House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • Her favourite word was women.

Last in Parliament October 2019, as NDP MP for Abitibi—Témiscamingue (Québec)

Won her last election, in 2015, with 42% of the vote.

Statements in the House

National Defence June 14th, 2012

Mr. Speaker, I find it ironic that the parliamentary secretary is trumpeting the Minister of Public Works and Government Services' seven-point plan when the government does not seem to have much respect for the newly created secretariat or the plan.

A few days ago, I asked the minister why the cost updates will not be released 60 days after the forecasts, as stated in the third point of the plan. The government is already breaking promises. Now we are being told to wait until the fall. That was in May, so the cost updates ought to be available in early July. That is their plan, but they cannot even stick to it.

We have also been told that nothing has been purchased, that no decision has been made, but the minister had no problem spending $50,000 for a photo op with the F-35s, which, really, have not even been selected yet, because there is no commitment and nothing has been done.

Is that not a little ironic? We are no farther ahead than we were before.

National Defence June 14th, 2012

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in the late show today because today's situation is rather unusual. We voted 159 times on a bill. We voted on 871 amendments grouped into 158 votes. Not a single amendment passed.

The government has shown that it is incapable of admitting that it does not have all the answers. It thinks it is perfect. It thinks that it can do no wrong and that it cannot have forgotten anything. That shows a real lack of maturity.

When I started working as a nurse, I learned that I was not perfect, that it was possible for me to make mistakes and that the worst thing to do after making a mistake is to continue on in the same fashion.

The same thing is true when it comes to the F-35s. The government refused to correct its mistake. It was unable to admit, at various stages along the way, that it should perhaps consider what the opposition was saying, that those arguments perhaps made sense. But no, the government continued being stubborn.

This is a big mess. Many questions about military procurement remain unanswered. Now, with the National Fighter Procurement Secretariat, when we ask questions, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services tells us that no money has been spent yet.

I would like to remind her that the mismanagement of the F-35 program has cost money. People have worked on this file and that costs money. Of course, the money spent so far pales in comparison to the enormous cost of an F-35, but I am sure that many Canadians would love to make ends meet with the money that has been invested in this mismanagement.

I would like to point out that it is not just the Conservatives' defence plan that is flawed. Before the Minister of National Defence even announced the F-35 procurement in June 2010, he already knew that the numbers the government was using were not correct. The Minister of National Defence and the Associate Minister of National Defencehad informed us one month earlier that the costs would go up. The ministers were updated in April 2011 and in February 2012, but until the Auditor General forced them to take a modicum of responsibility, it did not occur to anyone to notify the public or even rethink this whole plan.

The opposition rose and asked questions, and asked whether there was a plan B. Every time, the government absolutely did not listen, and it became more mired in the problem.

I would like to know if the government will understand one day that the opposition's role is not just to criticize. The opposition provides arguments to help advance issues. It advances arguments to prevent such problems with oversight of very significant military procurement from happening again.

I would like to know whether the government realizes this and if it understands that the opposition is trying to help it with a program that seems to be going awry. Furthermore, I would like to know if the government now knows in what direction it is headed.

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns June 13th, 2012

With regard to all contracts issued by each department, agency and crown corporation to Xe services since January 1, 2011, what is the: (a) description of the contents of the order; (b) date of payment; (c) total amount awarded; and (d) event reason for purchase?

National Defence June 12th, 2012

Mr. Speaker, what is the point of a seven-point plan if it is not respected?

Point 3 states: “These updates will be tabled within a maximum of 60 days from receipt of annual costing forecasts…”.

The forecasts were received in early May, so, the government has to disclose the costs in early July, not this fall.

The Conservatives have broken all the rules with the F-35s. Why, after accepting all the Auditor General's recommendations, are they deciding to break their promise at the first opportunity?

National Defence June 12th, 2012

Mr. Speaker, less transparency, less accountability: it seems to me that this contradicts their campaign platform.

The Auditor General's report on the F-35s was clear: the Conservatives knew what the total cost of the F-35s was, but they did not share that information with parliamentarians.

However, they want to wait until the fall to disclose their most recent cost estimate. Why should Canadians wait even longer to get straight answers about the F-35s? When will the Conservatives finally show some transparency?

National Defence June 11th, 2012

Mr. Speaker, at a time when the Conservatives are stealing money from the unemployed and seniors by cutting employment insurance and old age security, spending at the Department of National Defence has increased by $4 billion over the past year.

The President of the Treasury Board had asked all departments to reduce their spending, but the Minister of National Defence took the opportunity to increase spending, despite the F-35 fiasco, which does not even factor into this equation.

How does the Minister of National Defence, with his creative accounting, explain going over budget by $4 billion?

Search and Rescue June 11th, 2012

Mr. Speaker, it is my very great pleasure to speak to this motion. Many of my colleagues are aware that I am a former member of the military, but I was also a medical assistant in the Canadian Forces. That job has a direct connection with the subject before us.

The reason I wanted to say a few words about this motion is that, in the three elections in which I have campaigned, many people came to talk to me because of my military background and asked me what purpose our armed forces serve. They told me they found it hard to understand what purpose our armed forces actually serve, simply that they went on missions abroad and they did not understand more than that. They added that it seemed to them that the armed forces should focus more on our needs. Often, that was when people started talking about search and rescue.

Search and rescue is really a job that our armed forces do directly, to protect and assist the Canadian public by coming to the rescue of people who are in need. Search and rescue is something that really does focus on our needs. As well, I think search and rescue fits well with the Canada first theme of the Canada first defence strategy. Search and rescue means helping, protecting and serving Canadians first. I think that having very high standards for search and rescue is entirely appropriate and is in line with the strategy and the kind of army that most Canadians want to have, to defend their country and serve them.

I would also like to mention that as a medical assistant in the armed forces it is truly a dream to be able to work in search and rescue someday, because doing that job means performing a real service to society. It means saving lives. I did search and rescue exercises with the Canadian Forces reserves every year. It is something that we took very seriously because we wanted to be ready and able to do it on the day when we had to do it in real life, when someone’s life had to be saved. Those training exercises were highly valued by soldiers. Thus, we must understand that search and rescue is important to Canada.

I would like to take the time to read the motion, because it really is an excellent motion. The motion states:

That the House acknowledge that Canada lags behind international search and rescue norms and urge the government to recognize the responsibility of the Canadian Forces for the protection of Canadians, and to take such measures as may be required for Canada to achieve the common international readiness standard of 30 minutes at all times, from tasking to becoming airborne, in response to search and rescue incidents.

I will get back to the motion, but I must say that this is an excellent motion and a number of elements help us better understand the situation.

If we are talking about international norms, the norm of 30 minutes at all times comes from a report produced by Seacom International Inc., which is a company that specializes in emergency preparedness. This company prepared a report for the Standing Committee on National Defence. In this report, Canada was ranked last, behind Australia, Ireland, Mexico, the United Kingdom and the United States when it comes to search and rescue response times.

I think it is awful that Canada is last given that our country usually aspires to a leadership role in search and rescue.

I think it is essential that we aim higher. First of all, I want to make it clear that, with respect to search and rescue response time, the clock starts ticking when the authorities give the order and ends when the aircraft, boat or vehicle leaves the base to carry out the search and rescue mission. No more than 30 minutes should elapse between tasking and the time people leave the base to carry out the mission. It is important to understand that it can sometimes take a lot of time to transport people.

So, it can take quite a while for the search and rescue mission to reach the person. Sometimes it can take more than two, three or four hours in the air or on the water to reach the person in danger. I want to make that very clear.

I would like to provide a brief overview of the number of responses that search and rescue people will have to carry out. There are three joint rescue coordination centres located in Halifax, Trenton and Victoria. These centres coordinate search and rescue interventions. Every year, they coordinate some 1,100 interventions in response to incidents, rescue more than 20,000 people, and literally save an average of 1,200 lives. It is important to keep those numbers in mind.

Now I would like to talk about the problem that led to this motion. Currently, the Canadian Forces have two different search and rescue response times. During office hours from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., the response time is 30 minutes, which is what the motion calls for. However, in the evening and at night, from 4 p.m. to 8 a.m., weekends and statutory holidays, the readiness standard is 120 minutes, or two hours.

Thus, two hours can go by between the time when the order is received and when the plane or boat leaves the base. After that, there is also the time needed to get to the site, which can take up to an additional two hours. This means a really long response time.

Most emergency situations—over 80%—that require a search and rescue response occur outside the hours when a the 30-minute response time is the norm, so it is particularly disturbing to think that, for over 80% of operations, people have to settle for a two-hour timeframe. In practical terms, one of the reasons for this is that, if people are out on the water for the day, either for work or recreational purposes, other people—their families and spouses, for instance—who are waiting for them ashore will not begin to worry until the evening, when their loved one has not returned. That is one reason why so many calls are logged in the evening and at night. Calls are received when people begin to think it is really strange that their loved one has not appeared.

At that time of day, people must wait two hours to contact a person. If we consider the example of someone who calls at 6 p.m., if there is a two-hour wait, the work will have to take place at night, but if the response had begun within 30 minutes, the work could have been done in the daylight. Something is really not working here.

Everyone here agrees that if someone were to call the hospital when their spouse was having a heart attack and they were told that it would be two hours before the ambulance even sets out, that would be considered completely unacceptable, especially if they were told that it normally takes 30 minutes to send an ambulance, but, sorry, since the heart attack happened in the evening after supper, it will take two hours, so they will just have to wait a bit and hope the someone is good at performing CPR. It makes absolutely no sense. No one ever chooses the moment they will need emergency assistance.

I would also like to say one last time that it is understandable that the volume of distress calls is not always the same when we are talking about search and rescue and medical help. It is fact of life that the call volume goes down in the evening, but we still have to be ready in case a call does come in, because lives are at stake.

The Conservative government has to make choices in its budget and in the budget bill. When we talk about the Canadian Forces, Canadians understand the need to set high standards in order to promote effective search and rescue services. People would understand if the government made that choice. This is a question of choice. The Conservatives can make that choice and avoid needlessly putting lives in danger.

Business of Supply June 6th, 2012

Madam Speaker, I am extremely pleased to speak to this opposition motion. As a former Canadian Forces member and emergency and intensive care nurse, I have a good understanding of what happens during distress situations. That is why it is so important to me to express my thoughts on this issue.

This motion is about two factors that are critical to effective service: knowledge of the local situation and services and the ability to communicate in the primary language of the community served.

In search and rescue, in life or death situations, every minute counts. Three minutes can mean the difference between saving a life and recovering a body. This is very real. This is human life.

I will be more specific about the ability to communicate in the community's language. I would like to speak more about the Quebec City search and rescue centre, the only bilingual centre in Canada, whose closure could mean that people in anglophone regions will respond to emergency calls. As a result, even if these people are bilingual, if they live in an anglophone region, it is extremely difficult for them to keep up their language skills. For example, in Halifax, only 3% of the population speaks French and only 4.7% of the population does in Trenton. So it is very difficult for a person to maintain good language skills when living in an anglophone community, even if they start out bilingual or even francophone.

Members must understand that if people do not regularly speak French, they forget some of the common and colloquial expressions that people will use. That can be a problem because during a distress call, people do not speak properly. They panic. They use unusual expressions. They will say, for example, that their boyfriend is bleeding out—pisser le sang—and that they need someone there right away—au plus sacrant. It will not be proper French. I apologize if the words I used were not very clear.

It is also important to understand that, during distress calls, there may be interference on the line and people will have accents that may be very different. They may be ill or having a heart attack. Imagine a situation where a person is already just barely getting by in French and, in addition to interference on the line, the caller is speaking with an accent and is very out of breath because he is having a heart attack. It would be very difficult to understand the caller. That is why it is essential that a francophone centre be kept in a francophone region.

I would also like to specify that, even though I am bilingual—I am able to understand all of my hon. colleagues here—if one of my colleagues were speaking to me in English and was out of breath because he was having a heart attack and there was interference on the radio, there is a good chance that I would have trouble understanding that person and that I would have to get him to spell words because I would not be sure that I understood him correctly. There would thus be a delay in acting to save that person's life.

I would like to talk more about geography and knowledge of the local area. When people call, they are in a panic. They do not give precise directions. When people call because they are in distress, they rarely provide the ten numbers corresponding to their geographic coordinates. People use regional terms that can be hard to understand. For example, if I say that I live on the “rang de la Ferme Bordeleau”—the Bordeleau Concession—in Clerval, would any of my hon. colleagues understand me? No, but people in my region, in my community, would know exactly what I am talking about. Someone two or three provinces to the west would most likely have no clue and would have to ask me to repeat myself and be more precise.

In many cases, when people call because they are in distress, they provide information based on historical information. For example, they might say that they are close to where Mr. Faucher's boat sank five years ago. That will not mean much to someone from Trenton, but someone who lives and works in the community will remember the incident and will immediately know exactly what place the caller is talking about. That is more efficient and wastes less time.

Unfortunately, in other cases, children or teenagers call to report distress situations because the parent or grandparent they are with has suffered a medical emergency and is not doing well.

To begin with, if one does not understand the language well, and then, if the person trying to explain what is happening is an eight- or nine-year-old child, it could be a very difficult situation and precious time could be lost. Several factors must be considered.

I would remind all of my hon. colleagues that any time human lives are at stake, we cannot put a price tag on that. We are talking about human lives. In my opinion, there is no price on saving a life and I think that if we were talking about my hon. colleagues' children and spouses who were in distress, they would want previous governments that enforced the legislation and regulations to ignore the numbers and do whatever it takes to save as many lives as possible.

National Defence June 6th, 2012

Mr. Speaker, let us continue to speak about the lack of transparency.

The Conservatives still do not have a plan B with regard to the F-35s, or else they are simply refusing to share it. Meanwhile, the problems are continuing to pile up. The program is in its third reconfiguration. The employees who are building the F-35s are on strike and an American Senate committee is talking about serious problems with production.

When will the government realize that coming up with a plan B is a higher priority than a $47,000 photo shoot?

National Defence June 5th, 2012

Mr. Speaker, spending $47,000 on a photo op is not responsible management.

However, that is not the worst of it: not only did the Minister of National Defence have a military helicopter fly him back from a fishing camp, but his employees criticized the Canadian Forces for not properly defending the minister.

I served in the armed forces. I was responsible for defending my country, not the minister's reputation.

Why does the minister believe that the military should clean up his mess?