SoVote

Andréanne Larouche

Member of Parliament
Member of Parliament
Bloc Québécois

Shefford
Quebec
Voting Attendance: 66%
Expenses Last Quarter: $81,135.43

Government Page

Ms. Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ)

Nov/6/23 12:26:38 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-34

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain. I know that he runs his department with passion. I will speak briefly of the issue of closure motions in a minority government. As the closure motions keep on coming, we wonder if the government really understood the message it got from voters. They wanted it to reach agreements in the context of a minority government. Imposing one gag order after another is not what I would call taking into account the fact that it is a minority government. We voted for Bill C-34, but as my colleagues said, there are a few blind spots. In particular, the last update to the Investment Canada Act dates from 1985. I was not very old in 1985. That was some time ago. I would like to hear my colleague comment about how this would have been a great opportunity to update it completely in order to protect our domestic head offices, not just address the issue of national security. We could have extended the scope of the act to include that.

183 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 232 - Oct/16/23

Ms. Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ)

Oct/16/23 12:22:19 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-49

Madam Speaker, it is a little ironic to hear the government, and even the NDP in its questions, boasting about the much-vaunted 30% protected areas when the Liberal government itself authorized exploratory drilling in a marine refuge it created. How credible is the government when it comes to protecting and conserving oceans and endangered species? I have my doubts.

61 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 207 - Jun/6/23

Ms. Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ)

Jun/6/23 3:42:01 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-35

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for her speech. There is still one thing missing from Bill C-35, and I would like to hear her comments on that. It should be pointed out that the early childhood centre model and the vision of offering education to children who are not yet of school age was implemented in Quebec. That is where the model comes from. That expertise is even recognized throughout the world. Quebec's contribution was recognized in black and white in a previous bill. This bill, Bill C‑35, currently mentions a five-year period. What will happen after five years? Will the federal government start another dispute over Quebec's right to opt out with full compensation in recognition of its expertise? Why was this not included in black and white in this bill? For now, it is all right, but what will happen in five years' time?

153 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 142 - Dec/6/22

Ms. Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ)

Dec/6/22 11:11:54 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-32

Madam Speaker, we are here to debate a record number of gag orders for a minority government. That is a big deal. We all recall how Parliament was prorogued in the summer of 2020. The election that was called in the midst of the pandemic did not change anything. We traded four quarters for a dollar. Voters gave the government another minority mandate, in other words, voters did not give the government a blank cheque to do whatever it wants. It has to work with the other parties. Is democracy a secondary issue for this government? As my whip said so well, we all agreed on this bill anyway. Why impose these mega closure motions? Why not work with the opposition parties? We are here to work with the government on this bill. I do not understand it, and it is worrisome to see that the government did not understand the message it was sent by voters, namely that it is leading a minority government not a majority one.

169 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 60 - Apr/28/22

Ms. Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ)

Apr/28/22 4:26:06 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

Madam Speaker, I know that I already spoke about this issue when I gave my speech on Bill C‑8. I spoke at length about it with my colleague from Joliette, and we came to the conclusion that this interferes in Quebec's and the provinces' jurisdiction over property tax. We are accused of picking fights, but why is the Liberal government constantly encroaching on the responsibilities of Quebec and the provinces? My colleague from Joliette may have an amendment to propose wherein the tax on secondary residences would apply only in the provinces that want it so that they, and Quebec of course, can choose for themselves. Why is the government taking a centralist approach yet again and trying to interfere in a jurisdiction belonging to Quebec and the provinces?

132 words

All Topics

SoVote

Member of Parliament

Andréanne Larouche