House of Commons photoLost her last election, in 2019, with 33% of the vote.
Questions Passed as Orders for Returns December 8th, 2010
With respect to analyses of the water supply system conducted at CFB Valcartier as of 1970: (a) what level of trichloroethylene (TCE) has been found for each year as of 1970 and for each well; (b) has the quality of the drinking water been assessed; (c) how often have analyses of this system been conducted; (d) did these analyses include the chemical characteristics of the water; and (e) what entity is responsible for maintaining and monitoring the findings?
Questions Passed as Orders for Returns December 8th, 2010
With regard to the burial or discharge into the environment of chemicals in Valcartier, Quebec, does the Department of National Defence have any documentation establishing knowledge of the burial or discharge into the environment of chemicals in various locations in Quebec and Canada and, if so, (i) are there records indicating the locations of the burial or discharge sites and the substances that were buried or discharged and, if so, what substances were buried or discharged at each of the documented sites?
Questions Passed as Orders for Returns December 8th, 2010
With respect to interdepartmental committees, is there or has there ever been an interdepartmental consultation or communication committee whose membership includes the Department of Environment, the Department of National Defence and/or the Department of Justice and that dealt with contamination of the soil or water table in Valcartier, Quebec, or contamination of property belonging to Canadian Arsenal (Industrie Valcartier Inc./SNC Tech Inc.) and, if so: (a) what is or was the nature of this committee; (b) what is or was its mandate; (c) what were its objectives; (d) which other departments, if any, sat on this committee; (e) who were the individuals sitting on the committee; (f) did the committee’s membership change at any point and, if so, who was added or removed; and (g) are there any reports on the committee’s activities and, if so, (i) to whom were the reports sent, (ii) were the reports sent to the legal services units of the departments involved, (iii) when were the reports sent to the departments’ legal services units, (iv) who asked for the reports to be sent to the departments’ legal services units?
Multi-ethnic Centre in Quebec City December 8th, 2010
Mr. Speaker, the Centre multiethnique de Québec is celebrating its 50th anniversary this year, and I would like to highlight the important work that the people behind the centre and its volunteers do every day for immigrants in the Quebec City region.
The centre has strong roots in the community and helps welcome and integrate thousands of newcomers by offering services—such as housing searches, information workshops and linguistic and cultural interpretation services—adapted to the many needs of a varied clientele. The centre also helps develop innovative services, promote intercultural dialogue and raise public awareness of the realities facing refugees and immigrants.
Immigration plays a huge role in the development of Quebec City, and the centre is an important resource that provides solidarity and support for newcomers. I want to thank all those who have worked for this organization in my riding.
Congratulations to the Centre multiethnique de Québec. I wish you all the best in the future.
Lévis Celebrations December 7th, 2010
Mr. Speaker, here is another falsehood. The Minister stated that Lévis will receive less than Vancouver because “the cities are different sizes”. And yet, under his department's rules “cultural capitals” with over 125,000 residents, such as Lévis—which has 133,000 residents—and Vancouver are entitled to a maximum of $2 million.
What explanation can the minister give us as to why Vancouver is receiving $1.75 million and Lévis is receiving three-quarters of a million dollars less? How can he justify this?
Lévis Celebrations December 7th, 2010
Mr. Speaker, on November 18, the Minister of Canadian Heritage promised us that the City of Lévis would be entitled to the same treatment as Vancouver. I quote the minister: “The City of Lévis will receive $1,750,000 for its celebrations next year.” And yet, yesterday, the minister changed his version of the facts and stated, “Lévis received $1 million—and that is the maximum it will receive.”
How does the minister explain these two contradictory answers? Will Lévis receive the same treatment as Vancouver, yes or no?
Lévis Celebrations December 6th, 2010
Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the claims of the Minister of Canadian Heritage, the organizers of the Lévis celebrations maintain that the City of Lévis received only $1 million from the cultural capitals of Canada program compared to the $1,175,000 given to the City of Vancouver. There is no explanation for the difference because Lévis and Vancouver meet the same criteria.
Can the minister tell us if Lévis will be treated like Vancouver and also receive $1,750,000 from the cultural capitals of Canada program?
Conservative Party and the Senate November 30th, 2010
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has once again broken his promise and demonstrated his total disdain for democratic institutions.
On November 17, the Senate, controlled by the Conservatives, rejected a bill that was passed by this chamber, the only chamber in which the representatives are elected to legitimately speak for the people. And yet, the Prime Minister himself said in 2008, “We don't believe an unelected body should in anyway be blocking an elected body.”
Two senators have inferred from the Prime Minister's complete about-face that they are as legitimate as the members of the Bloc Québécois. Do these two senators need to be reminded that, unlike them, who are appointed on a partisan basis, we are elected by the public and we have been legitimately representing nearly three-quarters of the Quebec population since 1993?
We can only conclude that, because they have broken the rules of parliamentary procedure by making decisions that are each more partisan than the last, the Conservatives are completely lacking in principle.
Mr. Speaker, he explained the minister's point of view, but it is still the same. Many stakeholders have taken a close look at the situation and know the impact that injuries can have when a soldier returns from combat. There are many newspaper articles about this. I have also spoken to people who are following this issue closely and they are saying that the minister is not doing enough. There is also the fact that the government is not increasing the amount of the lump sum payment. It is too little in relation to the injuries they have sustained. These people are often unable to return to work. Psychologically, they are unable to get their personal or professional lives back on track.
The limit on benefits has not been reviewed. The government gives a one-time, lump sum payment of $100,000. Even if the young person says he will take it—
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on a question I asked the Minister of National Defence regarding the changes to the veterans charter and the lifetime monthly pension that would be unfair to veterans coming back from Afghanistan. The minister seemed rather open to this. I took part in an emergency debate during which the minister said he wanted to rectify the situation and he admitted that mistakes had been made. Upon reflection, the minister said he would present new measures in order to correct the situation. He told us that the amount could be improved or could be more equitable to veterans.
However, we see that the minister did not listen to the people from all the opposition parties who spoke during that debate. He is not changing the lump sum payment, even for people who are seriously injured. That amount has not been increased, which is all the more serious because it is meant for people who are 20, 21 or 22 years old. The only thing the minister promised was that the lump sum payment would be spread out, that it could be divvied up per month or per year, according to the wishes of the injured soldier. We cannot accept these new measures; they are too little.
A pre-tax income of $40,000 has been established, making between $536 and $1,609 payable depending on the type of injuries claimed by veterans in their applications. In the case of psychological injuries, it is very difficult to clearly establish an individual's inability to return to work.
I talked about Ms. Matteau's son, who lives in the riding of Québec. Before the new charter, he would have received $5,400 per month; with the new charter, he received a lump sum payment of $100,000. The maximum could have been $276,000, but it was not established that all his injuries prevented him from returning to the job market. This is clearly not enough and we cannot accept these new measures. A number of people are worried about the new measures the minister has taken, even though he said he wanted to fix things. Mr. Stogran, the former veterans' ombudsman, is concerned that Afghanistan will become our Vietnam if nothing is done.
These measures are unsatisfactory. A number of people who are observing the minister's new orientation are concerned that, with these measures, many veterans will depend on their families for life. For a 20 year old who can no longer work and will never have the income that would have been earned if—