Andréanne Larouche · TranslatePolitics.ca

Government Orders

Business of Supply

2026-05-05

“I say my riding's businesses don't want more loans. They want the government to help them other ways, like the Bloc proposes. The government's temporary foreign worker announcement isn't enough either. If we stop the smoke and mirrors, maybe we can work together to help local businesses.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, businesses in my riding are obviously asking questions. The government is taking steps, but the steps often do not match up with the businesses' needs. For example, the loan announced yesterday is smoke and mirrors. It will add a burden for businesses, because the assistance is still in the form of a loan, even though businesses in my riding already have loans. At the economic discussions we attended, representatives of Granby Industriel told us that they did not want any more loans because they already had too many. Representatives of BRP also say that they want other solutions and want to know that the government will help them in other ways, for example by using other means that the Bloc Québécois is proposing. This is clearly not enough for our local businesses. I hear about other concerns that the government has not acted or has let things drag on. For example, its inadequate announcement on the issue of temporary foreign workers is having consequences on businesses. I think that, if we can get beyond the smoke and mirrors, we can work together, collectively, in the House of Commons, with as little partisanship as possible, to help our local businesses.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I don't like the government. It made a promise and nothing happened. The government should do something. Talk to the U.S. faster. Businesses need money. Conservatives should agree with me.”

“Did you actually protect the lumber industry? Did you make a real aerospace policy? You helped Ontario's auto industry faster than Quebec's industries.”

“I'm filling time with kind words and saying nothing anyone could pin down later. The government should spend money to fix this. We want that money spent on our preferred program!”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I sincerely apologize to the interpreters. I never turn the pages like that, but I forgot. They will be going in another direction. The problem is the government's inadequate response. The government was slow to react, and the economic update initially contained no measures tailored to the crisis. While $10.1 billion was collected in tariffs, only $5.7 billion is being redistributed. This leaves $4.4 billion unused while businesses are struggling, and the announced measures rely primarily on loans. They are proposing $1 billion through the Business Development Bank of Canada and $500 million through regional agencies. This is good, but the problem, as my colleague from Joliette—Manawan said and as he heard in committee, is that businesses are already over-indebted. He heard this from representatives of economic organizations in Quebec, who raised this point. That will not solve the problem, because the fundamental issue is not that businesses lack access to credit; it is that they are already in debt, as I said. However, they are cash-strapped and unable to continue their operations during this period of uncertainty, so we do need to offer loans to businesses that are experiencing revenue losses. However, if we focus solely on that solution, it amounts to increasing their debt burden, so we are not coming out ahead. The Bloc Québécois is instead proposing concrete measures that are tailored to the situation. We keep coming back to our first idea: the wage subsidy. This solution is based on the model used during the pandemic, which worked well. The advantage is that it helps maintain employment relationships and prevents mass layoffs. By protecting the employment relationship, this measure helps to retain expertise and avoid higher social costs. That is important. There is also the idea of buying local. We suggest introducing a local procurement policy to support local processing and economic self-sufficiency. This morning, I met with representatives from companies such as Lassonde, which sells beverages. This morning, these food processing companies emphasized that there is no policy, no commitment. Government must lead by example. Much of it depends on institutional frameworks, but we must put this policy in place. It was part of the Bloc's proposals during the last election campaign, a year ago. We wanted Canada to pass a sort of “Buy Canadian Act” to prioritize buying local. We also want to support businesses directly by prioritizing grants over loans and addressing their short-term cash flow needs. We are also proposing another solution: a one-stop shop for SMEs to simplify access to programs, reduce the administrative burden and provide clear, centralized support. As the employment and labour critic, I would also add that employment insurance reform is necessary and of utmost importance to ensuring support for those who, despite everything, will lose their jobs during this crisis. Our social safety net must be adjusted to account for 2026 conditions. The Bloc Québécois believes employment insurance reform is crucial, and we will continue to push for it. The economic risk of doing nothing is immense. Quebec will lose an estimated $8 billion per year. Potential consequences include plant closures, brain drain and long-term regional decline. When a business closes, the jobs and expertise do not necessarily come back, and that is deeply tragic. Sometimes these things are lost forever. In conclusion, Quebec is particularly vulnerable because its economy is centred on manufacturing and exports. Its economic model is based on SMEs and very small businesses. This context calls for swift, targeted, meaningful action. It is vital to support businesses, protect workers and stabilize the regions. This is so important. I would remind the House that our ridings are home to some incredible family businesses, and we want them to stay in businesses. Every dollar of countertariff revenue should be reinvested directly to support the people grappling with the consequences of the tariff war. That was mentioned earlier by my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean. Inaction and inappropriate measures could have a lasting effect on our economy. It is time to take rigorous, responsible and effective action, as the Bloc Québécois has always done for the sake of Quebec's diversified business and economic sector.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I'm asking for government help for businesses hurt by new U.S. tariffs. These tariffs are a direct attack on our businesses. I want to help the businesses in my riding. I don't think the government is doing enough. Mr. Speaker, in my riding of Shefford, businesses allow the local economy to thrive. However, we have to recognize that we are dependent on exports to the United States. Businesses are losing sales and contracts. Some businesses fear they will have to reduce their staff. The government's response is inadequate.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on today's important Bloc Québécois motion on the U.S. tariffs and the impact on businesses and workers. They absolutely need our support in this time of uncertainty. I welcome this motion, and I am very pleased to speak to it. Since April 6, Quebec has been hit hard by a major economic shock. Donald Trump made a decision to impose new tariffs, which come as a direct attack on our businesses. These are not abstract numbers. Workers, SMEs and entire regions are affected. I would like to commend our whistle-blower, the member for Joliette—Manawan, who alerted us through his amazing work on the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology. I thank him for notifying us and for keeping an eye out on behalf of Quebec businesses. What we are currently facing is no mere trade dispute. It is an economic crisis that threatens the very fabric of our industry. The city of Valcourt, in my riding of Shefford, is a symbol of Quebec industry, of Quebec entrepreneurship, where a small garage grew into today's Bombardier. As the member for Shefford, I am well aware of Quebec's unique industrial fabric and the entrepreneurship developed over the years that now sets us apart. What happened on April 6 is a total game-changer. Since then, a 25% tariff has been applied to the total value of products containing over 15% steel, aluminum or copper. As a result, products that were once exempt are now being taxed. This means that a lot more companies are now being affected. Here are a few key facts: 24% of Quebec's exports to the U.S. are now targeted, and the average effective tariff rate has climbed from 5.7% to 9.6%. Now, Washington is not just taxing metal, but also Quebec's value added, know-how and labour. The economic impact is already very real and the consequences are already being felt in Quebec: 9,700 jobs have been lost in the manufacturing sector. Other data indicate that there is a 5.1% decline in employment in some sectors and 441,000 manufacturing workers are at risk. In the aluminum sector, 65% of SMEs are reporting a drop in sales and 47% are anticipating layoffs. Nearly one in three businesses are worried about their survival. This is not a future risk; it is a full-fledged crisis. This has a real impact on businesses. Some businesses are experiencing very immediate consequences, such as cancelled orders, loss of competitiveness and sudden cost increases. For example, a $30,000 part can generate $7,500 in tariffs. Some businesses are losing between 30% and 50% of their sales in the span of just a few weeks.U.S. buyers are turning to local suppliers to avoid risk. This is a reality throughout Quebec, including in the highly entrepreneurial and industrial city of Granby, in my riding of Shefford. It is home to many small and medium-sized manufacturers. I want to acknowledge the work of Granby Industriel and the incredible Granby industrial park. From Rougemont to Racine, businesses allow the beautiful riding of Shefford to thrive. However, we have to recognize that we are dependent on exports to the United States. It took media coverage about one case for us to wake up. It was the case of BRP, whose share price plummeted. Even without a specific high-profile case, the signals are still clear: loss of contracts, delayed projects and growing economic uncertainty. Businesses have to adapt, but many fear that they will have to reduce their staff. In Granby and elsewhere, businesses no longer know whether to invest or simply survive. This is a reality they are experiencing. The problem is the government's response, which is inadequate—

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Private Members' Business

Criminal Code

2026-05-04

“I'm using the missing indigenous women issue to introduce a big emotional story. I didn't think human trafficking still existed. I can't believe this forced sterilization bill is even needed in 2026. I want the government to establish rules protecting women's bodily autonomy. This is a terrible issue from our dark colonial past. Sterilization is still happening to vulnerable indigenous women who can't give real consent. We need a clear law to protect women and punish doctors who do this. I support this bill but Quebec's health jurisdiction must be respected. The government also needs to train doctors and raise awareness to end the stigma. This bill is a step towards never allowing forced sterilization again.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, first I want to point out something that is not directly related to today's topic but that still concerns an issue that affects it, although indirectly. I am wearing a red dress pin because tomorrow, May 5, we commemorate Red Dress Day. It is a time to remember missing and murdered indigenous women and girls. There are some topics that are hard to talk about in the House. Allow me to establish a link. Following my election in 2019, Senator Miville‑Dechêne reached out to me and told me about an all-party group on human trafficking and modern slavery. I was surprised that human trafficking and modern slavery still existed in 2019. Perhaps I was naive and living with my head in the clouds. Today, in 2026, I cannot believe I am forced to rise to speak to a bill about forced sterilization. Some of these topics are very sensitive and hard to discuss. I will address this one by invoking a fundamental principle: the right to control one's own body. This right is at the heart of any free and democratic society. Let us be clear: Forced sterilization is a human rights violation. It is an irreversible violation and a form of institutional violence. This is not a theoretical debate. In 2026, it is still a reality that, unfortunately, has not yet been eradicated. Behind this bill are women who were deprived of the choice to bring a child into the world. It is unspeakably cruel. As the mother of a four-year-old girl, I have to say this is a very difficult subject. It is not a simple issue. It is a reality that is part of a very dark chapter of our history. This is, of course, a historical legacy of colonialism. I will share some statistics. Between 1966 and 1976, there were 1,200 sterilizations, 1,150 of which were performed on indigenous women. Clearly, they are overrepresented. In Alberta, 74% of the women who were sterilized were indigenous. This reflects a legacy of eugenics and colonial policies. There were 580 documented cases between 1970 and 1975. These practices were intended to control certain groups that were deemed “undesirable”. This is systemic racism, and it leads to health inequalities. Contrary to what we might think, this is an issue that is still timely today, as I mentioned in my introduction. There have been some class-action lawsuits. Over 100 women filed suit in Saskatchewan, and another five lawsuits have been filed across Canada and beyond its borders. In Quebec, 22 cases have been documented, 30 Atikamekw women have filed a lawsuit and testimony has recently been heard in 35 cases. Let us talk about the issue of consent. These women are often asked for consent when they are in pain and in a vulnerable position. They are often pressured to make a decision. It is reasonable to wonder whether consent is valid when it is obtained from a person in a vulnerable position. This is not something that happened way back in the past. There are still cases before the courts today. Why do we need to legislate? This constitutes assault, which is already an offence. However, it is difficult to clearly define the act, to take legal action. It is very difficult to punish something that is not clearly defined. That is how we see it. I would like to make a comparison. Sexual assault needs to be explicitly defined. That takes political will, but this legislative change must be made so that it is perfectly clear to institutions that there will be zero tolerance. This right needs to be explicitly stated to better protect these women. We need to clarify that sterilization is mutilation, a form of aggravated assault. It is defined as any procedure that prevents reproduction. We need to ensure that there is free and informed prior consent. Yes, the purpose criterion protects necessary medical procedures. Of course, we are talking about protecting physicians, but the consent must be valid to exclude any criminal liability. Emergencies are also covered by section 45 of the Criminal Code. This bill protects patients without penalizing professionals who are acting in good faith. That is what we want to do here. To respond to criticism about criminalizing doctors, I would say that this is a clear law that also protects practitioners. We encourage enhanced consent protocols. The same logic applies to medical assistance in dying or caring for the incapacitated. Above all, we want to avoid a legal vacuum. There are reports that show the current recourse system has failed. Right now, this is a theoretical right with no actual enforcement, which does not really constitute protection. On top of that, there is the stigma of silence. There is a stigma attached to this. There is also a lack of recognition. It is a taboo subject that no one talks about. By naming it, we are recognizing it, and by recognizing it, we are ultimately protecting these women so that they can continue to make their own decisions about their bodies. There is are very systemic and social aspect, which is that the groups affected by this issue are indigenous women, racialized women and persons with disabilities. This violence is rooted in power imbalances, as I mentioned earlier. The truly tragic thing about this is that there are many consequences. We are talking about trauma and loss of trust, but also an intergenerational impact. It is not just an attack on a person's body; it is an attack on their entire life. Taking away a woman's ability to give birth is an attack on her right to choose whether to do so. This assault lasts a lifetime for a woman, who will later experience the psychological and physical scars of it all, because there will be scars, many of them. The Bloc Québécois strongly supports this bill, with certain reservations, of course. We want it to respect Quebec's jurisdiction over health care. As Bloc Québécois members have repeatedly said, the involvement of indigenous nations is a must. Nation-to-nation discussions are consistent with our vision, and we naturally want indigenous nations to be involved going forward. We also want to remind members that we will always reject any attempts at federal overcentralization. We will have to keep an eye out, because we see that this federal regime is yet another in a constant stream of attempts to overcentralize. The rights of these indigenous women and girls must be protected while respecting jurisdictions. Obviously, a law alone is not enough. Professionals also have to be trained. A monitoring and cultural adaptation mechanism also needs to be implemented. We could take inspiration from the Collège des médecins du Québec, whose initiatives promote collaboration and take a co-operative approach. As we have been saying, despite some criticism, this bill does seek to protect physicians. I think physicians want to collaborate on this issue, and we applaud their initiatives considering that the law must be translated into practice. It will take awareness campaigns to make that happen. We must eliminate the stigma and taboo surrounding forced sterilization, which is indeed still happening. My colleague, the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue, talked about this a little earlier in his question. He used to serve on the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs, and I know he took an interest in this issue. He shared the very real case of a woman who was subjected to this and described the pain and the wounds, both psychological and physical, that she suffered as a result of forced sterilization. In closing, these women have been ignored and silenced. We cannot forget the victims who have suffered as a result of this atrocity. As parliamentarians, we have a collective responsibility to take action today. By supporting this bill, we can appeal for justice, dignity and recognition. As a final point, I want to say that this bill is a step toward making amends, but, above all, it is a commitment to never tolerate this unacceptable act again. We are hearing more and more about the need for reconciliation lately, and I believe this bill aligns perfectly with that objective. As elected officials, we must set partisanship aside and move forward for the sake of victims.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Government Orders

Weights and Measures Act

2026-04-29

“I want Quebeckers to know that I am standing up for our province. Our party wants to make sure that Quebec's hydro companies are heard in the committee studying this bill. We don't want the federal government interfering in Quebec's business. We want the minister to stay in his lane and respect Quebec's jurisdictions.”

Private Members' Business

National Framework on Skilled Trades and Labour Mobility Act

2026-04-23

“I say this bill will let Ottawa take over Quebec powers. Ottawa should not control job training or pick which job skills count. Quebec already does that. We in the Bloc will vote no to this power grab!”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague from Laurentides—Labelle indicated where we stand on Bill C-266, an act to establish a national framework respecting skilled trades and labour mobility. This bill is presented as a practical measure aimed at facilitating the mobility of skilled workers. Who could possibly oppose credential recognition? Who could oppose streamlining administrative procedures? Who could oppose faster access to the labour market? Behind these good intentions lies a well-known strategy. Ottawa is using a real problem to grant itself new powers in an area that falls under Quebec jurisdiction. Skills training, trade certification, workforce planning and labour market organization are all Quebec's responsibility. Quebec already has its own institutions, mechanisms, partners and economic priorities. The Bloc Québécois has been clear: This bill is an attempt at centralization disguised as a technical solution. When it comes to employment and labour, Quebec did not wait for Ottawa to take action. Quebec already has a comprehensive system and it already manages its labour policies with the Commission de la construction du Québec, the Commission des partenaires du marché du travail, Services Québec, vocational training centres, the CEGEPs that offer technical programs and employer and labour organizations. We already have a lot of labour policies. It is important to take a moment here to review the history. In 1997, Ottawa recognized Quebec's responsibility for active employment measures through the Canada–Québec Labour Market Development Agreement in Principle. Since then, Quebec has been designing, administering and adapting its own training and job entry programs. Ottawa has already acknowledged that Quebec is in a better position to manage its workforce, so why are we taking this step backwards? What is more, what we can say is that the amounts that have already been transferred prove that the Quebec model exists. I will share a few numbers. In 2019, Ottawa announced nearly $5.4 billion in funding for Quebec until 2022‑23 through workforce and labour market agreements. That represents roughly 240,000 more Quebeckers who can benefit from employment and training measures. Ottawa already recognizes that Quebec is better at administering these programs, that needs differ from province to province and that Quebec has its own model. This raises the following question: If Quebec is already managing the billions of dollars invested in training, why would Ottawa now want to control the rules? We can see that there is a real risk of downgrading standards. The problem with the national framework is that the bill provides for a national list of trades, a comparison of provincial standards and equivalencies, harmonization and regulatory streamlining. That means that Ottawa is establishing itself as a national benchmark. When we see all that, it is clear that it is a danger for Quebec. Such a situation could undermine Quebec's safety standards, its training requirements, its apprenticeship mechanisms, its ability to protect French in the workplace and its unique characteristics in the construction industry. I come from a family of masons and carpenters. I often have conversations on Sunday evenings with my brothers, brothers-in-law and other family members. They regularly talk to me about reskilling, training and the very strict rules governing their trades, especially in the construction industry. I can confirm that Quebec is truly at the forefront. There is a risk in allowing Ottawa to take a more centralized approach to managing this. I would like to share a statistic that might be useful at this stage. The construction sector in Quebec employs more than 300,000 workers. We are talking about a critical sector here, not some administrative detail. Quebec has unique characteristics that are non-negotiable. These include the use of French on construction sites, the province's specific construction regulations, Quebec's distinct regional realities, the province's unique industrial needs, and the culture of labour-management co-operation, which must also be taken into account. We need to recognize that labour market needs in Sept-Îles, Rouyn-Noranda, Drummondville or Montreal are not the same as those in Calgary or Halifax. The Canadian labour market is far from uniform. Trying to standardize it is a mistake. We certainly agree on mobility in some form, but the main problem is interference. The Bloc Québécois has a fairly balanced position. We generally support voluntary mutual recognition, the free movement of workers, intergovernmental agreements, the reduction of red tape, and more pragmatic solutions. For all these reasons, the Bloc Québécois opposes any frameworks imposed by Ottawa, centralization, Canada-wide standards that bypass Quebec, and the gradual erosion of jurisdictions. Lastly, we do want to talk about the labour shortage, but the problem is a lack of workers, not a lack of structures. The real solution we want is to promote skilled trades to young people. We also want to speed up the recognition of prior learning. We want to invest in skills training. We need to support reskilling, help SMEs train the next generation of employees and allow Quebec to recruit workers based on its needs. All of this is crucial because Canada has had over 700,000 job vacancies on several occasions recently, according to Statistics Canada. A shortage of welders is not going to be solved with a federal committee. That is not how it works. What we are seeing once again is that anytime there is a crisis, the federal government sees it as an opportunity to introduce bills that interfere in the provinces' areas of jurisdiction. I get the impression that, with the situation with our American neighbours, the federal government is definitely trying to find “Ottawa knows best” solutions. However, that is not how things work. The Bloc Québécois criticized Bill C-5 and its many encroachments thanks to its Canadian projects led by Ottawa. However, Bill C-266 follows exactly the same path that we criticized. These attempts at interference have been happening repeatedly since the current Liberal government and Prime Minister were elected. It has not even been a year, but the number of attempts at bills that encroach on Quebec's areas of jurisdiction is extremely worrying. Little by little, they are trying to chip away at the powers that are rightfully ours. As I said, Quebec is a pioneer in many areas. We have a proven track record when it comes to labour. Quebec knows how to train its workforce. Quebec knows how to recognize the skills of its workers. Quebec knows how to meet its regional needs, and Quebec knows how to collaborate when it is useful, but Quebec does not need a federal arbiter, a national framework, a new bureaucracy or a new structure. This bill does not address the labour shortage. If anything, it addresses Ottawa's need to always be involved. That is why the Bloc Québécois will vote against Bill C-266 in recognition of Quebec's jurisdiction over its workers and its labour market.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗