Debates of March 8th, 2005

The Budget

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, like my colleagues, I will speak to the debate about the budget. First, I would point out that, for anyone concerned about improving the lives of the poorest people in society or interested in bringing about progress not just in social programs but also in saving and protecting the social safety net so that those who are worst off in our society can be better protected, for these people the budget is a disappointment. In addition, the Conservatives did not help to improve the budget. In fact, several days in advance, before they even knew what would be in the budget, they let it be known that they would support the budget, that they would find a way to support it. That is pretty disappointing.

As the opposition, of course, the Conservatives have a responsibility. It was their task to apply pressure, together with us, so that the Liberal government would deliver a better budget. I will stop there concerning the Conservatives' behaviour in regard to the budget itself.

Mr. Speaker, excuse me, but I should say that I am going to share my time with the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

Just about all the stakeholders in society are disappointed because this is a “nothing for” and “everything for” budget. There is nothing for people waiting for some action on Kyoto and waiting for better assistance for social housing. There is also nothing for the cull-cattle question. There is nothing as well for the fiscal imbalance, transfer payments, and so on.

Consequently, there is nothing for these needs, for which the public had expectations, but then there is “everything for”. For what? There is everything for budget surpluses, for more of a cushion for the government and for the army. I remember that during the election campaign the Liberals lectured the Conservatives, who had promised to invest $5 billion in the Canadian Armed Forces, saying that for the Liberal Party health was more important than the army. So now we see the Liberals providing no less than twice as much as or more than what the Conservatives had promised for the army if they had been elected.

This is therefore a source of great disappointment, as is the EI issue, which I will develop further. All stakeholders in society who are concerned about the plight of the unemployed came forward to say that the budget failed to meet their expectations and was an insult. All stakeholders without exception said so.

I find it somewhat unfortunate that the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development misled the House by saying, on the basis of a statement by someone in New Brunswick, that “the unemployed are happy with this budget” and that the Minister of Transport contended that any reasonable unemployed person should consider this to be a fantastic budget. I assume that, among all the unemployed represented by dozens of associations across the country and by their various labour organizations, there must be a few who are reasonable.

How can one be reasonable while being robbed?

A total of $46 billion was diverted from the EI fund. People expected the government to stop using EI funds for other purposes.

The minister, and her colleague the transport minister have misled this House by saying that people are happy with this budget as far as employment insurance is concerned. That is not what the CLC, which represents three million workers across the country, the five labour organizations in Quebec, which represent more than one million workers, the associations representing hundreds of unemployed workers and even some Liberals, including Liberal associations in New Brunswick, are saying.

The minister neglected to tell us that yesterday. During the Liberal convention, over the weekend, the New Brunswick Liberal Association had its delegation vote on a motion, presented jointly with Quebec's delegates, calling for an indepth reform of the EI system. The minister said nothing about that yesterday.

This motion, which was adopted last weekend in Ottawa at the biennial convention of the Liberal Party of Canada, proposes to go further than what is proposed in the last budget. These Liberals want to calculate the number of hours of work, rather than the number of weeks. They also want to eliminate the two-week waiting period. This is what the House of Commons committee recommended. It is also what is proposed in the two bills of the Bloc Québécois that will be debated in April.

If the party in office were respectful of the decisions made at its own convention, it would not have told us some of things that we heard. I cannot say that these people are liars, but they showed little respect for truth. This is what happened.

Their requests are a combination of what is proposed in the report of the House of Commons committee and in the dissenting report of Senator Pierrette Ringuette. This is precisely what we are asking for. Why did the minister not say so yesterday, instead of misleading this House into thinking it was a position adopted by her own party? That is not the case.

According to the president of the Liberal Party for the riding of Acadie—Bathurst, Marc Duguay, his region needs much more significant changes than those proposed in the budget.

Moreover, yesterday, the member for Beauséjour made a speech in this House, extolling the virtues of this budget which, in his opinion, meets the expectations of the unemployed in his part of the country. However, during last weekend's convention, held after the budget was tabled, this same member of Parliament told us, “It is very difficult to get our ideas and the changes that we would like to make to the employment insurance program adopted”. He is not satisfied. He also said, “So, I think it is up to us to roll up our sleeves and go to Ottawa”.

I am wondering where he is. Does he know that he is in Ottawa? Does he know that yesterday he made a speech in the House of Commons, here in Ottawa, and that he could have said the same thing?

So, one can go to Ottawa and knock on the door, which is not always open. The hon. member is finding that out, just like us. Not only is the door not open, but we encounter arguments against logic, against the logic expressed by the standing committee of this House, which recommended that the employment insurance fund become an independent fund, that the $46 billion that were diverted be put back in the fund, and that this fund be managed by representatives of the employees and employers, so that the government will stop using it for other purposes. Moreover, the program should include measures to give the unemployed access to better benefits, so that they can have a decent income.

I point out that they have already paid for this insurance. There is a surplus this year in that fund, and the government is using the money for other purposes. It is depriving people of the insurance they need, at a time when they have the misfortune of losing their jobs. It is as if your house burned down and your insurer said, “You have been paying for years, but I have used the money on something else”. What would you say? Here we cannot use a certain word, but it could be described this way, “He took the money that belonged to me without my permission, with the express intention of not giving it back to me”.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on the last item the member referred to on EI, he is quite right that the fund has been operating at a surplus for some time. A lot of that has to do with the fact that we have not been in a recession since the late 1980s. That could never have been anticipated.

The member may be aware that back in the Mulroney years, the EI fund was operating at a deficit. It had about a $12 billion deficit. At that time the Auditor General, who I am sure the member respects very well, advised the government that it could no longer have the financing of EI outside of the government accounts. In fact the Auditor General required that the operation of the EI fund, all the premiums in and all the expenses out, be included in the current accounts of the government. The reason was that it was financing a deficit off the government accounts.

One year of a recession could run up a charge against the EI fund of about $15 billion. The legislation provides for a minimum of at least two years. There is more than that now but I suggest to the member that if he looks at the difference between how much debt has been paid down and how much notional surplus there is in the EI fund, the numbers are very close. The government is simply holding that money. It is available. Under the law it has to go back in terms of lower premiums or in terms of additional programs under the EI fund.

Having said that, I think the member will now understand that the government is not doing anything that it should not be doing. The moneys are there as part of the government's current accounts.

I want to ask the member a question to which I did not get a clear answer from another member of his caucus. It is with regard to the qualifying period for EI benefits. Could the member advise the House what he believes would be an appropriate time for people to have work to be able to qualify for any EI benefits?

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague on the other side of the House for his question.

First, I would like to remind his colleague that perhaps it would be appropriate to implement other recommendations by the Auditor General, which would probably help put some order in the situations that are embarrassing his party, with respect to the inquiries now going on.

Now, as for the employment insurance fund—his question is in two parts, I believe—it must be remembered that, since 1990, only workers and employers have contributed to the employment insurance fund. That means that what the hon. member is saying here about deficits in the past being paid off from general revenues, will not happen again, following acceptance of the standing committee's recommendation for a fund administered by the people who pay into it, that is, employees and employers, with participation by the government and a chief actuary, of course.

This fund must be self-sufficient because the premiums collected must meet the obligations of the fund itself.

What the Auditor General indicated, in 1983, was that it was taking some time to reimburse the government for the deficit in the fund. Still, it was reimbursed, because the forecasts were not made as a function of premium rates. That cannot happen again. So, that may reassure my colleague on the other side.

The third element in his question is the number of hours. In fact, the number of hours needed to qualify was once a standard 300 hours. The House unanimously agrees, and so do social intervenors in this field, that from now on, the number should be 360 hours, so that there will be no more rule of disparity based on the unemployment rate in each region, or the status of individuals.

For example, at present, a new entrant needs 910 hours to qualify. The minister now proposes 860 hours. That will affect almost no one. His own Liberal party members from New Brunswick and Quebec have proposed a uniform rate and even recommend—I read his party's resolution aloud earlier—a uniform rate. Why? So as to end this discrimination between different classes of people, which limits access by women and young people to employment insurance.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great joy that I speak today in this House to critique, if I may put it that way, the budget tabled by the Minister of Finance on February 23.

During my presentation I will address the aspects that affect the protection of the environment, in particular, and I would say the disinvestment by the federal government over the past few years.

When it comes to the environment I would describe the federal budget as follows: first, it is vague; second, it is soft; and third, it is inadequate. Why? The government and the Minister of Finance did not even bother to mention the Kyoto protocol in the budget. How can a government that wants to get involved in fighting climate change and to honour its commitments in greenhouse gas reductions, omit the term Kyoto protocol from its budget? This shows that the government is far from willing to keeps its promises to reduce greenhouse gas emissions between 2008 and 2012. Instead, it is working on a long-term policy to fight climate change, which, in light of this budget, will not allow us to meet our greenhouse gas emission reduction targets.

A big part of this budget is being used to create a new fund called the Clean Fund. It is $1 billion over five years to buy credits abroad or for projects to fight climate change.

There are two concerns with the creation of this fund. First, there is its management. At the parliamentary committee, the acting director general of Climate Change Canada was unable to assure us that the fund would not be managed by another Canadian trust. Although these trusts have been criticized by the Auditor General because of their blatant lack of transparency, the government is opening the door to the administration of this $1 billion fund and could leave it to the so-called good management of a trust. My colleague from Repentigny tabled Bill C-277, which allows the Auditor General of Canada analyze and audit the use of these public funds. We have no guarantee that this $1 billion fund will not be put in a trust.

We also have cause for concern in connection with the possibility of Quebec's getting a hand on these funds, because it must be demonstrated that the projects submitted to the government will result in significant reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. What about those sectors of industry, in Quebec particularly, that have already reduced their greenhouse gas emissions? I am thinking of the aluminum industry and the manufacturing sector in Quebec, both of which have reduced their emissions by 7% since 1990. The marginal cost of implementing the Kyoto protocol is higher than for other industrial sectors in the rest of Canada. Very likely these Quebec businesses will not be able to access the fund that has been created. It might have been more justified, more efficient, to take that money and allow certain tax deductions in order to arrive at a true environmental tax policy for Canada. But no, they create a fund instead and now there are concerns that Quebec may not have access to it.

Then there is the partnership fund which is earmarked for what they call big ticket projects to achieve big volume cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. There is reference among other things to something that we may come back to in a few weeks or months: east-west power grid connections, that old dream of a national electrical network from coast to coast.

So today there is cause for concern about this initial announcement, this first admission by the federal government that has long desired to create such a national connection and to invest in infrastructure to connect the east and west.

There is one thing I want to say today in this House: regardless of the whims of the federal government, Quebec will never agree to relinquish its jurisdiction over power lines that cross its territory. This national grid the federal government is throwing out as an idea is not acceptable to Quebec.

We must keep in mind that the tax dollars of Quebeckers over the past 30 years are what has made it possible to develop the hydro-electric grid. Today, they want to make use of it. What would the purpose of a national grid be? Would national standards be set to which Hydro-Quebec and the Government of Quebec, might be forced to comply, including those of the National Energy Board. So great care will be required in coming years. This announcement by the federal government today may be seen as a desire, perhaps definite, to encroach on Quebec jurisdiction.

Fourth, there are not enough tax incentives. There are some tax incentives in the federal budget worth some $295 million over five years, for renewable energy. Among other things there was a proposal from the Bloc Québécois that we had hoped to see in the budget. We have always thought that two approaches were needed to reach the objectives of the Kyoto Protocol. A regulatory approach is needed to apply more stringent measures to certain industrial sectors—I am thinking among others of the Canadian automobile industry—but tax measures are also needed. To reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we need to use the tax system.

Years ago, we made a suggestion to the government in the form of bill that would have allowed a tax deduction for the purchase of public transit passes. But there is nothing in the budget about it.

Over the past few weeks and days, we have met with public transit associations in Canada, which told us that this would be a simple, effective step that the government could take. But there is nothing in the budget about it.

The government also could have used the tax system to provide a credit for the purchase of hybrid vehicles. Once again, nothing in the budget would give us reason to hope that in the years to come and in the next budgets, or even now, we might see these credits, this opportunity for consumers who decide to use greener, smarter methods and transportation to have a tax break on the purchase of hybrid vehicles.

One of the major aspects of this budget insofar as the environment is concerned is a line from the government and the minister, and I quote this part of the budget:

—this budget also launches an examination of all existing climate change programs to reassess and redirect funding to the most effective measures.

This can be found on page 19 of the budget speech delivered on February 23.

This is fine in principle. It is impossible to oppose the objective. However, the question that needs to be asked now is why was this program reassessment not done earlier? The Minister of the Environment is preparing to table a new action plan on climate change in a few weeks, and here we are told that the government is starting to reassess the programs. The deputy minister even told us in committee that he did not have any time frame for doing this reassessment.

The budget that was tabled provides no reason to hope that the government will achieve the objectives of the Kyoto Protocol. It can also be said that the plan to be tabled in a few weeks will provide no reason to hope either that the government has implemented all possible tax measures to ensure that Canada meets its international obligations.

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Social Development (Social Economy)]

Mr. Speaker, I simply want to ask the Bloc Québécois member who just spoke to clarify something for me. Others before him also made the same remarks.

If I am not mistaken, the amendment proposed by the opposition, namely by the Conservatives, suggests that the government's budget does not reflect Conservative principles. Therefore, if Bloc Québécois members approve this amendment, they will of course support the language used in the motion, which suggests that Conservative principles should be supported. We are very clear on this.

This is a motion that opposes the Kyoto Accord, which the Bloc has always supported; it opposes the national child care program, for which the Bloc has fought a number of battles; it opposes the gun registry, which the Bloc has always supported; and, finally, it opposes federal investments in research.

Considering that all these points are mentioned in the motion of the Conservative Party, I would like to know how Bloc Québécois members can truly support a motion that is contrary to the commitments that they made during the election campaign and in this House.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what is despicable on the part of the member and in the budget is that this is a conservative budget. Such is the reality.

First, the government is not reinvesting adequately to implement the Kyoto protocol. Second, it is reinvesting in national defence, when needs are much greater elsewhere.

There is nothing for social housing. The government has decided to support national defence instead of the homeless. This is totally unacceptable.

Rather than lecturing us, the hon. member should have supported the Bloc's proposal yesterday. She would then have been in a position to echo the consensus achieved in Quebec on this issue, but she did not do that.

[Lee Richardson, Conservative, Calgary South Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Rosemont--La Petite-Patrie for his comments and support of the Conservative motion. I think it is clear from his remarks that the Liberals would rather grow the size of government than the incomes of Canadians. The cost of bureaucracy has grown 77% since 1997, yet the Liberal tax relief amounted to just $16 for low and middle income Canadians.

Would the hon. member reiterate on his point with regard to the big unfocused spending in this Liberal budget with no plans for how they intend to deliver on such things as a national child care system, funding to cities, and as the member mentioned, solutions to climate change? This again opens the way for billions of dollars of mismanagement and wasted money.

The hon. member for Rosemont--La Petite-Patrie mentioned the climate change initiatives, the lack of mention of Kyoto in the budget and another big fund without any detailed explanation. We still are waiting for a plan. It was suggested in committee this morning that the Liberals will enhance the plan that they came out with in 2000. Would the hon. member comment on that? Has he seen a plan for Kyoto, or any mention of it in the budget or any direction as to where all the money will be spent?

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, over the past few years, we came to the same conclusion as the hon. member. In fact, we asked a former minister in the Quebec government, Jacques Léonard, to review the issue of increased federal government spending.

We found out that this government pours money in its public service and departments, but gives nothing back to the provinces. It wants to create a Canadian nation building process, so that we will believe Canada is right. Consequently, the government creates a number of departments with national standards.

Meanwhile, there is no reinvesting in the provinces. The budget is silent on the fiscal imbalance, which is a clear and well-known reality regarding which there is a consensus in Quebec.

I think it is time the federal government give back to the provinces the money that they need to provide adequate services to the public. The money is in Ottawa, but the needs are in the provinces, and particularly in Quebec.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, rather than getting into the meat of my speech, perhaps I will spend these last few moments before question period addressing a couple of the issues that have been raised by members in the debate today.

One of the more interesting issues concerns the EI program, a program that the government is very committed to bringing into line with the needs of Canadians, for youth, women, as well other workers. Many people in Canada work part time or are seasonal workers which means they may have difficulty reaching the required number of hours needed to qualify for benefits. We are committed to a continuing review of the current provisions and ensuring that appropriate changes will come forward. I think that is very important.

I think some of the members of the Bloc have continued to say that the EI program should be dealt with by employers and employees only because they are the ones who pay the premiums.

Although that is quite correct, and members may want to think about this, on the income tax return every Canadian who pays EI premiums or Canada pension plan premiums receives a non-refundable income tax credit for the premiums paid and a reduction of their taxes with regard to that. Therefore, not only is the federal government subsidizing workers' and employers' premiums on EI and CPP but so are the provincial governments. There is a subsidy because the tax credit goes to the employee and the employer gets a deduction which reduces the taxes otherwise payable.

We have to look at it in the whole sense. Yes, I know that employees are the ones who pay the direct premium, but there is a tax reduction as a consequence of filing a federal or provincial income tax return.

I also want to make a very brief comment with regard to the issue of fiscal imbalance. The Bloc Québécois has often talked about the issue of fiscal imbalance. I believe we had an excellent debate in the House. My recollection of the details is that both the federal and the provincial governments have effectively the same ability to tax, whether it be income taxes or other forms of taxes. However there are some differences. For instance, the provinces also have the ability to collect taxes on lottery winnings.

Therefore, if there is a situation where a province not only participates fully in all of the programs and transfers of the government, but also receives equalization payments, it must mean that they are actually getting more dollars from the federal government than they are contributing through their taxes. If that is the case, where in fact they are getting more dollars under the federal government, how could they say that there is a fiscal imbalance?

I will leave it at that and I will continue with the main body of my speech after question period.

International Women's Day

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, today is International Women's Day, a special day that lets us reflect on the progress we have made in advancing women's equality worldwide.

In 1995 Canada, along with 187 other countries, adopted the Beijing platform for action, a plan for addressing women's poverty, economic security and health.

A commitment to greater equality requires a commitment of resources for programs. Accordingly, several of the 2005 budget measures help advance this agenda. These include an accelerated increase in the GIS, increased support for immigrant settlement and integration, a doubling of the caregiver tax credit, $5 billion for early learning and child care, $850 million for health care, $735 million for aboriginal families and recognition of the needs of women entrepreneurs and women's economic independence.

Equally important is the increase of the basic personal exemption to $10,000, which will remove 860,000 low income taxpayers, most of them women, from the tax rolls.

Status of Women

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the investigative news program W-FIVE has exposed the Liberals' dirty little secret: they continue to be complicit in the trafficking of young women.

Under fire because of strippergate, the Prime Minister loudly proclaimed that the exotic dancer program was over. It turns out that his government just changed its modus operandi. Strippers are still being brought into Canada, this in the face of repeated warnings about the involvement of organized crime and of evidence that nude dancers are being misled, exploited and trafficked.

The Prime Minister talks a good game about protecting individual rights, all while his government knowingly places young women in harm's way. His promise to end the stripper program hid the truth: the back door is still wide open. I say shame on the Prime Minister.

Today, on International Women's Day, I call on colleagues on the Liberal benches over there to demand a stop to this continuing exploitation of women.

International Women's Day

[Sarmite Bulte, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today is International Women's Day, the highlight of International Women's Week which started on Sunday, March 6 and runs to Saturday, March 12.

This year, Canada's theme for International Women's Week is “You are here: Women, Canada and the World”.

To commemorate International Women's Day, on Friday, March 4, I hosted my seventh annual breakfast in my riding to acknowledge the accomplishments of the women of Parkdale--High Park. The event celebrated the success of local women, including Kelly Thornton, an award winning theatre director; Stephanie Gibson, an author and history teacher; Heidi Suter, a lawyer; Nathalie Bonjour, an artistic producer; and Anita O'Connor, a founding member of the Parkdale Golden Age Foundation and its current executive director.

International Women's Day is an ideal opportunity to reflect on the progress made to advance women's equality, to assess the challenges facing women in contemporary society, to consider future steps to enhance the status of women and, of course, to celebrate the gains made in these areas, as well as an opportunity to honour all women in our communities.

Film Industry

[Roger Clavet, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec filmmakers Hugo Latulippe and François Prévost recently won two awards for the film What Remains of Us : the Jutra for best documentary film and the prize for best feature film from the Association québécoise des critiques de cinéma.

This movie shows life in the world's largest prison: Tibet. We see the suffering and oppression there without the filter of traditional media.

During the making of this film, numerous Tibetans had access, for the first time in 50 years, to a message from the Dalai Lama. The film presents the extremely moving accounts of Tibetans after they view this message from their spiritual leader.

We must stand in solidarity with the people of Tibet, who are suffering, and promote a real dialogue between China and the Dalai Lama. Canada must take a leadership role. It should use its ties with China to start discussions to bring about freedom in Tibet.

International Women's Day

[Russ Powers, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on this International Women's Day I rise to remember and recognize our women parliamentarians. They include the late Agnes Campbell Macphail, the first woman in the House of Commons elected in 1921; the late Cairine Reay Wilson, the first woman appointed to Canada's Senate in 1930; and the late Right Hon. Ellen Louks Fairclough, one of my constituents and the first woman to be appointed to the cabinet initially in 1957.

I ask all members to join me in acknowledging and thanking all the current women parliamentarians in this House and the Senate for their commitment and outstanding contributions that continue to benefit Canada and the world.

National Security

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the residents and taxpayers of the Niagara region are paying for the security of all Canadians by taking on the lion's share of border policing without federal assistance.

The Niagara Regional Police Service is the first to respond to calls for service at the border. From 2002 until August 2004 there were over 2,000 incidents that required the presence and resources of our community police at the border.

There is clear evidence that international border policing is currently being funded by local taxpayers only. The increased financial hardship on Niagara's property tax base since the heightened security requirements stemming from 9/11 needs to be addressed fairly by the government. Niagara police and residents are proud to contribute to our national security but the financial burden is not only unfair but also unsustainable.

On behalf of Niagara property taxpayers, I urge our federal government to properly fund the vital national security services currently provided by our local police. The downloading of responsibility without the equivalent resources is draining our municipality.

International Women's Day

[Susan Kadis, Liberal, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's theme for International Women's Day 2005 is “You Are Here: Women, Canada and the World”. On this day an issue that must not be neglected is violence against women. Despite concerted efforts of many dedicated individuals, violence against women in Canada and throughout the world continues to persist.

We must ask ourselves how well we are doing. Not terribly well it seems, but it is not for lack of trying. Governments repeatedly dedicate themselves to ending this horror, but the rates of violence, particularly against aboriginal women, are unacceptable.

Canada has made efforts in rectifying this problem. After all, it was a group of Canadian women who helped to get rape globally recognized as a war crime.

While strides have been made, there is still much more that must be done to prevent women and children from living in fear, to protect all regardless of ethnicity, race, ability, age or gender.

As Canadians, we are here and we will make a difference.

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the United Nations declared March 8 International Women's Day in 1977. It is the perfect opportunity to evaluate our progress in promoting gender equality.

Canada had the opportunity to evaluate its record last week at the Beijing + 10 conference on women's issues. The conference served to remind everyone of the importance of demonstrating the implementation of commitments and action plans to achieve gender equality.

This conference was also an opportunity to identify future challenges with regard to the status of women: employment equity, improving the economic condition of women and the lives of aboriginal women. I hope that Canada's representatives at the Beijing + 10 conference took good notes and that the lives of women will improve even more in years to come.

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I had the pleasure of honouring many women volunteers from my riding of Ahuntsic at my annual breakfast on the occasion of International Women's Day.

In addition, I paid tribute to six exceptional women during the presentation organized in conjunction with the Ahuntsic-Cartierville CEDC, Concertation-Femme and the Maison Fleury to further commemorate this day. These six caring and active women successfully returned to school and entered the labour market. They are Perla Marrugo Del Rosar, Liping Tian, Rajaa Abou Assi, Annie Gosselin, Cornelia Turturea and Anna Laskowska. They came from the four corners of the earth and, armed with courage and tenacity, they overcame small and large obstacles to integration. They dared to dream and to make those dreams come true, despite those obstacles.

That proves once again that education is the key to many successes.

Allow me to finish with a Congolese proverb, “When you educate a man you are educating one individual, but when you educate a woman you are educating a society”.

I wish everyone a happy International Women's Day.

Diabetes Awareness Month

[Norman Doyle, Conservative, St. John's North, NL]

Mr. Speaker, March is Diabetes Awareness Month and I was pleased to meet with Carol Ann Smith, regional director of the Canadian Diabetes Association from Newfoundland and Labrador.

Diabetes is a disease affecting more than two million Canadians and one-third of those affected are unaware that they even have the disease. The Canadian Diabetes Association, through the hard work and dedication of 35,000 volunteers, works to prevent diabetes and improve the quality of life of those affected through research and education. Through its fundraising efforts, the association is supporting 114 diabetes research teams nationwide at a cost of $5.8 million this year.

Diabetes is a disease that affects Canadians in every province, community and walk of life. Today I salute the Canadian Diabetes Association in its efforts to improve the daily lives of Canadians suffering from this disease.

International Women's Day

[Jean Augustine, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, International Women's Day gives us an opportunity to reflect on the progress women have made to date, to assess the present challenges and to chart a future course.

This morning I was co-host with my provincial colleague, Laurel Broten, at an International Women's Day breakfast with special guest, Lina Anani of Amnesty International Canada, and guest speaker, the hon. Minister of State for Public Health. It was an honour to have them join us at this event. It was an opportunity for the men and women of Etobicoke—Lakeshore to celebrate the accomplishments and progress of women in Canadian society.

The themes of International Women's Day challenge us as parliamentarians to work toward gender equality.

Happy International Women's Day to all of my colleagues.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise in the House to recognize today, March 8, as International Women's Day. This year the United Nations has adopted the theme, “Gender equality beyond 2005: Building a more secure future”.

In the 30 years since the UN first celebrated International Women's Day, we have made progress in a number of areas, but there is still work to be done. Women in this country deserve nothing less than complete equality.

The House must act to ensure women's issues that matter most in the lives of Canadian women are dealt with in a meaningful and lasting manner. This means combating domestic violence, finding solutions to end poverty, and ensuring that Canada develops a national not for profit public child care program. We need to make pay equity a reality and change systems that promote inequality for aboriginal, Inuit and Métis women, immigrant and visible minority women, and senior women.

Today I invite all Canadians to join with me in celebrating the accomplishments of the past three decades and to work together to find meaningful solutions so that gender equality beyond 2005 can be more than a theme, it can be our reality.

Date Rape Drugs

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, today the Conservative Party launched a national campus campaign against date rape drugs.

The increasing presence of date rape drugs such as GHB and Rohypnol at bars, clubs and parties has put a powerful weapon in the hands of sexual predators. Tasteless, odourless and colourless, these drugs are virtually undetectable and easily slipped into drinks, rendering the victim unconscious and defenceless against sexual predators.

Our laws must tell the thugs and cowards who use these drugs, who assault and brutalize women, that their criminal actions will not be tolerated. I call on the government to take concrete steps to combat date rape drugs by first creating a separate section in our laws for date rape drugs with tough new penalties. Second, it should launch a national campaign to educate women on the dangers of date rape drugs. Third, it should streamline the collection of evidence on sexual assaults and rapes to facilitate prosecutions.

It is time for the Liberal government to step up and fight the cowardly use of date rape drugs. If the Liberal government will not, women across Canada can rest assured that the coming Conservative government will step up and protect them from the growing threat of date rape drugs.

International Women's Day

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in 2000, the women of Quebec joined with their sisters in order to achieve recognition for the rights of women and the important role their words and deeds play in shaping the world we live in.

Five years later, the women of Quebec and elsewhere are pursuing that commitment in their legitimate ambition to change the world.

Francine MacKenzie, who left us in 1988, far too soon, said; “To gain access to power, any kind of power, is to assume responsibility. In their quest for power, women are not demanding one more right but rather the possibility of doing their duty. Not wanting something for the sake of wanting it, but rather wanting to focus their freedom on a project that will require accountability to others.”

The Bloc Québécois salutes the determination, the audacity, the generosity, the tenacity and the courage of the women of Quebec and elsewhere. You share a commitment with the men and children of Quebec to a world based on the values of justice and equality.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

Mr. Speaker, today marks International Women's Day, a day we reflect on the progress that women have made, celebrate achievements and consider future challenges.

Last week I attended the UN Beijing plus 10 conference in New York where countries from around the world recognized the contributions of women politically, socially and economically.

Canada has much to be proud of. The Famous Five, those courageous women who fought for legal recognition of women as persons, would be proud of the advances women have made. At no other time in our history have the doors of opportunity been so wide open, from the record number of women in universities to the rapid growth of women entrepreneurs. Women-led businesses have created more jobs in the marketplace than the 100 largest companies combined.

This is positive for all Canadians, yet more can be done. Working together we must combat domestic violence and improve the lives of aboriginal women.

I would like to thank all women and men who have contributed to the creative solutions for prosperity. Our daughters and sons will benefit from this work and will make further advancements to levels which may now seem beyond our imagination.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, International Women's Day is a time for us to celebrate the women of Canada and the world.

It has been 10 years since the Beijing Platform for Action was signed with the goal of identifying 12 priority areas that affirm women's vital role as stakeholders and key players in environmental decision making. The Beijing Platform for Action underscores a number of key areas of environmental concerns.

With 80% of Canada's population living in urban areas, the challenges are more complex and critical than ever. These issues range from urban sprawl to greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution. Women continue to be deeply concerned about these and other issues.

Let us remember that it was a woman, Rachel Carson, who is considered to be the founder of the modern environmental issues.

This International Women's Day can inspire us to renew our commitment to the environment, a commitment that goes hand in hand with the vital role that women can play in sustainable development.