House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • Her favourite word was countries.

Last in Parliament October 2019, as NDP MP for Laurier—Sainte-Marie (Québec)

Won her last election, in 2015, with 38% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Business of Supply September 29th, 2016

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his very relevant question.

Canada's relationship with Saudi Arabia is indeed complex and there are many factors at play. That said, when we talk about stability, I am among those who believe that the best way to ensure stability is to uphold international law and our own regulations and, above all, to stop putting more weapons in volatile regions and potential conflict zones. Ensuring stability also means defending human rights.

I am not alone in saying this. We know that Great Britain has a committee like the one we are proposing today, and it is currently examining this whole issue. The committee that we are proposing could also study this issue.

Business of Supply September 29th, 2016

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to clarify something because my hon. colleague seems to think that we want to create a committee on the sale of arms to Saudi Arabia. That is not the case. We are talking about something much bigger than that.

With regard to those sales in particular, over the past year and especially in recent months, since January, some very serious concerns have arisen. Allegedly there have been serious charges against Saudi Arabia for committing war crimes in Yemen using Canadian weapons. It is also possible that Canadian weapons are being used to repress people within Saudi Arabia itself. These factors should have been taken into account by the current government.

That being said, once again, this debate goes well beyond the sale of weapons to Saudi Arabia. I am sure I will have the opportunity to ask my colleagues whether we are also selling weapons to Thailand. What we are proposing here is constant monitoring of this issue.

Business of Supply September 29th, 2016

moved:

That: (a) the House recognize that (i) Canadian arms exports have nearly doubled over the past decade, and that Canada is now the second-largest exporter of arms to the Middle East, (ii) Canadians expect a high standard from their government when it comes to protecting human rights abroad, (iii) Canadians are concerned by arms sales to countries with a record of human rights abuses, including Saudi Arabia, Libya, and Sudan, (iv) there is a need for Canadians, through Parliament, to oversee current and future arms sales; (b) Standing Order 104(2) be amended by adding after clause (b) the following: “(c) Arms Exports Review”; (c) Standing Order 108(3) be amended by adding the following: “(i) Arms Exports Review shall include, among other matters, the review of and report on (i) Canada’s arms export permits regime, (ii) proposed international arms sales, (iii) annual government reports regarding arms sales, (iv) the use of these weapons abroad, (v) all matters and broader trends regarding Canada’s current and future arms exports.”; (d) the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs prepare and report to the House within five sitting days of the adoption of this Order a list of Members to compose the new standing committee created by this Order; and (e) that the Clerk be authorized to make any required editorial and consequential amendments to the Standing Orders.

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Windsor—Tecumseh.

I am very pleased to have the opportunity to rise here this morning and move this motion to create an all-party committee to review arms exports.

Why is a new committee needed? First of all, because arms exports are a very complex issue involving trade, defence, foreign affairs, human rights, and industry, and yet this very complex issue does not fall under the purview of any existing committee. None of our parliamentary committees is mandated to examine this matter or carefully review it.

We recommend that this be a permanent committee and that it conduct more than just one study that collects dust on a shelf somewhere and is forgotten. There are definitely more than enough topics for just one study.

For instance, this committee could examine why the Liberal government approved a major sale of arms to Saudi Arabia, completely ignoring our current regulations. Canada claims to be a champion of human rights and presents itself as such, and yet it is selling arms to Saudi Arabia without following its own procedures.

Let us not forget that Canada has rules and a policy banning the sale of arms to a country that abuses human rights unless it can be demonstrated that there is no reasonable risk that they can be used against the civilian population.

The assessment that was made before the current Minister of Foreign Affairs allowed these exports showed that the issue had not been properly addressed. The committee could also do a review of STREIT Group, which sells arms to Sudan and Libya, often in violation of sanctions and embargoes. There seems to be no mechanism in place at this time to deal with that type of situation. Worse yet, it seems that Foreign Affairs gave that same company untendered contracts for armoured trucks, among other things.

I would also like to know whether the minister did indeed issue permits for the export of arms to Thailand, which is under the yoke of a military regime.

The latest annual report on Canada's arms sales indicate that our current standards are being watered down. They were likely not high enough in the first place, and this lowers them even more, weakening the human rights assessments for arms sales.

There are already a number of issues, but there is more. As mentioned in the motion, Canadian arms exports have more than doubled over the past decade, and we are now the second-largest exporter of arms to the Middle East, where some countries have very worrisome human rights records.

Furthermore, arms sales to China, which is not really a democracy, are on the rise. The Prime Minister admires the Chinese government, but we cannot really say that it is a democracy. Algeria and other countries are also problematic.

We have some major questions. Are there loopholes in our regulations and practices? How are our regulations enforced? Other countries are asking different questions. For example, what are arms? In a totalitarian regime, are surveillance devices considered arms?

Here is another important element. Arms sales have increased significantly and they are not going to stop tomorrow. We should institute continuous monitoring to determine, for example, who Canada is selling arms to; what it is selling; and why, how, and under what conditions it is doing so.

According to surveys, Canadians are very concerned about these issues. Canadians want answers. They are entitled to the transparency and openness that the Liberal government promised them. For that reason, creating a committee would be a step in the right direction.

Yes indeed, Canadians are preoccupied, and Canadians want to know where and to whom Canada sells arms. Of course, there is the famous Saudi arms deal, given the green light by the Liberals, and we know that Saudi Arabia is really not a model in terms of human rights. We have reason to believe that arms sold by Canada to Saudi Arabia have been used in Yemen, where Saudi Arabia is being accused of war crimes in the UN report.

Further, in that specific case, the process was obviously not followed. According to current regulations and procedures, arms cannot be sold to a country that abuses human rights unless it can be demonstrated that there is no reasonable risk that they can be used against the civilian population. I do not think that the government did its homework on that; and it needs to do its homework.

There is so much more. There is the Streit Group that is selling arms to Libya and Sudan despite embargoes. There is the fact that Canada has become the second most important exporter of arms in the Middle East. There is the toning down of having to take the human rights situation into account when issuing export permits, which we have seen in the latest annual report. There are so many issues relating to the sale and export of arms.

Canadians want to know. Canadians are worried not only about this but about the overall issue of arms sales. This is why we need a permanent committee that would be able to look at past and future deals and also at larger trends, options, rules and regulations, and how they are applied.

A multi-party House committee could examine any number of questions related to arms exports, just as the UK committee is doing right now, and it could look at where, to whom, how much, and what kind of arms we are exporting. It could identify loopholes in our existing legislation and also loopholes in our regulations and our practices, because what we have seen recently is that, even when we have regulations, they are not always properly followed.

There is no existing committee that can deal with these issues on an ongoing basis. This issue involves defence, trade, foreign affairs, development, human rights, and industry. We need a specific committee that would be able to look at the whole issue. No existing committee has the depth and the mandate to study this whole issue, and none have the space to be monitoring arms sales on an ongoing basis. I said before that in the last 10 years our arms exports have nearly doubled. If this keeps on, we will need to look at it constantly, not as a one-off study, which is certainly not sufficient. It needs to be comprehensive and bring everybody to the table.

The Liberal government has promised to be open and transparent. This is an opportunity to be open and transparent on an issue about which Canadians care.

Canada is poised to return to the international stage and, by working together, we can show that we can act responsibly and with transparency in arms sales, global security, and the protection of human rights.

Child Care September 27th, 2016

Madam Speaker, my colleague opposite says that the Liberals know that families need support and that is what the Liberals are giving them.

I would like her to come take a tour of Montreal and meet the officials who work at the Guy-Favreau complex because the truth of the matter, as illustrated by the response that I got, is that the government is washing its hands of this.

People are being told to pay market prices for child care and day care centres. Does the hon. member have any idea what market prices are like in downtown Montreal? The Liberals are washing their hands of this and telling people to figure it out on their own.

Speaking of market prices, some day cares have already shut their doors, rental spaces sitting empty. What did the government gain from this? Everyone is losing out. This is not progress. We are not progressing, we are regressing.

Child Care September 27th, 2016

Madam Speaker, supposedly we have a feminist Prime Minister and a government that thinks work-life balance is a priority. However, people in Laurier—Sainte-Marie and all across Canada do not see it that way. What they see is a government that does not even follow its own policies.

A large number of federal public servants work in the Guy-Favreau complex in Montreal. A child care centre was set up there 30 years ago. Even back then, it was clear that it is essential to offer that sort of service in the workplace.

As one would expect, this child care centre has been receiving a rent subsidy for years. That is not only as expected, it is in keeping with the policy on day care centres in Government of Canada workplaces. That is the official policy.

It comes as no surprise that the Conservatives gutted that policy by refusing to subsidize day cares and early childhood centres, and some day cares have had to close as a result.

Now that the Liberals are in power, they are staying the Conservative course. The day care centre at the Guy-Favreau complex is in jeopardy because the government wants to take away its subsidy, which would increase its costs dramatically. There are 70 children in the day care, 95% of whom are children of federal employees, as well as about 20 employees.

According to day care director Simon Piotte:

...the centre will no longer be able to afford rent downtown without the subsidy. Proximity to the workplace is vital to ensuring work-life balance for hundreds of federal employees in the coming years...

I asked questions about this in the House, and I wrote to the minister, but nothing is happening. I will soon be presenting a petition signed by more than 700 people. This is unbelievable. The government has no problem carrying on with Conservative policies.

I completely agree with Marie-Elizabeth Desourdy, chair of the board of directors and the parent of a child who attends the day care, who said:

...I cannot fathom why parents have to fight to get a government that calls itself egalitarian to honour one of its own work-life balance policies and keep their early childhood centre open...

The government's inaction on this matter is rather discouraging. Not only has it failed to create any child care or day care spaces, but spaces are actually being cut. Is that what progress means? Is that what 2016 means? No, it is appalling.

Foreign Affairs September 26th, 2016

Mr. Speaker, if that is what it means to be clear, I have seen better.

Last June, the Minister of Foreign Affairs stood by silently as his Chinese counterpart chastised a reporter who had asked him a question about China's human rights record. On Friday, the same minister criticized a journalist who asked him about negotiations for an extradition treaty with China.

Did the minister learn his media relations skills from his Chinese counterpart? Why is there so much confusion surrounding these negotiations?

Foreign Affairs September 21st, 2016

Mr. Speaker, we have reached a watershed moment for nuclear disarmament. The Secretary General of the United Nations and several countries want to initiate negotiations to prohibit nuclear arms. Canada shamefully voted against this plan.

The government can still change its mind in the next few weeks.

My question is simple: will the Prime Minister change his position and vote for nuclear disarmament?

International Day of Peace September 21st, 2016

Mr. Speaker, on this International Day of Peace, we celebrate the important role women play in peace processes around the world.

When women's groups are included in the peace process and are at the table as negotiators, mediators, and witnesses to peace agreements, those agreements are far more likely to succeed over the long term.

Last month, I had the pleasure of meeting women in Colombia and Guatemala who actively contribute to building peace in their communities. Their work is further proof that Canada must support women's full participation in peace efforts.

This year, Canada must ensure that the next national action plan on women, peace, and security includes long-term financial and diplomatic support for women peace builders, not only because it is the right thing to do but also because it is the wise thing to do.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship September 20th, 2016

Mr. Speaker, I want to know whether the directive that allows the use of information obtained through torture will remain in place.

Meanwhile, today we learned that the government is negotiating an extradition treaty with China. The justice department has always been against such an agreement because Chinese courts do not use the same standards as Canadian courts, torture and physical abuse remain prevalent, and the death penalty is still widely used, including against political dissidents.

Is this what the Prime Minister calls standing up for human rights?

Public Safety September 20th, 2016

Mr. Speaker, while the Prime Minister is in New York trying to win a seat on the United Nations Security Council, allegations of torture against two of our intelligence agencies have resurfaced.

Torture is morally wrong. It is ineffective because information obtained through torture is unreliable. Torture violates all of our commitments. Nevertheless, the ministerial directive that allows the use of information obtained through torture is still in place.

Is the government prepared to repeal that directive?