House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • Her favourite word was quebec.

Last in Parliament March 2011, as Liberal MP for Laval—Les Îles (Québec)

Won her last election, in 2008, with 40% of the vote.

Statements in the House

The Laval News June 12th, 2007

Mr. Speaker, on May 31, the weekly The Chomedey News changed its name to reflect its new reality. For a number of years, The Laval News has been distributed not only in Chomedey, but also all around Laval, for example, in Sainte-Dorothée, Laval-sur-le-Lac and parts of Fabreville and Laval-Ouest. This development is surely due to the excellent work of its employees.

On May 25, at its gala of excellence, the Quebec Community Newspaper Association recognized the The Laval News, giving it three awards.

Nancy Girgis won the top award for best environmental story and took third place in the best business story category. Graphic designer Bala Thanabalasingam won first place for the best advertising insert.

Congratulations to the recipients and to the whole The Laval News team for their hard work and their commitment to putting out a quality newspaper for our entire area.

June 11th, 2007

Mr. Speaker, the answer is quite incomplete, in my opinion. We are talking about huge sums of money that seem to be a panacea, and I can believe it. But the problem is also when these organizations will receive this money.

In my riding of Laval—Les Îles, I see small museums and associations that applied for federal funding and had received money from the federal government for years, but were told they would get money in the fall of 2007. Everyone knows that most if not all activities across the country take place during the summer, in June, July and August.

Giving money to these groups in the fall is like saying they cannot hold any activities. It is the same thing for small museums. Large museums sometimes manage to get by—

June 11th, 2007

Mr. Speaker, on March 23, I asked the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Status of Women a question in order to raise the problem of funding for artists and culture in Canada. I asked the same question this afternoon during question period. On March 23, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration answered that the Conservative government had allocated $50 million in new funding for the Canada Council for the Arts.

Fifty million dollars is one third of what the previous Liberal government allocated.

I recall the minister's own words when during the last electoral campaign she said:

We will respect the promise of $306 million for the Canada Council, which will double the budget of the organization, because we believe in the importance of the council for the Canadian arts community.

We are today very far from the minister's promise of $306 million. The minister seems to be a less than effective advocate for a community which she boasts she represents proudly in the House of Commons.

Aside from the amounts allocated, I feel that this Conservative government has no desire to create an environment that fosters the development of culture, the arts and especially artists. Nothing in the measures that the Conservatives put forward in their last budget indicates any desire on their part to give artists a major role in our society. Quite the contrary.

Worse yet, nothing in the Minister of Canadian Heritage's speeches and statements has shown a real long-term commitment to Canada's cultural community.

The minister should listen to the Canadian artistic community. It is not happy with the direction the minister and her government are taking. Members have heard from the Canadian Museums Association, which is disappointed because no words have been forthcoming regarding the highly expected museum strategy.

We have also heard from the Canadian Conference of the Arts, which has argued, and rightly so, that the government missed an important opportunity to articulate a long term vision for the arts and culture sector in Canada.

Furthermore, it is not enough for the government to rely on private sector investment only to support arts and culture. I know there are a lot of laissez-faire officials within the government, but if there is one sector that the government should put serious efforts into it is culture.

The government knows that every dollar invested in culture creates eight or nine dollars in economic spinoff, so they cannot argue that it is not profitable.

The minister should consider these factors when dealing with the festivals file, which she has handled so ineptly and condescendingly.

Why is she so stubbornly refusing to give the festivals the money they so badly need? She says that small and medium festivals will be funding priorities, but she must be aware that nearly all festivals take place in the summer.

That is why I do not think it is only a question of creating new guidelines, guidelines that already exist. If the will to help the cultural industries of Canada really existed, there would be no problem.

Museums Assistance Program June 11th, 2007

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Status of Women is trying to hide the museums problems under a pile of figures, but the cuts to the museums assistance program are having a serious impact. Even in the smallest communities, jobs have been lost and numerous projects and exhibitions cancelled because of the cuts this government has made.

Will the minister wake up to the disastrous impact her cuts are having on small communities? Will she promise to restore and increase funding for the museums assistance program?

Official Languages June 8th, 2007

Mr. Speaker, the action plan for official languages, which was created by the Liberal government, will expire in 2008. Francophone groups across Canada and anglophones in Quebec have repeatedly told us how crucial this program has been to the development of their communities. They are concerned about the plan's survival and wondering whether the Conservative government plans to extend it. The Prime Minister recently stated: “The new government is committed to supporting bilingualism and linguistic minorities across the country”. Is this another empty promise?

As the Commissioner of Official Languages said: “The government’s message has been very positive. Unfortunately, the actions this government has taken in the past year do not reflect this message”.

The Leader of the Opposition promises francophone and Acadian communities that he will implement an even stronger action plan than the one he put in place in 2003, when he was Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

Employment Insurance Act June 1st, 2007

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by paying tribute to the front line health care workers, volunteers, advocacy groups such as the Heart and Stroke Foundation and the Canadian Cancer Society, and the home care workers who have done so much to help craft this bill and whose efforts on behalf of sick and disabled Canadians mean so much.

We are here to discuss Bill C-278, presented by my hon. colleague from Sydney—Victoria, in Nova Scotia. This bill aims to extend the maximum period for which EI sickness benefits may be paid from 15 weeks to 50 weeks, in the event of illness, injury or quarantine.

Current legislation allows the claimant to receive up to a maximum of 15 weeks. The time for which a claimant is eligible is determined by a medical certificate from a health care professional attesting to the person's inability to work and stating the probable duration of the illness.

Many of us have had constituents, friends and family members who have experienced financial hardship as they recovered from a debilitating disease or trauma, such as cancer, heart disease, or any other serious illness we face as a nation.

A persistent scenario, however, and one very familiar to many MPs is the reality that there are people who have applied for EI sickness benefits and have received the full 15 weeks but are still unable to return to the workforce within the stipulated period.

When the Employment Insurance Act was adopted in the 1990s, sickness benefits were compassionately paid to people who could not work temporarily because of an illness.

Certainly, this financial support is an incentive to allow individuals to focus on treatment and get well so that they can return to the workforce as soon as possible.

Our Canada pension plan does not have the flexibility to allow people to receive benefits if they are in a position to eventually return to work, if they cannot work for a prolonged period or if they leave the job market and later want to return to work, given the length of their illness.

I hope to present my own bill, now on the order paper, to amend the Canada pension plan, or CPP, so that people who suffer from an episodic illness may receive benefits from the system under the circumstances that I just mentioned.

Many people in this country mistakenly believe that recipients who have exhausted their sickness benefits need only apply for Canada pension plan disability benefits. As I'm sure many of my hon. colleagues know, this system has very strict eligibility criteria. Access to benefits is often refused because the disability is not complete. The few people who do meet the eligibility criteria must go through an application process that takes about three months. Then there is an even longer waiting period before they begin receiving their CPP disability benefits.

Furthermore, most doctors approve CPP applications only if the illness is expected to last more than a year.

Today Canadians encounter three grave and growing threats to their health: cancer, heart disease and stroke. Many of these illnesses which once represented death are now curable or preventable all because of new and constantly emerging technologies.

Let us be clear that the existing system is not doing enough. Because our health system is so weak and wait times are so lengthy, for most individuals waiting for care, 15 weeks is insufficient to cover wait times for diagnostic tests prior to receiving a diagnosis. Then there is a further lengthy period of time before treatment can begin. Therefore, how can we as policy makers expect 15 weeks to include the recovery period when individuals at the end of that time might still be waiting for treatment to begin? Cancer treatment could typically continue over a period of several months.

This can have financial consequences for families, who must bear the costs of uninsured treatments and drugs, travel costs for specialized treatments, costs for special diets and non-prescribed medical supplies.

For example, a 2004 survey of women with breast cancer revealed that at least 76% of respondents had not worked for more than 15 weeks; 75% said that the 15 weeks of employment insurance benefits did not cover the treatment period.

Indulge me while I quote from some of the testimony given by Mr. Kenneth Kyle, the director of public issues at the Canadian Cancer Society, when he attended the legislative committee hearings studying this bill. He said:

For many patients the recovery from the effects of cancer often takes many months. Requiring recovering cancer patients to return to the workforce before they have regained some measure of improved health is to put in jeopardy the patients' and their families' prospects for recovery.

The head of oncology at the Cape Breton Cancer Centre, Dr. Ron MacCormick, is on record as saying that he would be more than willing to testify to the fact that it can take up to one year after treatment for a person who has had cancer to begin to regain his or her energy. In fact, most oncologists will tell us that treatment, surgery, chemotherapy or radiation alone can take up to a year, so we are not even talking about the recovery period.

As decision-makers, we have not yet considered these patients who are forced to work during the current 15-week benefit period, much less the people suffering from chronic illnesses such as sickle-cell anemia, requiring periodic hospitalization, or those who suffer side effects from prescription drugs.

The bill will greatly help people who have had bypass surgery and who cannot return to work during the usual eight to twelve week recovery period. It will also help the many stroke survivors who have moderate or minor disabilities and are not eligible for CPP because they do not have what is considered a serious disability.

The harsh reality is that diseases such as these are striking younger and younger people. Many of them have not had an opportunity to properly begin their careers, establish themselves or invest in RRSPs that they might be able to access in the case of illness. Many of them have the potential and expectations of returning to the workforce to continue their careers.

At the risk of berating the point, we are an aging society. It is therefore even more important to put in place the necessary financial support systems to bridge the gap for those workers who depend solely on employment insurance sick benefits while incapacitated.

According to the 2007 cancer statistics, there is a five year relative survival ratio of 80% which means that people with cancer have an 80% likelihood of living for five years after diagnosis compared to similar people in the general population.

Since I do not have much time left—thank you, Mr. Speaker for the warning—I would like to conclude by saying the following.

I would urge my fellow members to support the bill. It is a bill for our times. EI sickness benefits remain the only viable vehicle to help alleviate the financial burden for individuals suffering from a major illness and for whom 15 weeks is simply not enough to get better and return to work.

The bill will die unless the government brings forward the necessary royal recommendation. The Conservatives appear to be deliberate in their lack of movement on the bill. The way that the Conservatives are behaving, and actions speak louder than words, one can only assume it is their intent to let the bill die.

Again, I call on the government to bring forward a royal recommendation, so that the bill can become law and Canadians can indeed regain the faith they obviously need in knowing that their government cares about their health and well-being, and is not playing petty politics with their lives.

Summit of Francophone and Acadian Communities June 1st, 2007

Mr. Speaker, the summit of francophone and Acadian communities opens today in Ottawa. The purpose of this first summit, held at the University of Ottawa, is to develop a new vision for communities.

In all, more than 700 participants from all the provinces and territories will gather here in Ottawa.

The themes reflect the concerns of these communities throughout Canada. During my many travels across the country, I discovered how dynamic these minority communities are, and how much life they add to the development of our country.

Their work is essential in the fight to recognize the rights of francophone and Acadian minorities. I am happy to have this unique opportunity to congratulate them.

Once again, I thank the organizers, as well as the participants of this summit. You are a reflection of the vitality of our francophone communities.

Aid to Africa May 31st, 2007

Mr. Speaker, as usual the minister is evading the issue. I am not talking about international aid. I am talking about Africa. This government’s deeds do not match its words. At the G-8, in 2006, the Conservative Prime Minister made a commitment to take concrete action to contribute to achievement of the millennium development goals for Africa. However, not one cent of the money promised to wipe out AIDS and polio is included in the budgetary provisions.

When will the Prime Minister stop talking about Africa and starting doing something, as he promised?

Africa, Mr. Speaker.

Aid to Africa May 31st, 2007

Mr. Speaker, it is time that the government opposite woke up to the dangers concerning the environment. It is a little late but there is still time.

Not only will the government disgrace us during the G-8 summit with its bogus plan to protect the environment, but Canada will also be embarrassed when discussion turns to Africa.

The Liberal government assumed the leadership of a worldwide movement by developing a wide-ranging plan under the New Partnership for Africa’s Development. We are still waiting for the Prime Minister to take measures to keep the promises we made to Africa.

Before leaving for the G-8, will the Prime Minister today—

Air Canada Public Participation Act May 28th, 2007

Mr. Speaker, my colleague opposite said earlier that, according to him and Air Canada, everything was bilingual. However, I want you to know that I travel a lot with Air Canada, as all members do. We always fly with Air Canada. I can also tell my colleague from the Bloc, to answer his question, that it is true that Air Canada is not completely bilingual—not as bilingual as it should be.

Many services, whether in airports or aboard planes, are not available in French. Not only have I experienced it myself hundreds of times, but numerous francophone travellers have told me exactly the same thing.

During my speech, I referred to the number of complaints sent to the Commissioner of Official Languages by francophone travellers regarding the fact that, for a long time, Air Canada did not follow the law. Moreover, when forced to obey the law, Air Canada found a loophole: it stopped hiring francophone employees and stopped advertising in French newspapers across Canada. It is as if we said that we did not hire visible minorities because there were no visible minorities that were qualified to do the job. Francophones were treated the same way all across the country.