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

Personal Information Protection And Electronic Documents Act October 30th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-54 seeks to promote electronic commerce, while protecting personal information, so that consumers can engage in electronic commerce with confidence.

For the benefit of this House, let me first explain in general, easy to understand terms what this legislation is all about. When we talk about electronic commerce, what exactly are we talking about?

We are talking about making purchases or transactions—bank transactions, transactions with suppliers, with manufacturers, with clients—electronically. These types of transactions have been in existence for quite some time. Telecommunications have been with us for thirty years or so. They have been relatively well structured in terms of standards for 25 years.

As for electronic data interchange, it has been governed by international standards for more than 10 years. In fact, electronic data interchange is used relatively often by many businesses.

For the past ten years or so, large businesses have been using it in their dealings with suppliers. That means that a supplier does not send a written bill to his client, but rather an electronic bill that is received on the client's computer, allowing the client to authorize payment after verifying that the goods or services have actually been delivered.

What is happening today is an acceleration, and I was going to say a democratization of this process. Electronic data interchange is not longer restricted to large corporations and government. It is now accessible to the average person through, among other means, the Internet.

So far so good. However, if I give my credit card number when I make such a transaction, I want to be sure that this number will not be used for other purposes than those for which I wrote it on the electronic form.

I want to be sure that somebody will not use my credit card number to travel around the world. Of course, I would only find out about it when receiving my statement at the end of the month. It would be terrible.

True, particularly well equipped hackers might be able to get at that information. But we have the tools to make it very difficult for them. One should not generalize and panic.

We have to recognize that in everyday life, you and I and a lot of other people are using their credit cards in a lot of establishments, restaurants, clothing stores, to subscribe to a magazine. Our credit card number is handled by strangers.

When I go to the restaurant and I pay with my credit card, the waiter takes it away for a while to pass it through a mechanical device or a magnetic tape reader to charge the check on my account at my credit card provider. During those few minutes, he or she could take note of my number to use it improperly.

However, in 99.99% of the people are honest and that kind of fraudulent use of credit card simply does not happen. But it is true that there are fraudulent uses of credit cards.

Visit By Secretary-General Of Francophonie October 2nd, 1998

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Quebec has represented the Quebec people in certain international forums for a long time now. Ottawa, however, tried to take advantage of the visit by the Secretary-General of la Francophonie to again challenge the rights of Quebec. The former French minister Alain Peyrefitte has described these as “historically recognized rights”.

The excuse given by the Foreign Affairs protocol office had to do with VIP security, as if Quebec were not capable of ensuring this. Knowing as we do that for the federal government the word “security” is often synonymous with “repression of freedom of expression”, this demonstrates its total disdain toward Quebec.

In its unflagging efforts to isolate Quebec and to nibble away at its independence, Ottawa is proving that it is turning its back on the profound aspirations of the Quebec people. That disdain will be short-lived, however, for the Quebec people will soon be opting, clearly opting, for sovereignty.

President Of South Africa September 25th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, we were honoured to welcome to this House Nelson Mandela, one of the most illustrious defenders of human rights.

A driving force for peace and development in Africa, and a pioneer in the struggle for the rights of his people, his battle took him all the way to the office of President of South Africa.

Since the first free elections were held in 1994, South Africa has continued in its role of economic engine of the continent. Africa as a whole owes much to Mr. Mandela, at a time when this continent is moving towards deeper self-understanding, giving us all hope that there will be an improvement in the material, social and political conditions of its peoples.

Yesterday evening, Mr. Mandela, you became the first head of state to become a Companion of the Order of Canada. This is an honour signifying for Canadians and Quebeckers how important a beacon for humanity your struggle for freedom, dignity and democracy is and will continue to be.

You are a model of courage and tenacity for us all.

Sudan June 5th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.

Sudan is currently experiencing a terrible famine. CIDA, whose priority is to attend to people's basic needs, is not yet involved in Sudan.

Can the minister tell us why, between 1993 and 1997, CIDA cut one-third of its official development assistance funding to the 48 poorest countries in the world and what his government intends to do to help Sudan?

Budget Implementation Act, 1998 May 25th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate, but I am not delighted to rise today in this House to speak to Bill C-36.

It implements certain provisions in the latest budget of the Minister of Finance including the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation. I will return to this a little later in my speech.

Perhaps you would allow me right off to put all the nonsense in the latest budget into perspective. The government opposite is continuously heaping praise on the Minister of Finance for his work in balancing the budget.

Let us get things clear from the start. There is no question of congratulating a government so irresponsible about the job it has to do as to have others do it, namely the provinces. This, in my opinion and that of the Bloc, makes the entire budget operation totally unacceptable. The federal government achieved its zero deficit by scandalously dumping its financial obligations and responsibilities into the yards of the provinces.

To eliminate its deficit, the Liberal government has cut annually, since 1994, $7.2 billion in transfers to the provinces, which represents 52% of all the federal government's spending cuts. In its two terms, the government opposite will literally have chopped $42 billion in social transfer payments to the provinces.

In 1995, the federal government promised, through its finance minister, to cut departmental expenditures by 19% over three years. Once again, it did not do its homework, since it cut only 9%, proving yet again that nearly all efforts to improve government finances came from elsewhere.

What this year's budget neglects to say, and the public must be aware of this, is that there will be an additional $30 billion in cuts by 2003 to the health, education and social assistance sectors.

To give an idea of the size of the cuts, for Quebec alone, between 1993 and 2003, a cumulative total of $13 billion will be cut from the budget for transfers to Quebec. It is not for nothing that the Quebec minister of state for the economy and finance, Bernard Landry, told the federal government that its federalism was “predatory and abusive”. I will add “irresponsible, centralizing and creating poverty” to that.

If we examine the effects of these cuts in the daily lives of people in Quebec and Canada, we will see they are totally devastating. We must keep in mind that, when the Liberals took office in 1993, 61% of the unemployed were eligible for employment insurance benefits. Now, five years later, fewer than 40% of them are.

The latest employment insurance report states in black and white that young workers are the age group most affected by this drop in eligibility.

But what is most objectionable about the employment insurance situation is the surplus accumulated in the fund, which is up to about $14 billion at this point. It is expected to hit $25 billion by the year 2000. Imagine what could be done with all that dormant money.

Since 1993, the Bloc Quebecois has been shouting itself hoarse about the budget cuts being made at the expense of the disadvantaged in our society, and here is proof of it. I would describe these budget practices as fraudulent and a real theft.

The Bloc Quebecois is therefore attuned to the problems of the population, unlike the government over there, which keeps its head buried in the sand. Proof of this is the number of occasions we have begged the federal government to stop using the employment insurance fund to balance its books. The Bloc has always maintained that these funds are there to support the unemployed and to help get them back into the work force.

In addition, the Bloc Quebecois, with the backing of the labour movement, businessmen and the general public, has fought constantly to get the federal government to substantially cut workers' and employers' EI contribution rates, which are currently far too high and hamper job creation.

The Bloc Quebecois has picked up on the signals coming from the public by proposing concrete and practical measures including a $3 billion overall reduction in contributions, which represents an additional cut of about 35 cents in the contribution rate. Compared to the present rate of $2.70, the planned drop to $2.60 by the year 2000, or a mere 10 cents, will have no significant impact on job creation.

In spite of the unprecedented room to manoeuvre it has in the current budget, the government opposite chose to do nothing to stimulate job creation. No tax reform geared to job creation, no special budget measure to improve the fate of thousands of unemployed Quebeckers and Canadians.

In short, when it comes to job creation this budget is a failure. And yet the unemployment rate is stuck at around 9%.

Instead of creating jobs, the government prefers to create new programs resulting in more duplication and interference in areas of provincial jurisdiction, such as the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation, and keeps on doing what it knows best, namely how to spend somebody else's money.

A case in point is the hasty purchase of submarines to the tune of $750 million, a real bargain. After cutting billions of dollars from social transfer in the areas of health, education and welfare, the federal government is investing in youth and job creation by purchasing armament. These are the real priorities of this government.

Imagine what we could do with the $750 million it sunk into ships. I am asking the members opposite: Why not invest this money to feed the 1.4 million poor children we have in Canada?

This is one child out of five. Imagine all this money to help the five million Canadians who are living below the poverty line, which is 17.4% of this country's population. These are the priorities of the government across the way.

Another reason people in Quebec and Canada have been getting poorer since this government came to power is probably the $30 billion more they have to pay in taxes to the federal government.

In order to help stop this hemorrhage, the Bloc Quebecois asked the finance minister and other ministers to stop creating new programs. But of course, he did not listen and set up new programs including the millennium scholarships, a cornerstone of Bill C-36. This $2.5 billion fund, which will only come into force in the year 2000, is an unprecedented and blatant intrusion into an area of provincial jurisdiction, education.

The Prime Minister of Canada knows very well that, for over 30 years, we have had in Quebec the most comprehensive loans and scholarships plan in Canada.

Federalists, sovereignists and the education circles in Quebec have voiced strong opposition to this federal visibility campaign. This program does not in any way meet the needs of Quebec and its quite distinct education system. That is why Quebec rejects this program and wants to opt out with full financial compensation.

This is not a whimsical demand. It is part of a rational effort aimed specifically at meeting the immediate needs of the education system in Quebec and compensating for the $10 billion in federal cuts to transfers for education, with Quebec's share of these cuts amounting to $3 billion between 1993 and 2003.

This is outright hypocrisy. But students and the general public in Quebec will not be fooled. They know very well that these scholarships are a blatant effort to win the support of students in Quebec and in Canada. But sooner or later, the government will pay for these serious mistakes. Quebekers will understand once and for all that the only way out of this federal quagmire is Quebec sovereignty.

Canadian International Development Agency May 8th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, if we are to believe the minister, everything is always perfect and never less than wonderful.

Is the minister aware that by reorganizing CIDA by geographic region rather than by sector of activity, she is weakening professional services in agriculture, leading to the poor results we are now seeing?

Canadian International Development Agency May 8th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Co-operation.

At the World Food Summit, Canada made a commitment to actively promote food security and fight world hunger. Yet, for the last ten years, CIDA has continued to cut its support for agriculture, food and nutrition.

Can the minister explain why CIDA has cut the funding of the agriculture, food and nutrition programs for the 24 least developed nations by close to 80% since the early 1990s, despite Canada's commitment at the Rome Summit?

Supply April 28th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, I thank the NDP member for his support. I totally agree with him. We cannot discriminate. It is important for the women who choose to be at home. I think as many men as women are responsible for child care. I do not know why we would discriminate.

I again call for support. We are not asking for the moon. We simply want a parliamentary committee to look at this whole issue. It is good for all parties. It is non-partisan and it would serve the needs of this fine country they keep bragging about—Canada and its provinces.

Supply April 28th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, if you could ask him to be quiet and listen, it would be interesting, because I do not think he even knows the difference between a royal commission and a parliamentary committee.

So, I am talking about international aid because it is important for a developed country like Canada to help on the international scene. But we still see poverty in our ridings. If the government took the money in the employment insurance fund—there will soon be $20 billion—and transferred it to the provinces, we would solve our problems at home.

I even heard the member for Abitibi—and I am amazed that we have such parliamentarians—say that social assistance had to be cut. Really. It is women with children who are suffering for the most part and who receive social assistance. Yes, programs must be set up for them and they must return to the labour market. He however is talking about women remaining at home and being paid to do so. Oh, boy. That makes no sense.

I think the members of the Liberal Party should look at the motion today, support it and vote with us in favour of a parliamentary committee.

Supply April 28th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, those who have nothing to say say stupid things. If the federal government had not cut transfer payments to the provinces so drastically, the provinces might not have so many problems.