House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • Her favourite word was conservatives.

Last in Parliament October 2015, as NDP MP for Hull—Aylmer (Québec)

Lost her last election, in 2015, with 32% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2 October 28th, 2013

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-4, as my colleagues have done. As hon. members know, Bill C-4 is an omnibus bill that is 300 pages long and currently amends 70 pieces of legislation.

Logic would suggest that we should be given time to properly consider the bill. I am wondering whether this government would agree to sign a 50-page contract immediately or within a few hours. Logically, the government should automatically say no because it would want time to examine the contract before signing it.

Nevertheless, that is what the government is asking us to do today. The Conservatives have introduced a 300-page bill that amends 70 laws and, at the same time, it is telling us that we have no choice but to pass it immediately. However, only 24 hours passed between the time the government introduced the bill and the time we started debating it in the House.

I would also like to remind hon. members that some information was provided in committee in only one language, making it impossible to properly discuss and debate the bill in order to gain a proper understanding of it.

That is very little time to debate a 300-page bill that addresses sometimes complex subjects that have no relation to each other.

What is more, 48 hours after we saw the content of this massive bill, the government was already imposing a gag order in order to ram the bill through. It is unacceptable for the government of a country like Canada to pass most of its laws in this manner.

The use of a time allocation motion should be limited to emergency situations. I am certain that no one on this side of the House would be opposed to debating a bill if there were an emergency situation and that no one would be opposed to amending it as needed before passing it.

The Conservatives introduce a huge number of bills in the House. The government deliberately delayed the work of the House by a month by proroguing Parliament, yet the government is now telling us that it is urgent that we pass Bill C-4. One has to wonder whether it is logical for the government to prevent the House from returning on the scheduled date, doing its work and examining the bill, only to tell us a month later that it is urgent that we pass the bill. It does not make any sense.

Canadians are perceptive. They know full well that the government is using the gag order to prevent us and all the stakeholders affected by these changes from having enough time to examine the impact of Bill C-4.

As a parliamentarian and a Canadian, I could never support this Conservative attempt to avoid the scrutiny of Parliament and Canadians. Obviously, we will vote against this bill in its current form. We will oppose this bill in principle because we are not being given the time to do the job we were elected to do. We must represent the people. We will also vote against the bill because of its content.

The previous three budget implementation bills taught us that we need to be wary of this government. In the previous bills, the Conservatives took aim at environmental assessments and protections for most of Canada's lakes and rivers. Those bills also resulted in $36 billion in cuts to health care transfers and increased the retirement age from 65 to 67.

Bill C-4 is not that different from the other three budget implementation bills in that it is setting society back. It sets out significant changes to the Canadian work environment. Now, the minister will have the bulk of the powers once granted to health and safety officers by the Canada Labour Code. It is a legislative step backwards for health and safety.

Bill C-4 also takes aim at an employee's ability to refuse to work in unsafe conditions. At the very least, Canadians should be able to maintain their right to work in a healthy and safe environment. However, as we can see, the Conservatives do not seem to share that opinion.

In reading Bill C-4, we can also see that the government is not going to abandon its war on the public service anytime soon. It has become its pattern to go after the hundreds of thousands of people who provide Canadians with the services to which they are entitled.

This time, the government is torpedoing the Public Service Staff Relations Act by eliminating the arbitration process as a method of settling disputes. It is also making changes to give the minister the discretionary ability to determine which services are essential. This measure could ultimately be used by the minister to completely remove certain workers' right to bargain, a right that is recognized by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The all-out war being waged by this government against the people who work in the public service has caused a great deal of damage in my riding of Hull—Aylmer. The latest Statistics Canada figures show that 17,000 of the 19,200 job cuts planned in the public service will occur in the Gatineau-Ottawa region.

These cuts are resulting in a major slowdown in economic activity. In fact, the Conference Board of Canada has indicated that the economic forecast for our region, which is the fifth-largest in Canada, has been revised down by about 50%. In other words, the cuts are hurting the affected regions economically.

Meanwhile, the Parliamentary Budget Officer estimates that the measures in budget 2012-13 will cost 67,000 jobs. According to Statistics Canada, there are currently 6.5 unemployed workers for every reported job vacancy in Canada. That is a very poor record for a government that claims to be such a good economic manager. We would have expected the government to use Bill C-4 to fix this situation, but it is doing nothing. Instead of attacking workers, this government should focus on creating good new jobs, but it is not doing that.

Since coming to power, the Conservatives have been going on and on about the fact that the cupboard is bare and more cuts are needed. The nation's finances should be managed responsibly, but it is important to set priorities.

Since 2006, the government has spent $1 billion on organizing the G8 and G20 summits, $500 million on advertising and $1.3 billion a year on tax breaks for its friends in the oil industry.

I would also like to point out that this government did everything it could to bill taxpayers $40 billion for fighter jets. I can see why Canadians are shocked when they hear that there is no money and the Conservatives cannot give them a helping hand to make ends meet. This government continues to cut services that Canadians are entitled to while giving billions of dollars to companies that already make billions in profits.

It cannot be said often enough that public services primarily serve middle-class families. They are the ones who use them the most. I can also understand why Canadians are outraged when they learn that over 400 veterans among those with the most severe disabilities are not eligible for the Canadian Forces pension plan.

This is all a matter of priorities, and obviously, the Conservatives' priorities are quite different from those of all other Canadians. The Conservatives have clearly picked sides by using Bill C-4 to attack workers' rights, rather than reducing inequality and creating good jobs.

The government can be sure of one thing: every time it tries to attack labour rights and proposes measures that increase inequality, it will have to deal with the NDP.

Ethics October 28th, 2013

Mr. Speaker, on Friday, the Leader of the Government in the Senate admitted that he had offered Patrick Brazeau a deal to let him keep his pay. All he had to do was apologize and disappear for six months, and everything would go away.

At the same time, the Prime Minister was saying that he would do everything in his power to remove these senators "from the public payroll.”

Does the Prime Minister support the deal offered to Patrick Brazeau by his leader in the Senate?

Ethics October 28th, 2013

Mr. Speaker, this morning the Prime Minister has once again become entangled in his own contradictions.

In an interview, he said he had dismissed Nigel Wright. However, just last Thursday, he confirmed to the House that Nigel Wright had resigned. Another day, another story.

Would the Prime Minister like to clarify his new version of events and tell us whether Mr. Wright was dismissed or whether he just resigned?

Special Committee on Violence Against Indigenous Women October 23rd, 2013

Mr. Speaker, I move the following motion:

That, notwithstanding the Order adopted by the House on Monday, October 21, 2013, the first vice-chair of the Special Committee on Violence Against Indigenous Women be the Member for Nanaimo-Cowichan.

Business of the House October 22nd, 2013

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion for which I believe you will find unanimous consent of the parties.

That, at the conclusion of today’s debate on the opposition motion in the name of the Member for Toronto-Danforth, all questions necessary to dispose of the motion be deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred to Wednesday, October 23, 2013, at the expiry of the time provided for Question Period.

Points of Order June 17th, 2013

Mr. Speaker, in my statement earlier today, I talked about Sylvain Desrochers' retirement.

I would like to add that Daniel Cardinal will also be retiring at the end of this session.

On behalf of all of my colleagues, I would like to wish him a very happy retirement and congratulate him on the commitment he has shown over the years.

Happy retirement, Daniel.

House of Commons Pages June 17th, 2013

Mr. Speaker, as we approach the end of this parliamentary session, on behalf of the NDP, I want to thank all of the House of Commons pages for their extraordinary work over the course of the past session.

The pages worked very hard and put in long hours, especially in recent weeks, but they always remained very professional, courteous and available.

Congratulations to the pages and thank you.

I also want to thank the page supervisors, Sylvain Desrochers and Daniel Cardinal, who help make our work easier and more pleasant every day.

I want to mention that Sylvain will be retiring when we adjourn for the summer. My colleagues and I wish him an enjoyable retirement and commend him for his dedication over the years.

Happy retirement, Sylvain.

Tackling Contraband Tobacco Act June 13th, 2013

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know what measures the Conservative government plans to take in order to ensure that if minimum sentences are applied, the provinces and the federal government have the means, the resources and the space to accommodate all these people.

Tackling Contraband Tobacco Act June 13th, 2013

Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting to hear our colleague from the Conservative party talking about reorganization, in order to ensure that the regions and the provinces have the necessary resources. We all agree that everyone should stop smoking. We also agree that contraband should not exist. We disagree, however, on the means required to achieve this.

When the member talks about reorganization, he is talking about resources. We know that the port of Vancouver is a place where there is more smuggling. There have been cuts. How is it possible to reorganize? Is it the provinces or the municipalities that will be responsible? Ultimately, it takes money, resources, education and prevention.

I am trying to understand how the member can tell us that with fewer resources, less money and less prevention, we can manage to eliminate contraband in this country.

Tackling Contraband Tobacco Act June 13th, 2013

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the minister’s remarks about contraband and the problem we are now facing.

We know that when we are talking about contraband, we are also talking very often about organized groups and the impact on young people and those who are trying to get hold of cigarettes or other things more easily.

In terms of information, what has been done and what is planned in order to raise public awareness, particularly about the effects and the impact of cigarettes and contraband cigarettes?

We must not think only about the loss of revenue for the government. We must focus on the organization built up around contraband, which is inconsistent with basic principles, and the health impact of tobacco smoke. When people try to get cigarettes or other things as quickly and as cheaply as possible, we know very well that that is when consumption increases.