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 7 of 13.
“Mr. Speaker, here we have yet another government IT fiasco. This time, the victims are seniors who have been struggling to receive their old age security pension since the new Cúram software was rolled out. Some pensioners have been waiting for months—since May, in fact. They have not received any benefits for nine months. Other seniors have received overpayments, and even if they are not cashed, they will still have an impact on their future benefits. What is the minister doing to finally fix this fiasco?”
“Mr. Speaker, I think the minister was reading from the wrong notes. This $25 million per year is paltry when set against an $80-billion deficit. It makes no sense to cut funding for the fight against homelessness. This means tens of thousands of dollars less for each of our community organizations at a time when they are concerned that the crisis is affecting increasingly vulnerable people, particularly women, who now represent about 30% of people experiencing homelessness, double what we saw before. Is now really the best time to cut funding to Quebec and to our organizations?”
“Mr. Speaker, today we are debating a motion that deals with the agreement between Ottawa and Alberta for a new pipeline. However, I want to follow up on a concern that my colleague and I share, and that is the cost of living. As the critic for seniors, I hear all the time that seniors can no longer afford rent and groceries. Last week, a study showed that, in 2026, people will be spending at least $1,000 more on groceries. One of the reasons mentioned for this is climate change. What does my colleague think about the fact that maybe we should take action on climate change to lower the price of groceries?”
“We studied the issue of section 810 conditions, and I agreed, in collaboration with the Conservatives, to also look at bail conditions. Right now, we are studying the causes. I see that as important. I will conclude on this final point. We need to ask ourselves why the anti-feminist movement and masculinism are gaining so much momentum. This is leading to real violence against women. We need to look at this issue as holistically as possible. I hope I will have a chance to talk more about that one day.”
“In Quebec, we worked hard on the report entitled “Rebâtir la confiance”, or rebuilding trust. We have been trailblazers when it comes to combatting violence against women. We have specialized courts. We introduced electronic bracelets. I recently had a discussion with the member for Sherbrooke . I have also been in contact with the Quebec minister responsible for the status of women. Although Quebec has made progress on this issue, both of them are calling on Ottawa to do one thing urgently: to recognize coercive control in the Criminal Code. That is the priority request at the moment, because it would give police an additional tool. Right now, the Standing Committee on the Status of Women is looking into concerns related to the justice system.”
“During the study that the Standing Committee on the Status of Women is currently conducting, we have learned that conditions related to section 810 of the Criminal Code are used in nearly 25% of cases, but in 60% of femicides, at least one prior complaint or report had been made. As my colleague from Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj explained so well, we understand that this situation is urgent. We welcome the bill introduced by the member for Lethbridge . We will study it in committee. We need to understand what is behind these statistics. Is it because of the #MeToo movement? We have to see whether that will really help fight this kind of crime. We have some concerns. For example, the Criminal Code already provides for consecutive sentences. We will have to look at that.”
“During that same period in Quebec, the number of assaults rose from 45 to 98 per 100,000 population. That is a 119% increase. Those are big numbers. Here are some more statistics: 50% of female victims lose their job or have to change jobs as a result of violence. Every year, more than 80,000 women and children use shelters. During these days of action to end violence against women, I would like to recognize everyone who works for a shelter or an organization to help women victims of violence. Their work in the community is essential. In terms of police and court statistics, in 40% of cases, the violent partner has a prior criminal record involving violence. Less than 20% of domestic violence charges result in a major conviction.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will try to do something in three and a half minutes on a subject that I am sure everyone understands is in my wheelhouse as the status of women critic for the Bloc Québécois. I want to mention that this debate is taking place during the 12 days of action to end violence against women, which run from November 25 to December 6, the day when, unfortunately, people will commemorate the tragic femicide that occurred at École Polytechnique 36 years ago. Let us wear the white ribbon proudly. I will start with some statistics. I will then quickly go over Quebec's demands and close with what the Standing Committee on the Status of Women is currently studying. According to Statistics Canada, since 2015, the number of sexual offences has increased from 57 to 87 per 100,000 population. That is a 52% increase.”
“Seniors can no longer make ends meet on their fixed incomes. Does my colleague agree, as the Conservatives did in the previous Parliament, that the old age security pension should at least be the same amount for all seniors and that those aged 65 to 74 also deserve a 10% increase?”
“Mr. Speaker, last Sunday, I went to Ange‑Gardien to meet with volunteers who were organizing food drives. Today is the day of the media food drive. Saturday morning, food drives are being held in Saint‑Césaire, Waterloo and Rougemont. On Sunday, I will be raising money for the SOS Dépannage Moisson Granby food drive. In short, it is food drive season. Everywhere I go, I talk to people. The HungerCount report was recently released. In an interview on Radio-Canada, an official responsible for the report explained that one of their recommendations was to increase old age security because it is clearly no longer enough. This budget has absolutely nothing in it for seniors. Yes, the other side of the House likes to brag about the New Horizons for Seniors program. That is good, but that is not what puts food on the table.”
“We asked for a wage subsidy to help businesses get through this crisis. Ultimately, that does not solve the problem. What does my colleague think of the fact that this is a budget of disillusionment? That is what I call it.”
“Madam Speaker, I would say that this is a budget of dashed hopes, a budget of disillusionment. I know that my colleague's region is one with an aging population. We need to talk about the importance of providing more assistance to seniors. There is nothing in this budget to help seniors aged 65 to 74, who did not receive the same old age security increase as seniors 75 and over. There was nothing for the softwood lumber industry either. Ultimately, help arrived late, but we had to hammer home the message to the government. We said that it simply could not leave the softwood lumber industry in such a state without intervening. The proof is that this government presented itself as a champion negotiator, but it did not achieve anything. We had to ask for help and call for an emergency debate. That help is too little, too late.”
“Madam Speaker, in his speech, my colleague spoke at length about the cost of living. That is something that is important to us too. When we talk about the cost of living, one of the most important things is housing. During the last election campaign, the government boasted about its Build Canada Homes project, claiming it would solve the housing problems. However, as we are seeing once again, it has failed. The Auditor General of Canada has criticized the Liberals' budget 2025. They have been slow to reduce office space. It is clear that the housing initiative will not achieve its objective. Is this another broken Liberal promise?”
“We are keeping up the fight for them too: Geneviève Bergeron, Hélène Colgan, Nathalie Croteau, Barbara Daigneault, Maud Haviernick, Barbara Klucznik-Widajewicz, Maryse Laganière, Maryse Leclair, Anne-Marie Lemay, Sonia Pelletier, Michèle Richard, Annie St-Arneault, Annie Turcotte. We will not forget these girls. Thousands of us have their names etched in our hearts. Thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of us carry their names with us. Thousands of us continue the fight.”
“Their names are forever etched on our hearts, and those same hearts are filled with anger. However, it is not the kind of anger that immobilizes us; it has been driving us to action for 36 years. It awakens our senses and pushes us to act. These women, like me, understand human nature, and they know, as I do, that we will never be able to completely eradicate violence. (1025) We are striving to contain limit it. We can restrict it, constrain it, condemn it. We can all work together to make women's lives safer, more pleasant, more beautiful. A woman who knows she is in danger is not a free woman. The fight we are waging for them and on their behalf is the fight for women's liberation. This fight is not over.”
“They need to know that their memory also instills in us a duty to be outraged, perhaps too often. We are outraged, and we still rise up in anger today on their behalf. When the firearms registry is abolished; when the assault-style weapon buyback program is met with ire; when one, ten, a thousand women are murdered because they are women; when our sisters are beaten, raped, assaulted, bruised and broken because they are women; when some give up and stop fighting; when some remain impassive in the face of violence against women; when the word “feminist” is rejected as though it has a pejorative connotation; when people move on to other matters and grow tired of hearing about these women; when their names are eroded by time and indifference, then, yes, of course we rise up, indignant.”
“She knows that we are allies in the fight that she has been waging for over 30 years. After all these years, the women who were taken from us on December 6, 1989, continue to unite Quebeckers who want to see an end to misogyny and violence against women. They have become our guiding light when we no longer know which way to turn. We have made some progress on their behalf. Despite their memory, we have suffered some setbacks and bitter defeats, but we are staying the course. We think of them when we see women in Quebec succeed. We think about the path that these pioneers chose to take, and we see other young women taking that same path. We are so proud, as we know they would have been. We can only be grateful to them. However, they need to know that things are far from perfect.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to express my condolences to the minister on her cousin's death, her cousin's femicide, if I understood correctly. We will never forget these women: Geneviève Bergeron, Hélène Colgan, Nathalie Croteau, Barbara Daigneault, Anne-Marie Edward, Maud Haviernick, Barbara Klucznik-Widajewicz, Maryse Laganière, Maryse Leclair, Anne-Marie Lemay, Sonia Pelletier, Michèle Richard, Annie St-Arneault and Annie Turcotte. Thousands of us have their names etched in our hearts. Thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands or perhaps even millions of us carry their names with us. We accept the responsibility that comes with remembering them. I see before us their friend and colleague, who is now an MP. Although she and I do not always agree, she knows that we share the same aspirations for women.”
“Mr. Speaker, in his speech, my colleague briefly touched on the issue of health care. The Bloc Québécois had called for an increase in health transfers to give more resources to the health care system in Quebec and the provinces that really need them. Just this morning at the Standing Committee on Health as part of our study on antimicrobials, a witness wrapped up his presentation by saying that more resources are needed, which means more health transfers. We were asking for $11.6 billion over five years. What does my colleague think?”
“Mr. Speaker, my question will be short and simple. My colleague talked a lot about Brookfield. How is it ethically dangerous and concerning for a prime minister to put his personal interests ahead of the interests of his fellow Canadians?”
“Madam Speaker, my colleague touched on many of the topics and themes in the budget. However, he obviously failed to address the environmental issue, even though the Bloc Québécois was calling on the federal government to stop funding oil companies and instead use the money to fund a green, clean energy transition. Nuclear waste also has environmental consequences. I want to talk about that. As we speak, my colleague from Repentigny is holding a press conference with representatives from indigenous communities and environmental groups to speak out against transporting nuclear material to the Chalk River site, where it could contaminate a major waterway. What does my colleague think about that?”
“The populations at greatest risk include indigenous women, as I mentioned. It is also important to find solutions for the children, as 60% of children exposed to violence develop symptoms of PTSD. I could also talk about the impacts of separations, technology-facilitated violence, and the economic and social impacts, because the cost of domestic violence in Canada is $7.4 billion per year, which is huge. What we are also seeing is that 50% of women lose their jobs or have to change jobs because of violence, and over 800,000 women and children use shelters every year. (1110) Given the numbers I just shared, I think that it is even more important to act, but we must do so carefully. We need to analyze this bill in committee and then we will see.”
“Domestic homicides account for 34% of all homicides of women in Canada. More than 50% of femicides occur after a lengthy period of coercive control. Domestic violence is on the rise. Between 2014 and 2023, it went up by 30%. In 2022, police recorded an incident of family violence every two minutes. The provinces with the highest rates are Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta. I could go on in this vein for hours, but I have only a minute left. To wrap up, 60% of victims say that coercive control is more traumatizing than physical violence, and 70% of victims report being under constant surveillance, including digital surveillance. One victim in two reports being subjected to economic violence, which prevents the victim from leaving the relationship. Financial dependence is also a barrier to reporting.”
“More than 50% of victims of domestic violence report being subjected to technology-facilitated control through location tracking, forced access to accounts, digital surveillance, or threats to share compromising images online. Data are also available for rural areas. The rate of domestic violence for women living in rural areas is 1.8 times higher than the rate for women in urban areas. Close to 80% of victims of domestic violence never contact police. Nine victims out of 10 say that they do not report the abuse due to fear of retaliation or due to financial dependence. For cases of domestic femicide and homicide, 75% are committed by a current or former partner. Again according to Statistics Canada, a separation increases the risk of homicide by 500% in the year following the breakup.”
“According to a 2023 Statistics Canada report, 76% of victims of domestic violence are women. Over 127,000 incidents of domestic violence were reported to the police in 2022, an increase of about 5% compared to the previous year. That is rather alarming. Indigenous women are three to four times more likely to be the victims of domestic violence. Young women between the ages of 15 to 24 are most at risk. Four out of 10 victims report coercive control before the situation becomes physically violent. One in three children who is exposed to domestic violence will experience severe psychological distress. Again according to the 2023 Statistics Canada report, in 60% to 70% of cases, children witness violence first-hand. There is also technology-facilitated coercive control.”
“Sexual harassment and threats against an intimate partner would both carry a maximum sentence of 10 years, while threats against a partner's property or pets would carry a maximum sentence of four years. Simple assault against an intimate partner would carry a maximum sentence of 10 years, while armed assault, bodily harm and strangulation would carry a maximum sentence of 12 years, and aggravated assault, 14 years. The bill also makes it mandatory for those accused of such offences to be detained in custody for up to seven days following arrest to undergo a risk-of-reoffending assessment. Let us now talk about the most recent statistics on domestic violence in Canada. According to the Canadian Femicide Observatory for Justice and Accountability, in 2024, a woman was killed every 48 hours by an intimate partner.”
“Several committees are currently studying the issue. I mentioned the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, of which I am a member, but I know that the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage and the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights are also studying aspects related to this file. I have had discussions with the members who sit on the same committee that I do, but I have also talked to members of these other committees, including the member for Rivière-du-Nord and the member for Drummond . Let us talk about what Bill C-225 will actually accomplish. Under this bill, the murder of an intimate partner will automatically be classified as first-degree murder. That is what this bill says.”
“With the Conservatives' support at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, I proposed a study on the specific issue of section 810 of the Criminal Code and whether it truly meets the needs of victims. (1105) Section 810 is deemed inadequate in cases where the risk of reoffending is high. That is what we have been hearing. In the parliamentary context, there have been several attempts since 2020 to regulate coercive violence. First there was Bill C-247 , Bill C-202 , then Bill C-332 , which is more recent. In 2023, we passed Bill C-233 , which was drafted by the Liberals and was on electronic monitoring and continuing education for judges. A widely publicized increase in femicides has added more political pressure to take action and introduce legislation to try to find solutions to this scourge.”
“It is difficult to prove coercive control under the existing legal framework. Some people say that coercive control should not be criminalized because it is difficult to find evidence and difficult to prove in court. However, we believe that we need to overcome that obstacle and focus instead on how to better educate people within the system, from police officers to judges. How can we better educate people to ensure that this is properly recognized? We also need to be able to find evidence of coercive control and present it in court. Existing laws are also not being properly enforced. Charges are reduced to a peace bond under section 810 of the Criminal Code.”
“Unfortunately, that bill died on the Order Paper with the election. It was even the theme of last week's press conference to launch the 12 Days of Action to End Violence Against Women campaign. Finally, the Standing Committee on the Status of Women tabled the report on a study that my colleagues and I proposed on coercive control. Once again, we determined that this is one of the main demands that must follow the tabling of this report. There are problems with the current legislation. Victims have very little trust in institutions, in police forces and in the courts. Violence is massively under-reported. Only 36% of cases of domestic violence and only 5% of sexual assaults are reported. Immigrant women face additional obstacles because they are afraid that reporting will affect their immigration status.”
“The Bloc Québécois supports studying the bill given the urgency surrounding the increase in domestic violence. Unfortunately, the numbers confirm that domestic violence has increased and that cases are on the rise. Some municipalities and some locations have even declared domestic violence an epidemic. The bill seeks to protect the concept of first-degree murder by creating a new, stand-alone paragraph. The Bloc Québécois wants this protection to expressly include children and loved ones and to avoid creating redundant offences if the same offence already exists in the Criminal Code. As I was saying earlier, we want to include coercive violence in the Criminal Code, which, incidentally, was the purpose of a bill introduced in the previous Parliament by a colleague from the New Democratic Party and which made it all the way to the Senate.”
“I received the request from Sherbrooke MNA Christine Labrie, who had served on the expert committee. We met at a café in Sherbrooke, and she told me that this was something that falls under Quebec's jurisdiction. I seized the opportunity, listening to the member who had worked with her colleagues in a non-partisan manner. The group was made up of people from all political parties. The work that Quebec did was very thorough. As they have requested, coercive control must be criminalized. This is really important. After that brief digression, I would now like to return to the ultimate purpose of coercive control, which is to take away the victim's autonomy and freedom. Ninety-five per cent of domestic violence crimes involve some degree of coercion or control. That is serious.”
“It would also implement stiffer punishments for criminal harassment of an intimate partner, threats to an intimate partner, assault, aggravated assault or assault with a weapon. Coercive and controlling violence is a widespread problem, which is unfortunate. Allow me to provide a definition. It refers to repeated behaviours that aim to isolate, control, monitor or dominate the victim. This includes financial control, psychological manipulation, social isolation, restricting movement, breaking phones and threatening children or animals. Since we are talking about these behaviours, this violence, this coercive control, I want to emphasize the fact that this is one of the priorities I had established after a Quebec report about rebuilding trust was published.”
“Mr. Speaker, on this beautiful Monday, December 1, it is my honour to start the week by talking about Bill C‑225 on the issue of intimate partner violence. This is a major issue for the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, which is continually having to re-examine the issue in the light of new developments. That is unfortunate. The bill seeks to amend the Criminal Code in order to create specific offences in cases where the victim is an intimate partner. It seeks to prohibit a peace officer from releasing a person who has been convicted of a similar offence within the previous five years. It would increase the detention period of property seized from three months to one year, with the possibility of an extension of up to two years.”
“No one is talking about it, but the government did not respond to their request to address the labour shortage. They asked for a grandfather clause for temporary foreign workers. This is an important request back home. What does my colleague think about that?”
“Mr. Speaker, I will try to be brief, but I want to make three points. By the way, we do not say “our seniors” because seniors do not belong to anyone. I invite my colleague to stop using the term “our seniors”. We say “seniors”. First, how can they boast about helping seniors by pointing to the New Horizons for Seniors program without any consideration for the fact that seniors's pockets are empty and that their OAS is not indexed to allow them to cope with the cost of living? There was no increase for seniors 65 to 74. Second, how can they boast about helping local media when they are satisfied with the local journalism initiative and investments in Radio‑Canada while completely abandoning community media and private media? Third, how can they boast about helping businesses?”
“During our constituency week, I spoke with the Association québécoise de défense des droits des personnes retraitées et préretraitées, or AQDR, which advocates for the rights of people who are retired or approaching retirement. I talked with its representatives. Things are not working anymore. They want us to bring this issue forward again. They do not understand why this government cares so little about the seniors who built Quebec. What are my colleague's thoughts on that?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am going to pick up on a question about seniors that the member for Guelph put to my colleague. I would like to note that I am a bit surprised by this lack of sensitivity. In the last Parliament, the bill to increase old age security for seniors aged 65 to 74 received unanimous support. Even the Liberals voted for it. Everyone acknowledged that indexing the pension was no longer enough and that people on fixed incomes could no longer make ends meet because of inflation. We have been talking about food banks, where more and more seniors are asking for help. Just before the budget was tabled, the Fédération de l'Âge d'Or du Québec, or FADOQ, told me that its members are no longer able to make ends meet, so this budget has to do something for seniors.”
“Does my colleague not agree that all pensioners should be paid the same amount, starting at age 65? Her party supported my bill in the last Parliament, so let us increase old age security by 10% for seniors aged 65 to 74. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.”
“Mr. Speaker, if I understood correctly, my colleague talked about the situation facing one of her constituents, a 75-year old woman who is having trouble making ends meet and who is worried about her health. I would like to point out that the budget contains no measures to help seniors cope with the cost of living. However, these people are on a fixed income with old age security. At least her 75-year-old constituent got the 10% increase, which is still not enough. A 73-year-old could probably tell the member the same thing. She could tell the member that she cannot make ends meet, that rents are too high and that her old age security is not enough to keep up with inflation, not to mention that she did not even get the 10% increase that 75-year-olds got.”
“She went so far as to say that the act is anti-feminist because of its excessive discrimination against women. This leave thing—”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleagues are certainly asking good questions. I thank my colleague from Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon for giving me the opportunity to address this issue. We are right in the thick of the 12 days of action to end violence against women, and we know that economic issues have a huge impact on a woman's decision about whether to stay in a cycle of domestic violence. Employment insurance discrimination contributes to impoverishing women and keeping them stuck in a cycle of poverty that ultimately keeps them trapped in a cycle of violence. I want to thank my colleague Louise Chabot. I can name her now that she is no longer a member of Parliament. She was a strong advocate on this issue. She said that she was ultimately calling for a reform of the Employment Insurance Act because it is not feminist enough.”
“What we have here is a Prime Minister who set himself up like a corporate executive to promote his own interests, not the interests of Quebeckers.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable—Lotbinière for giving me the opportunity to explore this issue, the elephant in the room that nobody talks about enough: this Prime Minister 's ethics. The more we dig into the budget today, the more we uncover. My colleague talked about Meta. I could talk about certain investments. One of the issues I talked about is nuclear energy, because we also know that the Prime Minister has investments in the nuclear industry. Why is he so keen on a pipeline, and why is he working so hard to move this project forward with Alberta? It is because he has a stake in it. When we dig a little deeper, we discover that Brookfield has a stake in a lot of things.”
“That does not help ensure a broad range of voices and media sources, which truly guarantees democracy in the regions. Apart from the fact that it contains a few small projects, this budget did not meet Quebeckers' expectations.”
“Mr. Speaker, the government can make the figures in the budget say whatever they want them to say. That is basically all I had left to say in my speech. The government has changed the accounting method for certain expenditures and investments, and there are now expenditures that are categorized as capital investments. This is quite worrying and it is one of the reasons why we are strongly opposed to this budget. That said, there are obviously other reasons too. There are some worthwhile projects for Quebec, but I am also hearing a lot about what is not in the budget. When it comes to infrastructure, it is not true that cities have the money they need. Seniors, for their part, did not receive a penny in this budget. Our local media, TVA, Cogeco Média and others, say that the only money in the budget is for Radio-Canada.”
“According to Environment Canada, the Ottawa-funded carbon capture project captures only 1% of oil companies' current emissions. Billions of dollars in public funds are being invested in the Pathways Plus project, which is a carbon sequestration project for oil and gas companies. As for liquefied natural gas, its climate impact is 20% to 30% higher than reported when methane leaks are taken into account. Then there is the government's failure to reimburse, with no strings attached, the $814 million owed to Quebeckers who were excluded from the carbon tax rebate. There is even a new pipeline project that was announced today at the expense of first nations communities and British Columbia. What will happen in Quebec? Let us not forget that Canada even received the fossil of the day award at the most recent COP. This is extremely worrying.”
“At the same time, Meta raked in $192 billion in profits in 2024 while paying almost no tax in Canada. TVA has announced 547 layoffs since 2023, and 34 local radio and television stations may close by 2026. The web giants pay an effective tax rate of about 4% in Canada, compared to 26% for SMEs. According to the OECD, Canada was one of the top 10 countries for digital tax revenue losses in 2023. The 3% tax that was recently repealed would have brought in $1.4 billion per year for Quebec, prorated for its demographic weight. Just imagine what we could have done with that money to support diversity in private, community and cultural media. In closing, I will say a quick word about the environment. Since 2019, Ottawa has provided more than $18 billion in direct and indirect subsidies to fossil fuels.”
“administration, which is imposing tariffs on countries that tax web giants. This is a step back for Ottawa, when several European countries have resisted. By abandoning this tax, Ottawa is losing a major lever in the trade negotiations. There is no question about the vital importance of journalism, especially in a world where fake news is on the rise and generative AI is amplifying disinformation. However, the government is taking away essential tools for funding newsrooms. I am thinking of Cogeco Media and the TVA station in Sherbrooke, which are very worried following the losses they have suffered. It is extremely concerning. Since 2008, 469 local media outlets have closed in Canada, and more than 50% of them were in Quebec. Today, one Canadian in three lives in a community that is at risk of becoming a media desert.”
“Municipalities back home are also worried and are wondering what the federal government's vision is in terms of supporting their public transit plans and developing public transportation across Quebec. They get the impression that the federal government has given up on this altogether, even though public transportation is critical for fighting climate change and reducing our GHG emissions. Third, I would like to address the impact of this budget on the media crisis. The budget permanently scraps the digital services tax, and yet this 3% tax would have generated $7.2 billion over five years. That is a major loss when it comes to funding media, arts and culture. No measures have been proposed to give electronic media the same tax credit as print media. Ultimately, the government is completely giving in to pressure from Trump's U.S.”