MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT

Marie-Hélène Gaudreau

Follow by RSS

Gaudreau presses for Quebec’s cultural sovereignty, demanding the $600 million promised this year for festivals and cultural organizations, along with shelter funding for women who are victims of violence and better services for veterans. She often leaves out who is acting, saying projects “have not been allowed to move forward” and “another tactic is being used.” She draws on her experience as a caregiver and social psychologist when she argues.Written by AI from their statements. Updated .

Average grade
B
77 / 100 over 48 statements
Signal 62 / 100
Relevance 73 / 100
Respect 100 / 100
Clarity 95 / 100
Averaged over the 48 of 59 statements graded so far.

In their own words

Loses points more than most for

A remark off to the side of the point.2.5 times as often as most members.What the tags mean ×2.5

Loses points less than most for A promise with no date, no measure and no one responsible.Less often than most members.What the tags mean

Statements 59

Government Orders ·

Safe Social Media Act

In response to a question from Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault

“The government needs to talk to public safety groups and all the provinces and territories about this bill. It would probably get very positive feedback. But the federal government also needs to mind its own business.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 30 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, in less than 30 seconds, I will say that the government needs to consult public safety stakeholders and every province and territory. I think the government will then get feedback that would likely be very positive. That said, I would remind the House that it is also important for the government to focus on its own affairs.

In response to a question from Jean-Yves Duclos

“We need to pass and set up this law quickly. Artificial intelligence is everywhere in our lives now, and Quebec's leaders have good expertise to help with this.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, indeed, the new government at the National Assembly of Quebec includes people who are very competent. I must say that the MNA for the Laurentians, Anne Nguyen, has a great deal of expertise. I cannot wait for the bill to see the light of day because it is high time this law was implemented quickly, especially given that artificial intelligence is so pervasive in our lives.

In response to a question from Gabriel Ste-Marie

“I support this bill and hope it passes. When it goes to committee, we need to consult Quebec and the provinces. They have scientific research and good ideas that can help improve it.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the question we are asking. We are perfectly comfortable with the bill and we hope it will pass into law. Once it is referred to committee, I hope that Quebec and the provinces will be consulted, considering the research they conducted, the evidence they gathered from scientists and the measures they implemented that we need to use for inspiration. The government may have consulted the provinces to some degree, but a lot more such consultation is needed.

In response to a question from Marianne Dandurand

“I agree that we need to focus on prevention. Social media platforms use strategies that harm young people. We need rules and more funding to protect our children's physical and mental health.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, what a great question from my colleague. I come from the community sector, a sector that is stretched thin in Quebec, and I know that prevention is key. Indeed, when we see the strategies being used by platforms that turn young people into zombies, we understand that safeguards need to be implemented. We need to invest more and develop a legislative framework that protects the physical and mental health of our young people.

“I want us to pass this bill to committee. Social media companies design their apps to keep people hooked, which hurts children's mental and physical health. Just like we regulate tobacco and cannabis, we need rules to protect kids online. A committee needs to study these rules carefully and make sure the federal government does not step into Quebec's powers.”
Official Hansard

I think I am bothering one of my colleagues. I hope it is not just because I am speaking French. Some countries are taking a bold approach. Others are waiting to see what kind of legislation is passed and may take their cue from what we do here. I am certainly not the only one who sees people my age in my circle of friends who go into a trance as soon as they open Instagram or TikTok, although that app is not as popular as it once was. Of course, there are also the short videos on Facebook. The tech giants understand human nature. They understand the weaknesses of the human mind, how our attention span works and, most importantly, how to keep us hooked. They know how to get our attention and feed us content that can make us lose all sense of time. I do not think there is a single person here who has not experienced this. In fact, many of the people who created these platforms admit that they too fall victim to their own tactics and this game. Our partners, our children, our friends—all are susceptible. The difference is that we are adults and we have free will. In theory, we are equipped to understand these dangers but, as with any addiction, it is difficult to break free, especially once we have lost track of time. Now, let us think about all the 12-year-old boys and girls who are just starting junior high. Their parents buy them a cellphone because they want to keep track of where they are going and because junior high brings with it a new kind of freedom. Parents also want to be able to contact their children. There are all sorts of good reasons for these kids to have cellphones. We are no longer talking about the old flip phones that no one wanted to send text messages on because it took too long. Kids can now get on the Internet with their phones. They have access to social media. There are apps to block social media, but let us be serious. Young people want a digital presence. It is important to point that out. We obviously have to keep up with the times. That is why Bill C-34 is so important. Digital communication is at now at the centre of our lives. If we do not regulate it, we are leaving young people to navigate these platforms alone, platforms where they may be exposed to cyber-bullying, content that is not age appropriate and mechanisms designed to keep them online into the wee hours of the morning. I remember when I was old enough to get my driver’s licence, I was told to save my money so that I could buy myself a car. A car does not come for free and it comes with rules. It is important to know how to navigate this digital world because, even though it may be intangible, there are still public health and safety issues to consider. There is also something that is not as easy to pick up on among young people: young people who isolate themselves, who become withdrawn and whose mental health could be affected by online pressure and interactions. When I talk about interactions, I think about the fact that every second we are in front of a screen adds up. Screen time could even take the place of time spent sleeping. We also know that the amount of time spent doing physical activity and being physically present with others is decreasing. We all know that sedentary lifestyles can be harmful to physical health. In addition, online pressure and interactions can take a heavy toll on mental health. These effects are real and cannot be ignored. The pandemic reminded us just how much young people need to interact with others in order to learn to socialize. When so many of our interactions are happening only online, socialization becomes more difficult and some people may withdraw into themselves. I am sure that my very attentive colleagues agree. We must learn from what is happening now and help both current and future generations develop a healthy relationship with digital tools without becoming dependent on them. On social media, young people see digitally enhanced bodies and carefully curated lives. Success often appears effortless, but comparing ourselves to those images can leave us feeling that we are not attractive enough, popular enough or successful enough. In fact, a study of just over 21,000 youth aged 10 to 17 in six countries, including Canada, found that 55% were dissatisfied with their appearance. One could argue that not many of us are satisfied, but dissatisfaction tends to increase as time spent on social media increases. We already use this approach for other products. For instance, tobacco advertising, packaging and warnings are regulated. The same goes for cannabis. There is a minimum age, and marketing aimed at young people is tightly restricted. With social media, the risks are different, but the principle is the same: Protect people and prevent harm through regulations. Limiting young people’s access is therefore a public health measure, not arbitrary control. We need to make that distinction. We in the Bloc Québécois think it is normal and preferable for laws to adapt quickly to technological changes. Our laws are lagging far behind, and this gap must be closed to keep up with the accelerating pace of AI. Even the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has called for rules to protect children across all social media. These are the rules we are being called upon to discuss and debate as we study Bill C-34. I hope that the discussions will be very constructive once the bill passes this stage and that the committee will come up with effective measures to keep our young people on the right track. What rules should we bring in to regulate social media and protect young people? Which level of government within the Canadian federation has the jurisdiction to address this challenge? These are questions that need to be asked as this bill proposes a federal regulatory framework for social media and chatbots. This bill would also impose a number of duties on digital platforms, including a duty to protect minors and to make certain content inaccessible. This will, in fact, help to educate parents. The bill places obligations on these platforms, including requirements to remove content depicting sexual victimization and non-consensual intimate images. It proposes a range of principles, obligations and enforcement mechanisms aimed at holding digital platforms accountable, protecting minors and ensuring online safety. The Bloc Québécois supports these objectives and sees the positive side of a number of the principles and proposed solutions. However, each of these measures will require careful examination. I repeat that, in committee, I hope we will ensure that our decisions are guided by science, facts and research, and not simply guided by assumptions or, I dare say, partisan politics. As the Bloc Québécois has always maintained, we must also ensure that the federal government does not encroach on areas of jurisdiction that belong to Quebec and the provinces. In conclusion, in 2024 and 2025, Quebec’s National Assembly established a Select Committee on the Impacts of Screens and Social Media on Young People’s Health and Development. Let us draw on the work of our counterparts to ensure a healthy digital environment for our young people.

“I support the government looking into rules for young people on social media. Quebec's premier showed early leadership on this, and other countries are looking at doing it too.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the fact that the government is looking at regulating social media among young people. I also commend the leadership shown by the Premier of Quebec, who was one of the first people in Quebec to raise this issue. Other western countries are also considering this. An hon. member: Oh, oh!

“We need laws to protect young people online. But Quebec should decide these rules for young people in Quebec.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, indeed, the time has come to deal with this situation. My question is this. In our society, which level of government is ultimately responsible for protecting young people? I am thinking of the young people in Quebec, for example. Would my colleague agree that, while legislation is needed, it is up to the Quebec nation to have a serious discussion about these legislative choices?

Government Orders ·

Strengthening Canada's Defence Sector Act

“I worry this new agency will just approve decisions without checking them. Members of Parliament will not be able to watch it closely, and that could lead to special treatment for the Prime Minister's friends. I want to know if my colleague shares this concern.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, earlier in my speech, I mentioned the concern that an agency like this could become a place merely for rubber-stamping, where people just sign off and say, “There you go, it’s done.” I would like to know whether my colleague shares this concern about a structure where parliamentarians may not always be aware of what is going on and cannot keep a close eye on things to make sure the Prime Minister’s friends are not given preferential treatment.

“I want to hear what changes we could make to this bill to ensure proper oversight. The procurement ombudsman told us he has no power to watch over this, so I worry about how we will keep things honest.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, some people are in good shape. I congratulate the pages for their outstanding work. Very briefly, I want to hear my colleague speak to any amendments that could be proposed. Personally, I am very concerned about accountability. When we asked, the procurement ombudsman said there is nothing he can do. If the ombudsman has absolutely no oversight authority, how can we put some kind of safeguard in place to ensure that everything stays above board?

“I do not trust this bill. The procurement watchdog told me he cannot do his job under this new system, so he will not be able to check if contracts go to government friends.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, let us talk about accountability. The procurement ombudsman regularly appears before the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. When I asked him if there are sufficient safeguards or if he could analyze certain contracts that might have been awarded to cronies for certain purposes, even though that is surely not happening, he replied that he could not do his job with a new structure like this one. Seriously, we are supposed to believe the words we are hearing when, fact, what we are talking about is total autonomy.

“I want the government to explain how it will make sure this new Crown corporation is open and transparent.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, in my speech earlier, I talked about accountability and transparency. I would like my colleague to explain to me how the government will be able to ensure transparency in this new Crown corporation. I would like him to explain that to me.

In response to a question from Mario Beaulieu

“This bill hurts our democracy and hides things from the public. It is part of a bigger problem.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Signal 13 of 100

    Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, for those who follow our work, this is just the tip of the iceberg. It is unbelievable what is happening. We supposedly have a saviour for now, but what happens later? What then? All of this in the name of national sovereignty and economic development. Seriously, we are undermining our democracy. Bill C-40 is exactly the same anti-transparency process.

In response to a question from Alex Ruff

“The government's plan for this new defence corporation does not make sense. If they keep all these rules, it will not actually work like a Crown corporation. I worry the government is ignoring the problems this will cause.”
  • 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
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, my colleague’s French is always outstanding. What we are hearing right now is a lot of lofty rhetoric. As with other files, I would like to know just how aware government members are of what is taking place. I have already spoken about wilful blindness, but ultimately we will be left dealing with the consequences of a major departure, and that worries me. If the government is going to retain all these safeguards and criteria, then what emerges will no longer really be a Crown corporation. The rationale simply does not hold water.

In response to a question from Steeve Lavoie

“This bill creates a new defence agency without an independent watchdog to review contracts. Without an ombudsman, there will be no transparency. We need to help the defence sector, but not by hurting our democracy.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, because it gives me the opportunity to mention something I did not address in my speech: the role of the procurement ombudsman. The ombudsman serves as an independent safeguard and external watchdog. When a contract is disputed and a clear answer is required, a complaint can be filed with the ombudsman. The ombudsman then appears before the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, helping us get to the bottom of the matter. We correct course, if necessary. With the Defence Investment Agency, however, there will be no ombudsman. Just imagine: no transparency. I fully agree with my colleague that we need to speed up the process, that we need to support this sector and give it a helping hand, but at what cost? It must certainly not be at the cost of undermining our democracy.

“I oppose this bill. It sets up an independent corporation to buy military equipment, which will let the government avoid oversight from Parliament. At the same time that the government is cutting money for prisons and other public services, this plan gives a high-paying job to a friend of the Prime Minister. Parliament must be allowed to review how this money is spent.”
  • Speech on a bill

    Respect 98 of 100

    This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “What the Prime Minister wants is to evade legislative oversight and turn Parliament into a rubber stamp”.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, a riot broke out on Friday, October 16, 2026, at La Macaza Institution, in my riding, caused by understaffing. Frontline officers found themselves in the middle of what could have been a very dangerous situation. I want all my colleagues who were not aware of this situation to know that it was very alarming. Without the expertise of the officers on the ground, the situation could have ended very differently. The connection I want to make here is obvious. Let me be very clear. The inmate population at La Macaza has changed in recent years. We are not talking about a junior kindergarten here. We are not talking about a day care centre. We are talking about a prison, the La Macaza institution. This is a direct result of the federal government’s policies. As everyone knows, the government chose to cut $132 million from Correctional Service Canada. These $132 million in cuts come on top of budget cuts being made across the public service. Now we are learning that under Bill C-40, the Crown corporation the government wants to establish would have a friend of the Prime Minister, Doug Guzman, as its CEO. Is anyone surprised? Mr. Guzman, a former Goldman Sachs executive and banker like the Prime Minister, is expected to get a salary in the neighbourhood of $700,000 a year. That is a little higher than what an MP or even a minister earns. I am outraged. While staff on the ground work day in, day out to ensure public safety at the prisons in La Macaza, Joliette, Cowansville and Port-Cartier, they are seeing how budget cuts have a direct impact on their work. We are being asked, as parliamentarians, to vote to give a $700,000 salary to a friend of the Prime Minister. This is no joke. That is the reality and it is insulting. I will explain why. It is because we also learned that Mr. Guzman allegedly threatened to leave the Defence Investment Agency, and that it was as a result of this blackmail that the government decided to make the agency into a Crown corporation. Agency officials testified to this at the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. I want to explain to Quebeckers and Canadians what this change really means. The creation of a Crown corporation means establishing a company that is independent from government with a board of directors and a chief executive officer. The Crown corporation will not be accountable to Parliament. I want to emphasize that: It will not be accountable to Parliament. The government will not be responsible for its day-to-day operations. As everyone knows, Canada already has plenty of Crown corporations, including the CBC, the Business Development Bank of Canada, Destination Canada and Canada Post. What do those Crown corporations have in common? They provide services. They have mandates aimed at serving the public or businesses. However, the management of military and defence procurement is not a social, cultural or economic development mandate. There is no rational argument to justify the creation of a Crown corporation in this case. The only reason I can see is that the government wants to do as it did with Bill C-5 this spring or, worse, Bill C-39. The government and the Prime Minister want free rein to ram this through and control the whole process without any parliamentary oversight. Now that is power. What the Prime Minister wants is to evade legislative oversight and turn Parliament into a rubber stamp. It is easy. No one says a word, and his plans go off without a hitch. His actions go unnoticed. There is no accountability, period. Members of Parliament are being denied three roles. I have been here for seven years and I must say I have never seen anything like this. The first is the role of intermediary between citizens and the public administration. The second is the role of legislator. The third is the role of overseeing and monitoring government actions. Otherwise, what is the point? How will lawmakers—and I am talking about all of us, not just the opposition—be able to hold the government accountable if the government keeps undermining transparency and accountability? It is troubling. With Bill C-40, just as with Bill C-39, we are witnessing undemocratic manoeuvres to ram through measures without parliamentary scrutiny. They want to rush this through, quietly and without anyone noticing, as I have already mentioned. What would be my role on the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates if I no longer had the right to scrutinize these matters, if I no longer had the right to know? What do we have to offer to all the people who elected us? I represent the riding of Laurentides—Labelle. I represent a geographical area, but above all I represent people. My riding is home to 92,897 people. When I rise in the House, I am speaking on their behalf. I am speaking in the interests of my constituents. I am speaking with them in mind. When the Prime Minister and the government seek to limit parliamentary power, what they are really doing is limiting the power of the people. I think that is clear. This authoritarian streak worries me, and I am not the only one. I do not want the government to hide behind a board of directors it has appointed in order to justify potentially dubious purchases, or to pat itself on the back when a purchase proves beneficial. I do not want the Government of Canada—which, incidentally, is the only one amongst our allies to have established a system of this sort—to be able to evade the close scrutiny of members of Parliament. We deserve a government that treats Parliament with respect. That is what people want. I want Parliament to be able to work diligently, with respect for the public and with the sound management of public finances in mind. I am concerned. Efficiency must not come at all costs, yet that is what we are being told. We are being told that the government wants to do this in order to be efficient. We have just seen that we could have been efficient by taking care of our culture and investing in it. However, a one-sided decision was made. In closing, I agree that the process can certainly be improved. However, we must ensure that the intentions are noble and in the common interest, not in the interest of the Prime Minister’s friends. I have seen this movie before, and I hope that things will be different this time because the situation is serious. Let us treat it seriously.

Government Orders ·

Business of Supply

“The government says culture is important, but it has done nothing. It still has not spent the $600 million it promised, and it is ignoring broadcasting laws. I want us to sound the alarm on this.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Signal 39 of 100

    Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a comment and hear my colleague’s thoughts on it. Earlier, in my speech, I said that the economy and culture go hand in hand. I hear the government saying that culture is important and needs to be promoted, and it certainly seems to be congratulating itself, but is it actually doing anything concrete? We have to use this opposition day to sound the alarm and to point out that the $600 million has yet to materialize and the government is ignoring the Broadcasting Act. Is my colleague as discouraged as I am? It is time to get out of here.

In response to a question from Marilyn Gladu

“Our culture and identity are priceless. We should not make economic choices that hurt our culture. The economy and culture must work together.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 12 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. Her French is as excellent as always. When it comes to our identity, who we are, our values, culture is priceless. That is exactly what I just said. Economic decisions are made at the expense of culture, while both should go hand in hand. This is about our very essence.

In response to a question from Patrick Bonin

“We are having this debate because the government is ignoring the rules on broadcasting. Other places like the European Union and Australia chose to protect their culture, but Canada did not.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, my answer to my colleague is that this is exactly why we are having this opposition day. We are asking for the bare minimum, because the government is definitely not considering the Broadcasting Act. It says it wants to build Canada strong, but we can still look to what is being done elsewhere and draw from it. The EU and Australia, for example, chose culture. We did not.

In response to a question from Helena Konanz

“I support this proposal for cultural groups and festivals. I do not understand why the Conservatives oppose it.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 21 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague, who serves with me on the Standing Committee on Health. I think that, like me, my colleague has met with representatives from cultural organizations and festivals. There are a lot of changes happening right now, both in terms of public safety and in the allocation of resources. What really matters, however, at the core is diversity and outreach. I do not see why the official opposition would be against this proposal.

In response to a question from Linda Lapointe

“I want the government to support our motion and release the $600 million for culture right now. Words are not enough. We need action.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 47 of 100

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

    See full analysis
  • Reply to a debate question

    Signal 33 of 100

    Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I was obviously asking this question of my colleagues here. Frankly, we were expecting this question. The motion we are moving today is concrete. The question is not how we vote, why we vote or what we vote on. Action is needed. I have no doubt that my Liberal and Conservative colleagues care about culture. However, it is time for my Liberal colleagues to take action. I will believe it when I see it. The $600 million is needed now.