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
Loses points more than most for Wording that hides who did something, or who will.4.4 times as often as most members.What the tags mean ×4.4 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 Averaged over the 48 of 59 statements graded so far.

Statements 59

Government Orders ·

Business of Supply

“Quebec needs the power to protect its own culture. The government is letting foreign streaming companies ignore our culture, and it cancelled the digital tax on these tech giants. The government must make streaming services pay into our system, and it must immediately pay the $600 million it promised to our cultural sector.”
  • A repeated line

    “As set out in the Broadcasting Act.”

    Said 4 times by 4 members since October 22.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, first off, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with my esteemed colleague from Côte‑Nord—Kawawachikamachi—Nitassinan. First, I would like to warmly congratulate my new colleagues in Quebec’s National Assembly who were elected on October 5. In the Laurentians, from the La Vérendrye wildlife reserve to the Rivière des Mille Îles, nine sovereigntist MNAs were elected. As a sovereigntist, the member for Laurentides—Labelle and a proud member of the Bloc Québécois, I wish to reiterate that I intend to work closely with my counterparts in the Parti Québécois for the future of our nation. The future of our nation depends on promoting what lies at the very heart of who we are: our culture. I understand the federalist strategy all too well. Control over our cultural destiny is seen as a threat to Canadian unity. That is why the affirmation and promotion of our culture have always been filtered through the lens of federalist policies. The preservation of our heritage and cultural autonomy represents a real and tangible challenge to the broader project of Canadian nation-building. Faced with Anglo-American cultural hegemony and pushes toward uniformity, Quebec must have the tools necessary to ensure its cultural sovereignty: produce its own works, promote them and make them available to its citizens, and showcase its world view across the globe. Its ability to choose its own cultural destiny depends on it. When the government backtracks on important legal pillars that have real, tangible and major effects on some of the population’s culture, we have every right to question the intentions behind these decisions. As an opposition legislator, it is my duty to do so. The government will definitely tell us that it has increased CBC/Radio-Canada’s funding. It did, and we are very glad it did. CBC/Radio-Canada is a public broadcaster. I am happy to know that in the coming weeks or months, hopefully, Radio-Canada will have reporters based in the Laurentians. We do not have any right now. Let us turn to TVA, Noovo and private production companies. How can they compete against Netflix, Amazon, Disney+ and the others? When production and distribution of cultural products fall into the hands of foreign giants, we risk losing more than just part of our identity. What we are asking for is not complicated. We must not give up the key ways in which we define our cultural priorities. We must maintain our presence in the public space and make our voice heard around the world. In 2026, as American platforms share their content globally and play a pivotal role in our cultural life, the government is choosing to scrap the digital services tax. Wow. It is choosing to give up one of the few levers at its disposal to get these giants to contribute to the cultural ecosystem where they make their profits. Imagine that. This choice puts commercial interests ahead of cultural interests. Yes, commercial interests come before cultural interests. Refusing to exercise the powers of the state means accepting the power relationship and letting these platforms set the ground rules on their own. This abdication is an admission of weakness and a profound disdain for francophone culture in North America. Let me be clear. Without the Bloc Québécois, no one here would take such a strong stand on Quebec culture. I am turning to my Liberal Party or Conservative Party colleagues here, and asking them where they stand on this issue. Defending Quebec culture involves defending the economy. They go hand in hand. Defending Quebec culture involves protecting jobs. Defending Quebec culture involves negotiating with the European Union. We have to stop assuming that protecting culture and creating jobs are mutually exclusive. The Prime Minister wants to to create closer ties between Canada and the European Union. We can also turn to the EU’s defence of culture for inspiration. Europe oversees huge platforms and ensures that its creative works are present and visible on streaming services. A number of its member states have also taken action on a fiscal level. Let us be bold, and let us take pride in Quebec culture. I know that the Prime Minister understands the value of soft power. I say to him: Let us take pride in seeing Quebec walk the red carpet at Cannes, shine at the Oscars and showcase its artists on the world stage. However, that kind of success does not happen on its own. Without funding, culture cannot thrive. From Théâtre du Marais in my riding in the Laurentians to Quebec TV series that are reaching audiences around the world, every link in the chain matters. We need to support our culture and to show the world what Quebec has to offer. Our culture deserves the government support it needs to create, renew, be passed on to future generations and flourish. That is why it is essential that the government uphold the CRTC’s decisions imposing levies on streaming services, as set out in the Broadcasting Act, and that it make the interim payment of $600 million promised to the cultural sector for the current year. How many questions have we asked? It should be possible to do this within days. Governments know how to move quickly when they want to invest. The question that I put to my colleague earlier focused on festivals. Culture, cultural events, festivals and tourism development are indeed part of who we are. It is not enough merely to express concern for them or to say that we value them. We must back those words with action. Quebec’s cultural sector, like its tourism sector, deserves recognition proportionate to its contribution to Quebec’s and Canada’s economies and to our collective identity. This is necessary.

“The government promised $600 million for culture this year, but never gave the money. Major festival groups in Quebec got more funding under the previous Conservative government than they do now. I want the member to explain that.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Signal 41 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, with all due respect to my colleague, we are talking about $600 million that was promised for this year but never delivered. My colleague spoke so highly of culture, festivals and whatnot in his speech that I seriously doubt that this opposition day motion will yield any sort of solution. Maybe my colleague has not spoken with groups like Quebec’s REMI, the Regroupement des événements majeurs internationaux, and Festivals and Major Events Canada, or FAME. Honestly, these groups had a lot more funding during Stephen Harper’s era. What does my colleague have to say about that?

Government Orders ·

Building Canada Strong Act

“Most members here do not care about the environment or climate change. They only care about winning the next election or their local economy. We need to protect the environment for our children's future.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, when I listen to some of my colleagues, I get the impression that there are only a few members of Parliament, including those from the Bloc Québécois, who are concerned about the environment and who want to keep the safeguards. Right now, it seems like no one is listening to anyone else. Obviously, that is because we are talking about the environment. No one cares, since they do not believe in climate change. We are definitely not looking at the same science. My colleagues should be ashamed because when we go back home, our children and grandchildren ask us what tomorrow holds for them. My colleagues think only about the next election or their region’s economy. For heaven’s sake, let us think about the future.

“The Prime Minister is bypassing our democratic system. He is spending taxpayer money as if it were his own. I want to know what cabinet members think about him changing the rules like this.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would really like to get inside the heads of everyone in the Prime Minister’s Office to find out what they think about a system where we can unravel everything, choose whatever we want, and then, ultimately, make decisions as if it were our own money. I am an entrepreneur and a lawmaker. When I make decisions involving taxpayer money, there is a democratic process. When it comes to my private interests, though, I can do whatever I want with my money. I would like my colleague to tell me what on earth the cabinet members think of the Prime Minister overhauling and dismantling everything.

“Government members are supporting this 250-page bill without reading it. I think this bill weakens our democracy, and I want to know if my colleague agrees.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if parliamentarians from the governing party here are aware of this omnibus bill. Earlier, during question period, I got the impression that they were saying yes because it will save us from Donald Trump. In fact, they are not even listening to me. Perhaps it is because I am speaking in French. I get the feeling they are under a spell. As we take a closer look at the bill and focus on strengthening democracy and the rule of law, in all seriousness, I would take a moment and go read all 250 pages. No one can tell me otherwise. I want to know whether my colleague agrees that Bill C‑39 weakens democracy.

Statements by Members ·

Vague de Cirque

“I want to congratulate Vague de Cirque, a circus company from my riding. They created a show that was so good it was brought to Germany this summer. It shows the world how creative Quebec is.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about a local success story that is crossing borders and making us very proud. Vague de Cirque is a company based in Val‑David that has been imagining and creating shows for 15 years now. Its show Là haut premiered in my riding at the Sentier des cimes in Mont-Blanc, and it was so successful that the German owners of Sentier des cimes decided to import that Quebec know-how across the Atlantic Ocean. This summer, the Vague de Cirque team flew to Usedom to put on a production specially designed around the island’s 33‑metre observation tower, offering a unique view of the Baltic Sea. We have talent, creativity and audacity in spades. When a creation born in the Laurentians becomes a model that is exported all the way to Germany, all of Quebec’s cultural know-how is on display. Congratulations to the entire Vague de Cirque team. We are proud of them.

Government Orders ·

Commissioner for Modern Treaty Implementation Act

“Other commissioners tell us they can only make recommendations, not enforce them. We should give this new commissioner the power to force people to follow the rules.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague as well. I see that it is much easier for our interpreters to interpret from French to English, because my colleague speaks English very quickly. I also want to wish everyone, including my colleague, a good start to the session. My question is this: Considering that no such commissioner position existed and that all of our commissioners tell us at our meetings that they lack sufficient enforcement powers and can do nothing but make recommendations, why not take this opportunity to create a commissioner position ourselves, and lead by example by introducing more coercive measures?

“Postal workers are on Parliament Hill today, and Canada Post needs answers this fall about reforms and a public review. On this bill, I want to know how the new commissioner will actually enforce rules. What happens if the commissioner makes recommendations and the government ignores them?”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to be back for this session. First off, it is important for me to say that today, we welcomed representatives from the Canadian Union of Postal Workers to Parliament Hill. There is a great deal of talk about jobs and what might happen at airports. Canada Post is facing a serious situation. Since September 25, 2025, it has been waiting to find out what will happen with the reform, and it is asking for a comprehensive public review of the corporation. We hope to get answers to these questions this fall. Here is the question I would like to put to my colleague. We are not seeking to undermine the purpose of reconciliation efforts. However, what is the point of this proposal if the commissioner will lack the teeth to take action and enforce compliance? What will we do when recommendations are made and the government refuses to listen?

Statements by Members ·

P'tit Train du Nord

“The P'tit Train du Nord is an old railway line in the Laurentians that is now a 230-kilometre trail. It brings tourists to our region, helps local businesses, and gives people a place to bike, run, and ski. I invite everyone to visit this summer.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the Laurentians were developed thanks to the P’tit Train du Nord, the cherished dream of Father Labelle. It was a railway line that made it possible to open up the territory and build our communities. For the past 30 years, this iconic route has sustained another mode of transportation. Today, cyclists, trekkers, runners and cross-country skiers can enjoy this long trail winding like a ribbon through our mountains, along our lakes and rivers and between our villages. Stretching over more than 230 kilometres, the P’tit Train du Nord linear park has become a key piece of tourism infrastructure for the Laurentians. It raises our region’s profile, supports local businesses and encourages active transportation and a healthy lifestyle. The P’tit Train du Nord has been part of our regional identity since the late 19th century. It is a tribute to our ability to transform our heritage into a collective resource and look ahead to a bright future. This summer, I encourage everyone to come visit the Laurentians.

Oral Questions ·

Climate Change

“Wildfires will get worse this summer, and 300 mayors want the government to stop building pipelines. I want the government to stop supporting oil.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Natural Resources warned on Thursday that wildfire activity will increase throughout the summer. With hot temperatures expected, 300 mayors are calling on the federal government to abandon its plans for new pipelines, stating in their declaration that more communities are likely to burn to the ground this summer as we double down on fossil fuel expansion. As another wildfire season approaches, will the Liberals finally drop their obsession with oil?

Government Orders ·

Strong and Free Elections Act

“I am glad to see this bill after all our committee work. What is missing from it that would make it even better?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it has been a long time since we sat on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for a number of meetings. We were just starting the study, and I am pleased to have an outcome like this. My question for my colleague is quite simple. What is missing from this bill that would make it even better, although maybe not perfect?

“I want to know why the committee did not lower the limit on political donations. In Quebec, people can only give $100. People should not be paying $1,500 to meet the Prime Minister at party fundraisers.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I think we are all starting to feel a little worse for wear—sitting here until midnight, constantly voting and dealing with closure motions. In short, we are all in the same boat, and we are all telling ourselves that we need to be strong, that we will get through this. I am going to ask my colleague a very simple question. How is it that, when the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs had the opportunity to consider this issue, it did not give more thought to or examine political party financing more closely? My colleague knows very well that Quebec National Assembly settled this issue long ago. During an election year, a member may make two contributions of $100. However, there have been reports in the media about fundraising events where people are invited to meet the Prime Minister in exchange for a contribution of $1,500. How is it that this limit has not been lowered?

Government Orders ·

Government Orders

In response to a question from Gérard Deltell

“I want to know what happens if we cannot stop secret foreign money from getting into our elections.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague. I served on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for over two years. Yes, we had begun considering this issue before any foreign interference occurred. It took up some 70 meetings; I remember it like it was yesterday. My question is very simple. I am surprised, even disappointed, when we talk about loopholes for foreign funds. When we seek impartiality and transparency, what are the consequences of not being able to block money that we cannot detect?

Government Orders ·

Strong and Free Elections Act

“I want to know if the government leader saw the cybersecurity warnings from Quebec. An inquiry showed foreign countries meddled in our elections. American companies own most of our digital systems, so we should be worried about our election security.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, my question is very simple. I would like to know if my colleague opposite, the government leader, has seen or read the remarks by the National Assembly’s cybersecurity lead, Stéphane Le Bouyonnec, and if he noticed any red flags. In committee, Mr. Le Bouyonnec talked about the risks associated with insufficient digital sovereignty. In the case before us, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs held 70 meetings before finally securing an independent public inquiry that confirmed there has been interference in our elections. If Quebec says it is not sufficiently equipped, how can we think we have nothing to worry about here when 85% of the infrastructure is owned by south-of-the-border interests?

Government Orders ·

Protecting Victims Act

“Even if this bill does not do enough, it still protects victims. I want MPs to be allowed to vote how they want instead of following party orders.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, tonight, it is clear that there is a party line. I can tell what my colleague wants. There are consequences to voting against this bill because it falls short and is not broad enough. We can analyze the situation and decide that the bill can be reassessed. Has there been any progress? If the answer is yes, can victims be kept safe right now? If the answer is yes, then I beg them to please hold a free vote.

In response to a question from Andréanne Larouche

“The provinces and Quebec must get the resources they need to put these measures in place. This will keep women safe and treat them with respect.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Signal 25 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

I think I am bothering some people in the House, Mr. Speaker. I was talking about my colleague across the way. He is coming back and bothering us. It is 10:30 p.m. We are tired. Seriously, we are talking about respect and dignity for women, and that is what we are doing tonight. I think some of my colleagues need some interpretation, because they are not understanding what I am saying at all. In short, the provinces and Quebec should be getting all the resources they need to implement these measures to ensure the respect, dignity and safety of women.

In response to a question from Andréanne Larouche

“We need to enforce our laws.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 50 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, again, this is about implementing and enforcing laws— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

In response to a question from Stephanie Kusie

“Members of Parliament should not use social media to raise money and campaign off this issue. It is wrong to put party politics ahead of basic human decency.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 0 of 100

    None of this statement addressed the specific topic under debate.

    See full analysis
  • Reply to a debate question

    Signal 0 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 just talking about partisanship. Partisanship has its limits. Not agreeing with a decision or voting nay is one thing. In my opinion, however, using social media as an election platform is unacceptable. I do not even want to know how much money was raised. Ultimately, what this shows is a lack of seriousness. We may think of ourselves as seasoned parliamentarians representing our constituents, but I am sorry, people are forgetting the essence of what it is to be human.

In response to a question from Marianne Dandurand

“I want MPs to stop playing political games with this debate. On serious issues like crime and safety, we need to put people first and work together.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 33 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I understand that there is some parliamentary gamesmanship going on. There are procedures that can be used to carry out or slow down our processes, but I implore my colleagues to realize that, on some issues, there is no room for partisanship. I am telling all members of the House that when it comes to issues like safety, crime or even medical assistance in dying, we must set partisanship aside and put people at the centre of our decisions.

“I support this bill because it protects women from violence and controlling partners. Ten women have been killed in Quebec in just four months. This bill makes controlling an intimate partner a crime and increases penalties for killing women. It also punishes people who share private sexual pictures without consent.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, in the last four months of 2026, Quebec has mourned 10 victims of femicide. This number rivals the annual average for the past decade. That is horrific. I hope that my colleague on the other side of the House is aware of that, because these are tragedies. This is really an unacceptable number of domestic tragedies. I find the increase extremely alarming, perhaps more so than my colleague across the way. Advocacy and civil society groups are reacting the same way, because at this rate, 2026 could exceed the record 16 femicides committed in 2021. We do not want that. Words matter here: “Femicide” is not a trivial matter; it is a serious societal issue. Bill C-16, an act to amend certain acts in relation to criminal and correctional matters with regard to child protection, gender-based violence, delays and other measures, has reached third reading. As my colleague mentioned earlier, this bill amends the Criminal Code to create a new offence that prohibits engaging in a pattern of coercive or controlling conduct toward an intimate partner. It also provides that murder known as femicide when committed against a female person is first degree murder in any of the following circumstances: the murder is committed against an intimate partner in the context of a pattern of controlling or coercive behaviour; the murder is committed in the context of domestic violence; the murder is committed in the context of human trafficking; or the murder is motivated by hatred. Now is the time to say enough is enough: no more femicide. The Bloc Québécois will continue to support the bill. Obviously, we do have some reservations. I still think that Bill C-16 represents a very significant step forward in protecting people from intimate partner violence and sexual offences. The Bloc Québécois strongly supports the changes regarding court delays, specifically the issue of mistrials. We support the new Criminal Code offence of recruiting a young person to commit a crime, the introduction of a safety valve for minimum sentences, and the strengthening of the Criminal Code provisions regarding harassment and sexual violence, which primarily affect women. As I said earlier, the committee study of Bill C‑16 took place despite the deliberate attempts by our Conservative colleagues to do what they think is their duty. Unfortunately, partisanship is leading to attempts to obstruct our work. By introducing a litany of amendments that are clearly beyond the scope of the bill, our colleagues in the official opposition engaged in a series of delay tactics. Some were posted on social media for purely partisan purposes, effectively turning the committee’s work into an election platform. What else can we expect from them? Sometimes I wonder if they even care about being constructive. Despite it all, the work got done and that was in large part thanks to my colleagues from Rivière-du-Nord and Shefford. Protection for the loved ones of victims of coercive control has been expanded to even include pets. That is a good thing. It is good news. An aggravated sentence was also created for the non-consensual distribution of intimate images when the image was produced in the context of aggravated sexual assault. Two decisions made at committee leave gaps that warrant attention because they make the bill less coherent and could jeopardize the safety of the very people that Bill C‑16 seeks to protect. Let me come back to the non-consensual distribution of intimate images when the image was produced in the context of aggravated sexual assault. During the 43rd Parliament, I served as the vice‑chair of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. We conducted a study on the online pornography giant Pornhub. I watched hundreds of hours of pornographic content depicting women being filmed against their will while engaging in sexual acts, whether consensual or not. These women did not even know they were being filmed, let alone that the footage would end up online. As a mother of two young adults, I cannot tolerate the fact that there are brutes, people with no sense of decency, who seriously film videos of these women, and men too, without their consent during sexual acts. Imagine how that can destroy a person’s life, career, family and self-confidence at an age when people are still developing as human beings, when they are building their self-confidence. Let me be clear: Committing such an act against people aged 37, 45 or 75 is just as reprehensible and must be deemed both criminally and ethically unacceptable. Our society is changing, our mores are changing and our means of communication are changing. I am terrified that this could happen to any of us these days, and with complete impunity. We must act now, through other means that can address certain shortcomings. Let us take care of ourselves, and let us ensure that justice is done.