House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • Her favourite word was quebec.

Last in Parliament March 2011, as Bloc MP for La Pointe-de-l'Île (Québec)

Won her last election, in 2008, with 56% of the vote.

quebecunemployment insurancehuman resources developmentforeign affairsinternationalbloc quebecoisamended by deletingunited statesper centcountriessocialprovincessmall and mediumreformagreementworkerssituationcannotemploymentsincelabour

Statements in the House

Social Program Reform May 5th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Yesterday, in his press conference, the Prime Minister, far from being more sympathetic to the provinces' reluctance regarding the social program reform, said that he would go ahead with it.

Will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that her government intends to proceed with the social program reform one way or another, as the Prime Minister said, and even without the provinces' support?

Fisheries May 3rd, 1994

Mr. Speaker, no consultations were ever held on the individual contracts. Despite what the minister said yesterday and today, this is an extremely important issue as workers must sign contracts committing them to do certain things in order to receive benefits. This question was never looked at and the unions were not consulted on it.

Can the minister now promise to meet with them to discuss this issue before putting this system in place?

Fisheries May 3rd, 1994

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.

Yesterday, this minister clearly indicated to this House that the Atlantic fishery workers unions had been consulted about the individual contracts that workers must sign, thus committing themselves to undergo training or do community work in order to receive their benefits. We checked and the unions were never consulted on this.

How can the minister reconcile the statement he made yesterday in the House with the confirmation that was given to me afterwards by the head of the fishery workers union, who said he had never been consulted on the issue of the individual contracts?

Atlantic Fisheries May 2nd, 1994

Mr. Speaker, this morning's newspaper quotes the spokesperson as saying:

"We don't sign individual agreements; we sign collective agreements".

Surely the minister has read these comments.

Will the minister not agree that, after going over the heads of the provinces, it would, at the very least, be in his best interests to secure the co-operation of the unions representing fishery workers and will he undertake, therefore, to meet with the unions before proceeding to sign any individual contracts?

Atlantic Fisheries May 2nd, 1994

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development. Opposition is mounting to the adjustment strategy for Atlantic fishermen. According to a report in today's newspaper, a spokesperson for Newfoundland fishery workers has rejected the minister's proposal which would have each fishery worker sign an individual contract committing him or her to undergoing training or doing community work in exchange for benefits.

Will the minister concede that his proposal for individual contracts is being roundly criticized and has raised some legitimate concerns and consequently, is he prepared to negotiate collective agreements with the unions, as is being recommended to him by the spokesperson for the fishery workers?

Pearson International Airport Agreements Act May 2nd, 1994

Mr. Speaker, this whole deal smacks of political manoeuvring and, as the Leader of the Official Opposition said, only a royal commission will get to the bottom of it once and for all.

People in Canada, and especially in Metropolitan Toronto, have the right to know the truth and to be assured that there will be no undue compensation for these contracts which seemed to favour the friends-friends in the broader sense of the word-of the parties which succeeded each other at the helm of the country.

Mr. Speaker, if the Official Opposition, the Bloc Quebecois, is asking for a royal commission, it is not to delay the work which is to take place at both airports because-let me tell you- Metropolitan Montreal knows only too well the devastating effects of uncertainty about airport development.

Allow me to highlight the devastating effects of the development of what became the two Montreal airports. I will stress how important it will be for Transport Canada and then for the Toronto Airport Authority to take over and redevelop Toronto airport because, otherwise, any future expansion at other airports, including Montreal, will be seriously limited.

But, let me remind the House that when it comes to airports, long term forecasting is very dicey. In the mid-sixties, the federal government decided to build a second airport in Montreal, Mirabel airport.

In 1967, it was projected that, by 1985, passenger traffic would be 14 million. In reality, things turned out quite differently.

In 1985, passenger traffic in both Dorval and Mirabel was only 7 million, half of what was originally expected.

We know how important an adequate airport infrastructure is for the development of a region. Why? Because it is the entrance

point for investors and the departure point of human and material resources going abroad. It is a considerable economic lever.

My colleague mentioned the 1987 Transport Canada study on Pearson airport which states that the direct economic impact of the airport on the province is in the order of $4 billion-that was in 1987-and that Pearson accounts directly or indirectly for 56,000 jobs. On the other hand, when adding both direct and indirect jobs and induced ones, the total number in Montreal is 48,500. Economic development involving airports stems from the carriage not only of cargo but also of passengers.

I would like to point out that Toronto had a narrow escape when the federal government decided Toronto also should have two airports at a respectable distance from one another. The second one was to be located in Pickering, but the people of Pickering protested and managed to convince the authorities not to develop this second location, but to develop a second terminal at Pearson instead-a third one was added later on, as we know-on a site easier to integrate.

Toronto had a narrow escape, but Montreal was not so lucky. In spite of all our protestations-and as we know, farming was precluded for many years on some of the best arable land in the region-two separate airports were built in Montreal, airports that together, did not achieve together the results that had been projected for just one previously. The federal government paid no attention to the wishes of the people or the airlines. It must be noted however that had rapid, direct service been provided between the two airports, things might have turned out differently. In 1975, a high-speed link had been announced; it was to cost $400 million, but the project never got off the ground.

For any number of reasons, the airport in Toronto flourished and today, it is on the way to becoming a hub airport, "hub" being, as I understand, shoptalk for a traffic exchange point, a place that both companies and passengers are interested in.

Because Montreal's two airports are poorly connected, from 1969 to 1983, the gap between Montreal and Toronto increased from 27 per cent to 116 per cent in terms of passenger carriage. That is very substantial. The adverse effects of inefficiency in Montreal impacted not only the development of the airport, but also economic development. Worse yet, the federal government delayed handing over to the municipalities, the community, in Montreal the management of their airport. It is imperative that in Toronto, the municipalities, the community, rapidly assume the management of the airports.

Just think that provided sufficient investments were made by the federal government both in Toronto and in Montreal, we could have two hubs: one in Toronto, with its own potential, and one in Montreal, as a point of entry for the Eastern part of the country.

I therefore conclude that we are calling for a royal commission of inquiry not because we want to slow things down-because we are all aware of the effects of uncertainty on economic development-but because we believe it is absolutely imperative that the manoeuvring surrounding the development of both terminals, as well as that of the third one, be dissolved, reversed and the only way this can be done, in our view, is not by striking a deal behind closed doors, but through a royal commission of inquiry.

National Day Of Mourning April 28th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, according to the Canadian Labour Congress bulletin on health and safety in the work place, one thousand workers die annually as a result of accidents in the work place, and another million are injured, while thousands more die of diseases caused by toxic substances used in the work place or as a result of various other problems in their job environment.

The Bloc Quebecois, the Official Opposition, wishes to join in this national and international day of mourning in honour of those men and women who died on the job or as a result of an accident or a disease contracted in the work place.

Speaking on behalf the Official Opposition, I must point out that although the actual number of accidents has declined, the situation is far from ideal. In fact, many job related diseases have not yet been recognized as such and are therefore not included in these figures.

It is also true that the work place is changing, and as we have seen in the past, each new generation of technologies brings with it new diseases and accidents. The same is true today. Unfortunately, unlike other periods before the second world war, the labour movement is not on the rise and is experiencing difficulties in certain areas and even receding in certain cases. That is why governments have an even greater obligation not only to improve legislation but also its implementation.

Because of the pressures of globalization, there is an increasing tendency to fragment the work place and have jobs done by companies whose labour practices are irresponsible. This means that we as parliamentarians must remain alert. Only political will and social commitment will be able to stop these terrible and unacceptable effects of the job environment. We are concerned about the problems of the unemployed, but we cannot ignore those who, because of current pressures in the work place, must work under conditions that may lead to loss of life or loss of physical or mental well-being.

Controlled Drugs And Substances Act April 19th, 1994

Madam Speaker, on April 14, I put a question to the Prime Minister and reminded him that the Premier of Quebec said:

Job training is, according to Quebec's traditional position, a basic issue of respect for our jurisdiction over what affects us directly.

And I asked him:

Given these statements...does the Prime Minister still think that Quebec's demands are mere whims?

Madam Speaker, the Quebec National Assembly voted unanimously in favour of the following resolution:

That the Quebec National Assembly ask Mr. Jean Chrétien and the federal Liberal government to abide by the unanimous consensus of all parties in Quebec on the need for Quebec to exercise exclusively its jurisdiction over manpower training.

Madam Speaker, considering the current situation, this unanimous resolution demonstrates the very serious concern of all Quebec's elected representatives for the manpower training issue.

There is more, however. Since then, we have heard statements from other important sources in Quebec. This morning I read in the Quebec media that the Forum pour l'emploi is opposed to Ottawa's centralist policies. Who does the Forum pour l'emploi represent? The Forum includes central labour organizations, as one would expect, but it also includes Quebec employer associations. It includes representatives of regional organizations, the Mouvement Desjardins, and just about any organization that is connected with job issues.

Finally, Claude Masson, a respected editorial writer in Quebec, who seldom shares the views of the Official Opposition, made some comments in La Presse which I would like to read to the Prime Minister before he answers my question. Mr. Masson said, in referring to manpower training:

If governments,as they keep repeating ad nauseam , really want to serve the public and at the same time substantially reduce public spending, it makes good sense to have only one government in charge of manpower training, and the government that is closest to the workers, the unemployed and people on welfare and knows best what they need and what it can offer them is the provincial government, in this case the Government of Quebec. This is not a matter of ideology but of common sense, not a constitutional choice but a practical and realistic one.

Madam Speaker, does the Prime Minister realize that by reviving disputes between Quebec City and Ottawa on an issue that is the subject of unanimous agreement in Quebec, he not only gives his centralizing vision precedence over the interests of the unemployed but also clearly shows to all Quebecers-federalists and others-that the only federalism possible for them is one of confrontation and scorn for their people?

Supply April 18th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, I have endured the debates all afternoon, but now, I know that my time is short, but I will try to speak calmly.

The Official Languages Act was a late attempt to right serious historic wrongs, and to answer the question forthwith, Mr. Speaker, before it is overlooked, as a young francophone from Ontario used to say: "What you call Quebec's French unilingualism, we would really like to have as Ontario's bilingualism."

Come and see the reality of rights. Come and see the reality of rights in schools, in social services, in hospitals for English-speaking people and in the debates within the Parti Quebecois to preserve these rights. And I would like it if, in Canada, they had the same debates to preserve rights when Quebec is gone. Because I will tell you one thing: a debate such as the one here today will not give anyone in Quebec the desire to stay in this country.

There is an historic dimension missing. Perhaps I should apologize for the fact that my ancestors arrived around 1647. I must apologize for that. Their name was Tremblay and others came later. I must apologize for what they built at the time. They were Canadians, real ones, the first "Canadians".

They were all over the continent you know, they also explored the West, but we do not have time for a history lesson. After the conquest, "Canadians" were mostly confined to the territory of Quebec, but over the years, they maintained the desire to go all over Canada.

I would like to mention one fact. In 1928, headlines in Le Devoir stated that Montrealers were worried because francophones, instead of going West where there were some good lands, were emigrating to the United States. For a hundred years, 10,000 French-Canadians a year went to the United States-there were large families in those days-but why did they not go West? Because in 1928, it would cost $48 to have a family come over from Liverpool, but $928 for the same family, that is ten children-as was common in those days-and two parents, to cover the same distance but from East to West.

We must realize that "Canadians" tried desperately to make a place for themselves, their schools and their own religion in this country but they were kept from doing so. Mr. Trudeau tried, although belatedly, to remedy the situation, yet he knew full well that in Quebec things had already started to move and that the measures he was implementing were no more than a paper barricade.

Social Program Reform April 18th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the Minister of Human Resources Development. Given the gap that he is trying to hide between the positions of his government, of certain provinces and of Quebec, does the Minister, following the cancellation-and it is quite something to cancel a federal-provincial conference at the last minute; conference goers have seldom seen that happen-promise to review his proposed reform of social programs to make this reform meet the traditional aspirations and demands of Quebec?