and part of it comes from their taxes. That means that the Liberal Prime Minister 's vote-buying cheques for Canadians outside Quebec were funded in part by Quebeckers, who did not receive them.”
“The reason that the government gave for the payment was the elimination of a policy, namely carbon pricing, which was paid by consumers in Canada, but not those in Quebec, before April 1, 2025. The government used a poor excuse to keep Quebeckers from receiving the election cheques it issued to Canadian voters. In fact, the federal fuel charge paid by consumers at the pump did not apply in Quebec. That is what the government said, but Quebeckers consequently never received what is known as the Canada carbon rebate, or CCR, which was the cheque paid four times a year to individuals. This was to offset the fuel charge. However, when the last CCR cheques were issued, Canadian consumers had not paid the fuel charge that the rebate was supposed to offset.”
“He probably got the idea from the executive orders signed by the president of the country south of the border. This is how things are done now. This injustice stems from the government's decision to grant cash payments to Canadian households, except those in Quebec. This decision was made in April 2025, specifically between April 22 and election day, which was April 28. The timing was convenient. The cheques sent to Canadians ranged from $220 to $456. These amounts are similar to what Quebeckers have received in the past from their own government to help them cope with inflation and the rising cost of living. Lo and behold, when the federal government takes action for similar reasons and does so during a federal election, as if by chance, Quebeckers are left out of the group of lucky recipients of government cheques.”
“Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to the Bloc Québécois motion, which states that "the House call on the government to pay Quebec, without conditions, an amount equivalent to its contribution to the $3.7 billion in spending, estimated at $814 million." This Bloc Québécois motion seeks to quickly and easily correct a financial injustice to Quebec and Quebec taxpayers. First, I will explain the source of that injustice. Second, I will talk about the Liberals' lack of economic credibility, and third, I will explain why this sends the wrong message when it comes to the fight against climate change. First, the new Prime Minister , who had recently been chosen to lead the Liberal Party of Canada, but was still unelected, decided to end the federal fuel tax by regulation on March 15, 2025.”
“Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Drummond, who was obviously so clear in what he said that nobody here has any questions for him. That said, I would like to pick up on something he said. He clearly explained the strategy that was used. During an election, it might seem like a good idea to promise cheques. The election was a convenient time to eliminate the carbon tax and promise a cheque. This cost the Liberals in terms of economic credibility, however. I am not the only one saying so. Even the Hon. Lloyd Axworthy, whom I met at an event last night, criticized the Liberals' current lack of economic credibility.”
“Madam Speaker, I will be brief and I will go back to my colleague's previous question. As far as I know, as a Quebecker, I pay taxes to Ottawa. My colleague does not understand that the Liberals' vote-buying cheque, which was paid using the so-called carbon tax as a pretext, was actually funded through taxes that I and other Quebeckers pay. Everyone says that Quebec is not part of it and has its own system, but that is not the issue, and my colleague does not get it. Those cheques were paid for with income and sales taxes that I paid.”
“Today, it continues to pursue its mission as a digital newspaper with the same level of commitment to quality news. In a context where regional media are vulnerable, preserving this voice is crucial to maintaining a strong, informed democracy that is rooted in its communities.”
“Madam Speaker, I would like to draw the House's attention to the 90th anniversary of La Voix de l'Est, a newspaper founded in Granby in 1935 by a group of committed French-speaking men, including politicians Horace Boivin and Joseph‑Hermas Leclerc and industrialist and journalist Aimé Laurion. From the very beginning, La Voix de l'Est was a powerful outlet for progressive ideas, and it helped shape the development of Granby and the surrounding region. This newspaper has never been just another publication. For many families, it has been a source of affirmation and cohesiveness. It is still a key tool for communicating our local identity today. La Voix de l'Est has evolved over the decades by developing new projects, and it was recently reborn as a co-operative thanks to the determination of its employees.”
“Mr. Speaker, in his speech, my colleague touched on technological innovation and the environment. However, there is a contradiction in the throne speech. How can the government seriously think it can fight climate change while abolishing scientific environmental assessment studies? I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.”
“That is what we learned from The Tortoise and the Hare . In financial matters, let us not take our cues from Harry Potter books. We do not need a magical budget or a Harry Potter budget. We need a rigorous framework, which might include tabling a budget statement that would give us an overview of the state of public finances. I have asked two questions in one, so I would invite my colleague to answer one, the other or both.”
“Madam Speaker, I am inspired by my colleague from Mirabel , who talked about how proud he was to see his six-month-old son sit up today. Family is so important to both of us. Personally, I am very proud of my three-year-old daughter, who is full of energy. I am trying to help her grasp ideas in children's literature. That brings me to my question. Earlier, a Conservative member made an interesting slip of the tongue. She talked about creating one government out of 13. That is indeed the government's vision. When people talk about one single economy, not 13, that means they really want to centralize things. When I look at everything the government wants to do, it reminds me of The Tortoise and the Hare . It is sometimes better to take more time to hold consultations than to move too quickly.”
“Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, in which he talked about Alberta's frustrations with various things. One thing I can say is that the Quebec National Assembly unanimously adopted a motion opposing the principle of a single economy. The motion states that Quebec has its own economic model, and we want the freedom to develop our economy in a manner consistent with who we are. At the moment, we are being subjected to U.S. President Trump's wrath and mood swings. During the election campaign, the Prime Minister made this his pet cause. He said people had to vote for the Liberal Party so that it could deal with the American president's volatility. It is now clear that neither the party nor the government has a plan to deal with Mr. Trump. My question for my colleague is this. How should we deal with Mr.”
“I would therefore like to know whether my colleague would be willing to consider certain accommodations or arrangements to recognize that these workers are essential to regional economies.”
“Madam Speaker, in her speech, one of the things my colleague from St. Boniface—St. Vital talked about was immigration, which is essential in certain regions. In my riding of Shefford, however, some businesses are complaining about measures recently implemented by the government, especially measures related to temporary foreign workers. The new targets are unrealistic and also miss the mark when it comes to immigration. Temporary foreign workers are essential to businesses in my riding of Shefford. Many entrepreneurs and new business owners are telling me that unless these new temporary foreign worker standards change, a number of regional businesses could be forced to close.”
“Madam Speaker, my colleague and I seem to have something in common: housing issues in our ridings. I deplore the situation in Granby, where there is a housing shortage and homelessness. It seems to me that the Liberals clearly adopted a conservative tone in their throne speech, meaning a very centralized vision of housing funding. Quebec is asking for funds to be transferred to the Government of Quebec and to the municipalities, which are in the best position to know what the housing needs are. Does my colleague agree that funds should be transferred to Quebec and the municipalities as quickly as possible so that they can take action on housing?”
“Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Milton East—Halton Hills South for her speech, and I congratulate her on her election. She did a good job explaining the recount she went through and the stress it caused. I congratulate her. In her case, it seems to have ended well. This is a matter of democracy. She said that every vote counts. What does she think about the problems in other ridings, such as Nunavik? They say that every vote counts, but offices are closing before the usual time set by Elections Canada. That is what happened in Nunavik, for example. What does she think about the case of Terrebonne? Elections Canada made a mistake with the return envelope. The election depended on one vote. It is all well and good to say that every vote counts, but everyone must get a vote.”
“Madam Speaker, it is nice to see you again. In his speech, my colleague talked about the steel industry and described his riding's economy. In Quebec, we could talk about aerospace, forestry and aluminum. Quebec's economy is unique. I am not the only one saying this. There is even a motion from the Quebec National Assembly that denounces the vision of one economy, which discounts all the distinct characteristics that different regions may have. In Quebec, our economy is based on SMEs, which is a different economic model. In light of the motion adopted by the Quebec National Assembly, how does my colleague view this idea of one economy that does not represent the will of Quebec?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Winnipeg Centre, whom I had the opportunity to work with on the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. There are many questions I could ask my colleague because, apart from a brief mention of gun control, there was nothing in the throne speech about improving women's safety. We could also discuss the fact that wanting to speed up infrastructure projects and create one economy could be detrimental to the rights of indigenous peoples. In the end, I would actually like to ask about something else. My colleague mentioned the widening economic gap among seniors, which prevents them from aging with dignity. Should we reintroduce the bill to eliminate the two classes of seniors and increase OAS for seniors aged 65 to 74, as was done for seniors aged 75 and over?”
“Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of his speech, my colleague talked about democratic values, which we share. So much the better if the election went well in his riding of Hull—Aylmer. However, that was not the case everywhere. I am thinking of Nunavik, where not all citizens were able to be heard. There were irregularities, particularly with regard to polling station hours, which were not the same everywhere. I am also thinking of Terrebonne, where ballots were accepted with only the first name of the Liberal candidate, whereas normally the rules are clear: The candidate's first and last names are required. In short, there seem to have been irregularities in some places. This is a fundamental democratic issue. Does my colleague not agree that everyone in Nunavik should be able to exercise their right to vote?”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I had the opportunity to spend some time together, particularly at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, and I know that we are both committed to this issue. However, I want to make the following observation. Apart from announcements on firearms, there is nothing specific in this throne speech to address violence against women. There is nothing, even though we have learned that there may have been a fourth femicide in the Eastern Townships, in my region of Sherbrooke, and that we may even have reached the tenth femicide in Quebec this year. What will we do to help these victims of domestic violence? How are we going to fight the scourge, the epidemic of femicide? Is there any money? I have not seen anything about any kind of action plan to address violence against women.”
“Mr. Speaker, in his speech, my colleague touched on an issue that is also concerning to me, and that is the need for us to be less partisan and more collaborative. He talked about the minority government, so he seems to realize that this is a minority government, that this is the mandate that voters gave us here in the House of Commons. Will his party take note of the amendment that was adopted yesterday by a vote of 166 to 164? Will the Liberals decide to table a budget and recognize the need to shed light on the state of our public finances?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am not the only one saying that. The Union des producteurs agricoles, including the UPA-Estrie, is saying it too. Over the years, the government has given itself a lot of credit for protecting supply management, but it let quota go. Dairy farmers know what I am talking about. Various negotiations have resulted in the loss of 18% of our quota. Not wanting to lose more quota on top of that, the UPA-Estrie called for a bill to fully protect supply management.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question, which allows me to return to an issue I mentioned briefly at the beginning of my speech. From the outset, I asked how the government could promise tax cuts without presenting a budget. How can the government make announcements without tabling a budget? At a debate during the election campaign, our leader, the member for Beloeil—Chambly , talked about a Harry Potter budget. The Liberals are making up numbers and making announcements without presenting a budget, even though they are holding themselves up as economic experts who will be able to rein in government spending and balance all the budgets. They do not sound serious. This is a Harry Potter budget. We need to get the figures quickly so we can come up with a game plan.”
“Mr. Speaker, in terms of barriers between provinces, there are certain issues, labour being one, that fall under Quebec's jurisdiction. What we are saying is that certain issues will be less straightforward, because the government will have to reach an agreement with Quebec and the provinces. Those barriers aside, I want to conclude by saying that I am not the one criticizing the idea of one economy, one system; it is the National Assembly. I wanted to mention that because its members have that right. They tabled a motion unanimously. Quebec has its own economic system, with our small and medium-sized businesses. We want to continue to defend it.”
“Canada is already an energy superpower. What more does it want? This week, Ottawa attempted to reaffirm Canada's sovereignty by bringing in a foreign sovereign, at great expense, to remind us that we are not sovereign in our own country. Meanwhile, the U.S. ambassador is saying that there will be no 51st state after all. At the end of the day, this has all just been a missed opportunity and a manufactured crisis. The federal government evidently sees any crisis as an opportunity to trample on jurisdictions and try to bring Quebec and the provinces to their knees. We on this side of the House will stand firm. That is why the Bloc Québécois decided to deliver on one of its election promises this morning. I would like to emphasize that the Bloc Québécois introduced a bill to fully protect supply management.”
“In terms of Quebec values, the government wants to protect the rights and freedoms guaranteed to all Canadians by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. What does it want to do here? It wants to continue opposing Bill 21 on secularism and Bill 96 on language. That rhetoric also runs counter to Quebec values. In terms of the environment, the speech states that removing barriers will make it possible to build an industrial strategy, make Canada an energy superpower and fight climate change at the same time. We wonder what will happen. How will the major federal project office's role relate to the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada's role? Does this mean that its mission will now be to approve projects rather than conduct scientific assessments? Oil sands use is growing, and Canada is the world's fourth-largest producer of gas.”
“We can see that the Liberals are also taking a page out of the Conservative playbook by imposing standards on the municipalities and the governments of Quebec and the provinces for matters that do not fall under federal jurisdiction. I might say that the government is trying to create one housing strategy, one housing market, out of 13. When they talk about creating one economy out of 13, that shows how little they know about Quebec and the provinces. The National Assembly adopted another motion denouncing the “one economy” concept, seeing as Quebec has its system of SMEs. It is Quebec's own system, and it is demanding the right to defend it. We have to let the cities do their job. They know what they need when it comes to zoning and housing. The current situation is really important to them.”
“My riding, Shefford, has several such industries, and the 20% cap for these sectors is a threat to our food sovereignty. It is also a threat to our regional economies. The Government of Canada must open talks with the Government of Quebec to ensure that these reductions do not harm regional industries and universities. The housing plan is a priority for Granby. I will try to go over this quickly. The creation of “build Canada homes” is a centralizing power grab, an attempt to impose a pan-Canadian vision of housing, disregarding the expertise and autonomy of Quebec and the municipalities when it comes to land-use planning, zoning and urban development.”
“The speech has nothing new to offer on immigration. This government is continuing along the same lines as its predecessor, which, inspired by the Century Initiative's plan to grow Canada's population to 100 million by 2100, ravaged the immigration system. Then the government decided to cap temporary and permanent immigration by applying the same measures across the country. In so doing, the federal government hurt our regional economies and jeopardized some Shefford businesses. Just today, I got a letter about that from one of our local businesses, Cordé Électrique. I forwarded the letter to our critic for this file. The Bloc Québécois notes that restrictions on temporary foreign workers are unsuitable, particularly for farmers and agri-food industries. This is crucial.”
“This throne speech could also have given the federal government an opportunity to show that it understands the needs of Quebeckers. Instead, we were treated to a parade of vague promises, devoid of any vision or concrete action for seniors. The Bloc Québécois wants to keep promoting these issues forcefully, with determination, because seniors deserve a lot more than a speech. They deserve genuine, courageous action. Returning to the economy, as my colleague said, this Liberal government like the previous one has no plans to enhance EI to help struggling workers or workers adversely affected by the hostile economic policies of the United States. This is striking because the U.S. President's economic threats monopolized attention during the election campaign. The law is also anti-feminist and needs to be reformed, among other things.”
“We can easily deduce that the government has no plans to take action on this in the short or medium term, leaving all seniors struggling to make ends meet in a precarious situation. The Bloc Québécois rejects this inaction and is trying to increase old age security by 10% for seniors aged 65 to 74 in order to eliminate the discrimination caused by the unjustified division of the two classes of seniors. (1750) As we saw during the election campaign in Victoriaville, the government decided to ignore the stark housing needs of seniors, especially in outlying areas, with residences of fewer than 50 units ineligible for CMHC mortgage insurance. Programs need to be adapted to regional realities and investment needs to be channelled into home renovations so that seniors can age with dignity in their home and in their community.”
“Another issue that the Bloc Québécois has been working on for many years is seniors' purchasing power. The declining purchasing power of seniors was not mentioned in the throne speech, as my colleague pointed out. We can conclude that the government has no plans to act on this in the short or medium term. This is a clear demonstration of how disconnected the Liberals are from the realities facing seniors and people in Quebec's regions. Once again, Ottawa is ignoring critical issues that directly affect our communities. While the declining purchasing power of seniors remains a pressing issue, organizations such as FADOQ and AQDR reminded me of this before, during and even after the election campaign. It is worth noting that this pressing issue was not even mentioned in the Speech from the Throne.”
“While this hate speech is becoming increasingly widespread online and in public spaces, no measures have been announced to counter this radicalization. This silence has serious consequences. It normalizes hatred and further exposes women and LGBTQ+ people to violence, bullying and exclusion. It demonstrates, once again, that social justice and safety for all are not real priorities for the government. The Bloc Québécois refuses to stand idly by in the face of such inaction, and we demand concrete and immediate measures because women and marginalized communities are waiting. They are not waiting for words, they are waiting for action. The Bloc Québécois therefore wants to speak out loudly on their behalf, because ignoring violence means we are contributing to it.”
“I would now like to take a moment to address the issues that I am responsible for as the critic. Apart from a brief mention of revoking gun licenses for those convicted of intimate partner violence, there are no plans to improve women's safety in either the public or private sphere, or to curb the scourge of domestic violence and coercive control. There is nothing about the rise of hate speech and masculinist and homophobic rhetoric. For our part, in response to the demands heard by women's groups in committee, we want to regulate the use of the Jordan ruling. The Speech from the Throne completely sidesteps the urgent issues related to women's safety, and, even more troubling, the government remains completely silent on the worrying rise of intolerance promoted by certain masculinist and homophobic movements.”
“The elected members of the National Assembly of Quebec sent a very clear message to King Charles III with a vote of 106 to zero. That was the form. Let us now look at the substance. They say that writings remain, but we will have to see how this new government turns words into action. First, without tabling a budget, how can it explain its plan to limit the operating budget to growth below 2% while maintaining federal transfers? How is it going to balance the operating budget over the next three years while cutting taxes for what it calls the middle class? How can it respect Quebec's jurisdictions when it is talking about striking agreements with provinces interested in realizing the goal of “one project, one review” and creating the major federal project office? These are the things we are wondering about.”
“We can discuss the form and substance of the speech, but I would also like to take a moment to point out what is missing from it. I will unpack all of that in the next few minutes. First, regarding the form, having Charles III read the Speech from the Throne was a deplorable choice, to say the least. It triggered bad memories for Quebec, which never signed the Constitution, I would point out. Furthermore, the monarchy is a fraught symbol for Acadians and indigenous people. In any case, I do not need to elaborate on the form, since the motion adopted unanimously at the National Assembly of Quebec speaks for itself. The elected members of the National Assembly reject the monarchy. During the royal visit, they even unanimously adopted a motion to sever all ties between the Government of Quebec and the British monarchy.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon and I clearly read each other's minds. People can probably tell that we work together on certain issues. This is my first speech since the election, so I would like to begin by thanking the voters of Shefford for renewing their trust in me and giving me a third term, which I undertake with great humility. After a short election campaign, this new Parliament was up and running in no time and is off to a roaring start. I would like to thank the volunteers who worked on my election campaign, as well as the team that helped me get back to the House quickly. We had to roll up our sleeves and get to work the day after the election. The throne speech was read on Tuesday, May 27, by the King of England.”
“Mr. Speaker, in his speech, my colleague touched on two related issues that are extremely important to the riding of Shefford. He talked about international trade and agriculture in the context of negotiations. This morning, the Bloc Québécois reintroduced a bill to fully protect supply management. My colleague's leader expressed his willingness during the debates to protect supply management. Is my colleague also prepared to vote in favour of the Bloc Québécois bill?”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I share the same concern about homelessness and addiction in rural areas. There is a problem in my riding of Shefford. There is a federal program that helps people experiencing homelessness called reaching home. Although Granby is a rather large municipality, it is still considered a rural community and not a designated community. As a result, it is not getting all the funding it should be getting to work on this important issue. Is it not time to broaden and review this definition and acknowledge that people experiencing homelessness are no longer just in big cities, but that they are on the move and that the face of homelessness has changed?”
“Mr. Speaker, the first part of my colleague's speech focused on housing, an issue on the minds of a lot of people right now. People are having a hard time finding housing or buying a home. This throne speech reveals the Liberal government's willingness to play the role of a real estate developer, even though housing is a jurisdiction that belongs to Quebec and the provinces, in co-operation with the municipalities. Can the member explain how the Conservative Party ultimately persuaded the Liberal Party to adopt its idea of setting conditions on municipalities in order to obtain funds for housing? Simply put, this is yet another Liberal-Conservative attempt to interfere in the jurisdictions of Quebec and the municipalities.”