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 6 of 13.
“The Bloc Québécois is not asking Canada to changes its model; it is asking that Quebec be permitted to make its own choices. Living together involves more than cohabitation alone. It involves building together based on a common language and shared values. Bill C‑245 is reasonable, legitimate and consistent with the recognition of Quebec as a nation. I would like to end my speech by calling attention to the presence of organizations in the riding of Shefford that spare no effort when it comes to spreading knowledge of our history and of who we Quebeckers are as a people. Obviously, we cannot ignore the Prime Minister 's speech on the Plains of Abraham, which showed his lack of knowledge about Quebec's history and culture.”
“Interculturalism is based on French as the civic language, shared democratic values and genuine connection among citizens. In the Bloc Québécois's view, interculturalism is consistent with the reality of a minority nation. That is why we think that Bill C‑245 is necessary. Quebec takes in immigrants, funds their integration and develops its own policies. It is only logical, then, that the Canadian Multiculturalism Act not apply in Quebec. Bill C‑245 does not eliminate or impose multiculturalism in Canada. It simply allows an extremely important exemption provision for Quebec. The Bloc Québécois sees this as a question of consistency, autonomy and respect. In closing, Canada is free to choose multiculturalism. Quebec chooses interculturalism.”
“In the Bloc's opinion, French is not a tool for exclusion, it is a tool for integration and community engagement. However, there are limits to French-language training. Quebec has been focusing on that for more than 20 years now. Quebec's auditor general has concluded that French-language training policies have a limited impact, especially in the short and medium term. Experts believe that immigration is the main lever for influencing the future of French. Economic immigrants account for 60.9% of immigration to Quebec. Unlike other countries, in Quebec, the language of the majority does not impose itself naturally. Quebec's solution is interculturalism. Quebec has developed its own model, known as interculturalism. With this model, we want to recognize diversity, but we also want to emphasize integration into a common culture.”
“Francophones represent approximately 22% of the Canadian population and less than 2% of the North American population. As we know, French is in decline in Quebec and remains a minority language in Canada and an ultra-minority language in North America. Quebec's choices cannot therefore be those of a dominant majority. Quebec's weight in this federal system is also at play. We can come back to that as well. What is important, ultimately, is that French is there as a language of cohesion. (1115) In Montreal, only 51.3% of people use French as their primary language at home. Across Quebec as a whole, that figure rises to 80.6%. People can live in Montreal without speaking French, but then they cannot fully engage in Quebec society. That much is obvious.”
“It is a vision that values the coexistence of cultures, but without any real common ground. This essentially sows a form of identity confusion, particularly among new Quebeckers, by claiming that there is only one nation in Canada. The aim is to weaken Quebec's national identity and replace it with a single Canadian identity. We can see that at work. That is what Canadian multiculturalism is achieving. The Canadian Multiculturalism Act recognizes groups based on their ethnic origin, finances their distinct development, and promotes the development of parallel communities. The result is social fragmentation, moral relativism, and a weakening of common values. A society is not built simply by populations living side by side. Quebec is a minority nation that must protect itself.”
“For us, in the Bloc Québécois, this is a matter of nationhood, because Quebec is a distinct nation with its language, culture, collective choices and history, which I will talk more about later if I have time at the end of my speech. As we can see, Canadian multiculturalism is a denial of Canada's plurinational character and gives Quebec the status of one ethnic minority among others. A nation must be able to define itself and choose its own approach to integration. As I said, Canadian multiculturalism is a state ideology. Canada's multiculturalism policy has been in place since 1971 and is enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and in the Canadian Multiculturalism Act of 1988. It is based on the myth that Canada is fundamentally multicultural, without a clearly defined host society.”
“Obviously, this is rather symbolic for me because I represent the riding of Shefford, which was once represented by one of the three founding members of the Bloc Québécois, Jean Lapierre. That is one of the ideas that sparked the formation of the Bloc Québécois. First, it is important to clarify what this debate is about. Quebec is a diverse society. Ethnocultural diversity is an inescapable reality in our society, a part of everyday life. I want to say that today's debate is not about inclusion, but rather about the political model chosen to organize community life. It is essential to make a clear distinction: Diversity is not multiculturalism. Multiculturalism is a government ideology set out in a federal act.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat unusual for me to be rising this morning to speak to Bill C-245 , which was introduced by my colleague from Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères and which seeks to amend the Canadian Multiculturalism Act so that it does not apply in Quebec. This is something that the Bloc Québécois has taken a strong stance on, something that we are calling for. In a way, multiculturalism undermines the rights of the founding peoples. I would even go so far as to say that the Canadian political regime's official policy of denial of the Quebec nation is the fundamental reason for the existence of the Bloc Québécois as a political party operating at the federal level.”
“In the end, the Liberal government decided to challenge the ruling. To wrap up, the Bloc Québécois's position is clear. We support Bill C-222 . However, we must point out that this bill is only necessary because the federal system is broken. Quebec workers in federally regulated sectors must have the same protections as other workers. I would like to remind everyone of something I did not have time to address earlier: With the QPIP, the Quebec parental insurance plan, Quebec made a conscious decision to maintain benefits even in the event of illness or the death of the child. It is a personal, humane and respectful approach to grief. The Bloc Québécois supports this bill because parents should not have to choose between mourning and staying afloat financially.”
“Lastly, it amended the provision disqualifying people from receiving EI regular benefits if they had lost their employment because of domestic violence or because of a return to education due to family responsibilities. It was an important bill. We had another battle to fight because that act, which has not been amended since 1971, also discriminates against women. In 2022, the courts ruled that it was unacceptable for women to be penalized for having children and that working women should be eligible for benefits if they lose their jobs, even if they were on maternity leave. A mother who loses her job during her maternity leave or shortly after returning to work cannot accumulate the number of hours needed to qualify for EI benefits. We had been calling for that reform for quite some time.”
“Still, a number of groups that work on EI issues highlighted and welcomed certain aspects of this bill. It was a major overhaul. I will list a few highlights of the bill, which was introduced by the Bloc Québécois at the time. It established a single hybrid criterion of 420 hours or 12 weeks of 14 hours. It increased the current benefit rate from 55% to 60%, based on the best 12 weeks of earnings. It increased insurable earnings to 140% of the annualized average weekly earnings. It increased the minimum benefit period to 35 weeks. It increased special sickness benefits from 26 weeks to 50 weeks. It extended the qualifying period for special benefits.”
“We always get panicked calls at our offices from people asking how they are supposed to heal, because they will not recover in 15 weeks. When will this change? When will people get more weeks for a dignified recovery? I would like to commend Louise Chabot, the former member of Parliament for Thérèse-De Blainville, for reintroducing a bill in November 2024, Bill C-418 . With that bill, she drew on her own experience and attempted to change the number of weeks for cases of serious illness. She extended the duration, and her bill still included the idea of increasing the benefit period from 15 weeks to 50 for cases of serious illness. Unfortunately, the bill died on the Order Paper when former prime minister Justin Trudeau prorogued Parliament.”
“Consider the case of Émilie Sansfaçon, which is rather shocking. This mother fought two cancers and was forced to go back to work as soon as her chemotherapy treatments were over. As a result, she did not get the recovery period she deserved. It is rare to recover from cancer in 15 weeks. She was really a victim of the Employment Insurance Act, which has not changed since 1971. I wanted to put that on the record. We have raised this issue in the House of Commons, and we introduced a bill to increase the number of eligible weeks from 15 to 50 in cases of serious illness. However, even though we managed to get a motion adopted in the House of Commons, the Liberal members did vote against it at the time. It showed a blatant lack of humanity towards these folks.”
“It simply rectifies an unacceptable situation. I would like to take a moment to put this in a broader context, namely the Liberals' inaction on EI. This winter, I will be sitting on the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities for the first time. I have been monitoring this file from afar for a long time, working with my former colleagues who served on that committee and who championed the issue of EI. What we ultimately see is that this is part of a pattern of chronic inaction. I have seen this over the years, working in the House, because EI has not been overhauled in decades. (1345) The government refuses, for example, to extend the duration of special EI sickness benefits from 15 to 50 weeks. These are battles that we in the Bloc Québécois have been fighting.”
“No new claims are needed and, of course, cases where there are criminal convictions are excluded. This is a compassionate measure. It is not a financial drain on the federal government, since we know that the infant mortality rate is low and stable. Every year, approximately 380 children under the age of one pass away in Quebec. That is a rate of 4.9 per 1,000 births. We also know that Canada has one of the lowest infant mortality rates in the OECD, so the political conclusion is clear. This measure does not represent a serious financial risk, but it could make a huge difference for families who are affected by this situation. The government cannot use public finances as an excuse not to act. We must also remember that compassion does not cost much and that it is essential in terrible situations such as these. Third, we support this bill.”
“As a result, some grieving parents are forced to plead their case, reapply or return to work too soon when they should be healing. This situation highlights a disconnect between administrative rules and human realities, as well as the rigid approach typical of the federal EI system. This situation is what prompted the realization that led to this bill. Second, Bill C‑222 corrects this by proposing a simple, targeted and compassionate measure to maintain EI benefits in the event of the death of a child during a benefit period. The goal is to retain maternity or parental leave under the Canada Labour Code. It is important to keep in mind that a new claim is not required and no additional reports are required. There is also a clear exception if there is a criminal conviction. That seems appropriate. It is simple.”
“The Bloc Québécois firmly believes that, at times such as this, the government should not be adding to people's suffering, but rather alleviating it as much as possible. When a family is grieving, the priority must be time, dignity and stability, not paperwork, forms and financial anxiety. When a family is grieving a child, that is what should guide us, not bureaucracy. In this speech, I will start by talking about the problems with the federal system that led to this bill. I will then talk about what the bill fixes. Lastly, I will close by launching a broader debate on the Liberals' inaction on EI, particularly in comparison to Quebec and its parental insurance plan. First, the current problem with the federal EI system is that benefits can be stopped if the child passes away. The maternity or parental leave may be challenged.”
“Madam Speaker, I get very emotional when talking about some bills, and Bill C-222 , the relieving grieving parents of an administrative burden act, or Evan's law, is one of them. As my colleague said earlier, most parents cannot imagine what it is like to lose a child. It must be the worst tragedy a parent can experience. I am thinking of my little Naomie, and I am going to give her a big hug tonight. Our children really are what we hold most dear. I will begin by saying that this bill puts humanity and dignity before paperwork. That is how I would sum it up, because this bill addresses a rare but truly heartbreaking reality. The loss of a child is a devastating ordeal, and no family should have to face an administrative burden on top of that.”
“Madam Speaker, I am running out of time. First, on the issue of deepfakes, as I mentioned earlier, I hope that the Standing Committee on the Status of Women can conduct a study on this issue. We now know that AI and deepfake images disproportionately affect women. The consequences of that are huge. Second, with respect to elevating femicide to first-degree murder, I know that some stakeholders called for this in committee. Once Bill C-16 is studied by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, we will see how this aspect will be addressed. Members should stay tuned.”
“After conducting a study at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women with my Conservative colleagues and holding a press conference that even Liberal MPs attended, the issue I raised became non-partisan. The entire committee held a press conference last November to call for the criminalization of coercive control. Finally, just before we left for the holiday break, the government introduced this bill, incorporating this concept. I would also like to highlight the work that has been done with regard to young recruits, to ensure that it will no longer be possible to recruit them from the age of 14. This work was led by my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord. There is something else that I did not talk about much in my speech. My colleague also called for mandatory minimum sentences for serious crimes only.”
“Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean. However, this bill was a team effort. Bloc Québécois members prefer to work as a team. I want to reiterate the active involvement of our colleague and fantastic critic from Rivière-du-Nord , who sits on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. He worked very hard on the issue of the Jordan decision, in collaboration with our former colleague from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, Denis Trudel. I can mention him by name because he no longer sits in the House. As I said, for years, the government refused to listen to Quebec's demands to criminalize coercive control.”
“Madam Speaker, I noted some of our concerns and some of the progress made, which we will support. However, in terms of prevention, I would like to remind members that Bill C-16 will not fix everything. Criminalizing coercive control is really something that groups on the ground are calling for. I had a conversation with people from the shelter in my riding, Maison Alice Desmarais, who shared some truly devastating stories. As I said, these crimes are often predictable and can be prevented if we give the justice system the tools it needs. I want to conclude by saying that, when we talk about tools, that includes financial tools. As my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord mentioned, the issue facing the justice system is really the fiscal imbalance. Ottawa passes laws, but Quebec needs money to enforce them.”
“We therefore need to see how much funding will be transferred to Quebec because, obviously, the administration of justice costs money. The federal government needs to provide funding for that. Finally, the government also needs to improve protection for seniors and vulnerable people. In closing, we need to keep the following in mind when it comes to this bill, which is so important and contains so many measures: The justice system must not only punish crime; it must also protect the victims of crime. That is what should and will guide us when we study this bill in committee. Then, we will have to see how Bill C-16 will be implemented to determine whether it really meets victims' needs.”
“In closing, we support the bill, but we must still remain vigilant. If Bill C-16 is passed, we will have responsibilities regarding its implementation. We support Bill C-16 because, as we said, it reflects several of the Bloc Québécois's positions. It strengthens victim protection and finally recognizes forms of violence that have long been ignored. However, we will remain vigilant to eliminate any blind spots and ensure that Quebec's jurisdictions are respected. We will be vigilant in committee and elsewhere. I would like to quickly come back to something. The appointment of judges is a federal responsibility. We need judges for this bill to be implemented properly, but the appointment process is slow. Quebec is responsible for the administration of justice, but the problem is the fiscal imbalance.”
“The message is that young people must be truly protected, not used as cannon fodder, which is what is happening right now. Regarding the recruitment of young people into organized crime, I know that my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord has also advocated for this measure and lamented the fact that too many young people are still being recruited into organized crime. Nevertheless, I would like to raise a few concerns. When it comes to victims' rights and restorative justice, we have to be careful about the means used. The Bloc Québécois welcomes, among other things, strengthening the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights. Quebec strongly supports restorative justice mechanisms, but has issued a clear warning: Without judges, resources and adequate funding, these rights will remain theoretical.”
“It might be worthwhile in terms of proposing other possible solutions. We know that legislation is an important step, but it is rarely the last one. We will need to continue to monitor its implementation and the consequences of all this. Bill C-16 addresses another interesting issue, namely young people being recruited into organized crime. We know that organized crime is recruiting more and more young people, at increasingly younger ages, using social media to exploit their vulnerabilities. We in the Bloc Québécois support the creation of a specific offence to target the real perpetrators. It is important to remember that many of these young people are unfortunately being killed after having been recruited, as was the case with Mohamed-Yanis Seghouani, who was 14 years old. That is unacceptable.”
“Our position is that recognizing coercive control is a real step forward, but we must ensure that no victim is left behind. That needs to be the next step, so we will be monitoring its implementation. When it comes to sexual violence, deepfakes and cybercrime, it is clear that AI does have an impact. The Bloc Québécois supports the ban on pornographic deepfakes. We also support broadening the definition of intimate images. We also want to see tougher penalties and we would like to point out that, ultimately, young women and teenage girls are the main targets of these new forms of violence. I hope that a study will be conducted. In fact, it is possible that the Standing Committee on the Status of Women will soon be studying the impact of AI on violence against women. A motion to that effect could be presented in the near future.”
“(1255) I also want to mention an interview I heard following the murder of Véronic Champagne. One of her friends said that femicide was one of the most preventable crimes; she was referring to coercive control. There are often warning signs of what is to come, but unfortunately, as long as it is not included in the Criminal Code, the police do not have the tools they need to act sooner, to act upstream. That is really what the recognition of coercive control is for. Again, the Elder Justice Coalition report states that coercive violence also affects seniors, dependant individuals, and women living with cognitive disorders. According to this organization, domestic violence against seniors has increased by 49% since 2018 in Canada.”
“In terms of coercive control, although the bill is making significant progress, there is room for improvement. In fact, I launched a study in committee to look into the possibility of criminalizing coercive control following a request from elected representatives who had worked on the report “Rebâtir la confiance” in the Quebec National Assembly and who told us that they could not take action because the matter fell under the Criminal Code. I then proposed a study on the subject. I have been pushing for this for several months, if not years. We therefore welcome the creation of the offence of coercive control. This recognition is key because violence is not just physical. It can be psychological, financial, social and invisible. Violence, in these forms, often starts much earlier.”
“Sexual violence is massively under-reported. Almost 90% of sexual assaults are never reported. In 2024, femicides in Canada took the lives of 81 women killed by an intimate partner, 25 of them in Quebec. A number of cases have already been reported since the start of 2026. I talked about that earlier. I also want to acknowledge the loved ones of Susana Rocha Cruz, Mary Tukalak Iqiquq and Tajan'ah Desir. That is already far too many. Now I want to address a new critical piece of information. I received a letter from the Canadian Femicide Observatory for Justice and Accountability. Fifty-five per cent of senior women killed by a family member were killed by their own sons. This statistic comes from a letter sent to us by the observatory explaining its position on Bill C-16.”
“Bill C-16 now makes corrections, particularly with regard to the Jordan decision, which the Bloc Québécois strongly supports, clearly. During the previous Parliament, we even introduced a bill that sought to provide a framework for the Jordan decision. My colleague from Rivière-du-Nord , our justice critic, spoke about it and worked on this issue. Bill C-16 clarifies the criteria for determining the complexity of cases. Certain time limits are excluded from the calculation, judges have the option of ordering remedies other than discontinuing proceedings and there is a new key element, namely that the court will have to consider the impact on victims of public confidence. We welcome these positive steps. Now, I want to focus our attention on violence against women. I am going to present some more figures that compel us to act.”
“I will also point out a few concerns that I have near the end of my speech. Let us look first at a few statistics. We see that some criminals are never brought to justice because of court delays. As a result of the Jordan decision, serious criminal cases have been dismissed because of unreasonable delays. Here are some actual numbers: Thirteen cases were dismissed in 2021, 18 in 2022, 96 in 2023 and 62 in 2024, and that is just looking at partial data. These cases included sexual assault, domestic violence, crimes against children and criminal harassment. That has a direct impact on victims, who are retraumatized by this and by the fact that offenders get to enjoy a form of judicial impunity. That is why action had to be taken. The Bloc Québécois made several requests.”
“I have seen that for myself, and I wish Rougemont, a close-knit community, a collective healing. At least this vigil, this moment of gathering, allowed us to begin the mourning process for the entire Rougemont community and the region. What we want to see with Bill C-16 is a justice system that truly protects victims. This bill seeks to address a crisis of confidence in the criminal justice system. All too often, victims, most of whom are women, children, and even seniors, experience violence and then are revictimized by the justice system. I get messages about that. That means that our justice system is failing to protect victims and letting them down. This system reproduces the violence that it claims to combat. I want to give a few statistics and then I will talk about the positive measures included in this bill.”
“Madam Speaker, let me begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with the member for St. Albert—Sturgeon River . Today we are debating Bill C-16 , which means we are talking about court delays, sexual violence and protecting victims. I am speaking today on behalf of the Bloc Québécois. First of all, my party and I would like to extend our deepest condolences to those affected by what is already the fourth femicide in Quebec in 2026. I want to express my sympathy to the family and loved ones of Véronic Champagne, a mother who was killed in Rougemont, in the riding of Shefford. I was especially moved by the vigil organized by the municipality of Rougemont. Times like these make it clear that it is more than just the loved ones and family members of a victim of femicide who are affected. The entire community is in shock.”
“Madam Speaker, my colleague just mentioned that much of what is in the bill was requested a long time ago. I agree with her. She addressed the issue of mandatory minimum sentences for serious crimes and that is something the Bloc Québécois had asked to be reinstated. From what I understand, to ensure that the bill is consistent with the charter and the many Supreme Court decisions that struck down minimum sentences, a notwithstanding clause was included. As far as the issue of mandatory minimum sentences for serious crimes is concerned, the Bloc Québécois has proposed this amendment many times. I would like to know what that means to my colleague. Is that not something constructive that should be studied in committee?”
“Mr. Speaker, seniors aged 65 and up deserve real answers before this turns into another Phoenix scandal. No one should have to wait nine months to get their pension, but there are cases where that is happening. No one should have to spend hours on the phone trying to get through to someone who can help fix the federal government's mistakes. The first step in solving a problem is admitting that there is a problem, instead of downplaying it. The new software is causing tax and financial nightmares for seniors. When will the Liberals stop hiding their heads in the sand?”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by noting that Quebec's fourth femicide tragically took place in the riding of Shefford. My thoughts are with Véronic Champagne's family and loved ones. A vigil was held in Rougemont. I was really struck by what one of her friends said in an interview. She said that femicide is one of the most easily preventable crimes, because there are often warning signs. This brings me back to the issue of coercive control. In committee, we heard that, until coercive control is recognized in the Criminal Code, police officers will lack the key tools to intervene more quickly and proactively, before the situation escalates to femicide. My question is very simple, essential and important. What does my colleague think about what came out of the committee?”
“The women who appeared before the Standing Committee on the Status of Women were very critical of that. I will close by commenting on a situation that I found very concerning. A woman came to share her experience with us. She spoke mainly about the importance of developing criteria for the application of the Jordan decision. In her case, because of unreasonable delays, her abuser got off scot-free under the Jordan decision. However, to be frank, rather than actually listening to the victim, the Liberals and the Conservatives dug in their heels and played petty politics at committee.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is true that there are a lot of measures in Bill C-16 . That is why it will be important to carefully study the bill in committee. Earlier, I spoke about the work that I did to spearhead a study in committee. I have been advocating for years about the importance of revisiting the issue of coercive control and criminalizing it. I have been waging this battle at the request of the Quebec National Assembly. Finally, we have something about that in this bill. My colleague from Rivière-du-Nord has been waging another battle, that of creating guidelines for the application of the Jordan decision. My colleague spoke about that in his speech. As a result of the Jordan decision, some offenders got away with their crimes, even in cases of assault, because of court delays.”
“Mr. Speaker, emotions are running high in this debate. We are thinking about all the women who have been victims of femicide and the fact that femicides are on the rise. The bill does contain one measure that women's groups have long been calling for. On their behalf, I spearheaded a study on the criminalization of coercive control at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. Bill C-16 paves the way. What does my colleague think about that?”
“The United Nations Committee on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families noted that 70% of migrant workers in Indonesia are women; they are victims of sexual exploitation and violence and are also exposed to the risk of human trafficking. What are my colleague's thoughts on that?”
“Mr. Speaker, my takeaway from this afternoon is that we are being led to believe that economic interests and human rights are totally irreconcilable. With its bill to reverse the burder of proof in cases of forced labour, however, the Bloc Québécois is strengthening ties. Indeed, that just happens to be one of the things that the United States has requested of us as it takes action to ensure that our products are not made with forced labour. It is rather striking. We are talking about the rights of migrant workers, women in particular. I know that my colleague is also concerned about this issue.”
“It directly responds to a request from American elected officials, who urged us to be more proactive and to intercept a lot more goods made with forced labour in order to ensure that our products are completely untainted. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.”
“Mr. Speaker, I travelled to Washington in 2023 with a delegation of Uyghurs to meet with American elected officials and speak with them about this law. This was mentioned earlier, but Canada has managed to intercept just one single container. We keep using this example because it is striking to see just how much we need a law that has a lot more teeth. This shows that it is not incompatible to propose tougher measures to combat forced labour, as proposed in our Bill C-251 . It is not unreasonable in a context where this is what American elected officials are calling for. It is actually quite positive at a time when we are trying to dialogue with them on good treaty and international trade practices. Talking about human rights is not a bad thing. My colleague's bill is a great example of that.”
“Mr. Speaker, in my previous question, I reminded the House that the Bloc Québécois is very committed to addressing these international trade issues. My colleague from Jonquière introduced Bill C-228 , which aimed to establish a committee to discuss these treaties here in the House, to negotiate international agreements. I would like to come back to that because my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton also introduced Bill C-251 , which seeks to ensure that the goods we import are free from the taint of modern slavery and human trafficking. I am part of a group that discusses this issue, and we have learned that, unfortunately, in 2026, many women and children are still in forced labour situations. There are many risks. What does my colleague think about our bill?”
“It is not right that only the Prime Minister's Office gets to decide on agreements that affect issues that are so critical for local businesses and human rights. Some countries have already adopted this practice by allowing debates in Parliament when major agreements are signed. What does my colleague think about that?”
“Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands for the speech she gave as part of this very important debate. In the current context, market diversification is crucial for our businesses. However, I am also a member of the All-Party Parliamentary Group to End Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking, so this is an issue that I follow very closely, and I find it troubling that, in 2025, there are still so many children and young women who end up in forced labour. In any case, the problem in all of these agreements is one that the Bloc Québécois raised through Bill C-228 on which we just voted. If this bill had been allowed to continue to move forward, we could have brought these treaties before the House for debate.”
“Mr. Speaker, if things were going as well as the government House leader claims, then we would not have seniors who have not received their pension since last spring. We would not have seniors who are receiving the wrong amounts and who will be getting less on their cheques in the future. This is not fearmongering. We are talking about real people who are saying that the government's new software, its new system, is causing problems. When the government causes problems, its job is to fix those problems, not to say that stuff happens. When will the government take seniors' problems seriously?”
“Mr. Speaker, some new retirees have not been receiving their old age security pension for nine months now because of problems with the new Cúram software. What did the Liberals have to say to these people yesterday? The Liberal House leader said that software problems happen. He said that we were fearmongering. The Liberals were made aware of this in June by their own officials. With answers like that, we can see why they have done absolutely nothing. When will they do something about this?”
“Mr. Speaker, this is the Phoenix fiasco for seniors. The worst part is that the federal government was warned about this in a public service union report back in June. The federal government has known since June that it is unable to make OAS payments properly. Even today, absolutely nothing has been fixed. How much longer will pensioners have to wait before the Liberals take this problem seriously?”