House of Commons photo

Elsewhere

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

The Environment October 3rd, 2011

Mr. Speaker, a hole in the ozone layer twice the size of Ontario has developed over the Arctic this spring, exposing northern Canadians to dangerous levels of radiation.

It was thanks to the research of Canadian scientists that we discovered the serious extent of this problem, but instead of taking action, the government has actually chosen to cut the ozone monitoring and research program.

With such a serious threat looming over Canada, will Conservatives finally commit to fully fund ozone research?

The Environment September 29th, 2011

Mr. Speaker, let us talk about the facts. The National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy just reported that without immediate government action, climate change could cost Canada $5 billion a year by 2020. By 2050, the government inaction could cost Canadians up to $43 billion a year. Our coastal communities, our forestry industry and the health of Canadians will all suffer unless we take action right now. Yet this out-of-touch government has produced no plan to deal with the impact of climate change on Canadians.

Where is the plan?

The Environment September 29th, 2011

Mr. Speaker, this government is preventing Environment Canada from protecting Canadians from climate change and pollution. This year, the budget was cut by 59%. The report from the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy is a warning about the disastrous consequences this government's out-of-touch policies will have on our economy.

If the minister refuses to act to save the environment, will he at least act to save the economy?

September 27th, 2011

Mr. Speaker, the government seems incapable of understanding that economic development and environmental protection are not mutually exclusive. On the contrary, sustainable development is the way of the future. We believe that instead of approving a pipeline that will destroy everything in its path, cost us 40,500 jobs, and considerably increase our greenhouse gas emissions, the government should stop this project.

The NDP is proposing a transition plan for a green economy, which will create good jobs and ensure our energy security. Until then, the burden of proof rests with the government. It must prove that the massive export of crude oil is a good thing for Canada. We just do not believe it.

September 27th, 2011

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be following up on a question that I raised in the House about the Keystone XL pipeline. First I would like to say that the Keystone pipeline is part of a massive plan to renew North America's oil and gas infrastructure. It will allow for a drastic expansion of oil sands production.

Under this plan, oil from the oil sands would be destined for export markets. Crude oil would be sent to the United States, where it would be refined. The refined oil would then be shipped back to us. That is illogical. This is not a viable energy security plan. The Keystone XL pipeline project is the third phase of a $13 billion project to export western Canada's bitumen to American refineries.

It is estimated that 900,000 barrels of raw bitumen will be exported to the United States each day. An estimated 40,500 potential direct and indirect jobs will be lost because of this government's negligence. The president of the Alberta Federation of Labour believes that the Keystone XL pipeline project will kill far more jobs than it will create.

The pipeline projects to the United States have already slowed down new bitumen upgrading projects in Canada. According to a study by the Alberta Federation of Labour, nine bitumen upgrading projects have been postponed or delayed. While the Americans will benefit from well-paying refinery jobs, all Canadians will get is the environmental costs of oil sands development. In addition to taking potential upgrading and refining jobs away from Canadians, the pipeline project will also destroy the environment.

Just last year, the Transportation Safety Board recorded over 100 leaks in Canadian pipelines, including 23 leaks in the first section of the Keystone project. In addition, the rights of aboriginal people have been violated because they were not properly consulted. Last week, during question period, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources said, and I quote: “...the Keystone XL pipeline will provide a substantial economic benefit to both Canada and the United States.”

However, since this project is being developed at the expense of workers, our environment, future generations and the rights of aboriginal people, how can the parliamentary secretary claim that the Keystone project will provide significant benefits to Canada?

The government did not give us all the facts and is unable to justify the so-called benefits of the Keystone pipeline. This project does not make any sense in terms of energy security, the environment or the economy. I would like to know why the government chose a quick profit and why it is protecting the interests of the large oil companies rather than developing a viable energy strategy that is consistent with the principles of sustainable development.

Keystone Pipeline September 26th, 2011

Mr. Speaker, last year the Transportation Safety Board recorded over 100 leaks in Canadian pipelines, including 23 leaks in the first section of the Keystone project, which is supposed to link Alberta to the Gulf of Mexico. The Keystone pipeline will prove detrimental to ecosystems, the rights of aboriginal peoples and the interests of workers.

By promoting the Keystone project, the government is placing the interests of big oil companies before the interests of Quebeckers and Canadians who are calling for more balanced economic development and better environmental protection for future generations. The government should put an end to this project, which is what the people want.

The Environment September 23rd, 2011

Mr. Speaker, the minister is talking about economic development, but we are talking about jobs. Workers in the region are very clear: the pipeline will cause the loss of thousands of good jobs in Canada.

Why is the government prepared to sell our jobs and our environment?

The Environment September 23rd, 2011

Mr. Speaker, the Keystone pipeline is another example of the government's failed economic and environmental policies. The pace of development in the oil sands means that the government will not even meet its own climate change targets.

Will the minister explain why the government keeps summarily promoting this pipeline instead of defending the best interests of Canadians?

The Environment September 22nd, 2011

Mr. Speaker, the government refuses to strike a balance between protecting our environment and developing the oil sands.

The unbridled development of the oil sands cannot go on at the expense of our long-term economic and environmental prosperity.

Why is the government giving up our resources and our jobs and getting nothing in return, apart from pollution and unemployment?

The Environment September 22nd, 2011

Mr. Speaker, the Keystone pipeline project raises great concerns in both Canada and the United States. In fact, environmental consequences are still unknown and it may lead to an uncontrolled expansion of the tar sands.

At a time when Canada needs a plan for job creation, why is the government ready to sell out Canadian workers and ship thousands of jobs south of the border?