House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • Her favourite word was conservatives.

Last in Parliament October 2015, as NDP MP for Saint-Lambert (Québec)

Lost her last election, in 2015, with 24% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Business of Supply January 30th, 2014

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to once again express my gratitude for the men and women who are members of the two legions in my riding, Royal Canadian Legion Branch 68 in Saint-Lambert and Royal Canadian Legion Branch 94 in Greenfield Park.

I am a psychologist by training and, in response to the minister, I would like to say that psychological intervention is something that needs to be done immediately. When men and women are in distress, it is not time to call a 1-800 number. They must have the opportunity to build relationships and to have someone there with them to hold their hand and support them so that they can cope with their post-traumatic stress.

Business of Supply January 30th, 2014

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to express my sadness and, more importantly, my indignation at how this government is treating members of our military and our veterans.

I am honoured to give my support to these courageous men who have given so much and who are so dedicated to our country and our values.

Canada has always been a top defender of the rights and freedoms that all Canadians cherish.

The men and woman in the Canadian Armed Forces are called upon to risk their lives to protect our rights and freedoms. We thank them for the huge sacrifice that they make for all of us.

Our society is indebted to these exceptional men and women for their commitment. No matter what happens to them during their mission, our soldiers, our veterans and their families must know that they can count on our ongoing support.

Once again, this government is shirking its responsibility. It has broken the social pact between Canada and its army.

Once again, the actions of this government and the cavalier approach of its members show just how cynical the Conservatives can be towards the Canadian public.

I want to remind members of the latest facts in this case, which shed a cold hard light on the Conservatives' blindness towards the state of our veterans and members of the Canadian Armed Forces.

In two months, eight members of the military of all ranks have chosen to take their own life.

What is the Minister of Veterans Affairs doing to try to deal with this issue? Has he announced more mental health measures for soldiers or a new approach to treat post-traumatic stress disorder? No.

The minister is toeing the Conservative government line. He is taking a dollars and cents approach and cutting the services that are needed the most.

While the people who shed their blood to defend this country are taking their own lives out of desperation, the minister is closing veterans' service centres.

The offices in British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland will be closed as of tomorrow. The one in Prince George, B.C., has already been closed.

Trying to face the criticism, the Prime Minister maintained that veterans who use the offices that are closing could rely on Service Canada, especially its online and remote services.

Consider this example of the quality of those services. Corporal Bruce Moncur, who was wounded in Afghanistan in 2006, is a young man who knows how to use a computer. This non-commissioned officer told the media that he spent a week wading through departmental bureaucracy before he was able to fill out his forms online.

Now imagine a 90-year-old veteran trying to deal with the same situation. Can anyone reasonably believe that a 90-year-old veteran could easily access any service at all on the Internet? Clearly, the Conservatives want nothing to do with anyone who is having difficulties.

Even more appalling than cutting services to those who fought and suffered to defend our values is the attitude of the minister responsible for veterans. On Tuesday, when he was supposed to meet with veterans' representatives who had come to share their concerns, the minister first wanted to skip that meeting. Then, after changing his mind, he met with them, but only to slam the door in their faces even harder.

This caused such an uproar across the country that veterans' associations and members of the Royal Canadian Legion were calling for the minister to step down.

Betraying those who loyally served this country was not enough for the government; through the hon. member for Edmonton Centre, the government suggested that these veterans, including some who fought during the Second World War, were being manipulated by the media and the Public Service Alliance of Canada. This is absolutely ludicrous.

Who could reasonably believe that soldiers who survived the Normandy invasion, the Korean War or the mission in Afghanistan could be so easily manipulated? The reality is that this government has an unfair policy of taking away more and more from the weak and the disadvantaged.

It applies this ideology mechanically, without an ounce of humanity. It stops at nothing. The proof is that the Department of Veterans Affairs had the nerve to ask Corporal Leona MacEachern's family to return $581 of her disability pension because the money was paid out after she committed suicide on Christmas day.

All public services are being affected by this destructive policy. All Canadians are being made to suffer. The government is causing the people of this country immense harm that cannot be undone with empty apologies. To correct the injustice wreaked upon them by this government, we must deal with our soldiers and our veterans in ways they can understand: we must take action and be honourable.

We, the members of the NDP, are calmly surveying the reality, without any preconceived ideas. The NDP has always led the way with its proposals to improve programs and services for serving and retired members of the Canadian Armed Forces and their families. That is why, today, the NDP has a simple and practical response to the crisis that our soldiers and veterans are going through. First and foremost, we have a duty to provide access to appropriate mental health care for all military personnel and veterans and their families suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder or operational stress injuries. This requires two sets of actions.

First, members of the Canadian Forces who need this help must be encouraged to ask for it. We understand that it is difficult for people in military life to ask for outside help. However, that help does exist and it is effective. Too few of our soldiers ask for that help. We have to encourage and support them.

However, there are still too few material supports. To remedy the situation and to provide as much access as possible, we must hire as many mental health specialists as are required. We should not be looking at the cost when it comes to this matter. Our soldiers risk their lives. They should not have to beg for help.

The transition to civilian life is also a crucial step for our soldiers, and we can help with that. We all know how important it is to get into the job market and to feel useful. Every man and woman has the right to this dignity and so do our soldiers who are returning to civilian life.

We must therefore expand existing programs, such as the program that helps military members transition to careers in shipbuilding. In addition, we must also create new opportunities through federal incentives to hire veterans. Our veterans must have access to personalized service from the federal government no matter what their age. The government therefore needs to immediately reverse its decision to close offices that provide services for veterans.

Finally, to support families mourning the loss of a soldier to suicide, we must do everything we can to shed some light on the circumstances surrounding such tragedies. The government must immediately increase its efforts to conclude the outstanding boards of inquiry on military suicides.

In conclusion, I would like to read the Act of Remembrance, which states the following:

They shall grow not old,
as we that are left grow old:
Age shall not weary them,
nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun
And in the morning
We shall remember them.

We will remember them. Today, the time has come for us to remember them. That is why I am calling on all members, wherever they come from, to support this motion. Let us show some compassion for our veterans. Let us extend them a helping hand. They deserve it.

Business of Supply January 28th, 2014

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by stressing the importance of this motion and the essential service it addresses. Let us not lose sight of that because it is indeed an essential service for Canadians.

The Conservatives' drastic approach is going to significantly hinder the Canadian economy. It is hiking postal rates and cutting services to Canadians and Canadian businesses.

What made this government believe for one moment that it was a good idea for Canada Post to charge more money to the people who can least afford it?

Respect for Communities Act January 27th, 2014

Mr. Speaker, when people talk about drug addicts, it seems as though they lose sight of the fact that we are talking about human beings. We may have the impression that we are dealing with individuals who have been turned into robots. However, in reality, drug addicts are people who have led extremely difficult lives, which, unfortunately, as we know, have led them to use certain drugs.

I would like to come back to how these supervised injection sites benefit the community. In 2004, a study was conducted by the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction that clearly demonstrated that centres like this reach out to the most vulnerable groups and are accepted by communities.

Respect for Communities Act January 27th, 2014

Mr. Speaker, I would like to reiterate what some of my colleagues have already noted: that this is a flawed bill based on a certain ideology.

As mentioned, we are not talking about legalizing certain drugs. That is not the issue here. The issue here is public health.

In that respect, I would like to quote from the statement on Bill C-2 issued by the Pivot Legal Society, the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network and the Canadian Drug Policy Coalition, which reads:

The bill is an irresponsible initiative that ignores both the extensive evidence that such health services are needed and effective, and the human rights of Canadians with addictions....

It is unethical, unconstitutional and damaging to both public health and the public purse to block access to supervised consumption services...

This response contains all of the information needed and sums up this bill, which nothing like what we might expect when it comes to public health and safety.

Respect for Communities Act January 27th, 2014

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have an opportunity to speak on a subject as sensitive as Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. First, we should remember that the government introduced this bill before prorogation. Then, it was Bill C-65; now it is Bill C-2.

This bill is a clear demonstration of the Conservative government’s methods and intentions with respect to public health. It values ideological prejudice over Supreme Court decisions; cynicism over a search for the common good; and scorn over a helping hand for our fellow citizens in distress.

Before continuing, I would like to recall some facts that are essential to an impartial debate. The core of the issue concerns the effectiveness of supervised drug use, and the referral of addicts to appropriate care.

In order to assess effectiveness, let us look at the results achieved by the only safe injection site in Canada: InSite, located in Vancouver’s East Side. It opened in 2003, as part of a public health project undertaken by the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority and its community partners. The establishment of this safe injection site was a coordinated response to the wave of fatal overdoses hitting Vancouver.

The annual rate of fatal overdoses had increased 12 times between 1987 and 1993, to some 200 cases. Over the same period, the Vancouver area experienced spectacular increases in cases of communicable disease, such as hepatitis A, B and C, as well as HIV and AIDS. From the beginning, InSite has reported conclusive results in terms of public health and safety. The fatal overdose rate in the East Side district fell 35%, as shown in the study conducted by the prestigious medical journal The Lancet in 2001.

The main thing, however, is that the centre provides valuable help to addicts by referring them to detox programs. It has been shown that going to InSite increases by 70% the likelihood that an addict will take part in a detox program. Moreover, the benefits provided by the centre have a direct impact on safety and public order in Vancouver’s East Side. Since InSite opened, there has been a significant decrease in the number of needles left in the streets. Drug use in public places has decreased. The impact of the centre is so apparent that 80% of those surveyed who live or work in the neighbourhood support what InSite is doing. Even the local police recognizes its positive impact.

The success of this centre is recognized not only at the local level, but also at the international level. More than 30 medical journals, including The New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet and the British Medical Journal, have studied the positive impact that InSite has had on health and public safety and published articles about it. This success is not random or accidental. In fact, 70 cities in Europe and Australia have opened similar centres to monitor drug use, and we are seeing the same positive impact.

Instead of helping InSite help drug addicts get clean, the Conservative government is creating more legal impediments and putting out more ideological propaganda. In 2008, the exemption under section 56 of the act expired. This exemption allowed the centre to exist and operate, but the government refused to renew it, which led to a serious legal battle. The Conservative government went as far as the Supreme Court to oppose InSite's right to provide its services. In 2011, the highest legal authority in Canada issued a very clear ruling on this matter. It called the Conservative government's decision arbitrary and even said, and I quote, “it undermines the very purposes of the CDSA...”.

The court declared that, in accordance with section 7 of the charter:

The infringement at stake is serious; it threatens the health, indeed the lives, of the claimants and others like them. The grave consequences that might result from a lapse in the current constitutional exemption for InSite cannot be ignored.

The court states that the minister must grant InSite in particular, and safe injection sites in general, the exemption provided for in section 56(d), when such a site “will decrease the risk of death and disease, and there is little or no evidence that it will have a negative impact on public safety”.

The Supreme Court decision completely repudiated the Conservative government's position. However, not content with having lost, the government is implementing a well-known strategy. Driven out through the door, it comes back in through the window. Having lost in court, it is coming back today with a bill that is contrary to the Supreme Court ruling.

Communities will now have to show the benefits of safe injection sites in order to obtain an exemption and be able to work. In order to do so, they will have to go through incredibly complicated administrative procedures and ultimately submit to the decision by the minister, who will do whatever he wants in the end. We are awash in arbitrariness.

The government’s action in the area of public health is based on prejudice, not on fact. The government cannot accept the existence of InSite, even though the benefits of the site have been proven. To support its action, the government is calling on Canadians to support the campaign it calls “Keep heroin out of our backyards”. However, this bill will bring heroin into our backyards, into our neighbourhoods, into our streets and in front of the eyes of our children, because it will be almost impossible to open safe injection centres.

The NDP has a clear standpoint on this issue. We are sensible and responsible people. We have a clear-eyed view of the situation, without preconceived notions. We can draw the necessary conclusions in order to manage it for everyone’s benefit. Desperate people take drugs. It is a fact. There are solutions that can help them recover from their addiction and preserve their health. These solutions work; let us implement them. We must never forget that the true test of a civilized society lies in how it treats its weakest members. Let us not turn a blind eye to them. Let us hold out a helping hand to our fellow citizens, who have stumbled on their path. Let us help them regain their dignity.

The NDP believes in these values. The NDP believes that any public health decision must be based on facts and on facts alone. The NDP believes that any bill put forward by government must abide by the rulings handed down by the Supreme Court. That is why I am calling on the honourable members of this Parliament to listen to what I am saying. We must work together to throw out this bill that will undermine public health and safety. Let us turn the page on ideological assumptions; let us look at reality full on and develop a constructive solution that will benefit all our fellow citizens and lead to a more just society.

Family Literacy Day January 27th, 2014

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to speak on this Family Literacy Day, which is a Canada-wide initiative that has been going on for 15 years now. It is an excellent opportunity for parents to introduce their children to the pleasure of reading and writing.

Let us not forget the democratic aspect of teaching these fundamental skills. Everyone must have the opportunity to understand the world and form their own opinions. I urge all Canadian families to take some time today to visit a library or a literacy organization to promote reading in their community.

I also want to acknowledge the volunteers who are devoted to the cause of literacy across the country, including in French Canada. I thank the Fédération canadienne pour l'alphabétisation en français, the Table des responsables de l'éducation des adultes et de la formation professionnelle des commissions scolaires du Québec, and Collège Frontière for their hard work. I invite all my colleagues to promote literacy in their ridings.

Employment Insurance December 9th, 2013

Mr. Speaker, Ms. Therrien's allegations should be taken seriously, but the Conservatives are refusing to do that. Their own inspectors have strict quotas that target specific groups.

Once again, in Ms. Therrien's words, “Seasonal workers were another huge target. People looking for imaginary fraud also unfairly targeted new Canadians and first nations”.

Will the Conservatives stop treating workers in entire sectors like criminals?

Northwest Territories Devolution Act December 5th, 2013

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to congratulate my colleague for her speech.

I would also like to remind members that the last devolution to the Northwest Territories took place in the late 1980s. Thus, it has taken the government more than 30 years to introduce Bill C-15.

As my colleague mentioned, the NDP is obviously in favour of the transfer of powers and is working to put more power in the hands of the Northwest Territories. However, my colleague mentioned the Mackenzie Valley, which raises some concerns.

Could she speak further about her concerns regarding the Mackenzie Valley?

Financial Administration Act November 29th, 2013

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate my colleague on her bill and her speech. There is no doubt that we have made some progress toward greater gender balance and equality. Much remains to be done, however. What my colleague's bill proposes are quotas.

I would like to point out that quotas are in place in countries like Norway, Spain and France, just to name a few. My colleague has aptly defended the idea of establishing quotas to achieve gender parity on corporate boards.

In her opinion, what still needs to be done to achieve gender parity?