House of Commons photoLost her last election, in 2015, with 20% of the vote.
Employment Insurance May 28th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, considering how this government is ravaging employment insurance, it appears to have declared war on the tourism industry in Quebec.
Just when restaurants, hotels and museums are completing preparations for the new summer tourism season, the government is slashing employment insurance, openly attacking the seasonal workers who keep the tourism industry running.
Can the minister explain why she insists on waging war against the tourism industry?
Groundwater Contamination May 17th, 2012
Madam Speaker, I am speaking today on behalf of all the citizens of Charlesbourg—Haute-Sainte-Charles, the neighbouring riding to Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, who would like to support the citizens of Shannon in their fight for justice.
I would also like to thank my colleague for doing such a good job of standing up for the rights of the people in her riding and the common good in our region.
In my view, the motion by the member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier constitutes an official invitation to the government to take an initial step towards a new relationship of respect and trust that needs to be restored between the residents of Shannon and the federal government.
The facts behind this motion go back a long time, and it is important to understand exactly what happened. In 1997, the Department of National Defence found TCE in the groundwater under the land at the Valcartier military base. A few years later, this toxin was discovered in the private wells of the citizens of Shannon, the municipality that neighbours the military base.
The important thing to remember is that TCE is a toxic industrial solvent that was used at the military base. At the time, disposal consisted in simply burying it in the ground in the expectation that there would be no impact.
TCE is a chemical that was used for a long time to remove grease from metal parts and also to dry clean clothes and extract organic products.
Technological advances more accurately identified this product's toxicity, and it was gradually replaced with products less harmful to humans and the environment. It is now banned for personal use in the European Union. The problem is that technological advances have also raised suspicions that TCE is carcinogenic and that it affects the central nervous system.
The cause and effect relationship that lies at the core of this issue and this motion is unfortunately very simple. The TCE that was disposed of in the ground at the military base after use, without any precautions, contaminated the groundwater in Shannon. This contaminated water then found its way into the wells and drinking water systems of thousands of residents in the small municipality.
The consequences that we are now aware of are shameful and excessively harmful to human health. Indeed, in recent years, Shannon has experienced specific health problems and a cancer rate that is five times the average.
The scientific evidence in this case is solid and clearly shows the causal link between the TCE in the groundwater and the abnormally high rates of cancer and other illnesses among current residents.
In addition to those victims, there are the people who lived in Shannon but have since left the municipality. As we know, they are members of the military and they tend to move around.
But the problem facing us today is not a simple public health problem caused by not knowing how toxic TCE was when the army used it. It is not at all the same thing as tobacco, for example.
The problem is that we know that National Defence has been aware of the contamination for over 30 years, yet did nothing.
Scientific research conducted by journalists from Radio-Canada, for example, confirmed that “the government has been aware of the TCE contamination of the water in Shannon and on the military base for [at least] 30 years”.
According to those journalists:
...documents obtained under the Access to Information Act, the federal environment and defence departments were warned that waste water was being discharged into a lagoon connected to the groundwater. The people of Shannon drank that contaminated water for 22 years before discovering the contamination themselves, quite by chance, [around] 2000.
What is very serious about this case is that the government does not want to acknowledge its responsibility and refuses to properly compensate the victims of this crime who are paying with their health and their lives.
Today, the people of Shannon continue to suffer physical and emotional health problems and to develop illnesses such as cancer.
Documents show that more than 350 residents have died from cancer linked to the TCE-contaminated wells in Shannon. In total, more than 500 people have developed cancer in a small town that has a population of barely 5,000.
Another concern was raised by Marie-Paule Spieser, president of the Shannon Citizens Committee.
She said:
There is still a plume beneath our feet, six kilometres long and 600 metres wide, so gases can still pose a risk. There is also a latency period between contact with the product and the onset of cancer.
We do not know what the future holds, but we know we can expect to see very high cancer rates in Shannon for many years to come. The time has come for the federal government to acknowledge its share of responsibility for groundwater contamination in Shannon because it knowingly buried TCE on federal lands, including the Valcartier military base.
The government's stubborn denial and refusal to compromise are unacceptable. The motion moved today by the NDP asks the government to reconsider its position and take appropriate action in good faith for the people of Shannon, who deserve justice, honesty and compensation from their government.
As the representative of the Crown, the government is responsible for problems on Canadian military bases, even if those problems are decades old. The government should step up now with acknowledgement, accountability and compensation for illegal decisions made in the past. That is how to right wrongs and look to the future as a society.
As we speak, the residents of Shannon must still fight alone to defend their rights and eventually see justice done. It is a real David and Goliath story. Until now, the only thing the government has done is to invest $35 million in infrastructure that connects one part of the municipality of Shannon to a new municipal drinking water supply.
In my view, the government's inaction on this issue is totally unjustified, and a paltry investment in a huge health problem and the contamination that remains is not sufficient. How can this government explain what it is doing and the logic behind it to the residents of Shannon without losing all credibility? The role of the state is to protect the people, not the opposite. Why does this government stubbornly maintain its position of complete denial?
The health aspect of the situation is very serious in and of itself, but I think the financial aspect also deserves attention. The residents of Shannon, over the years, have had to pay out large amounts of money for wells, for bottled water, and so on. These expenditures are totally separate from the decrease in equity that they face because their homes were built right over a contaminated aquifer.
My colleague decided to move this motion because the residents in her riding feel they have been wronged by a government that is supposed to protect them. She is trying to stand up for them, and this is something else the government is supposed to do.
Let us remember that the state is responsible for providing safe and appropriate services to the people. Let us also remember that the state must take the necessary steps to rectify a problematic health situation when it becomes aware of the dangers facing the people.
In this case, it was almost 20 years after the forces were told about the problem that a resident became aware that his water was toxic. Even more time went by before the meagre $35 million investment was made to improve the water supply and sewage infrastructures, and we will have to wait even longer for real compensation.
This is why, before I conclude my speech, I would like to urge the government to show some compassion and fairness toward all the residents of Shannon who have been suffering from the harmful effects of their contaminated groundwater for decades now, by supporting my colleague’s motion.
It must also make all the necessary arrangements, which are set out in this motion, to ensure that the residents of Shannon receive appropriate compensation and are made part of a fully transparent process for restoring the municipality’s infrastructures, cleaning up all the sites and notifying all those who have been affected by the contamination.
This is the only way that the residents of Shannon will ever regain confidence in their government.
Employment Insurance May 17th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have lost all credibility because they speak out of both sides of their collective mouth. First they avoided the question; then they consulted unemployed workers and insulted them; and finally, they encouraged Aveos workers to go work in a mine in Labrador or build boats.
Yesterday, the Minister of State for Finance said, “I believe I have already defined what constitutes suitable employment.” But he did not.
Can he provide us with the new definition of suitable employment in light of the changes in the budget implementation bill?
Employment Insurance May 17th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, workers are worried, and so they should be. They have paid into the employment insurance fund their whole lives, and now the government wants to force them to move, uprooting their families from their homes, just to prevent them from collecting employment insurance benefits.
Can the Conservatives guarantee that no worker who has lost a job will be forced to either move to find a new job elsewhere or forfeit employment insurance benefits?
Employment Insurance May 16th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, I was saying that with this philosophy, psychologists and teachers will be sent to work in the mines.
The budget implementation bill states that the Employment Insurance Act will be amended in order “to permit regulations to be made respecting what constitutes suitable employment”.
I just gave the minister the opportunity to clarify this amendment, but I still have not received a reasonable answer. The Minister of Finance is saying one thing, and the Minister of Human Resources is saying another.
Does she really think that the employment insurance system is too attractive? What will be the scope of the changes made to the definition of suitable employment?
Employment Insurance May 16th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, with this philosophy, psychologists and teachers will be sent to work in the mines. The budget implementation bill—
Employment Insurance May 16th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, the problem is that the budget implementation bill does not give any answers and the Conservative ministers are contradicting each other regarding the scope of the changes.
The Conservatives want to make major changes to the Canadian social safety net and they want to do it quickly and behind closed doors. The minster even said that she wants the bill to pass before she defines suitable employment. I will give the minister another chance.
Can she give this House the new definition of suitable employment?
Pay Equity May 16th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, 35 years ago, Parliament passed legislation making discrimination against women in the workplace illegal. The legislation states that wage disparities between male and female employees who perform work of equal value are discriminatory.
In 2009, instead of proposing proactive measures for women who are still fighting for pay equity, the Conservative government took a step backward and passed the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act, which effectively takes away the right to pay equity.
From Bell Canada employees to public service clerks and Canada Post employees, these women have had to fight for decades to get compensation.
The Conservatives refuse to recognize wage discrimination and are attacking women yet again in their budget by eliminating employment equity as it applies to federal contracts.
The right to pay equity is a fundamental, non-negotiable right. It is high time that the government passed federal pay equity legislation.
Employment May 15th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, less than a week after the unemployment rate goes up, the Minister of Finance has the gall to blame the unemployed. He is telling them to bite the bullet and accept any job.
This Conservative government is proving how out of touch with reality it is. There is a problem with the minister's twisted logic: for every job created in April, 23 Canadians were lining up for the dole. Is that what he calls a job creation strategy?
Even worse, the government wants to ram down Canadians' throats a 425-page budget that will restrict access to employment insurance.
The Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development cannot even define suitable work. In addition, she confirmed that she would not define it before the budget passes. She does not seem to realize the scope of the announced changes.
Canadians are tired of being treated with contempt by this government, which is reducing access to employment insurance, cutting government services and slashing old age security. Enough is enough.
In 2015, this government will be out of work.
Employment May 10th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, unemployed workers who need help are ill-served by this government. Soon, they will have to accept any job that the minister deems acceptable or risk losing their employment insurance benefits. And yet, the minister refuses to explain what the word “acceptable” means.
The Conservatives' Trojan Horse bill directly attacks unemployed workers by lowering their incomes. Why are the Conservatives so doggedly attacking unemployed workers?