Andréanne Larouche · TranslatePolitics.ca

Government Orders

Protecting Victims Act

2026-06-09

“I want to look like I care about protecting women, but I'm really just setting up a complaint that this bill doesn't solve everything. I'll talk a lot without saying much.”

“Do you agree with the parts of this bill that do what your committee recommended? Did you try to convince other Conservatives to support it?”

Government Orders

Build Canada Homes Act

2026-06-09

“I don't think this bill is very clear. I want Quebec to control the money. Quebec knows best.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and fellow member of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, which is examining Bill C-20, the Build Canada Homes act. We heard that Quebec, through the Société d'habitation du Québec, will have the final say on the Build Canada Homes projects. However, several witnesses who appeared before the committee told us that there is a lot of uncertainty surrounding Build Canada Homes. How is affordability defined? Will rural municipalities get their share of the market? What will happen with seniors and women who are facing housing challenges? In short, there is still a lot of uncertainty. Does my colleague not agree that it would have been better to just transfer the amounts to Quebec and the provinces, since they are likely more attuned to their communities' housing needs?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Private Members' Business

Fair Representation Act

2026-06-04

“Unions are important. They help workers get more money and have safer jobs. This bill will stop companies from controlling unions. I want Quebec to be a model for labour laws. I support this bill because I want workers to have rights.”

Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I rise this evening to speak to Bill C‑259, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code regarding fair representation. I thank my colleague for tabling it. We are debating a fundamental principle of our democracy: the freedom of workers to organize freely. This right is not a privilege. It is a right that has been recognized by the courts, by international conventions and by our own laws. When employees choose to join a union, they must be able to do so without intimidation, pressure or interference from their employer. Bill C‑259 would ensure just that. The Bloc Québécois supports the principle of this bill. I will start by talking about the importance of unions and why we are talking about them here tonight. I will then talk about the changes set out in Bill C‑259. Lastly, I will talk about Quebec's progressiveness in this area. First, why are unions important? All too often, we forget everything that unions have helped us achieve. Think of paid leave, annual holidays, pension plans, health and safety protections, parental leave, anti-harassment measures and decent wages. None of that appeared out of thin air. Those gains were achieved thanks to generations of workers who organized collectively. Even today, unions play a vital role. They help reduce inequality. They promote better working conditions. They help to reduce the gender pay gap. They ensure better protection for the most vulnerable workers. According to Statistics Canada, unionized employees, on average, earn more than non-unionized workers in comparable jobs. Unionized workplaces also have fewer workplace accidents and more prevention measures in place. That is not insignificant. Some might believe that this is not a major issue in federally regulated sectors, but that is not the case. Federally regulated sectors include banking, telecommunications, airlines, railways, ports and interprovincial transport. More than 900,000 workers are covered by the Canada Labour Code. Approximately 34% of those workers are covered by a collective agreement. In certain strategic sectors such as rail transportation or postal services, the unionization rate actually exceeds 70%. Union independence in these sectors is therefore a major issue. At its core, the bill we are debating this evening is all about company unions. What is a company union? It is a union dominated, controlled or influenced by the employer, a union that no longer truly represents the workers' interests, a union that essentially becomes an extension of the employer. Historically, this practice has been used to prevent the emergence of bona fide labour organizations. The company would create a fake union, negotiate with that fake union, and then claim that the right to organize was being respected. However, in reality, the workers were losing their genuine bargaining power. Second, what does Bill C‑259 accomplish? The Canada Labour Code already prohibits employer interference, but the current provisions are relatively general. The bill clarifies the rules. It clearly defines employer domination and influence as the employer contributing financially to the union, controlling union leaders, interfering in union elections, or making promises or threats intended to influence members. In other words, we are moving from a general principle to concrete criteria. The bill also provides for the revocation of certification of an employer-dominated union, the possible nullification of a collective agreement entered into under such conditions, strengthened remedies before the Canada Industrial Relations Board, and fines of up to $100,000. It really sets clear guidelines. Third, I want to talk about Quebec as a model. Quebec has often been a pioneer in this area. For decades, the Quebec Labour Code has protected union autonomy. Sections 12 and 13 of our labour code explicitly prohibit any form of employer interference in union activities. Quebec also pioneered several major reforms. For example, it banned replacement workers. For years, Quebec led the way while Ottawa was slow to act and the Bloc Québécois was calling for action. Even now, the federal government often follows suit on protections already recognized in Quebec. The Bloc Québécois sees Bill C‑259 as yet another example of that. Vigilance remains necessary. That is why we need Bill C‑259. Some might say that company unions are rare today. That may be, but when it comes to basic freedoms, we must never wait for a problem to become widespread before taking action. As lawmakers, our role is also preventive. We pass laws to prevent abuses. That is exactly what they are for. We pass laws to protect workers before their rights are violated. This bill sends a clear message. Employers must negotiate with legitimate worker representatives. They cannot create or control the organizations meant to represent workers. The Bloc Québécois fought for this improvement. However, we believe there is still a blind spot. The problem is the lack of data. The Canada Industrial Relations Board does not produce detailed statistics on specific cases of employer interference or on employer-controlled unions. If we want to improve the laws in future, we must be able to assess the reality of the situation and properly document cases. We therefore hope that more data will be collected and made public. This could certainly be a worthwhile goal to aim for in future. In conclusion, at its core, this debate is simple. A union must belong to the workers, not the employer. Workers must be able to freely choose their representatives. They must be able to freely negotiate their working conditions. They must be able to defend their interests without fear of reprisal. The Bloc Québécois has always defended workers' rights. We have done the same with regard to EI and seasonal workers. I keep saying that the Bloc Québécois will return to the fray with a bill for a comprehensive reform of EI to better protect seasonal workers, amongst others, but it is much broader in scope than that. We have also done the same for workers affected by the use of replacement workers, and we continue to monitor that situation. We will continue to do so because a fairer society means fairer workplaces. A healthy democracy requires free and independent labour organizations. In addition, respect for workers should never be negotiable. That is why the Bloc Québécois will support Bill C‑259. I would like to close with additional statistics on unionization in Quebec. Quebec has one of the highest unionization rates in North America. In 2024, 39.2% of Quebec workers were unionized, compared to about 28% in Canada. More than 1.6 million Quebec workers are covered by a collective agreement. We can see that these numbers and the impact of unions have an effect on wages. According to Statistics Canada, unionized workers earn on average 10% to 15% more than comparable non-unionized workers. The gap is even wider among women, young people, and workers with less education. With regard to inequality, according to the OECD and several academic studies, declining unionization accounts for between 20% and 30% of the increase in wage inequality observed since the 1980s. Highly unionized sectors generally exhibit smaller income gaps, less wage discrimination, and greater access to pension plans. When it comes to health and safety, unionized workplaces report more workplace accidents. Workers in these settings are more likely to have access to joint health and safety committees, training, and grievance procedures. Here are a few more statistics to wrap up: Between 1981 and today, the proportion of unionized workers in the Canadian private sector has fallen by about 40%. Despite this, unions still represent more than four million workers in Canada. That is still a significant number, and that is why we are debating this bill today.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I want to cheer for the bill. But first, I'll ask a big fuzzy question about how important it is for democracy and workers in bad economic times.”

Private Members' Business

Old Age Security Act

2026-06-03

“I want more money for seniors. All seniors deserve money, not just the older ones. The current system is unfair. It creates two classes of seniors. Many seniors are living in poverty. They struggle to afford basic necessities. Some seniors want to keep working. We should let them earn more without penalty. This bill will help all seniors live with dignity. The government should spend more money to fix this problem.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, today we are debating a simple yet fundamental question: Is it acceptable for people who have worked their entire lives, raised their families, paid their taxes and built our communities to now be living in poverty? Bill C-261, introduced and vigorously defended by my colleague from Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, aims to restore fairness for seniors and allow them to live with dignity. For years, the Bloc Québécois has been calling for OAS to be increased for all seniors, starting at age 65, because dignity does not begin at age 75. The two classes of seniors are an injustice created by Ottawa. In 2021, the federal government granted a 10% OAS increase, but only to those over the age of 75. We saw this coming and, as early as the 2019 election campaign, we criticized the idea of creating two classes of seniors. This decision created two classes of seniors: those entitled to a benefit increase and those left behind. However, the cost of groceries, housing, transportation, insurance, electricity and medications are also rising for seniors aged 65 to 74. Quebec has approximately 1.09 million people aged 65 to 74, compared to about 875,000 people aged 75 and older. This means that the majority of seniors were excluded from this increase. The Bloc Québécois rejects this injustice. The government cannot acknowledge the vulnerability of seniors while excluding a large portion of them. The current economic reality is grim. In March 2025, nearly 744,000 Quebeckers received the guaranteed income supplement, which is a sign that many seniors are living on very modest incomes. More than 53% of Quebeckers aged 65 and older live on less than $35,000 a year. What is even more concerning is that 32.5% live on less than $25,000 a year. These are not abstract numbers. These are people who sometimes have to choose between paying their rent, buying their medication, eating properly or heating their homes. According to the reports, some retirees are living on around $1,960 or $2,000 a month. Once the rent, electricity, insurance, telephone bills, transportation costs and medication have been paid for, there is very little left for groceries and unexpected expenses. We are talking not about comfort here, but about financial survival. The housing crisis is also affecting seniors. That, too, needs to be discussed. The housing crisis is not just affecting young families; it is also hitting seniors hard. The Observatoire québécois des inégalités reports that housing has become unaffordable for more than half of all households made up of the poorest 20% of people aged 65 and over. Nearly a quarter of senior households are living in housing that is considered unacceptable, meaning that it does not meet the criteria for affordability, quality and adequate size. The work on homelessness from the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities has highlighted a reality of growing concern: Seniors are at risk of homelessness following a rent increase, eviction, separation or the death of a spouse. For a senior living on a fixed income, a rent increase of a few tens or hundreds of dollars can upend the entire financial balance. After a lifetime of hard work, no one should have to fear becoming homeless. Poverty among seniors is also an issue in terms of health. When seniors do not have enough money, they do not cut back on frills. They cut back on essentials. They cut back on groceries. They put off buying medication. They avoid certain medical travel. They cut back on heating. They isolate themselves because they can no longer afford to go out, get around or participate in activities. Poverty among seniors thus becomes a challenge in terms of public health, food security, mental health and human dignity. Senior women are particularly vulnerable. We hear that often. Senior women live in especially precarious situations. In Quebec, the median after-tax income for women aged 65 and over is about $24,100, compared to $34,200 for men. This difference can be attributed to careers that were interrupted, lower-paying jobs, part-time work and years spent taking care of children, loved ones or sick spouses. Senior women are also more likely to live alone, particularly once they become widowed or following a separation. During the Standing Committee on the Status of Women's proceedings, several witnesses pointed out that financial insecurity can trap women in situations of domestic, psychological or economic violence. When a woman cannot afford to find new housing, pay a security deposit, furnish an apartment or ensure her financial security, she may remain in a dangerous situation simply because she has no other option. Increasing the income of older women is therefore not just an economic measure. It is also about safety, autonomy and protection. The committees also highlighted the importance of having a better understanding of economic violence. Some women have never had full control over their finances. Others are financially dependent on a spouse. Some are afraid and have little savings. They might have some private retirement funds but little room to manoeuver. When retirement, a separation or the death of a spouse occurs, they end up in a highly vulnerable position. Isolation also exacerbates the situation. An isolated older adult has less access to information, less support in filling out forms, fewer networks to find housing and fewer people to turn to in a crisis. A basic income then becomes a practical tool for reducing dependence, vulnerability and isolation. Seniors also want to contribute to our society. That is another aspect of the bill. It is important to reject the stereotype that seniors are only recipients of services. More than 170,000 Quebeckers aged 65 and over are employed. More than half work full time. On top of that, 81% of seniors consider themselves to be in good, very good or excellent health. Many want to stay active, share their experience, work a few hours, volunteer, support their family or contribute to their community. The problem is that the current system can penalize them when they want to earn some extra income. That is why the bill also proposes to increase the exemption for employment income from $5,000 to $6,500. That measure would enable seniors who want to work a little more to do so without being penalized when their benefits are calculated. Bill C‑261 includes two primary measures. First, it increases the full OAS pension by 10% for all pensioners 65 and older. In practical terms, it allows seniors from 65 to 74 to receive the same amount as pensioners 75 and older. Second, it raises the exemption on employment income from $5,000 to $6,500 for the purposes of calculating the GIS. Both measures have the same objective: to give seniors more breathing room, to acknowledge their contribution and to allow them to live with more dignity. I want to address some criticism. There are people who will say that this measure is too expensive. However, the real question is this: What is the cost of doing nothing? What is the cost of homelessness among seniors? What is the cost of the preventable hospitalization of someone who lowered their dose of medication or stopped eating enough? What is the cost of social isolation? What is the cost of lowering the income of older women and forcing them to stay in abusive situations because they cannot afford to leave? Investing in seniors' incomes means preventing much more serious and costly social problems. Others fear that the old age security increase will reduce the guaranteed income supplement. However, an increase in OAS does not affect pensions under the Quebec pension plan and does not automatically reduce the GIS. There may be specific effects depending on certain tax situations, but the measures are clearly aimed at improving the disposable income of the vast majority of seniors. It is ultimately a matter of consistency. The government says it wants to fight poverty. It says it wants to prevent homelessness. It says it wants to support women who are victims of violence. It says it wants to encourage active aging. The government cannot claim to be fighting against the vulnerability of seniors while maintaining a policy that excludes most seniors. However, the government still refuses to correct an obvious injustice toward seniors aged 65 to 74. In conclusion, seniors built our communities. They have worked, paid taxes, raised families, supported loved ones, built businesses, sustained our regions and passed on their experience. Today, many are living on less than $25,000 or $35,000 a year, while the cost of housing, groceries, medication and essential services continues to rise. Bill C‑261 is a matter of fairness, respect and dignity. It is also a concrete response to the risks of homelessness, poverty among senior women, isolation, economic violence and the loss of purchasing power. We have a duty to correct the injustice created between seniors aged 65 to 74 and seniors aged 75 and over. For that reason, the Bloc Québécois encourages all parliamentarians to support this bill and send a clear message to seniors that they matter, that they have contributed and that they deserve to live and age with dignity. I seriously urge us to put an end to this injustice and show some dignity in the House. I hope there will be Liberals who will fight to challenge the party line and vote in favour of this bill.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I want to talk about how bad things are for senior women. The committee is hearing about homelessness and hunger. It's really bad. Last time almost everyone voted for my bill. Even some Liberals! But the Liberals in the House voted against it. Now I want to know what my friend thinks will happen with this vote.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for introducing this bill. We have been passing the baton to one another, and I now pass it on to the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon. My colleagues and I at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women are currently hearing from witnesses as part of a study on senior women. We are hearing about older women finding themselves on the streets. Homelessness is on the rise. Demand for food hampers is on the rise. What we are hearing is seriously catastrophic. In the last Parliament, with the exception of the Liberals, even the former Liberal MPs who became independent voted in favour of the bill I introduced on this subject. The Conservatives voted for it, the Green Party voted for it and the NDP voted for it. In committee, a report was even adopted unanimously. Everyone voted in favour, including the Liberals. However, once the matter came before the House, the Liberals changed their tune and voted against it. I would like to know what my colleague expects from the vote this time.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Government Orders

2026-06-03

“I want the government to give Quebec more money.”

“I'm sad about child porn. Something should be done.”

“I'm thanking my friend for caring. I say there are weird inconsistencies in this bill. I want them gone. The government should listen to us and fix them.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question and comments about my speech. I also want to commend her for fighting for the feminist cause. Regarding the Bloc Québécois's amendments, as I mentioned earlier, there are some inconsistencies. For example, the offence of criminal harassment is supposedly being modernized by the introduction of objective criteria. However, when we talk about sureties to keep the peace—the infamous peace bonds under section 810 of the Criminal Code, which is another study that I worked on for the Bloc Québécois, together with my Conservative colleagues—it is clear that, in this case, the criteria are subjective. That creates inconsistencies. The Bloc Québécois wanted to see fewer of them. Our amendments sought to remove these inconsistencies from Bill C‑16.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I worked very hard. I talked to many people. I made a report. The government should have passed the bill sooner. I want you to know I am important.”

“I like this bill. It does a lot of good things for victims of violence. But we need to give Quebec more money to make the changes work. If only the federal government transferred more resources to Quebec, everything would be better. We should keep working on this.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C‑16, an act to amend certain acts in relation to criminal and correctional matters in regard to child protection, gender-based violence, delays and other measures. This bill was studied by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. It is the result of extensive deliberation and numerous studies on violence against women, including studies conducted by the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. Something definitely needed to be done about the Criminal Code. Even the Government of Quebec was asking us to intervene in that respect. Quebec's report on rebuilding trust addressed violence against women. Quebec forged ahead and became a pioneer. It implemented measures, such as specialized courts and electronic bracelets, but some measures fell under the Criminal Code, which is under federal jurisdiction. I have had a number of discussions with members from Quebec, people who contributed to that report and who asked us to take action. This is an important bill. Obviously, we support Bill C-16. As I mentioned, several provisions take in proposals that have long been defended by the Bloc Québécois. What is more, the bill makes important advances for victims of domestic and sexual violence and in terms of child protection. Today, I will talk about the progress made for victims, but I still want to point out some of the ways that Bill C-16 falls short. I will end by talking about some of the Bloc Québécois's concerns. First, there is the issue of femicide, which is finally being acknowledged. In 2024, around 81 women were killed by an intimate partner in Canada. Now, there are even some municipalities that are describing this situation, these femicides, as an epidemic. They are saying that femicide is an epidemic. In Quebec, 25 femicides were recorded in 2024. Since the beginning of 2026, there have already been 10 suspected femicides reported in Quebec. These are chilling figures. The bill recognizes that some murders committed in the context of coercive control, sexual violence or hatred must be considered femicides. As we know, every femicide represents the collective failure of a system that was unable to protect a woman. Shelters and women's groups have been calling for this recognition for years. It was also important to address the issue of coercive control. In fact, that was something that women's shelters and the community had been calling for. The good thing about the bill, the thing that is a step forward, is that it addresses the issue of coercive control so that it is possible to intervene before it is too late. Coercive control often occurs long before physical abuse starts. Violence may not always be physical, but it always hurts. Some examples include isolation, monitoring, intimidation, threats and financial control. Violence rarely begins with a physical assault. The Bloc Québécois therefore welcomes the creation of a specific offence for coercive control. Prevention is better than seeing the impacts of a tragedy or having one more victim. There is also the issue of court delays. Putting an end to mistrials is a good thing, because justice delayed sometimes becomes justice denied. Here is the number of criminal trials that were stayed for unreasonable delay: in 2021, there were 13; in 2022, there were 18; in 2023, there were 96; and as of June 30, 2024, there had been 62. That is far too many. Behind those numbers are victims of sexual assault, intimate partner violence and other serious crimes. These were serious cases, but they were dismissed due to court delays. The Bloc Québécois supports measures designed to increase consideration of case complexity in order to prevent prosecutions from being thrown out solely for procedural reasons. The Bloc Québécois even introduced a bill on this subject in the previous Parliament. Clearly, we have long been committed to this cause, so we welcome this initiative. The Bloc Québécois had also called for a discussion on the issue of organized crime recruiting young people. Criminal gangs are now recruiting people directly on social media, and those being recruited are getting younger and younger. Young people are being used to carry out crimes because they are perceived as more vulnerable and are punished less severely. The Bloc Québécois has long been calling for the creation of a specific offence for the recruitment of minors. This measure is intended to target the real perpetrators, the adults who manipulate and exploit young people. I am thinking in particular of the tragic case of Mohamed-Yanis Seghouani, who was recruited by organized crime when he was just 14. With regard to sexual violence and protecting victims, victims of sexual assault must be able to seek justice without being revictimized. The bill tightens the rules around access to medical records and provides greater protection for victims, while maintaining the right to a full and fair defence. Pornographic deepfakes are being expressly addressed by legislation. The non-consensual distribution of intimate images is a growing phenomenon that demanded a clear legislative response. The bill is also a step forward for victims' rights. It strengthens the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights. Victims are entitled to respect, courtesy, compassion and fairness. That is important. They are also entitled to have their cases processed within a reasonable amount of time. However, these rights must be accompanied by sufficient resources for the justice system. Obviously, I am going to talk about the need for federal transfers to Quebec, because Quebec is responsible for administering the justice system. It is all well and good to introduce more laws, but Quebec and the provinces need to be given the resources to act. I am about to use a term that may not be exciting, but that suits our purpose here, because what we are really talking about is the fiscal imbalance. Second, this leads me to point out some of the flaws in the bill. Shelter representatives constantly remind us that femicide rarely occurs out of the blue. It is often preceded by a history of violence, harassment and coercive control. When a woman asks for help, the system must be able to intervene before it is too late. That is why I was talking about measures to allow Quebec's system to handle this issue. We acknowledge that Bill C‑16 is a step in the right direction because it explicitly recognizes this reality. However, the government must also provide the means to take action. Regarding the lack of resources, the witnesses who appeared before the Standing Committee on the Status of Women told us clearly that needs are outpacing resources. Many shelters are turning women away because they do not have enough spots. Some women have to stay in dangerous situations because no other immediate solution is available. As far as transitional housing is concerned, leaving an abusive partner is not simply a matter of finding a spot in a shelter. Women need a safe place to live while they rebuild their lives. Several witnesses emphasized the importance of second- and third-stage housing. Without affordable housing, some women are forced to return to their abuser. Everything gets delayed. In some cases, they stay longer in emergency shelters because they have nowhere else to go afterward. They stay there, delaying the arrival of another woman in urgent need of this resource. This delays every step of the process and delays the arrival of women who need protection. We are also seeing this in the work of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, which is currently conducting a study on the issue of housing availability and the lack of resources to help women who are experiencing intimate partner violence. I would also like to talk about children who are exposed to violence. Witnesses also noted that children are victims of intimate partner violence too. They are collateral victims. Even when they are not directly targeted, they live in a climate of fear and insecurity. Preventing violence also means protecting children. As for prevention, all the witnesses pointed out that violence cannot be solved by the justice system alone. That means that Bill C‑16 will not solve everything. Prevention remains essential. We need to invest in education, equal relationships, mental health services, and support for young people. We also need to use federal transfers to give resources to community organizations. That is important. When we did our study on anti-feminism and the rise of masculinism, those were some of the recommendations that emerged. We need to teach boys and girls what respectful, violence-free relationships look like. Concerning court delays, a number of organizations said that lengthy proceedings can discourage some victims. When a woman finds the courage to report her attacker, she should not be forced to wait years before justice is served. Court delays contribute to revictimization. Measures designed to avoid stays of proceedings are important to maintain trust in the justice system. Victims demand to be heard, believed and protected. They also demand that the justice system be more humane. The provisions enhancing victims' rights in Bill C‑16 are an important step forward. Third, the Bloc Québécois has a few reservations I will go over briefly. We support Bill C‑16, but it still contains some inconsistencies. I mentioned them earlier: Amendments meant to provide better protection for stalking victims were rejected. We believe that victims need to be given more preventive tools before the violence escalates. Some of the changes to bail conditions may also be too broad and exceed the bill's original objective. In conclusion, Bill C‑16 is a significant step forward. It acknowledges the reality of femicide, criminalizes coercive control, better protects victims of sexual assault, addresses youth recruitment by gangs, and attempts to limit the consequences of court delays. I would like to say one last thing: The Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of this bill, but we call on the government to keep working so that victims are truly believed and placed at the heart of our justice system.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I'm filling time by talking about a rejected amendment. I want the other guy to say if he agrees there's a problem. The bill changes the rules for harassment. Peace bonds didn't change. I think that's inconsistent.”

“Thank you for saying nice things about me. We agree on many points. Services should be part of a bigger plan to deal with violence against women. Women's money problems make them more likely to get stuck in violence. You say homelessness is rising among women, especially indigenous women. I agree we should look at the 230 recommendations from the inquiry.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for Winnipeg Centre for raising this important issue in the House today regarding Bill C‑16. We sat together on the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. I know that she cares deeply about this issue. I also want to thank her for pointing out that services have to form part of a continuum, and that the situation of women has to be addressed proactively, especially their financial situation, their vulnerability, and how these factors can keep them trapped in a cycle of violence. My question is as follows. We recently conducted studies on the rise of homelessness among women, especially indigenous women who have a hard time finding housing. The witnesses also talked to us about the importance of applying the 230 recommendations arising from the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. What does my colleague think about that?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Private Members' Business

Canada Labour Code

2026-05-27

“I want to defend the right to strike. Section 107 is being abused. The Liberals are suspending strikes too often. That's bad. It's changing the balance of power. Unions are hurt. Businesses shouldn't rely on the government to stop strikes. I want to repeal section 107. We need more negotiation and less interference. That's how it should work.”

Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I rise this evening to speak to Bill C‑247, which seeks to repeal section 107 of the Canada Labour Code. First, the right to strike, and we need to call it that, is a fundamental right that is recognized by the courts and that is protected by freedom of association. The Bloc Québécois believes that this right must never depend on the political goodwill of a federal government. I remind members that Bill C‑247 seeks to repeal section 107 of the Canada Labour Code. This section gives the Minister of Labour extremely broad powers to intervene in labour disputes in the federal jurisdiction. The minister can go so far as to ask the Canada Industrial Relations Board to intervene or impose any measures the minister considers necessary. The main issue is that there are practically no clear guidelines in the legislation at this time. I will begin by explaining a little more about what the bill would change. I will then provide some numbers. Lastly, I will remind members of our historical position. First, with respect to section 107, there are no strict criteria tied to public health, national security or an exceptional emergency. This opens the door to political interference in strikes that are, in fact, lawful. A strike is often the last resort for workers after months or sometimes years of negotiations. If the government can intervene as soon as the pressure gets intense, the right to strike becomes meaningless. A strike only carries weight when it creates real economic pressure. If employers believe that Ottawa will eventually intervene, why would they negotiate quickly? Why would they make compromises or concessions at the bargaining table? As a result, the existence of section 107 directly alters the balance of power between employers and workers. It encourages employers to stick to their guns rather than bargaining in good faith. The Bloc Québécois believes that disputes should be resolved at the bargaining table first, not in ministerial offices and not through premature political intervention. Historically, section 107 has existed since 1984, but it was rarely invoked. What is concerning today is the rapid increase in its use. Just since 2024, Ottawa has used section 107 to intervene in at least seven major labour disputes. My colleagues have already cited recent examples in their remarks, including WestJet, CN, CPKC and Air Canada. The noteworthy thing about the dispute at Air Canada is that it was about unpaid work, which disproportionately affected female flight attendants. Other examples include the ports of Montreal, Quebec City and Vancouver, as well as Canada Post. What was intended to be an exceptional power has effectively become a standard tool for managing labour disputes. Take Canada Post, where more than 55,000 workers were affected by the dispute. Small and medium-sized businesses pegged their economic losses at approximately $76 million per day. Yes, these disputes have a significant impact on the economy. They are a source of concern among businesses and citizens. However, when a government limits a fundamental right, it should always do so openly, in front of Parliament. For a long time, when a government wanted to end a strike, it had to introduce special back-to-work legislation. This entailed a public debate, a vote by elected officials and political accountability. Section 107 circumvents this debate, this democratic process, by employing a much more low-key administrative mechanism. Many labour organizations have been complaining about this situation for years. In their view, section 107 makes it possible to suspend or neutralize a lawful strike without any real parliamentary oversight. A number of lawsuits have also been filed challenging the constitutionality of these interventions. There are even some labour law experts who hold that the right to strike is an integral part of true collective bargaining. If that right can be suspended too easily, it throws negotiations off balance, not to mention the obvious problem of creating a double standard. Prolonged lockouts, aggressive management strategies and refusals to compromise are often tolerated. However, as soon as workers effectively exercise their right to strike, Ottawa takes swift action, as if the problem were always the union, as if the right to strike were an economic obstacle and not a fundamental democratic right. The Bloc Québécois believes that true balance must be restored to labour relations. Repealing section 107 does not mean that the government loses all its tools. The minister will still be able to appoint mediators, use conciliation, support negotiations and establish commissions of inquiry. If an exceptional intervention is truly necessary, the government can still introduce special legislation in Parliament, but it will then have to publicly defend that decision to elected officials and the public. That is what parliamentary democracy is all about. That is how the process should work. Bill C-247 aims to protect a fundamental right, limit a ministerial power that has become excessive, strengthen collective bargaining, and return negotiations to where they belong, that is, between employers and workers. We often say this that the best agreement is always one that has been negotiated rather than imposed by force. For the Bloc Québécois, defending the right to strike means defending workers' dignity, freedom of association, and the balance of power in labour relations. Let us look at some statistics and key points to drive home our message. As we know, there has been a recent surge in the use of section 107. Some would even go so far as to say that this section has been weaponized and has become an obsession for the Liberals. Section 107 has been around since 1984. For decades, it was used only very rarely. According to several legal and union analyses, its use has skyrocketed since 2024. As I mentioned earlier, the federal government has intervened in at least seven or eight major labour disputes by invoking section 107. Think about the major disputes where the government has invoked section 107: WestJet, Canadian National, Canadian Pacific Kansas City, the port of Montreal, the port of Quebec, the port of Vancouver, Air Canada, Canada Post. Take the WestJet dispute, for example. According to CUPE, in June 2024, the government attempted to invoke section 107 even before the strike at WestJet had actually begun. Crucially, when the Canada Industrial Relations Board did not immediately suspend the strike, the employer quickly returned to the negotiating table. A court ruling forced them back to the negotiating table. Ultimately, an agreement was reached swiftly once the parties returned to the table to talk. It is important to bear in mind that these disputes have economic repercussions. As I have already mentioned, 55,000 workers were involved in the dispute at Canada Post. That is not insignificant. Canadian small businesses were deeply affected and pegged their losses at $76 million a day during the strike. We fully understand why they were worried. Negotiations needed to resume. The parties had to get back to the negotiating table. We are saying that there is a way to do better in terms of bargaining. The best way to resolve a labour dispute is with a framework where disputes are resolved at the table, there is no premature political intervention, the right to strike carries its full weight, and the parties are genuinely encouraged to reach an agreement. The Bloc Québécois is acting in accordance with its historical position. I know that my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean is here. One of our former leaders, Gilles Duceppe, was a trade unionist. More recently, we had another trade unionist on our team, Louise Chabot, whom I acknowledge. This is part of our DNA, and we continue to hold those traditional positions. Section 107 makes it possible to circumvent parliamentary debate on back-to-work legislation and intervene directly in a dispute by suspending a perfectly lawful strike or rendering it meaningless. As we said, repealing this section would not leave the minister with no other recourse. The minister would still have all the mediation and conciliation powers provided for elsewhere in the Canada Labour Code. This would force the minister to play a more traditional role during labour disputes, in other words, facilitating and supporting negotiations, suggesting solutions and exerting political pressure, rather than directly short-circuiting a lawful strike by issuing a broad directive to the Canada Industrial Relations Board. This change is important. That is why we support this bill, out of respect for workers' rights and in keeping with the historical positions of the Bloc Québécois.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“You seem to care a lot about this. Tell me more about how this helps women.”

Government Orders

Business of Supply

2026-05-26

“The Liberal plan is flawed. Experts agree that cutting gas taxes doesn't help the right people. It's a fake solution. The government needs that money. I want to know what my colleague thinks. Does he agree with me?”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer a few comments to my colleague. We see that the Liberals' gas tax cut mainly benefits the wealthy, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer; that it is “an unfair and short-sighted measure”, according to Normand Mousseau of the Institut de l'énergie Trottier, which is affiliated with Polytechnique Montréal; and that lowering gas taxes is a bad idea masquerading as a good one, according to Luc Godbout, a prominent economist at the University of Sherbrooke. What we are debating today is, first and foremost, the suspension of fuel taxes. This would deprive the government of tax revenue during this period of deficit, so it is another bad idea masquerading as a good one. Furthermore, in Quebec, we see that the fuel tax dates back to 1924 and is used for road maintenance. Finally, a reduction would run counter to the government's climate change goals and the 2030 target, while other countries in Asia and Europe are aiming for net zero and implementing measures to achieve this energy transition. What does my colleague think of all this?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I talked to real people. They're suffering. Your plan won't help. At all. Show your work. I want real help for these real people.”

Official Hansard

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. However, if she wants to talk about other ways to help people in need and increase the income of seniors who are living on the streets, we are willing to discuss that.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“The Conservatives left out a very important detail in their motion. I want to bring up a time when the government sent out checks to buy votes. Quebec had to pay for those checks even though they didn’t get any. It cost Quebec $814 million. I want that money back.”

Official Hansard

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. 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?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Government Orders

Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act

2026-05-06

“The government says it's fixing inflation. This plan doesn't do enough to help people. It leaves out seniors on fixed incomes. Seniors should all get the same pension amount at 65. Why didn't you fix that?”

Official Hansard

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?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗