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 3 of 13.
“Mr. Speaker, today once again, we see the Conservatives drawing conclusions. I just returned from a constituency week. Naturally, people talked to me about inflation, about increasing food bank use and about increasing homelessness. They talked to me about all of that. However, what we are debating today would not help any of these people. In fact, $2.4 billion was lost as a result of the Liberals' decision to suspend the excise tax until September. This measure only resulted in $59 for the lowest-income households. In the end, that is not what they need. They need more meaningful solutions. What does my colleague think? Where will that money come from in the end? With today's motion, the Conservative Party wants to increase the deficit without explaining where it will make cuts. Economically, that does not add up.”
“In a context of significant financial needs and with the heavy burden of pressure and responsibility on Quebec, does my colleague believe that we are entitled to that $814 million?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to read today's Conservative motion and discuss what is missing from the motion. I have a question for my colleague. One of the things we in the Bloc Québécois have noticed is that this Conservative motion is missing something. In the spring of 2025, a vote-buying cheque was sent out to everyone in the provinces, except people in Quebec and British Columbia. While people in the rest of Canada were receiving cheques, Quebeckers were still paying interest on the debt incurred from those cheques and the carbon tax. We know that the sole purpose of the measure was to buy votes. People in Quebec did not pay that tax. In the end, Ottawa literally stole more than $814 million from Quebeckers through the Liberals' vote-buying cheques. The Conservatives have also left that out of today's motion.”
“Mr. Speaker, the government likes to brag a lot about the economic update, saying from the get-go that it addresses the cost-of-living issue and that it will solve the current problem of inflation. However, there is not much in this economic statement that actually helps people, particularly those most affected by inflation, such as people on fixed incomes, like seniors. Nothing was announced for them. That was something that the Bloc Québécois had asked for. There is an unfairness among seniors. This government created two classes of seniors and it is still unable to solve this problem, even though it has economic consequences. Why did my colleague and his government not use this economic update to ensure that all seniors receive the same pension amoun, starting at age 65?”
“I hear about other concerns that the government has not acted or has let things drag on. For example, its inadequate announcement on the issue of temporary foreign workers is having consequences on businesses. I think that, if we can get beyond the smoke and mirrors, we can work together, collectively, in the House of Commons, with as little partisanship as possible, to help our local businesses.”
“Mr. Speaker, businesses in my riding are obviously asking questions. The government is taking steps, but the steps often do not match up with the businesses' needs. For example, the loan announced yesterday is smoke and mirrors. It will add a burden for businesses, because the assistance is still in the form of a loan, even though businesses in my riding already have loans. At the economic discussions we attended, representatives of Granby Industriel told us that they did not want any more loans because they already had too many. Representatives of BRP also say that they want other solutions and want to know that the government will help them in other ways, for example by using other means that the Bloc Québécois is proposing. This is clearly not enough for our local businesses.”
“Mr. Speaker, this government was elected last year by leading people to believe that it would resolve this conflict with the wave of a magic wand. Here we are, one year later, stuck in this situation. We must act now, because negotiations with the Americans have indeed been dragging on. This continues to have negative impacts. Now that we see that the government has not moved forward or advanced negotiations in the past year and that businesses need help, I would like to know whether the Conservatives will support our motion.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would respond to my colleague by asking him a question. Did this government really act swiftly to protect the lumber industry? Did it adopt a real aerospace policy? He should be aware that the lumber and aerospace industries and other Quebec-specific sectors tend to be neglected in negotiations and during these troubled times. The government was quicker to help Ontario's auto industry than to support Quebec-specific sectors.”
“That was mentioned earlier by my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean . Inaction and inappropriate measures could have a lasting effect on our economy. It is time to take rigorous, responsible and effective action, as the Bloc Québécois has always done for the sake of Quebec's diversified business and economic sector.”
“Potential consequences include plant closures, brain drain and long-term regional decline. When a business closes, the jobs and expertise do not necessarily come back, and that is deeply tragic. Sometimes these things are lost forever. In conclusion, Quebec is particularly vulnerable because its economy is centred on manufacturing and exports. Its economic model is based on SMEs and very small businesses. This context calls for swift, targeted, meaningful action. It is vital to support businesses, protect workers and stabilize the regions. This is so important. I would remind the House that our ridings are home to some incredible family businesses, and we want them to stay in businesses. Every dollar of countertariff revenue should be reinvested directly to support the people grappling with the consequences of the tariff war.”
“We also want to support businesses directly by prioritizing grants over loans and addressing their short-term cash flow needs. We are also proposing another solution: a one-stop shop for SMEs to simplify access to programs, reduce the administrative burden and provide clear, centralized support. As the employment and labour critic, I would also add that employment insurance reform is necessary and of utmost importance to ensuring support for those who, despite everything, will lose their jobs during this crisis. Our social safety net must be adjusted to account for 2026 conditions. The Bloc Québécois believes employment insurance reform is crucial, and we will continue to push for it. The economic risk of doing nothing is immense. Quebec will lose an estimated $8 billion per year.”
“The advantage is that it helps maintain employment relationships and prevents mass layoffs. By protecting the employment relationship, this measure helps to retain expertise and avoid higher social costs. That is important. There is also the idea of buying local. We suggest introducing a local procurement policy to support local processing and economic self-sufficiency. This morning, I met with representatives from companies such as Lassonde, which sells beverages. This morning, these food processing companies emphasized that there is no policy, no commitment. Government must lead by example. Much of it depends on institutional frameworks, but we must put this policy in place. It was part of the Bloc's proposals during the last election campaign, a year ago. We wanted Canada to pass a sort of “Buy Canadian Act” to prioritize buying local.”
“He heard this from representatives of economic organizations in Quebec, who raised this point. That will not solve the problem, because the fundamental issue is not that businesses lack access to credit; it is that they are already in debt, as I said. However, they are cash-strapped and unable to continue their operations during this period of uncertainty, so we do need to offer loans to businesses that are experiencing revenue losses. However, if we focus solely on that solution, it amounts to increasing their debt burden, so we are not coming out ahead. The Bloc Québécois is instead proposing concrete measures that are tailored to the situation. We keep coming back to our first idea: the wage subsidy. This solution is based on the model used during the pandemic, which worked well.”
“Mr. Speaker, I sincerely apologize to the interpreters. I never turn the pages like that, but I forgot. They will be going in another direction. The problem is the government's inadequate response. The government was slow to react, and the economic update initially contained no measures tailored to the crisis. While $10.1 billion was collected in tariffs, only $5.7 billion is being redistributed. This leaves $4.4 billion unused while businesses are struggling, and the announced measures rely primarily on loans. They are proposing $1 billion through the Business Development Bank of Canada and $500 million through regional agencies. This is good, but the problem, as my colleague from Joliette—Manawan said and as he heard in committee, is that businesses are already over-indebted.”
“Even without a specific high-profile case, the signals are still clear: loss of contracts, delayed projects and growing economic uncertainty. Businesses have to adapt, but many fear that they will have to reduce their staff. In Granby and elsewhere, businesses no longer know whether to invest or simply survive. This is a reality they are experiencing. (1245) The problem is the government's response, which is inadequate—”
“Some businesses are losing between 30% and 50% of their sales in the span of just a few weeks.U.S. buyers are turning to local suppliers to avoid risk. This is a reality throughout Quebec, including in the highly entrepreneurial and industrial city of Granby, in my riding of Shefford. It is home to many small and medium-sized manufacturers. I want to acknowledge the work of Granby Industriel and the incredible Granby industrial park. From Rougemont to Racine, businesses allow the beautiful riding of Shefford to thrive. However, we have to recognize that we are dependent on exports to the United States. It took media coverage about one case for us to wake up. It was the case of BRP, whose share price plummeted.”
“Now, Washington is not just taxing metal, but also Quebec's value added, know-how and labour. The economic impact is already very real and the consequences are already being felt in Quebec: 9,700 jobs have been lost in the manufacturing sector. Other data indicate that there is a 5.1% decline in employment in some sectors and 441,000 manufacturing workers are at risk. In the aluminum sector, 65% of SMEs are reporting a drop in sales and 47% are anticipating layoffs. Nearly one in three businesses are worried about their survival. This is not a future risk; it is a full-fledged crisis. This has a real impact on businesses. Some businesses are experiencing very immediate consequences, such as cancelled orders, loss of competitiveness and sudden cost increases. For example, a $30,000 part can generate $7,500 in tariffs.”
“It is an economic crisis that threatens the very fabric of our industry. The city of Valcourt, in my riding of Shefford, is a symbol of Quebec industry, of Quebec entrepreneurship, where a small garage grew into today's Bombardier. As the member for Shefford, I am well aware of Quebec's unique industrial fabric and the entrepreneurship developed over the years that now sets us apart. What happened on April 6 is a total game-changer. Since then, a 25% tariff has been applied to the total value of products containing over 15% steel, aluminum or copper. As a result, products that were once exempt are now being taxed. This means that a lot more companies are now being affected. Here are a few key facts: 24% of Quebec's exports to the U.S. are now targeted, and the average effective tariff rate has climbed from 5.7% to 9.6%.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on today's important Bloc Québécois motion on the U.S. tariffs and the impact on businesses and workers. They absolutely need our support in this time of uncertainty. I welcome this motion, and I am very pleased to speak to it. Since April 6, Quebec has been hit hard by a major economic shock. Donald Trump made a decision to impose new tariffs, which come as a direct attack on our businesses. These are not abstract numbers. Workers, SMEs and entire regions are affected. I would like to commend our whistle-blower, the member for Joliette—Manawan , who alerted us through his amazing work on the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology. I thank him for notifying us and for keeping an eye out on behalf of Quebec businesses. What we are currently facing is no mere trade dispute.”
“He shared the very real case of a woman who was subjected to this and described the pain and the wounds, both psychological and physical, that she suffered as a result of forced sterilization. In closing, these women have been ignored and silenced. We cannot forget the victims who have suffered as a result of this atrocity. As parliamentarians, we have a collective responsibility to take action today. By supporting this bill, we can appeal for justice, dignity and recognition. As a final point, I want to say that this bill is a step toward making amends, but, above all, it is a commitment to never tolerate this unacceptable act again. We are hearing more and more about the need for reconciliation lately, and I believe this bill aligns perfectly with that objective.”
“We could take inspiration from the Collège des médecins du Québec, whose initiatives promote collaboration and take a co-operative approach. As we have been saying, despite some criticism, this bill does seek to protect physicians. I think physicians want to collaborate on this issue, and we applaud their initiatives considering that the law must be translated into practice. It will take awareness campaigns to make that happen. We must eliminate the stigma and taboo surrounding forced sterilization, which is indeed still happening. My colleague, the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue , talked about this a little earlier in his question. He used to serve on the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs, and I know he took an interest in this issue.”
“We want it to respect Quebec's jurisdiction over health care. As Bloc Québécois members have repeatedly said, the involvement of indigenous nations is a must. Nation-to-nation discussions are consistent with our vision, and we naturally want indigenous nations to be involved going forward. We also want to remind members that we will always reject any attempts at federal overcentralization. We will have to keep an eye out, because we see that this federal regime is yet another in a constant stream of attempts to overcentralize. The rights of these indigenous women and girls must be protected while respecting jurisdictions. Obviously, a law alone is not enough. Professionals also have to be trained. A monitoring and cultural adaptation mechanism also needs to be implemented.”
“There is are very systemic and social aspect, which is that the groups affected by this issue are indigenous women, racialized women and persons with disabilities. This violence is rooted in power imbalances, as I mentioned earlier. The truly tragic thing about this is that there are many consequences. We are talking about trauma and loss of trust, but also an intergenerational impact. It is not just an attack on a person's body; it is an attack on their entire life. Taking away a woman's ability to give birth is an attack on her right to choose whether to do so. This assault lasts a lifetime for a woman, who will later experience the psychological and physical scars of it all, because there will be scars, many of them. The Bloc Québécois strongly supports this bill, with certain reservations, of course.”
“To respond to criticism about criminalizing doctors, I would say that this is a clear law that also protects practitioners. We encourage enhanced consent protocols. The same logic applies to medical assistance in dying or caring for the incapacitated. Above all, we want to avoid a legal vacuum. There are reports that show the current recourse system has failed. Right now, this is a theoretical right with no actual enforcement, which does not really constitute protection. (1135) On top of that, there is the stigma of silence. There is a stigma attached to this. There is also a lack of recognition. It is a taboo subject that no one talks about. By naming it, we are recognizing it, and by recognizing it, we are ultimately protecting these women so that they can continue to make their own decisions about their bodies.”
“Sexual assault needs to be explicitly defined. That takes political will, but this legislative change must be made so that it is perfectly clear to institutions that there will be zero tolerance. This right needs to be explicitly stated to better protect these women. We need to clarify that sterilization is mutilation, a form of aggravated assault. It is defined as any procedure that prevents reproduction. We need to ensure that there is free and informed prior consent. Yes, the purpose criterion protects necessary medical procedures. Of course, we are talking about protecting physicians, but the consent must be valid to exclude any criminal liability. Emergencies are also covered by section 45 of the Criminal Code. This bill protects patients without penalizing professionals who are acting in good faith. That is what we want to do here.”
“In Quebec, 22 cases have been documented, 30 Atikamekw women have filed a lawsuit and testimony has recently been heard in 35 cases. Let us talk about the issue of consent. These women are often asked for consent when they are in pain and in a vulnerable position. They are often pressured to make a decision. It is reasonable to wonder whether consent is valid when it is obtained from a person in a vulnerable position. This is not something that happened way back in the past. There are still cases before the courts today. Why do we need to legislate? This constitutes assault, which is already an offence. However, it is difficult to clearly define the act, to take legal action. It is very difficult to punish something that is not clearly defined. That is how we see it. I would like to make a comparison.”
“I will share some statistics. Between 1966 and 1976, there were 1,200 sterilizations, 1,150 of which were performed on indigenous women. Clearly, they are overrepresented. In Alberta, 74% of the women who were sterilized were indigenous. This reflects a legacy of eugenics and colonial policies. There were 580 documented cases between 1970 and 1975. These practices were intended to control certain groups that were deemed “undesirable”. This is systemic racism, and it leads to health inequalities. Contrary to what we might think, this is an issue that is still timely today, as I mentioned in my introduction. There have been some class-action lawsuits. Over 100 women filed suit in Saskatchewan, and another five lawsuits have been filed across Canada and beyond its borders.”
“Some of these topics are very sensitive and hard to discuss. I will address this one by invoking a fundamental principle: the right to control one's own body. This right is at the heart of any free and democratic society. Let us be clear: Forced sterilization is a human rights violation. It is an irreversible violation and a form of institutional violence. This is not a theoretical debate. In 2026, it is still a reality that, unfortunately, has not yet been eradicated. Behind this bill are women who were deprived of the choice to bring a child into the world. It is unspeakably cruel. As the mother of a four-year-old girl, I have to say this is a very difficult subject. It is not a simple issue. It is a reality that is part of a very dark chapter of our history. This is, of course, a historical legacy of colonialism.”
“Mr. Speaker, first I want to point out something that is not directly related to today's topic but that still concerns an issue that affects it, although indirectly. I am wearing a red dress pin because tomorrow, May 5, we commemorate Red Dress Day. It is a time to remember missing and murdered indigenous women and girls. (1130) There are some topics that are hard to talk about in the House. Allow me to establish a link. Following my election in 2019, Senator Miville‑Dechêne reached out to me and told me about an all-party group on human trafficking and modern slavery. I was surprised that human trafficking and modern slavery still existed in 2019. Perhaps I was naive and living with my head in the clouds. Today, in 2026, I cannot believe I am forced to rise to speak to a bill about forced sterilization.”
“Mr. Speaker, regarding Bill S‑3 , I want to hear my colleague talk about the context in his province. At home in Quebec, we have Hydro-Québec and Énergir. In the new context of a majority government, we are going to see more than ever the government, in this federal system, try to interfere in Quebec's jurisdictions and give itself more powers. The Bloc Québécois wants to make sure that Hydro‑Québec and Énergir are at least heard in committee. We want to ensure that Quebec's jurisdictions are respected and that the minister refrains from interfering even more. What does my colleague think about our desire to ensure that Quebec's jurisdictions are respected in this area?”
“Little by little, they are trying to chip away at the powers that are rightfully ours. As I said, Quebec is a pioneer in many areas. We have a proven track record when it comes to labour. Quebec knows how to train its workforce. Quebec knows how to recognize the skills of its workers. Quebec knows how to meet its regional needs, and Quebec knows how to collaborate when it is useful, but Quebec does not need a federal arbiter, a national framework, a new bureaucracy or a new structure. This bill does not address the labour shortage. If anything, it addresses Ottawa's need to always be involved. That is why the Bloc Québécois will vote against Bill C-266 in recognition of Quebec's jurisdiction over its workers and its labour market.”
“What we are seeing once again is that anytime there is a crisis, the federal government sees it as an opportunity to introduce bills that interfere in the provinces' areas of jurisdiction. I get the impression that, with the situation with our American neighbours, the federal government is definitely trying to find “Ottawa knows best” solutions. However, that is not how things work. The Bloc Québécois criticized Bill C-5 and its many encroachments thanks to its Canadian projects led by Ottawa. However, Bill C-266 follows exactly the same path that we criticized. These attempts at interference have been happening repeatedly since the current Liberal government and Prime Minister were elected. It has not even been a year, but the number of attempts at bills that encroach on Quebec's areas of jurisdiction is extremely worrying.”
“For all these reasons, the Bloc Québécois opposes any frameworks imposed by Ottawa, centralization, Canada-wide standards that bypass Quebec, and the gradual erosion of jurisdictions. Lastly, we do want to talk about the labour shortage, but the problem is a lack of workers, not a lack of structures. The real solution we want is to promote skilled trades to young people. We also want to speed up the recognition of prior learning. We want to invest in skills training. We need to support reskilling, help SMEs train the next generation of employees and allow Quebec to recruit workers based on its needs. All of this is crucial because Canada has had over 700,000 job vacancies on several occasions recently, according to Statistics Canada. A shortage of welders is not going to be solved with a federal committee. That is not how it works.”
“These include the use of French on construction sites, the province's specific construction regulations, Quebec's distinct regional realities, the province's unique industrial needs, and the culture of labour-management co-operation, which must also be taken into account. We need to recognize that labour market needs in Sept-Îles, Rouyn-Noranda, Drummondville or Montreal are not the same as those in Calgary or Halifax. The Canadian labour market is far from uniform. Trying to standardize it is a mistake. We certainly agree on mobility in some form, but the main problem is interference. The Bloc Québécois has a fairly balanced position. We generally support voluntary mutual recognition, the free movement of workers, intergovernmental agreements, the reduction of red tape, and more pragmatic solutions.”
“I often have conversations on Sunday evenings with my brothers, brothers-in-law and other family members. They regularly talk to me about reskilling, training and the very strict rules governing their trades, especially in the construction industry. I can confirm that Quebec is truly at the forefront. There is a risk in allowing Ottawa to take a more centralized approach to managing this. (1800) I would like to share a statistic that might be useful at this stage. The construction sector in Quebec employs more than 300,000 workers. We are talking about a critical sector here, not some administrative detail. Quebec has unique characteristics that are non-negotiable.”
“This raises the following question: If Quebec is already managing the billions of dollars invested in training, why would Ottawa now want to control the rules? We can see that there is a real risk of downgrading standards. The problem with the national framework is that the bill provides for a national list of trades, a comparison of provincial standards and equivalencies, harmonization and regulatory streamlining. That means that Ottawa is establishing itself as a national benchmark. When we see all that, it is clear that it is a danger for Quebec. Such a situation could undermine Quebec's safety standards, its training requirements, its apprenticeship mechanisms, its ability to protect French in the workplace and its unique characteristics in the construction industry. I come from a family of masons and carpenters.”
“Since then, Quebec has been designing, administering and adapting its own training and job entry programs. Ottawa has already acknowledged that Quebec is in a better position to manage its workforce, so why are we taking this step backwards? What is more, what we can say is that the amounts that have already been transferred prove that the Quebec model exists. I will share a few numbers. In 2019, Ottawa announced nearly $5.4 billion in funding for Quebec until 2022‑23 through workforce and labour market agreements. That represents roughly 240,000 more Quebeckers who can benefit from employment and training measures. Ottawa already recognizes that Quebec is better at administering these programs, that needs differ from province to province and that Quebec has its own model.”
“The Bloc Québécois has been clear: This bill is an attempt at centralization disguised as a technical solution. When it comes to employment and labour, Quebec did not wait for Ottawa to take action. Quebec already has a comprehensive system and it already manages its labour policies with the Commission de la construction du Québec, the Commission des partenaires du marché du travail, Services Québec, vocational training centres, the CEGEPs that offer technical programs and employer and labour organizations. We already have a lot of labour policies. It is important to take a moment here to review the history. In 1997, Ottawa recognized Quebec's responsibility for active employment measures through the Canada–Québec Labour Market Development Agreement in Principle.”
“Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague from Laurentides—Labelle indicated where we stand on Bill C-266 , an act to establish a national framework respecting skilled trades and labour mobility. This bill is presented as a practical measure aimed at facilitating the mobility of skilled workers. Who could possibly oppose credential recognition? Who could oppose streamlining administrative procedures? Who could oppose faster access to the labour market? Behind these good intentions lies a well-known strategy. Ottawa is using a real problem to grant itself new powers in an area that falls under Quebec jurisdiction. Skills training, trade certification, workforce planning and labour market organization are all Quebec's responsibility. Quebec already has its own institutions, mechanisms, partners and economic priorities.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his work on this matter. I had the opportunity to speak at an earlier stage of his bill and took the chance to highlight Quebec's pioneering role in organ donation. More specifically, I outlined the history of Transplant Québec. How does my colleague view this alignment and the fact that people outside Quebec will finally be able to share in Quebec's experience, enabling them to benefit from the improvements in these life-saving transplants?”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Winnipeg Centre, with whom I have had the opportunity to serve on several committees, including the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. In her speech, she noted that certain communities had concerns, particularly regarding resource development. She seemed to be saying that they still need to be listened to and still have concerns. At the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, we have often talked about the fact that indigenous and Métis women are disproportionately affected by so many issues. How will this bill actually help indigenous and Métis women? What can my colleague propose to truly ensure that their rights are respected?”
“Mr. Speaker, as we have seen, particularly at the beginning of the year, people's understanding of history varies greatly. However, there is an old saying: to know where we are going, we have to know where we came from. There are very direct and very close ties between the Métis people and Quebec. My colleague seems to have touched briefly on the historical aspect at the end of his speech. Are there any other historical details he would like to add to provide members with more information?”
“Mr. Speaker, since my colleague serves on the national security committee, can he tell me why the government is granting our law enforcement and intelligence agencies more power in this bill while also cutting the budget of the agency responsible for overseeing them? The National Security and Intelligence Review Agency's budget was slashed by 15% in the name of cost-cutting measures that can only be described as penny-pinching, when this is a very important issue. Can my colleague from Hull—Aylmer explain that?”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on the comment and question raised earlier by my colleague from Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon . Although Bill C-22 corrects certain aspects of last year's Bill C-2 , according to the Canadian Bar Association, it falls far short of addressing all the gaps and issues raised during the study of Bill C-2. Several issues still need to be examined and addressed during the study of Bill C-22. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.”
“This motion will help, because the solutions must be tailored to local realities, particularly those of indigenous communities and the farming sector. We have lakes, mountains and land to protect. This is essential for future generations. We will work to get this motion adopted. I want to once again congratulate my neighbour and colleague from Brome—Missisquoi .”
“It promotes physical and mental well-being, yet access to nature, be it lakes or mountains, is becoming increasingly limited. We must protect nature, but also ensure people have access to it close to home. Finally, we need to develop a comprehensive approach and tailor programs to indigenous communities. I want to emphasize that. We also need to facilitate conservation on agricultural land. Farmers keep telling us that they want to be part of the solution when it comes to protecting the land. They do not always want to be blamed. We need to continue working with them and facilitating the conservation of these agricultural lands. The federal approach needs to be more consistent, since it is sometimes ineffective. We need to work on that.”
“Behind every conservation project, there are citizens, volunteers and organizations deeply rooted in our communities. I would like to commend Martine and her team at Fondation SÉTHY. The landscapes of southern Quebec are often overlooked, yet over 80% of the population lives there. These areas are rich in biodiversity, but they are also under pressure, with species in need of protection. This creates conflicts between economic development and conservation. An integrated approach is needed. The places where people live are exactly where we need to be working and developing the economy, since there is more pressure on biodiversity in those areas. We must restore access to nature. It is a social and health issue, as I mentioned earlier. Doctors are now prescribing nature baths and forest bathing.”
“We want to put forward meaningful, credible solutions for long-term funding. The proposals include creating a $150-million investment fund for conservation in Canada. We are talking about endowment-type funding, long-term support for land management to make long-term planning and maintenance possible. Ad hoc funding and unproductive announcements are critical issues that need to be addressed because protecting land is not a single act. It is a commitment for generations to come. This has an impact in our ridings. It is highly relevant to strengthening political roots, given that there are 150 conservation organizations, over 13,000 volunteers and more than 250,000 hectares of protected land. There is a tangible presence in our ridings and a direct impact on local communities.”
“According to a letter I received from a coalition of organizations, that translates into 31 out of 980 projects. That means only 10% of the land is being protected and receiving funding. The problem is not a lack of projects. It is a lack of federal funding. As I said earlier, we are in the midst of consultations. The federal government has its part to play. Quebec is fulfilling its responsibilities and organizations on the ground need to be supported. The organizations are ready, the projects exist and communities are prepared to do the work, but Ottawa is not always doing what it needs to. The strategic impact we are hoping to achieve is to show that the current system is not operating at full capacity. This justifies the need to go further than Motion No. 15, even though it is a very good start.”
“People want to donate to protect nature and that should be encouraged, regardless of the form the donation takes. I also want to point out that protecting natural environments helps to improve quality of life, provides access to nature and ensures that the land is protected. Access to nature is proven to have a direct impact on both physical and psychological health. There is a connection between protecting natural environments and the growth of our regions, particularly for the local communities that depend on these wonderful areas for their livelihood. Protecting biodiversity means protecting our living environments. We are really talking about chronic underfunding. The government has made announcements recently, but I still want to remind the House that only 3% of projects receive support.”