House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • Her favourite word was budget.

Last in Parliament October 2015, as NDP MP for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot (Québec)

Won her last election, in 2011, with 52% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Housing May 8th, 2012

Mr. Speaker, the 44th National Congress on Housing organized by the Canadian Housing & Renewal Association was held from May 1 to 4 in St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador.

Representatives of 400 organizations, municipalities and businesses were there to examine the current state of housing in Canada. The consensus was that, despite some progress in the area of housing and homelessness, the housing crisis is nowhere near being resolved.

I had the honour of discussing Bill C-400, which I introduced last February, to establish a national housing strategy. Countless organizations support this bill. I cannot count the number of representatives from organizations located in Conservative ridings who asked me how they could convince their MPs to vote in favour of the bill.

While Canada is still the only G8 country that does not have a national housing strategy, while over 150,000 Canadians are living on the street and while about 1.5 million households do not have appropriate housing, what more will it take to convince the Conservatives that Canada needs a real housing strategy?

Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act May 8th, 2012

Madam Speaker, of these eliminations, the thing that concerns me the most this morning is the cuts that affect food inspection. Many jobs will be lost in my riding and the health of Canadians is in jeopardy.

All the cuts in this budget are harmful either to the health or the well-being of Canadians. That includes all Quebeckers and the people in my riding. That is what concerns me. I will continue to oppose this budget.

Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act May 8th, 2012

Madam Speaker, the topic of this morning's debate is the budget and Bill C-38, the 2012 budget implementation bill. We are not discussing work permits or anything else.

I did mention a number of concerns we have with this budget, especially with regard to the environment and seniors, and also job creation and giving people who receive employment insurance a hand up. We know that the Employment Insurance Act has been undermined in recent years. Although there is talk of job creation, I do not see it in this budget. Those are our concerns this morning.

Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act May 8th, 2012

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. He may have misunderstood what I wanted to say. Once again, he could quite easily look up what I said, word for word, in the blues or on tape. I said that environmental assessment as we know it is being replaced by a new environmental assessment regime. I did not necessarily say that the process was being abolished.

However, I am worried because this new environmental assessment regime does not take into consideration the recommendations put forward by environmental groups and experts. Personally, that is what really worries me.

This is a good example of a process that does not provide Canadians with good information. The experts are not being consulted and organizations working to protect Canada's environment are not being heard.

Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act May 8th, 2012

Madam Speaker, first, I would like to say that I am pleased to rise in the House this morning to support the motion of the hon. member for Parkdale—High Park, whom I would like to commend for this motion and for the clear-headed manner in which she has faced the challenges we have encountered since the tabling of this budget.

Obviously, the purpose of Bill C-38 is to implement budget 2012; however, it goes much further than the budget itself. The bill contains not only the measures described in the budget but also many changes that were never announced before. Personally, this does not really surprise me.

The biggest problem is that this bill introduces a series of measures that are not part of the election promises made by the current government and that will decrease the transparency and increase the secrecy of the government. This government is not a very good example of transparency. It has demonstrated that much over the past year, and things are only going to get worse over the next three years.

This bill contains measures that decrease the Auditor General's authority. Must I remind the House that the Auditor General is an independent and reliable source of objective, factual and, above all, non-partisan information that Parliament greatly needs to oversee government spending and activities?

Finally, any decrease in the Auditor General's powers will reduce Parliament's ability to provide oversight and hold the government to account, as mandated by all Quebeckers and Canadians. In my opinion, this is a very serious attack. The Auditor General ensures that public money is spent properly. We really have a problem with this. I just cannot understand how the government can assume this power. It is completely beyond me.

The 2012 budget makes ill-advised cuts to services on which a large number of Canadians are very dependent. Yes, I am referring to the old age security program, health care, provincial transfers, environmental assessments, and many other matters.

As I was saying earlier, yesterday, my colleague from Parkdale—High Park, seconded by my colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, moved an amendment to the motion. The amendment clearly explains why the House cannot support the 2012 budget implementation bill.

The House cannot support the bill at second reading stage for various reasons. First, this bill considerably weakens the confidence Canadians have in the work of Parliament. I think that is very serious. I think that in the past year, that confidence has been undermined, and it will only diminish further. Now we know why people are cynical about politics and why young people no longer vote.

Second, the bill decreases transparency and erodes fundamental democratic institutions by systematically over-concentrating power in the hands of ministers and the government, which is not good.

Third, it shields the government from criticism about extremely controversial non-budgetary issues by bundling all those issues into an omnibus bill masquerading as a budget bill. It is hard to know where this will end.

Fourth, it also undermines the critical role played by such trusted oversight bodies as the Auditor General of Canada, the CSIS Inspector General and the National Energy Board.

Fifth, it silences institutional checks and balances to the government's ideological agenda.

Finally, something we have been talking about at length and must continue talking about in order to keep the public aware of the situation is that this budget raises the eligibility age for old age security and the guaranteed income supplement from 65 to 67. I do not understand this reckless approach to balancing the budget. A number of experts have said that the money is there, and they have the numbers to back their claims. The easy excuse is that the baby boomers are leaving the workforce, which means more people are retiring, but we have known that since the 1980s. We saw that coming and we are prepared for it.

This budget also includes provisions to gut the federal environmental assessment regime and to overhaul fish habitat protection, for instance, in a way that will adversely affect fragile ecosystems and Canada’s environmental sustainability for generations to come.

When I hear the Conservatives talking about the future, I do not understand. They are talking about the future, yet they are jeopardizing the health of Canadians and abandoning environmental measures. This makes no sense. This budget also calls into question Canada’s food inspection system and public health regime by removing critical oversight powers of the Auditor General, who works in conjunction with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

This paves the way for opportunities to privatize a number of essential inspection functions. This will mean, on the one hand, that wealthy people will have the means to eat well and have their food inspected in order to avoid illness, while on the other hand, poor people will not be able to afford decent food and have it inspected. This is just one more aspect of this bill that is completely unacceptable.

Nor does this budget include measures to help the growing number of unemployed workers in Canada. The budget talks about job creation, but when I read the bill, I saw nothing about job creation. All I saw was job cuts. There is a disconnect between those cuts and the talk of job creation. The main thrust of this bill was not mentioned in the budget that the government tabled on March 29.

Throughout this 421-page bill, the government is trying to introduce new measures under the guise of budget implementation. Quebeckers and Canadians will not stand for that. Bill C-38 proves once again that Quebeckers and Canadians cannot trust the government. It proves once again that the government does not care about what Canadians need.

The government knows that its bill is unacceptable. That is why it has invoked closure once again. Unfortunately, this strategy is turning into a tradition in this Parliament. Still, we are starting to get used to it. It undermines the work of the House, where MPs have an important responsibility to debate bills. Once again, it proves that this government lacks transparency.

I could spend an entire day talking about this completely irresponsible bill, but Quebeckers and Canadians are much more intelligent than the government seems to think. I will now talk about the effects that this bill will have on my riding of Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, a very rural riding located close to Montreal, Quebec.

First, the attacks on the environment affect all ridings, obviously. At least a third of this bill is dedicated to environmental deregulation. The government is implementing all the measures that it announced, but it is also introducing new measures that it did not announce. Clearly, Canada's withdrawal from the Kyoto protocol is of great concern to my constituents and to all Canadians since it will result in a great deal of deregulation. I cannot emphasize this enough: this is yet another example of this government's lack of transparency when it comes to environmental assessments.

The executive director and senior counsel at West Coast Environmental Law said that, by gutting Canada’s long-standing environmental laws, the budget bill gives oil and gas companies exactly what they have been asking for—fewer environmental safeguards so they can push through resource megaprojects.

I am out of time. Nevertheless, I think I said everything I wanted to say even though, as I said before, I could talk about this bill all day.

I would be happy to answer any questions.

Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act May 7th, 2012

Mr. Speaker, I listened enthusiastically to the speech given by my hon. colleague. It was very interesting.

I would like to know a little more about the lack of leadership shown by this government, particularly concerning food inspection, but also concerning the environment and heritage, since we have also been talking a bit about these things.

Committees of the House May 1st, 2012

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, entitled “Abuse of Older Women”.

Pursuant to Standing Order 109 of the House of Commons, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to the report.

Business of Supply April 26th, 2012

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier during my speech, many experts agree that the system is sustainable.

Yes, it will be used more in the coming years since the baby boomers will be retiring, but this does not come as a surprise. We knew this was going to happen. We planned for it. Use of the system will then drop and return to normal, as all the experts predicted.

As I also said earlier during my speech, we were aware that many baby boomers would be retiring. We have been aware of it since 1988. That is almost 25 years. We saw it coming. People should be allowed to retire at 65. It is that simple.

Business of Supply April 26th, 2012

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. I am going to answer his first question—he had two questions.

The government has decided to raise the retirement age from 65 to 67. That is a completely unjustified decision on its part, given that we have concrete evidence that the system is sustainable.

On the question of physical labour, as I said earlier in my speech before question period, working two more years is completely unthinkable for many people who do physical labour, in agriculture or industry, for example, because of health and physical condition issues. We have to consider those workers and people who have paid into the system for their whole lives and who are simply entitled to take their well-deserved retirement at the age of 65.

Business of Supply April 26th, 2012

Mr. Speaker, that makes no sense, and I do not see why I should apologize.

Every time I ask a question in the House, they say that the NDP voted against it, blah, blah, blah.

Of course we will vote against measures that are stupid and discriminatory and that do not lift Canadians out of poverty. I will not apologize.