House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • Her favourite word was conservative.

Last in Parliament October 2015, as NDP MP for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles (Québec)

Lost her last election, in 2015, with 30% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Canada-Honduras Economic Growth and Prosperity Act March 31st, 2014

Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. The NDP supports trade with countries that respect human rights and have high environmental standards, labour standards, and standards for human rights.

We see as well that DFAIT itself has produced a report saying that the benefits for Canada upon concluding this trade agreement would be marginal. We would encourage the government to listen to the reports produced by its own civil servants. We would also encourage the government to negotiate trade agreements with countries that are developed, like Japan, India, and South Africa, as I mentioned in my speech.

No, we do not believe that this trade agreement with Honduras would bring great benefit to Canadians, considering its atrocious record on human rights.

Canada-Honduras Economic Growth and Prosperity Act March 31st, 2014

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have this opportunity to speak to the bill to implement the free trade agreement between Canada and the Republic of Honduras. Contrary to what the Conservatives keep saying, the NDP has always been a strong supporter of fair trade.

The NDP believes that Canada should pursue free trade agreements when such agreements benefit Canada. I have been a member of the Standing Committee on International Trade for a few months now, and I always emphasize the NDP's balanced approach to free trade. I talked about it during our study of the free trade agreement between Canada and the European Union, and I keep talking about it during our ongoing study of the proposed trans-Pacific partnership. Unlike the Conservative Party members, who are ideologically programmed to support every trade agreement, regardless of which country is the partner, we believe it is important to choose our trading partners and to insist that they implement good environmental protection, human rights and labour relations practices.

We believe that Canada's trade policy should be based on the principles of fair, sustainable and equitable trade that builds trading partnerships with other countries that support the principles of social justice and human rights, while also expanding business opportunity.

It is important that I emphasize our vision of international trade before I address the Canada-Honduras agreement specifically. I think it is important to clearly state what sets the NDP apart from the Conservative Party. We in the NDP believe that Canada's trade agreements should be part of an overall strategy that includes the following five elements.

The first element is an impact analysis to determine whether the trade agreements being negotiated by Canada are good for Canadian families, Canadian workers and Canadian industries. The government should not sign any trade agreement that is likely to lead to a net loss of jobs.

The second element involves a guarantee that trade agreements negotiated by Canada will strengthen Canada's sovereignty and its freedom to establish its own policy, that they will help make us a force to be reckoned with on the world stage and that they will support the principles of a fair multilateral trade system.

Third, all trade agreements must protect and promote human rights by prohibiting the import, export or sale in Canada of any products considered to have been manufactured in sweatshops, by forced labour, or under any other conditions that do not meet basic international standards for labour or human rights.

Fourth, all trade agreements should respect the notion of sustainable development, as well as the integrity of all ecosystems.

Fifth, and finally, every time the Government of Canada signs a free trade agreement, the decision to adopt the enabling legislation must be submitted to a mandatory vote on whether or not the terms of the agreement are acceptable.

The current system, which consists of tabling a free trade agreement in the House for a period of 21 sitting days prior to ratification, is not mandatory and does not bind the government to accept a decision of the House.

Coming back to the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement in particular, basically, as my NDP colleagues have already said, we oppose this free trade agreement because of Honduras's poor human rights record. Need I remind the House that Honduras is led by an authoritarian, repressive and undemocratic regime?

In 2009, the disputed but democratically elected Zelaya government was toppled by a military coup. Subsequent elections have been heavily criticized by the international community as failing to meet basic democratic standards. The situation was so bad that most foreign governments and NGOs refused to send observers.

Let us not forget that Honduras has the highest murder rate in the world and is considered the most dangerous country in the world for journalists. It should also be noted that the current government does not tolerate dissidence.

Mistreatment and systematic persecution of dissidents and serious human rights abuses have been documented. Killings, arbitrary detentions, severe restrictions on public demonstrations and freedom of expression, and interference in the independence of the judiciary are all well-established.

The Subcommittee on International Human Rights of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development conducted a major study of the human rights situation in Honduras last spring. I was present for the troubling testimony of Esther Major of Amnesty International at the committee last March. She relayed a number of cases of human rights violations, particularly against women.

For example, she spoke to us about a young female journalist who received death threats and was physically assaulted for filming forced evictions and police brutality. She also told us the story of Antonio Trejo, a well-known human rights lawyer who defended the campesino communities in the Aguán. He was murdered. No one in the current government spoke out against this crime. Worse yet, Antonio Trejo's brother was murdered a few days later for trying to draw attention to his brother's murder.

In short, the culture of impunity and violence in some parts of the country is such that the UN special rapporteur who visited Honduras and prepared a report on the situation of human rights defenders was not able to visit the Bajo Aguán region owing to security concerns. This gives an idea of the seriousness of the situation in the country.

There is also the issue of corruption. According to Transparency International, Honduras is the most corrupt country in Central America. Police corruption has been well documented.

To summarize, as things stand and in light of the human rights situation, the culture of violence, and the weakness of Honduran institutions, I definitely am not convinced that it is a good idea to sign a free trade agreement with this country. That does not mean that we are abandoning the Honduran people. I believe that Honduras mainly needs help to reform its institutions and to deal with its security and human rights challenges.

Canada provides bilateral and regional security assistance to Honduras. The Department of Foreign Affairs' Stabilization and Reconstruction Task Force is supporting follow-up to recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission on reparations to victims of human rights abuses that occurred following the 2009 political crisis.

I believe that we need to continue in that direction. Without national reconciliation, it will be difficult to rebuild this country and establish a democratic rule of law.

Since 2009, the department’s anti-crime capacity building program has provided $2 million to Honduras to equip and train police and other investigative units. In particular, this program provides equipment and training to the Honduran National Police on the use of special investigative techniques to combat crime.

The Conservatives seem to think that trade and an influx of cash will magically solve all problems; however, these are some examples of targeted interventions that have a better chance of contributing to development in Honduras.

In conclusion, clearly, it is time to change course. We propose putting more effort into restarting multilateral negotiations and signing agreements with developed countries that meet high standards and that are on the right track, such as Japan, India, Brazil, and South Africa. Canada should be signing trade agreements with these countries, not with countries like Honduras, where democracy and human rights are not respected and whose poor standards will harm Canadian businesses.

Canada-Honduras Economic Growth and Prosperity Act March 31st, 2014

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party has shown that it completely agrees with the Conservative Party about the free trade agreement with Honduras.

However, we know that Honduras ranks 104th on Canada's list of trade partners. Experts have said that this agreement will have only marginal benefits for Canadian exporters.

Why does the Liberal Party agree with the Conservative Party that we should sign an agreement with a country that violates human rights, that does not have the same environmental standards as Canada and that abuses workers?

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns March 31st, 2014

With regard to the riding of Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, since fiscal year 2009-2010, specifying the name of each department or agency, the year, the initiative, the amount, the name and the municipality of the beneficiary, what is the total amount of government funding allocated to the riding?

Canada-Honduras Economic Growth and Prosperity Act March 31st, 2014

Mr. Speaker, despite many requests from civil society, the government chose not to release the text to the public, thus preventing Canadians from making recommendations.

The agreement was negotiated behind closed doors. It is the government's current practice to negotiate free trade agreements behind closed doors without consulting civil society and the other members of the House.

Why is the government so opposed to transparency? Why does it not trust Canada's entrepreneurs and civil society when the time comes to make recommendations?

Science and Technology February 24th, 2014

Mr. Speaker, the truth is that the government cut $600 million from science-oriented departments and agencies, and another $2.6 billion will be cut over the next five years.

The government can cut ribbons and publish all the press releases it wants, but we know that these cuts will have an impact on the health and safety of Canadians. It is unrealistic to think that these cuts will only affect administrative services. The government needs to get its head out of the sand. These cuts will affect ecosystems, air and water quality, the survival of endangered species in Canada and, of course, the health and safety of Canadians.

Unfortunately, the cuts are being carried out in secret, and we will only be able to determine the real impact that these irresponsible cuts will have on Canadians in a few years, when we have to deal with more disasters.

I urge the Conservatives to reconsider the cuts they made to basic science in Canada and I urge them to be accountable to Canadians across the country.

Science and Technology February 24th, 2014

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to return to a question that I raised on February 14 concerning changes to the National Research Council Canada.

The NRC is the former engine of scientific innovation in Canada, and it has been credited with an impressive number of discoveries, such as the pacemaker and various computer animation techniques. However, the Conservative government has decided to “reform” the NRC. In the past two federal budgets, it has allocated $188 million to the NRC to help it refocus its work on business needs. The Conservative government wants to make it a one-stop shop that serves business.

Although almost $200 million has been spent on the restructuring, we are still waiting for the government's detailed business plan. Even worse, everything is being carried out in absolute secrecy. It is not just the opposition parties and the “paranoid, evil journalists” who are worried. Scientists on the ground are also worried.

According to a survey by the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, 86% of NRC scientists believe that recent changes are limiting or will limit basic research and that this will have a negative impact on research and development generally.

It seems that the growing shift from basic science to commercially oriented applied science is not improving Canada's record on innovation—at least not according to the scientists who are best qualified to say so.

What is more, it is important to see that this reorganization is part of the Conservative government's efforts to cut research budgets. Even when we take into account the effect of the stimulus spending won by the opposition parties, between 2008 and 2013, $600 million was cut from the science and technology budgets of science-oriented departments and agencies; as a result, 2,141 jobs were eliminated.

At the NRC alone, an estimated $129 million and 798 positions were cut. When the government brags about having invested $188 million over two years in the NRC, we have to keep in mind that $129 million was cut over the last five years and that most of the money allocated for restructuring will not go toward actual research.

The worst is yet to come. According to the calculations of the Professional Institute of the Public Service, between 2013 and 2016, ten science-oriented departments will have lost $2.6 billion and 5,064 jobs. This is a real assault.

These cuts have a real impact on the pool of scientific knowledge and information available to Canadians. We have talked a lot about scientific libraries being dismantled, but we also need to talk about the individuals who work for the government and who were, in and of themselves, walking encyclopedias, filled with knowledge that benefited all Canadians.

For example, I am thinking about Jean-Pierre Gagnon, who is one of the leading North American experts on the transportation of dangerous goods by rail, and on DOT-111 cars in particular, which were the ones involved in the Lac-Mégantic tragedy. A government engineer for 32 years, he retired because of workforce adjustment.

My question is the following: How can the government say that the cuts to science will not have an impact on future generations?

Business of Supply February 24th, 2014

Mr. Speaker, we know that this bill will affect thousands of Canadians, including seniors and students.

However, the Conservatives simply said that students would have to bring their student card to go vote. They do not even know that student cards do not have the student's address on them. That shows just how out of touch the Conservatives are.

We need to travel across the country to consult Canadians, to talk about their realities and to consult them on the details of this bill.

I think that we owe it to Canadians to do an in-depth study of this bill. They also deserve to be consulted before the election rules change, because elections belong to Canadians and not to the government.

Science and Technology February 14th, 2014

Mr. Speaker, behind the fine speeches, the Conservatives are waging war against science.

According to an internal survey, two out of three National Research Council employees are frustrated by the centre's new mandate. According to them, the Conservatives are wrong to give up public scientific research in order to focus strictly on meeting the commercial needs of industry.

Why are the Conservatives refusing to listen to their own scientists, who just want to keep protecting the public and the environment?

The Budget February 12th, 2014

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite just admitted that he did not read the entire budget, so I will ask him a question on one part that he appears to have read, namely the part on science and technology.

The member talked a lot about this government's investments in science and technology, but what the budget fails to mention is that the government plans to slash $2.6 billion in funding for science within all departments between 2013 and 2016.

Furthermore, in this budget, the government is investing in science geared towards industry, but there is absolutely no investment in science for the common good, for instance, for the environment or for Canadians' health.

Why does this government completely disrespect its own scientists?