Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

[Citizenship and Immigration, April 2nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, from recent media reports we have learned of workers from the Philippines being sold as domestics and child care workers for $800. The federal government program for live-in caregivers paves the way for such situations.

Will the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration admit that the federal live-in caregiver program leads to practices which debase women?

[Immigration and Refugee Board, March 21st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, in its 2000 election platform, the Bloc Quebecois proposed replacing the present political appointment process for Immigration and Refugee Board members with a transparent appointment procedure based on candidates' professional qualifications and experience.

Can the minister explain to us why he has not gone with an option that would ensure an appointment process based, not on political connections, but professional qualifications and experience?

[Immigration and Refugee Board, March 21st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, according to yesterday's Toronto Star , the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is preparing to make some major changes to the Immigration and Refugee Board. It would appear that he is, in fact, contemplating replacing the board members, currently appointed by the governor in council, with Citizenship and Immigration Canada officials.

Can the minister explain why he wants to abolish an independent system and replace it with one in which public servants would be simultaneously judge and jury?

[Intellectual Disability, March 19th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, from March 16 to 22, the Quebec Association for Community Living is sponsoring the Quebec Intellectual Disability Week. The theme this year is “Believe... and grow together!”

In Quebec, approximately 224,000 people are living with an intellectual disability. Today, our society has evolved, and we do not look at these citizens the same way we did 50 years ago.

Respect for their dignity and the efforts made to promote their integration allow us to benefit from their important contributions in many areas.

I want to point out the essential contribution of those around them who provide support. This support helps improve their quality of life.

The Bloc Quebecois thanks you for your important contribution to Quebec society and wishes every one of you a great Quebec Intellectual Disability Week.

[Immigration, February 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the refugee appeal division established under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act has suspended its activities for more than eight months now.

In a letter to Kemi Jacobs, of the Canadian Council for Refugees, the minister said he was exploring avenues concerning the establishment of an appeal procedure, but did not even refer to what is already in the act.

Could the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration explain why he continues to refuse to implement the appeal procedure provided for in the act, thereby allowing a situation to go on which denies refugee status claimants access to a procedure that is consistent with the fundamental principles of justice?

[The Budget, February 26th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary is being extremely generous. He is asking me to talk about health. If I know anything about anything, it is health.

Of course, the budget requires financial commitments, but this government has no choice. Furthermore, its commitments are nowhere near the recommendations made by the Romanow commission, set up by the Liberals. The government is not doing what the Romanow commission asked. Quebec is short at least $200 million.

For the Liberals to think that this budget is incredibly generous shows, in my mind, their arrogance. I think this means they are ignoring the fact that, for over 10 years now, the federal government has progressively reduced its contribution to health. This is the reality. At the very beginning, they contributed 50%, and now it is a few pennies per dollar spent.

We are an ageing population; people therefore have more problems; more sophisticated services cost more and, in this communication era, people know what will make them better. This is how things stand and, naturally, the provinces are footing the bill, while the federal government is accumulating astronomical surpluses. Of course, it is paying down the debt but, obviously, if the roof starts leaking, it is better to fix the roof than pay the mortgage.

[The Budget, February 26th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, this is questions and comments period, and I cannot help asking a question too. Does the Minister of Finance intend to implement, during the 2003 fiscal year, the measures outlined in the budget without actually introducing a bill in the House that would allow for a debate, by both government and opposition members, on the whole issue of disabled people?

The reality is that there is an increasing number of disabled people and this number will continue to grow. The extraordinary sums of money that the minister is talking about do exist, but the needs largely exceed them. It seems to me that a government's responsibility is to act like a good father. Would a good father leave his children in poverty and pay more attention to those who have the good fortune of being well-off? To ask the question is to answer it.

To me, this budget is not at all consistent with the sound reasoning of a responsible father.

[The Budget, February 26th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I will be dividing my time with the hon. member for Matapédia—Matane.

They say if you want to keep you friends, pay up. A budget is all about paying up. Far be it from me to judge the friendships of the Minister of Finance, but I doubt he made any new friends with this latest budget. He seems to have had neither the courage nor the sense of responsibility to solve the urgent problems being experienced by many of our fellow citizens.

Not being the first, or the last, to comment on this budget, I shall concentrate on two areas of particular concern to me: disability issues and immigration.

I will begin with a few words on the child disability benefit. First, the government introduced a new $1,600 a year benefit for disabled children.

On the face of it, we can only applaud this additional support. It is overwhelmingly evident that financial resources play an important role in the education of any child, and needs are no less great because some children have functional limitations—on the contrary. This is especially true for low income families. But even when trying to be helpful, the government seems to be repeating mistakes of the past.

It is apparently incapable of learning from its mistakes. If he is really listening to the people, the Minister of Finance knows full well the problems inherent in the eligibility criteria for the infamous DTC, the disability tax credit. The minister has determined that the new child disability benefit will only apply to those children who are eligible for the DTC. That is the problem. Persons who suffer from episodic and mental conditions who receive the disability tax credit must be reassessed. These criteria are clearly discriminatory.

Why did the minister not base the eligibility criteria for the child disability benefit on the proposals made by health professionals and organizations representing the disabled, which more accurately reflect the reality of living with a disability?

By accepting these recommendations, the government could have provided the technical advisory committee on the DTC with appropriate guidelines for their reflection. While we applaud this new measure, we are critical of the fact that it perpetuates the same injustices as the disability tax credit.

Let us look briefly at this technical advisory committee. Will this new committee on tax measures for persons with disabilities be able to work miracles? The government announced, through the budget, that this committee would comprise members of organizations representing persons with disabilities, medical practitioners, and private sector tax experts, who will advise the Ministers of Finance and National Revenue on tax measures for disabled people.

The budget outlines a few of the issues that will be examined by this committee. Let me review them. The first one concerns the eligibility for the tax credit, particularly for persons who suffer from episodic and mental conditions. The second is the list of activities of daily living used to determine eligibility for the credit. The third concerns the identification of professionals allowed to certify eligibility.

Here we may see a faint glimmer of hope in terms of the requests and recommendations contained in the unanimous report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

We will have to wait and see what will become of the other recommendations contained in the report, aptly titled, “Getting it Right for Canadians: the Disability Tax credit”.

After reading the budget, when it comes to persons with disabilities, we can only talk about a glimmer of hope, nothing more. Why do I say this? Simply because the Minister of Finance used the budget to reintroduce his controversial draft legislation from August 30, 2002.

Even though the House took a clear stand against any tightening of the DTC eligibility criteria, by unanimously adopting an NDP motion on November 20, 2002, even though we presented a petition containing the signatures of over 6,000 Quebeckers who wanted to ensure that people with disabilities were treated fairly before the budget was brought down, even though the Minister of Finance received hundred of letters from citizens calling on him not to limit support to persons with a disability, the minister turned a deaf ear by reintroducing the proposed amendments from August 30.

The budget contains three measures relating to the DTC.

While the first measure ensures that individuals markedly restricted in either feeding or dressing themselves will continue to qualify for the DTC, the two other measures deal specifically with the definitions used for feeding or dressing oneself.

Indeed, the second measure specifies that the activity of feeding oneself does not include any of the activities of identifying, finding, shopping for or otherwise procuring food, or the activity of preparing food to the extent that the time associated with that activity would not have been necessary in the absence of a dietary restriction or regime. Clearly, this is about redefining the expression, “feeding oneself” in order to get around the Federal Court of Appeal decision allowing a celiac sufferer to qualify for the DTC.

The third measure specifies that the activity of “dressing oneself” does not include the activities of finding, shopping for and otherwise procuring clothes.

What we are particularly concerned about is that the minister is suggesting that the changes be applied starting with the 2003 tax year. Are we to understand that the Minister is counting on imposing these new measures through his budget rather than with a bill properly introduced in this House? Let us hope not, but we will obviously be taking a very close look at the application of these measures.

In conclusion, since time is running out, allow me to address the immigration situation. I have just come back from a trip to the Maritimes and Quebec with the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. This trip gave us an opportunity to hear some very relevant testimony, as well as some genuine cries for help.

These comments were useful because they touched on the importance of, and the issues related to, immigration for regional development. The people we spoke to raised concerns and told us of the major problems that stem from inadequate funding for the many challenges related to integrating newcomers.

To say that the federal budget is extremely disappointing in terms of anything that directly or indirectly affects immigration is an understatement. An additional $41 million for a major project is not enough; it is an insult to intelligence. Even though Quebec has a special agreement, this does not stop us from strongly deploring the fact that the Minister of Finance has done little to meet the needs in immigration.

What could the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration say to all those people in the Maritimes who braved the snow, wind and cold to come and ask us for additional funding for immigration, for issues related to the integration and settlement of newcomers?

Will the government one day acknowledge the true challenges that the public faces in this regard? Until then, our vigilance will not waiver and our demands will be more urgent, both for people with disabilities and for welcoming and integrating newcomers.

[Firearms Registry, February 21st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the statement by the Minister of Justice has left us somewhat puzzled about the government's leadership in what has come to be known as the gun control boondoggle.

The minister made three statements in as many months on the same issue. Each one contained nothing but platitudes, without ever condemning the fact that hundreds of millions of dollars have disappeared into this black hole. This speaks volumes about the Liberal government's incompetence and lack of transparency.

Worse still, the Minister of Justice is now basing his actions on the recommendations contained in the report commissioned by a former deputy minister. It is as though he were trying to duck the issue, to distract our attention from the fact that he is the one who is responsible for this waste of almost $1 billion.

The Liberal government, and the Minister of Justice in particular, are abdicating their responsibilities. Their strategy is based on passing Bill C-10A, which has been amended in the Senate, and has yet to be adopted by the House, which in itself negates the powers and privileges of our House. The whole situation is a hypothetical one.

Furthermore, the minister, who had to quickly backtrack on pouring a further $72 million into this infamous program to prevent his majority government from being brought down, today announced that he was planning on asking for additional funds yet again.

He justifies this by citing major changes to the management of Canada's firearms registration program, by moving it under the responsibility of the Solicitor General. This is an undeniable admission of his department's incompetence, and the incompetence of his predecessor in particular, who is now the Minister of Industry.

The real problem, the one that affects the crux of this government initiative, lies in the Liberals' lack of vision and especially in their chronic and typical lack of transparency. A program that was supposed to have been carefully thought out was totally out of control for years before anyone learned about the scope of the disaster.

This veritable boondoggle has given gun control opponents plenty of ammunition. They are now basing their reasoning to abolish the program on the need to stop the waste of tax dollars.

Those opposed to gun control are trying to influence public opinion with arguments that do not take into consideration the positive results of the program, in terms of preventing and solving serious crimes.

For the Bloc Quebecois, the need for such a program remains critical. We believe that it would be quite inappropriate and irresponsible to eliminate it. The Bloc Quebecois will ensure that all aspects of the program currently managed by Quebec will continue to be so managed.

However, this argument for the Canadian Firearms Centre should not be interpreted as support for the Liberal government, but rather as an appeal for the accountability of managers and, above all, the protection of society as a whole.

The Bloc Quebecois has always been very open and accountable in the debate on protecting society and the maturity with which major social issues are addressed.

The minister is talking about accountability, a term the Liberals have bandied about for several weeks now. This process should start at the highest levels of government, beginning with the Ministers of Industry and Health, both of whom also held the Justice portfolio.

In closing, remember that it is not only the administrative ability of the ministers, who have both been Minister of Justice at one time, that must be called into question. Beyond that, we must identify those responsible for this sad situation, starting with the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard, who kept the purse strings closed when he was Minister of Finance and who did not have the courage to sound the alarm.

The Minister of Justice's intentions, stated without the slightest regret, justify our mistrust. More than ever, the Bloc Quebecois will keep a watchful eye on this arrogant and incompetent government.

[Disability Tax Credit, February 21st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, only a week ago, we tabled in this House a petition signed by over 6,000 people calling for this government to cease its restrictions on access to the DTC.

Since the House has spoken out unanimously against any restrictions on assistance to the disabled, particularly the Minister of Finance's bill of August 30, 2002, how can the minister use his budget as an opportunity to go against both this motion and the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development on this subject?