House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • Her favourite word was quebec.

Last in Parliament March 2011, as Bloc MP for Rivière-du-Nord (Québec)

Lost her last election, in 2011, with 28% of the vote.

Statements in the House

The Budget May 10th, 2006

There is no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that Kyoto is extremely important. The hon. member is completely right, there are significant cutbacks, but at the same time, this budget has good stuff in it for Quebec and my riding. In my region, we are experiencing a very serious and severe social housing crisis. One municipality in my riding is a regional capital. We have to find ways to help.

Ultimately, the solution to all that is Quebec achieving sovereignty. Having achieved sovereignty, Quebec will be able to administer all its programs on its own. It will be able to look after its employment insurance scheme and ensure that programs are in place for its people and for older workers. It will be able to ensure that no one is dipping into the employment insurance fund and that the money is truly reinvested for the benefit of the workers. It will ensure that our workers are treated well, and that our environment is conserved properly.

In the meantime, however, we have to live with what we have and vote for the budget, if only to resolve the fiscal imbalance. This will greatly help Quebec make strides towards its ultimate goal: sovereignty.

The Budget May 10th, 2006

Mr. Speaker, to begin, I will take the opportunity to salute the population of my riding, Rivière-du-Nord. I thank them from placing their trust in me as a member for the fifth time.

The Bloc views this as a transition budget. It contains some measures which will satisfy certain needs in Quebec. The Bloc Québécois will therefore support the Conservative budget.

This budget contains certain things on which the Bloc Québécois has been working for many years. One of them is the fiscal imbalance. In the previous Liberal government, the Bloc succeeded in having the fiscal imbalance included in the throne speech.

At last, this budget recognizes the existence of the fiscal imbalance, first of all. Next, it also recognizes that there will be negotiations and timetables. For Quebec, this measure alone is of critical importance. For the Bloc, timetables show that the government is serious about this measure, the principal measure for which the Bloc has fought here for years. You will recall that a few years ago, when we spoke the words “fiscal imbalance” here in this House, it was as if we were talking about something that did not exist. Now it is well defined, and the government recognizes it.

The Bloc is eager to see the negotiations unfold and to see what this government truly intends to do, whether it does its homework. We will be watching it very closely.

So this important measure is to be found in the budget.

We also find the whole issue of post-secondary education. Money is being allocated for the students. As we know, this House has even seen the tabling of private members’ bills to provide measures for post-secondary students. There was never any movement from the government on this issue. Finally, we are seeing some initiatives, even though we do not know as yet how they will be formulated. Everything will be tabled here, in the House of Commons, and then we will all of us be able to discuss whether they are reasonable or not. At last there will be these sorts of initiatives.

There are also measures on social housing. The CMHC has a surplus of over $4 billion. That surplus might already be allocated to social housing. The budget refers to some $800 million in measures. That is a step in the right direction. It remains to be seen how this will be formulated, what will be given, how it will be distributed to the provinces and how it will be managed.

It should not be forgotten that the various provinces have their own programs to administer social housing. Quebec wants this money to be transferred so that it can administer its own programs, since they already exist. We shall have to see how all of this will be distributed and negotiated.

We will also have to see how long this will take. It is fine to make promises, but if this is to happen in four or five years, it will be of no use. We want real promises, not empty ones. Furthermore, we want to see whether this government will move as quickly as we want. You and I know that that is not always the case. We have witnessed many budgets. For me, this is the thirteenth. We know that sometimes, despite the promises, things do not move forward very quickly.

Nonetheless, there are some measures in this direction.

Obviously, some things that we had hoped to see in the budget are missing, particularly as regards employment insurance. The Bloc is firmly committed to this issue. Everybody knows that. In fact, we have repeatedly brought forward bills on employment insurance. We want to see an independent employment insurance fund. Even a majority of government members voted to create such a fund.

There is $48 billion in the existing employment insurance fund. We have to be able to recover that money so that we can reinvest in our programs and not just reduce the premium payments of employers, but also increase employee weeks of benefits.

We have that $48 billion available. We do not know what the previous government did with it. I hope that the present government will be able to track that money down and will then do something to help unemployed workers.

Just to note, Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell you that I will be splitting my time with the member for Trois-Rivières.

Self-employed workers are also one of our priorities. At this time, they are not eligible for employment insurance. All of these measures are extremely important. We have introduced bills so that self-employed workers can, if they so wish, pay EI premiums so that they can benefit from that program if the need arises. Self-employed workers may find themselves in very difficult situations. They do not necessarily earn a lot of money. If they have an accident or if their contracts dry up, they find themselves with no income and quite simply have to go on welfare. We would like to avoid this kind of situation, we would like to eliminate it, even. We want to improve the situation for everyone.

Employment insurance is a top priority issue for us. Unfortunately, there is nothing about it in the budget.

As well, the $1,200 allowance is somewhat disappointing. It has been decided that it will be given directly to families, when we know perfectly well that in some cases, at the end of the day—and people will realize this—families will be paying tax on that $1,200. If a true tax credit of $1,200 had been created, as the Bloc Québécois had called for, everyone who genuinely needed it would have received it.

On that point, perhaps the government will want to change things for the coming year. I do not know whether this is an on-going program. We have not been given any more information about it. Time will tell. The government will also see how the public reacts to it. When taxpayers fill out their tax returns, they will certainly realize that they do not have much left out of that $1,200, perhaps even nothing at all, or barely $200, and that it may not have been a good idea to do things this way.

Our child care program in Quebec is extremely important. I have not heard the government express its political will to negotiate with Quebec to allow this program to continue. The Bloc Québécois will never stop fighting for this issue. My colleague from Trois-Rivières will do so with vigour, I am sure. This is really important for us. Otherwise, Quebec will have a shortfall of $807 million and this will be unacceptable.

This is not a bad budget, but there is room for several improvements. The real budget will be the one in 2007. Then perhaps we will see different measures on which we can make a different judgment.

Also, there is the matter of the program for older workers. We have been talking about if for years. It has to be put back in place. As we know, we are living in the globalization era. At present, many manufacturing businesses are closing, particularly in the textile sector. The lumber industry has also suffered a great deal. But older workers have no program to help them make the transition. We have been demanding such a program for a very long time. We have asked the minister to restore it. We got a pilot project, but she does not seem to want to restore this program. It is extremely important that she do so.

I could go on longer, but I will try to summarize.

The final element that seems to me of great importance is the Kyoto protocol. We cannot disregard this. We see that the government does not really intend to respect the Kyoto protocol. It wants to completely transform things. It is trying to make us believe that it will deal with the matter of climate change and so on. The government wishes to transform everything in a rather ridiculous way.

It is extremely important that we respect our commitments. Canada should set an example. Quebec, for its part, has done its homework. It has hydroelectricity. It has done its work and will continue to do so. It is important for Canada to set an example for the rest of the world. Unfortunately, it is setting the opposite example. The government will have to pay the price sooner or later.

I sincerely hope that the measures announced in this budget are really put in place and that they are put in place quickly. For the needs of Quebeckers, we have to sit down and negotiate as soon as possible all the promises made in the budget and which we need in Quebec as quickly as possible.

Aboriginal Affairs May 10th, 2006

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to comment on the announcement made by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development concerning the final Indian residential schools settlement agreement.

This is a great day for the victims of the Indian residential schools. It is also a great day for all those who care about justice, respect and compassion.

Over 150,000 native people went through hell in the residential schools. Too many victims have already left us, and the number of survivors is estimated to be 87,000, of whom an average of 30 to 50 are dying each week without being entitled to fair compensation.

With this agreement, the Government of Canada is tackling the worst examples of human rights violations in its history, is coming to terms with its shameful past and is finally repairing the wrongs it caused to too many victims.

Let us not delude ourselves, the final Indian residential schools settlement agreement is a salve on the wounds of broken lives, and it will not make up for the ravages which many native people will never get over. Nevertheless, I am firmly convinced that the agreement is the foundation for restoring social justice and promoting reconciliation and healing.

Today's agreement is the product of the perseverance, courage and patience of native people; of first nations leadership; of the recommendations of the Erasmus-Dussault report, endorsed by the Bloc Québécois, which demanded the holding of a public inquiry into abuse in the residential schools; and of the work by members of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, which led to the signing of the agreement in principle on November 20, 2005.

Finally, the Bloc Québécois is delighted with the announcement and hopes that these long-awaited developments will meet the victims’ expectations.

I now ask the Prime Minister to seize the opportunity of this announcement to offer today, in this House, his apologies to the former residents so that they can turn this sad page in history.

UNESCO May 5th, 2006

Mr. Speaker, in terms of UNESCO and other international organizations, Quebec asked for the possibility to give its consent before Canada takes a public position on areas under Quebec's jurisdiction.

Are we to understand that in the event Quebec and Canada do not share the same position Canada will never defend a position that is contrary to the one Quebec is defending?

UNESCO May 5th, 2006

Mr. Speaker, on December 19, 2005, in the middle of the election campaign, the Prime Minister made the following promise: “...we will invite Québec to participate in UNESCO according to the model for the Francophonie Summit”. This morning we learn that all Quebec will get is a spot within the Canadian delegation to UNESCO and the right to be consulted before Canada takes a position.

How can the government explain backing off from the promises it made in December?

The Budget May 3rd, 2006

Mr. Speaker, the speech on the budget demonstrated, once again, the Bloc Québécois' effectiveness in ensuring, always respectfully, that Quebec's voice is heard. Although not all of our expectations were met, several of our requests were heard.

The federal government's formal recognition of the fiscal imbalance and its commitment to deal with it represent a major step forward for Quebec.

The increased assistance for post-secondary education, agriculture and social housing, the non-taxation of scholarships, bursaries and fellowships, and the tax credit for public transit users are all end results of various struggles waged by the Bloc Québécois.

We will continue our hard work, particularly to demand improvements to the employment insurance system, to demand measures to help older workers who are victims of mass layoffs and manufacturing sectors that are at risk due to globalization, and to petition for arts and culture.

Lastly, we will continue to oppose this government's pulling out of the Kyoto protocol and we will never hesitate to express Quebec's distinctiveness.

Softwood Lumber April 28th, 2006

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the chairman of the American coalition that started this dispute invited Canada to take the opportunity presented by this agreement to change its softwood lumber trading practices, thus refusing to back down from its claims that Canada still subsidizes its industry.

How can the government call this agreement a victory when, in fact, it looks more like a truce than a long-term solution?

Softwood Lumber April 28th, 2006

Mr. Speaker, contrary to the Prime Minister's claims, yesterday's framework agreement with the Americans on softwood lumber is not all good.

Is the government concerned that by signing the agreement yesterday, it is tacitly agreeing with unsubstantiated American claims that Canada is supporting its softwood lumber industry?

Chernobyl April 26th, 2006

Mr. Speaker, on April 26, 1986, at 1:23 a.m., the alarm sounded in reactor number four of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. Ukraine and the world remember.

For 10 days, the explosion cast a radioactive cloud over the heads of more than five million people. This was one of the worst tragedies in human memory. The loss of thousands of human lives, together with the harmful impacts on the physical and psychological health of thousands of others, has highlighted both the fragility and the grandeur of human beings, and is an argument for the zealous protection of our environment.

Today the world commemorates the 20th anniversary of the Chernobyl nuclear accident. May this sad anniversary remind us of the harrowing choices faced by the world’s leaders with regard to energy policy, as well as the responsibilities that fall to them.

The Bloc Québécois shares the pain of the Ukrainian people and reiterates its commitment to continuing to promote a Quebec that has an environmentally sound energy footing.

The Environment April 7th, 2006

Mr. Speaker, as president of the United Nations climate change conference, the environment minister has a special responsibility.

With such a contradictory attitude about the Kyoto protocol, what sort of credibility does the minister expect to establish among participants in the upcoming summit to be held in Bonn beginning on May 15, when she is to preside over negotiations for phase two of the Kyoto protocol?