Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

[Disability Tax Credit, February 21st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, during my recent tour of Quebec, meeting with mobility impaired individuals, I became aware of how urgent their needs are. The funds available to assist them are inadequate to say the least, and will remain so, judging by the latest federal budget.

How can the Minister of Finance justify the fact that these additional funds for the disabled are being made available only after unacceptable restrictions to the disability tax credit, which clearly run counter to the motion adopted unanimously in this House on November 20, 2002?

[Estates General on the Reform of Democratic Institutions, February 21st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, over the coming days in Quebec City, the estates general on the reform of democratic institutions will provide an opportunity for hundreds of citizens to examine the meaning of democracy.

Our institutions date back several hundred years, and for the first time in our history, we are embarking on a collective reflection that will set into motion a process of change in our institutions. The emphasis will be on fairer representation, with citizens being encouraged to take an active role in defining major socio-political challenges.

Democracy, as we know, is fragile and precious. In these turbulent times the world is experiencing, this message is clearer than ever.

The Bloc Quebecois hopes that the estates general on the reform of democratic institutions will help us turn over a new leaf by collectively taking charge of the society we want to live in, a society that is open, generous, fair and respectful.

We would like to thank Claude Béland, the chair of the steering committee, and its members for their important contribution to launching a debate essential to the quality of our democracy.

[Solicitation Laws, February 7th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank and congratulate our colleague who is raising an issue that can no longer be ignored. As ironic as it may seem, however, debating this issue is all too often avoided on the grounds that it concerns the social and personal values of individuals. I am therefore pleased that Motion No. 192 was declared votable, as we begin today the second hour of debate on this motion.

The motion reads as follows:

That a special committee of the House be appointed to review the solicitation laws in order to improve the safety of sex-trade workers and communities overall, and to recommend changes that will reduce the exploitation of and violence against sex-trade workers.

In recognizing the existence of sex trade workers, this motion shows both realism and responsibility. It is certainly not by putting our heads in the sand that we will contribute to the betterment of society. If we want to build a better world, we must face the facts. Prostitution is a fact, not a figment of our imagination. It is the world's oldest profession, as the saying goes, and it is definitely not about to disappear. But what exactly do we know about this profession?

Some will argue that I am going the wrong way on this issue. It is true that I enjoy straying from the beaten track. Yet it is very likely that we know less about this than we say we do. Besides the fact that prostitution can be classified as a service, in that money is paid in exchange for sexual favours, we really know very little about prostitution.

Nonetheless, we do know a few facts. For instance, solicitation for the purpose of providing sexual services is prohibited under the Criminal Code; at present, prostitution rings are run by the underworld; it is mostly women who are involved in prostitution; the women who make a living from this trade often do so in a context of violence and terror; while prostitution has been around since the beginning of time, it is still unregulated; and unfortunately, society is all too willing to turn a blind eyes on anything that goes against its values and challenges its taboos.

I could go on almost indefinitely on what we have heard on this issue, what we can read in the newspapers and see on television. I hardly need bring up the tragic disappearance of 63 women who were prostitutes in downtown Vancouver. We know today that at least 15 of them were killed, and that the other 48 probably met the same fate.

It is worse than shameful that it has taken such a tragedy to open our eyes to the need to consider this issue, when we have known for a very long time that violence runs rampant in this environment. Can we tolerate such cruelty to women who, when it comes down to it, are merely trying to earn a living? As legislators, do we have the right to close our eyes to avoid dealing with such a sensitive issue? This is a question of the respect that is each person's due, the right to integrity without consideration for a person's job or values, as long as no one else is harmed.

The motion of the member for Vancouver East is quite reasonable since it is asking the House to appoint a special committee to review solicitation laws in order to improve the safety of sex-trade workers and communities overall.

Some studies are necessary. In fact, in 2000, the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve chaired a working group that examined the various issues relating to prostitution and suggested possible solutions to these problems.

Without getting into details, the working group's first proposal stated that it is important to take prostitution out of the Criminal Code. Indeed, we should ask ourselves some serious questions about the relevance of criminalizing consensual sexual relations between two adults, even if one of the two partners offers money in return for services.

What is criminal in this arrangement other than the fact that the income is not declared for taxation purposes, thus making this undeclared work? However, the reason this income cannot be declared is because the government does not want to recognize that this trade exists, and it tries instead to eradicate it. This, as we know, is impossible.

In fact, during the first hour of this debate, the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve rightly pointed out that it is not prostitution as such that is criminal but, rather, soliciting in a public place, to which people quite rightly object.

Like all of you, although everyone has their own little fantasies, I do not feel like being a captive spectator to someone else's fun. Likewise, it is unacceptable for sexual favours to be offered in a residential area, close to a school or at a church door. That is why prostitution should occur in designated zones.

Moreover, there is—and this is a known fact—much greater tolerance by the police for so-called hidden prostitution than for street prostitution. For example, if the police were really interested in locking up all sex-trade workers who do not work in the open, they would be guaranteed weeks and months of work. Look at the escort services section of the yellow pages; every phone call would be like winning the lottery.

I do not wish to explore any further the various solutions that could be put forward, but these few examples show that an in-depth review by a special committee could make a strong contribution to this debate.

We need to hear from sex-trade workers, stakeholders, law enforcement representatives and all the specialists in this area. We can then move on to the second part of the motion, which recommends changes that will reduce the exploitation of and violence against sex-trade workers.

How would this be done? What are the proposed recommendations? Only an informed debate could guide us. One thing is certain, forming a committee would allow us to address the issue without prejudice.

In conclusion, I would like to quote a small maxim:

We are all prisoners, but some of us are in cells with windows and some without.

Is it not time that we throw open our windows and give these workers the help they need and deserve?

[Points of Order, February 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is unfortunate that we only have two questions during oral question period.

In an attempt to set the record straight, following the answer from my colleague, the member for Brampton Centre, regarding the position I took yesterday with the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, I have three things to say for the benefit of the House and also for the benefit of the public.

Obviously, debate, no matter what the topic, is always essential in democracy. Debate is what enriches democratic life. A debate on the identity card is certainly necessary.

The second thing I said is that, as far as I am concerned, I accept the idea of an optional identify card. However, there are some very clear things that this identity card should not contain, which I indicated to the minister, such as the place of birth, and other information. In other words, I do not want the card to contain all kinds of information. I want it to be optional. I am happy to have had the chance to clarify my views on this.

[National Identity Card, February 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the hon. parliamentary secretary that the committee will indeed be on the road, but to consult on the citizenship bill, Bill C-18. In my humble opinion, there is nothing in there about a national identity card.

The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is hard pressed to find support within cabinet. His colleague, the Minister of Revenue, feels that this measure is highly intrusive.

Will the minister abandon his plans for such a card since, for one thing, it is strongly criticized by his own colleagues?

[National Identity Card, February 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the minister of Citizenship and Immigration recently launched a debate that might well result in the establishment of a mandatory national identity card. Yet, in his latest annual report, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada stated that he could “find no justification for a national identity card”.

How can the minister reconcile his plans with the opinion of the commissioner, who views this as a further restraint on the right to privacy?

[Immigration, February 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the restoration of the mechanism of temporarily returning asylum seekers to the United States has meant that a number of them have been jailed in that country while awaiting a meeting with an officer of Immigration Canada. The department is no longer demanding the assurance that these people will be able to make it to their appointments.

Given Canada's international commitments on the protection of refugees, will the minister commit to reinstating the directive requiring U.S. authorities to ensure that any asylum seekers in custody will indeed be able to attend their interview with Immigration Canada?

[Chomedey News, February 4th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, recently the Canadian Weekly Newspapers Association, which boasts some 700 members, rewarded the Chomedey News for the third year in a row with the Blue Ribbon General Excellence Award. This recognition underscores the exceptional professionalism of its writing team, the objectivity and quality of its research, and the excellence of its content.

On the eve of the 10th anniversary of the Chomedey News , it is my pleasure to point out that this newspaper is a model of information thanks to the in-depth analysis of the topics it tackles and the critical eye it casts on socio-economic issues affecting the Laval community.

At a time of unsettling media concentration, the Chomedey News , an independent newspaper—only 4% of all newspapers in Quebec are independent—is the David to the Goliath of print media.

I applaud their work and thank them for their contribution to democracy.

[Quebec Byelections, December 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the theme of the Liberal candidates in Berthier—Montcalm and in Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay is that they can get money for their region because they will become government members. According to them, constituents must vote the right way.

What does this really mean? The riding represented by the most powerful person in Ottawa for the past 10 years, the Prime Minister of Canada and member for the riding of Saint-Maurice, continues to have one of the highest unemployment rates in Quebec.

By contrast, the riding of Sherbrooke, which is proudly represented by a Bloc Quebecois member, can take pride in the fact that it has one of the highest employment rates in Quebec.

This should come as no surprise, since we know that it is for their friends that Liberal members are really good at getting money.

While Liberal members from Quebec are working for western Canada's oil industry, Bloc Quebecois members are fighting for softwood lumber workers, farmers, the unemployed, the most disadvantaged of our seniors, young families, the sick and local businesses. In short, they are working for Quebeckers, and they are proud to do so.

[Supply, December 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, before beginning my speech I wish to inform you that I will split my time with the hon. member for Terrebonne—Blainville.

Today, we decided to debate an issue that concerns each and every citizen, without exception. Indeed, in the wake of the Romanow report, the Bloc Quebecois proposed the following motion, as amended:

That the federal government give the provinces the additional money for health unconditionally, with the promise of the provinces to use all of it for health care according to the priorities they have established and to provide an accounting to their residents.

As we know, this is an issue that people feel strongly about. There are two reasons why this debate is so emotional. First, if we all agree that the quality of health care affects all of us, it is because sooner or later, directly or indirectly, we will all be confronted with the reality of illness and, of course, with how we should ensure quality care.

Secondly, in this case, the federal government's interference in provincial jurisdictions is another contributing factor to the tension that exists in our debates.

However, the last thing we are going to do is get carried away by our emotions, because we want to be able to objectively lay out all aspects of the issue. It is in this spirit that, together, we will briefly examine the findings and the impact of the Romanow report on the future of health care.

If we take a pragmatic look at the society in which we live, we can see that the current problems with our health system are really just the tip of the iceberg. Two factors are exacerbating the current situation. The demographic decline of recent years, combined with the aging of the population, forces us to the following conclusion: while there will be a larger number of sick people, there will be fewer taxpayers to fund health care. Therefore, it is essential that governments reinvest in health.

Also, the budget cuts made in recent years to put our fiscal house in order have seriously affected the quality of health care in the various Canadian provinces. These are the findings. Now, what should we do?

As mentioned earlier, the debate deals with an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. If we were to oversimplify things, but we all know that we will not do that, we could tell the provinces that it is up to them to provide citizens with the best health care services their tax dollars can buy and to eventually reinvest in health care. Unfortunately, our everyday reality is a sad one, because of the fiscal imbalance between the provinces and the federal government.

In fact, all of the stakeholders, except for the federal government of course, recognize the fiscal imbalance and Ottawa's underfunding of health. For every dollar spent on health care, the federal used to contribute 50¢, but now its contribution is down to 14¢. The public is right to request additional money for health. In fact, the 1993-94 data on the Canada Health and Social Transfer indicate that the federal contribution accounted for 22.4% of health expenditures in Quebec. However, the trends and the forecasts indicate that it will have dropped below 13% by 2005-06.

These statistics leave no doubt in our minds. Health care is seriously underfunded, which is why we totally agree with a significant increase in health funding.

After 18 long months, Mr. Romanow seems to have arrived at a conclusion that everyone has known for many years. However, what does he propose to solve the problem?

First, the former Premier of Saskatchewan says that to fix the health care system, the federal government should inject an additional $15 billion over the next three years. In fact, these billions of dollars should be given back to the provinces in the form of federal transfers, since it is money that belongs to them. The provinces should be able to use this money to develop appropriate action plans that are tailored to the problems that each province is experiencing. Even though the problem of population decline due to aging is a pan-Canadian phenomenon, the fact remains that the provinces are dealing with specific situations that require distinct solutions to be developed.

I would not wish this on anyone listening, but if you were suffering from pneumonia, for example, and I were to give you money for you to purchase medicine, but I forced you to buy ointment and bandages with this money, it would not be of much use to you. That is what the Romanow report wants the federal government to do.

My experience from nearly four decades in nursing, first as a nurse and then as an instructor, has taught me that no one is better placed than people who work in health care to find the appropriate solutions to specific problems. It is certainly not up to the federal government to tell us how to use the money that belongs to us in Quebec. It is up to the Government of Quebec, together with health care stakeholders, to decide on the best way to use money allocated to health care.

Even though the Romanow report came to the conclusion that the health care system is underfunded, we must question the real usefulness of the report. In Quebec, we have known for a long time that it is critical that health care budgets benefit from more money, particularly through increased federal transfers, as was confirmed by the Quebec commission on health care and social services led by Michel Clair. The Senate also conducted a similar study, the Kirby report. Was it really necessary for the federal government to spend some $15 million to tell us, 18 months later, what we already knew, and, adding insult to injury, to recommend that the federal government have a role in administering that which is none of its concern?

This is where the fundamental flaw is in the Romanow report. Having recognized that the federal government needs to invest more in health care, Mr. Romanow suggests that Ottawa should tie future federal transfers to certain conditions on their use. No way.

How can a former provincial minister have the nerve to recommend that the federal government meddle in an area that is exclusively under provincial jurisdiction? The Bloc Quebecois is not alone in its indignation. The Quebec National Assembly gave unanimous support to a motion along these lines. The Quebec Federation of General Practitioners and the college of physicians have expressed regret at the federal government's attitude in wanting to impose conditions. The father of the Quebec health insurance system, Claude Castonguay, finds it unacceptable that the federal government is trying to interfere in provincial affairs. Finally, the public is wondering whether once again they will be the ones to lose the most in these virtually endless quarrels over jurisdictional boundaries.

To see the federal government toying with whether to impose or not to impose a Canada-wide action plan is not only disturbing but also insulting to the public and their elected representatives. The matter needs to be decided upon clearly and without hesitation: it is up to the provinces, and only the provinces, to decide what is the best way to administer health care budgets.

Instead, we have been treated this past week to some disconcerting position-taking by the federal Liberals. While the Prime Minister still maintains that he will look after reaching an agreement with the provinces, the Minister of Industry comes charging in and announces that the federal government ought to proceed without worrying about what the provinces think. With statements such as this, this blundering minister has once again missed the opportunity to close the gap up a bit between him and his colleague from LaSalle—Émard in the leadership race. In fact, his words are evidence of his total disdain for Quebec and of his lack of respect for jurisdictional boundaries.

We agree that the funds transferred to the provinces as a reinvestment in health must be allocated in their entirety to health care.

This is why the Bloc Quebecois motion specifies that the provinces must undertake to use all of the additional money for health care.

This assurance is, in my opinion, and that of the entire population, the only thing the federal government has the right to demand.