Andréanne Larouche

In response to a question from Claude DeBellefeuille

“My party tried to fix this bill with amendments. It creates inconsistent rules for criminal harassment and peace bonds, and we wanted to make them consistent.”

“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.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 46 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“I support this bill to take away the labour minister's power to end strikes. Workers have a right to strike. Right now, the government uses this power too often to step into disputes instead of letting workers and bosses negotiate. If the government wants to force people back to work, it should have to pass a law and debate it here in Parliament.”

“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.”

“Cutting the gas tax is a bad idea. Experts say it mostly helps rich people, costs the government money it needs, and hurts our climate goals. I want to know what my colleague thinks about this.”

“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?”

“This economic plan does not help people who are hurt most by high prices, especially seniors. The government treats some seniors better than others. I want to know why this plan does not give every senior the same pension starting at age 65.”

“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?”

In response to a question from Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe

“The government's plans do not match what businesses in my riding need. They already have too much debt and do not want more loans. They also need better solutions for temporary foreign workers. I want all parties to work together to truly help our local businesses.”

“Mr. Speaker, businesses in my riding are obviously asking questions. The government is taking steps, but the steps often do not match up with the businesses’ needs. For example, the loan announced yesterday is smoke and mirrors. It will add a burden for businesses, because the assistance is still in the form of a loan, even though businesses in my riding already have loans. At the economic discussions we attended, representatives of Granby Industriel told us that they did not want any more loans because they already had too many. Representatives of BRP also say that they want other solutions and want to know that the government will help them in other ways, for example by using other means that the Bloc Québécois is proposing. This is clearly not enough for our local businesses. 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.”

“I support this bill. It makes forced sterilization a clear crime under the Criminal Code. This practice violates human rights and mostly hurts Indigenous women, racialized women, and people with disabilities. We must protect patients while still respecting Quebec's power over health care.”

“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.”

“I worry this bill gives the federal government more power over areas that belong to Quebec. I want to make sure Quebec energy companies get to speak about it in committee.”

“Mr. Speaker, regarding Bill S‑3, I want to hear my colleague talk about the context in his province. At home in Quebec, we have Hydro-Québec and Énergir. In the new context of a majority government, we are going to see more than ever the government, in this federal system, try to interfere in Quebec’s jurisdictions and give itself more powers. The Bloc Québécois wants to make sure that Hydro‑Québec and Énergir are at least heard in committee. We want to ensure that Quebec’s jurisdictions are respected and that the minister refrains from interfering even more. What does my colleague think about our desire to ensure that Quebec’s jurisdictions are respected in this area?”

“I will vote against this bill. It tries to set federal rules for skilled trades and workers. Job training and labour rules belong to Quebec, and Quebec already manages its own workforce well.”

“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.”