House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • Her favourite word was seniors.

Last in Parliament October 2015, as NDP MP for Pierrefonds—Dollard (Québec)

Lost her last election, in 2015, with 16% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Business of Supply February 3rd, 2014

I thank my colleague for his question.

The goal is obviously not to lose services available to the public. That is not the NDP's goal. The figure proposed today was taken from the most credible study that most closely reflects our reality. According to this study, the operating costs for an ATM are around 36¢.

We would take a look at other figures if institutions in Canada's regions are prepared to give them to us. However, this is the figure we have right now, and we want to ensure that Canadians are not always paying more. That is the goal of the NDP's motion today. Current fees are not $1 or $2. Consumers are paying $5 or $6 because there are absolutely no regulations.

Business of Supply February 3rd, 2014

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the motion before the House moved by the NDP. I would also like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.

This motion does not promise anyone the moon. What it does is put forward extremely concrete and practical measures that could make a difference in the everyday lives of average Canadians. As I see it, this is what sets the NDP apart a little. We are mindful of the impact that we can have on people’s day-to-day lives. The NDP is constantly looking at what it can do to improve people’s lives and put forward concrete solutions.

The subject of today’s debate is ATM fees. ATM fees have been around since 1996. Since they were first introduced, they have continued to increase at a relatively rapid pace. Moreover, these fees are not regulated. This is something the federal government could do. However, it has deliberately chosen not to act on this matter. That is its choice. This is what this opposition motion aims to demonstrate today.

The NDP is proposing with this motion to bring in regulations to protect consumers from abusive, unregulated fees charged to them. These fees continue to rise daily. It is a well-known fact that banks do not necessarily need all of this revenue to survive. They continue to post ever-growing record profits. The fees charged to consumers who use ATMs add up. Various fees can total from $2 to $6 per transaction. Allow me to elaborate further.

On the one hand, banks charge fees for regular accounts. Institutions charge a fee when a customer withdraws funds, regardless of the ATM used. Often, these fees are rolled into the monthly banking fees charged by the institution. A fee is also charged to access the network. By that I mean the banking institution charges the consumer a fee specifically when money is withdrawn from an ATM that does not belong to that particular institution. These are fees over and above those I mentioned earlier. In addition, we have convenience fees, network fees and fees charged by ATM operators to non-clients.

Clearly, this adds up. Once again, people have to pay to access their own money. Is this necessary? From the beginning, my colleagues have been arguing that without this system, people would not have services or would lose the ability to withdraw money from ATMs whenever they want. Those are the arguments the Conservative Party often uses. The banks are saying they have to charge extra or make cuts and that we have no choice. On the contrary, we do have a choice.

In other countries, in many European countries for example, there are no fees for withdrawing money from ATMs. In the United Kingdom, 97% of withdrawals are free. Why? The public had had enough. They decided to lobby the government on this and regulations were put in place.

Is our country exactly the same? No, of course not. However, what I can say is that it is not so far-fetched to propose that this be regulated. Of course doing so requires a study and consultations. What we are proposing with this motion is to work on a similar concept and come up with a concrete measure that is suited to our country and our situation.

Over the past few weeks, I have talked to people in my riding about the cost of living in general and about certain concrete measures that the NDP and I are proposing in order to protect consumers and improve the cost of living. Among other measures, I was talking about ATM fees.

I think it is always important to speak on behalf of the people of Pierrefonds—Dollard in the House, in this Parliament. I would like to share with the House some of the comments people have shared with me. They are very interesting and relevant to this debate.

One woman said to me:

The cost of living keeps going up. I am not sure who is responsible for that.

Maybe a change will make a difference.

These are people who do not know where to turn to any more because they are promised the moon, but they have not seen any change from year to year despite the elections and all the election promises. The cost of living keeps going up. That woman said she would accept any change if it produced concrete results.

Another person wrote to me about the cost of living. That person said:

I do really support your efforts and sentiments, indeed the cost of living has gone up. I urge and encourage you to push forward hoping that a meaningful change will be forthcoming.

This is another example of someone saying that the cost of living is going up, that something must be done and that meaningful changes must be made.

In fact, over the past 35 years, the Canadian economy has grown. We can be proud of this, but the incomes of middle-class Canadians have not kept up with economic growth. The cost of living has increased, but the incomes of typical Canadian families have dropped by 7% over the past 35 years. Middle-class families are feeling the pressure, and household debt has reached record levels.

There is no silver bullet. I am not saying that this motion, with a wave of a magic wand, will do away with household debt and the concerns of Canadian families, but there are things that can be done, tangible measures that, one at a time, will ultimately provide some relief for Canadian families in terms of their household debt and for the middle class in general.

It is the people in my riding who want to see these changes. These changes are possible if we work together.

Here is another comment from a woman who is discussing the cost of living, and it brings us to other matters. Perhaps her comment can give the House some ideas about other ways of making life more affordable for middle-class Canadians:

I am a pensioner since I was 60 years old and now soon 70 years old. My Quebec pension and OAS is inadequate for me to survive.

This senior citizen is asking us to do something because she cannot go on, because she is drowning and because the income she receives is not enough for her to live decently.

This is a good example of other things that can be done. They will not necessarily be implemented with today’s motion, but the NDP has fought to keep the age of entitlement to old age security at 65, in order to increase retirement income. Improving the Canada Pension Plan and provincial pension plans is another measure that can be taken to make life more affordable for people and help them make ends meet.

Here is a comment that comes from a mother:

The middle class is being killed by the cost of living. Gasoline is outrageously expensive and continues to be. I am raising my daughter, single mom, and my budget can barely be met. Food costs more now, too. Help us out. Roll back the cost of gas and cap it.

Her statement suggests real solutions, but it is also a passionate appeal from a single mother who wants to give her daughter a decent, affordable life.

It is not easy to implement those kinds of measures on gas prices. It is very difficult, but the NDP has other suggestions to bring a little more transparency and regulatory clarity to gas prices.

It is possible to do so. Canadians are fed up with having a government that is not on their side. Of course, all of the businesses that have a great deal of power and great deal of money will threaten parliamentarians by telling them that, if such measures are taken, businesses will have to cut jobs and reduce services, but ultimately, it is possible. The only thing we need is a little bit of political will from the people’s representatives. This is why we are here, to take a courageous stand and set limits so that ordinary Canadians no longer have to shell out to institutions that make billions of dollars year after year, without any kind of regulation.

Citizenship and Immigration February 3rd, 2014

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' irresponsible cuts to health care for refugees are endangering not only asylum seekers with serious illnesses, but also pregnant women and children.

The situation is such a big problem that doctors were forced to dispute these changes in court, and the provinces decided to take on the costs for humanitarian reasons.

Will the minister finally listen to his partners and reverse these dangerous and inhumane cuts?

Veterans Affairs January 31st, 2014

Mr. Speaker, it is funny that the member does not seem willing to contradict the minister and refuses to say whether or not cuts are being made to this department.

Let us look at the Department of Veterans Affairs' most recent report on plans and priorities. On page 13 of the report, it states in black and white that the department is making cuts of $105 million in 2014-15 and $132 million in 2015-16.

Did the minister read his own department's report on plans and priorities? Will he continue to claim that no cuts are being made in his department?

Veterans Affairs January 31st, 2014

Mr. Speaker, they are insulting veterans and spying on Canadians. What a great week for the Conservatives.

Is it not pathetic to see the Minister of Veterans Affairs rise in the House to say that veterans' discontent is a vast union conspiracy? It is just as ridiculous as his claim that no cuts are being made to his department. Really? Why then do the financial documents from his department show the opposite?

If the Conservatives are not making any cuts, then why are they closing eight service centres before the end of the day today?

Veterans Affairs January 30th, 2014

Mr. Speaker, while the Conservatives are closing veterans' service centres, they are spending $4 million a year on ministers' offices all over the country.

Instead of investing in direct public services, the Conservatives are investing in services for Conservative ministers.

How can the Conservatives justify that the budget for ministers' satellite offices has doubled, when they are making cuts everywhere else in the departments?

Ethics January 29th, 2014

Mr. Speaker, let me recap.

The Minister of the Environment attended a fundraiser where guests included people who receive funding directly from her department. The Minister of Canadian Heritage did more or less the same thing last week. Yesterday, the Minister of Veterans Affairs had nothing better to do than insult and run roughshod over veterans.

How does the Prime Minister determine when a minister should be asked to resign? What is the ethical standard of the day?

Respect for Communities Act January 27th, 2014

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his comments, and also for his serious work on the Standing Committee on Health. He deserves our congratulations.

Yes, I agree with him. I will again quote the Institut national de santé publique du Québec. I come back to this frequently because, as a Quebecker, I am very interested in the processes that the Province of Quebec has followed in giving serious consideration to this matter. The institute recognizes that, in the literature, supervised injection sites are seen to have beneficial effects on public order, such as fewer injections in public, fewer syringes discarded in an unsafe manner, fewer fatalities, fewer infections from syringes, and so on. Supervised injection sites are essential for the prevention and enhancement of public order and public health.

My colleague mentioned a number of important stakeholders who support this type of proposal. I have others here. A number of associations of health care professionals, doctors and nurses, as well as police forces, support supervised injection sites.

Respect for Communities Act January 27th, 2014

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Trois-Rivières for his question.

Quebec's Institut national de santé publique has noted that one of the benefits of a supervised injection site is that it provides a way to reach the most vulnerable members of our society. It is a front-line service for individuals who do not usually turn to traditional health services. To argue that this is impossible is completely false.

The truth of the matter is that the Conservatives do not want to do this. The Liberals also mounted some opposition to supervised injection sites for many years prior to 2003. The fact is that it is possible to make life difficult for such sites with legislation such as Bill C-2. It is also possible to facilitate the opening of well-regulated supervised injection sites, but that is not what the Conservatives have decided to do.

Respect for Communities Act January 27th, 2014

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to continue my speech on Bill C-2.

As I said earlier, despite all the scientific evidence and literature, the Conservatives hold obstinately and unreasonably to a certain ideology by introducing a bill like this.

I have heard my Conservative colleagues make some incredible arguments in their speeches. For instance, some members believe that supervised injection sites encourage the use of hard drugs. Others feel that neighbourhood safety is compromised if a supervised injection site opens its doors. Those arguments are completely ridiculous and they definitely fly in the face of the evidence available to us.

I would like to turn briefly to AJOI, a community organization from Pierrefonds—Dollard that does amazing work with street youth at risk of joining street gangs or in very precarious situations. When AJOI was ready to start its activities, people said that West Island had no street youth. It took some time for reality to be accepted and for the organization to be able to take action.

Does this organization want young offenders to be on the street? No. Is having case workers helping youths in the streets a danger to the community or to neighbourhood safety? Not at all. In fact, the opposite is true. These people provide medical, moral and social support to youth in need to help them get out of that situation.

The parallel with what we are seeing in this debate on Bill C-2 is very relevant, and it is easy to understand why. I would like to give you a few facts that have emerged from the experiences of InSite in Vancouver.

Eighty percent of people polled who live or work in downtown Vancouver support InSite. Therefore, these neighbours do not feel threatened by having a site in their neighbourhood.

The rate of overdose deaths in East Vancouver has dropped by 35% since InSite opened. In one year, 2,171 InSite users have been directed to addiction counselling or other support services. I could go on. The facts speak for themselves.

I would just like to wrap up by saying that a number of studies have been done in Quebec. A very serious process is under way to support a position for or against supervised injection sites.

The Institut national de santé publique du Québec stated that sites like these could meet some needs and should be encouraged. They came to a number of positive conclusions after analyzing the facts and the literature.

This is something this government clearly did not do before introducing Bill C-2, which is unfortunate. It is a completely thoughtless way to act and, I will say it again, it amounts to incredible ideological obstinacy.