House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • Her favourite word was victims.

Last in Parliament October 2015, as NDP MP for Gatineau (Québec)

Lost her last election, in 2015, with 27% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Main Estimates, 2004-05 December 9th, 2004

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has missed the point. We will not compare, because, in this instance, we end up talking about spending in one place rather than another. That is not the issue. When we ask the committee members why they want to cut and if they are aware of the consequences, the answer is, “No, we did it like this, because we were not too satisfied with certain answers”. What effect will this have? When people make decisions that way, it worries me.

However, as for playing petty politics in saying, “I am going to tell the people in my riding that they will not be able to eat, because we gave the money to the Governor General”, I hope that no member in this House will go before their constituents and speak so unreasonably. There are a number of expenses with which I do not necessarily agree. But, if we cut them, we must know why.

Main Estimates, 2004-05 December 9th, 2004

Mr. Speaker, there is no question. Once again, it is petty politics. That is no question—

Main Estimates, 2004-05 December 9th, 2004

Yes, I will go to the member's riding.

Anytime I will convince the people of Calgary that cattle ranchers have their say and they are important, but there are also other important matters in this country.

Main Estimates, 2004-05 December 9th, 2004

I will answer quite gladly, Mr. Speaker.

What rubs Canadians the wrong way is a comparison of things incomparable. Everyone knows that. Take health or education as examples. Harsh cuts are justified with some irrelevant statement. It is evidence of the lack of faith in what we are doing this evening. That is what gets my back up, and then they have the nerve to pretend to be outraged on behalf of their taxpayers.

Main Estimates, 2004-05 December 9th, 2004

Some people might laugh at that, but the people who walked with the Governor General, if they laughed it was from happiness, not from contempt like we can hear sometimes in this room.

These walks were held in the Forillon National Park in Gaspé.

Along the seashore in Newfoundland, between Repulse Bay, Naujaat, and the Arctic Circle, and I could go on and on.

This gave the Governor General a chance to speak .

It permitted the Governor General to speak with Canadians and this is what we have to look into when we take such a decision.

I came into the House tonight and I was not even seated when I heard speeches about democracy from the other side. Believe me, I will not tell hon. members what effect it has on me, because democracy is coming here, having our say and being able to vote because we heard the arguments.

Believe me, tonight I heard no arguments for the other side. Members on the other side do not even know why they are cutting. If they know, they cut because they want to cut for different reasons. That is the opposition, ladies and gentlemen from Canada.

Main Estimates, 2004-05 December 9th, 2004

The things I am hearing this evening, Madam Speaker.

From what I heard the Conservatives say, cuts are being made because cuts have to be made in just about every program. According to the Bloc Québécois, all the money should go to the provinces. As for the NDP, its position is that everything, or 90% of the budget, should go to social and other programs.

This may be commendable, but the funny thing is that the purpose of this debate, this evening, was to explain and justify to Canadians a $417,000 cut in the budget of the Governor General.

That is terrible. It is a disgrace. We are not even able to get an answer to the question, “What impact will this cut have on the organization in question?”

Still, members make political hay and enjoy making statements to the effect that the government does not known how to govern. Apparently, they could do better, but cannot even agree on the rationale for their actions.

I rise in support of the motion to fully reinstate the budget of the office of the Governor General as presented in the government's main estimates.

For the benefit of those listening, we should remind ourselves that this is not a debate on the relevance or pertinence of the function of Governor General.

In doing so, I would like to focus on the central question. How does the institution serve Canada, Canadians and Canadian public life? What makes it different today than at Confederation?

This is at the heart of any debate when making cuts and taking items out of budgets. One has to know what they are doing and why.

Obviously, the Governor General's role is largely symbolic. Many will agree with me on that. But that does not mean that this role should be considered as static.

Laugh as we may, the fact remains that I get many calls to my office from people asking for this or that from the Governor General. When she goes on tours and so on, we are very proud of our institution of Governor General.

The Governor General has a responsibility to bring Canadians together and to engage them in a non-partisan, dialogue qu'on ne retrouve pas ici, en cette Chambre, on issues of importance to them, to know what their preoccupations are, to know what their values are and to reflect those to other Canadians across the country.

We are talking about values such as citizenship, community, shared history, diversity, volunteerism and so on. Such are the values the Governor General takes it upon herself to communicate and spread from coast to coast to coast, as well as around the world.

It tells the modern story of Canada and how Canada can be a model in the world for the ways in which we live these values. Being free of partisan influence and uniquely positioned to see the country in its full spectrum, the Governor General holds up a mirror for all of us to see ourselves reflected in our social and cultural diversity and complexity.

The institution of Governor General is intrinsically tied to the Canadian way of life and heritage.

How is this done? Let me give the House some examples. It is done by articulating a vision of Canada that is very contemporary and future oriented and that comes to grips with the Canada we have become, not what we once were. That vision, however, does not dispense with Canada's past, but builds on it through emphasis on our enduring values as a society.

She has an in depth knowledge of the country and its people. She has a deep understanding of Canada from her knowledge of the land, its regions, its communities and the people who live there.

It is done by communicating a fundamental message to Canadians, which is that we share much in common in our daily lives that transcends local or regional differences. That is way beyond $417,000 just to make a point to the government. That is sad.

It is done by recognizing how the increasing diversity and pluralism of the country is good for Canada, culturally and not just in economic terms. It is done by interpreting Canada's unique ability to integrate newcomers, making the connection between citizenship and successful diversity by combining the Caring Canadian Award with citizenship ceremonies.

You have to see the look on people's faces when they receive this honour from the hands of the Governor General.

It is done by providing a continuing role model for those acquiring their citizenship.

I must not forget to say that I am sharing my time with the hon. Minister of National Defence. I swore I would not forget.

It is done by articulating the importance of the north in the Canadian psyche, its reality and its imaginative influence on us and by having a knowledge of aboriginal cultures, thus according the aboriginal peoples the respect and dignity they are due.

By describing Canada as a helpful and compassionate society.

It is done by speaking extensively of the need and place of reconciliation in our society, whether in the treatment of peoples of aboriginal or of other ethnic descent. It is done by understanding the motivations, ambitions and inner feelings of those who have been accorded Canada's honours, and thus articulate what makes these Canadians so special and so important to the rest of Canada.

That too is the Governor General. She promotes Canada, its values and its identity and receives various heads of state and visits other countries.

It is done by placing important social issues into historical context, showing how issues that affect almost every Canadian, for example, public education, have a fundamental importance in underpinning Canadian values and identity.

We must not just take the headlines from a newspaper and say we are going to cut the gun registry because it is not popular in a certain region of Canada the Governor General's activities because she upset us by going on a trip with so many people. It would be irresponsible to make cuts for those reasons.

It is done by connecting the Office of the Government General to the cultural and artistic achievements of individual Canadians and to the nation, thus making those achievements and works Canadian in every respect.

This is what is meant by saying that the Governor Generalship is “constitutionally conceived but culturally lived”.

Culture may not be important to some parties in this house, but it is extremely important to this government.

It comes to life through the activities of the Governor General and the intensity and vigour of these activities in helping to interpret Canadian values and Canadian identity, not only to the nation but also to the world.

Allow me to give this House a few examples of these activities.

The year 2002 was the 50th anniversary of Canadian Governors General, and the year of the Queen's Golden Jubilee and her visit to Canada.

The Governor General attended 800 events, traveled 150,000 km across the country, visited between 80 and 90 communities, big and small, not to mention three visits up north to Nahanni, the Northwest Passage and Nunavik.

It included a “walking home initiative”, where people in their various communities were invited to join the Governor General in walking, talking and enjoying each other's company in the natural local setting.

Main Estimates, 2004-05 December 9th, 2004

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the member's remarks. Before asking a question of my colleague, I would like to respond to the hon. member opposite, the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, and the others I have heard this evening, who rail against the erosion of democracy by the Liberals.

I do not know what could be more anti-democratic. To reconsider a resolution from a committee is the essence of democracy. That is what we are doing this evening. We are debating it. There will be a vote, and that is what democracy is all about.

The fact that a committee has decided something does not mean we have no right to talk about it. I am sorry, but that is not my idea of democracy.

Having said that, I would like to ask my colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, really out of professional curiosity, whether, before moving her motion in committee, she asked the Governor General what effect this reduction would have on her responsibilities.

Am I to understand that this proposal means the Bloc agrees that in future we will make budget cuts strictly as a matter of percentage, without regard for the consequences?

Canada Economic Development December 8th, 2004

Mr. Speaker, this morning's La Presse reported that R and D expenditures had increased in Quebec. I want to take this opportunity to state that Canada Economic Development had an important role to play in this excellent news.

Canada Economic Development has made innovation one of its top priorities. The relative share of financial assistance granted by the agency to innovation projects has increased considerably over the past five years. In 1999-2000, it was 24% of total financial assistance, while in 2003-04, it reached 61%, for a total of $113.5 million that made it possible to conclude 585 new partnerships.

These figures clearly demonstrate the need for initiatives by Canada Economic Development and confirm our commitment to helping small and medium size businesses in Quebec to develop innovative projects in the coming years, including in the riding of Gatineau.

Violence Against Women December 6th, 2004

Madam Speaker, today, at 5:30 p.m., the Maison Unies-Vers-Femmes of Gatineau will be holding a vigil at the Mémoire d'Elles park, at the corner of Gréber Boulevard and Saint-Jean-Baptiste Street.

This year, the gathering will recognize the tragic death of Carole Lirette, who was shot down in cold blood with her new boyfriend by her ex-spouse.

For anyone in 2004 to still look at a woman as their possession is both criminal and unacceptable.

I take this opportunity to recognize the tremendous and miraculous job that the team led by Danielle Marcil, at Maison Unies-Vers-Femmes, has been doing for 25 years. The Maison Unies-Vers-Femmes is a place, in the riding of Gatineau, where women who are the victims of spousal violence and their children can seek support and shelter.

Violence and discrimination against women are two human rights issues originating from women's social, economic and political inequality. Violence against women and children is unacceptable and must be combated by all means, and relentlessly.

Come and honour the memory of Carole Lirette at tonight's vigil.

Agriculture November 30th, 2004

Mr. Speaker, it is evident that the Canadian cattle industry has suffered from the effects of one case of BSE. It has caused distortions in supply, slaughter capacity and trade markets.

Considering the good news received from Hong Kong that its government is lifting a one and a half year ban on beef imports today, could the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food tell the House what additional steps he has taken to open our trade markets for Canadian beef?