Anne-Marie Day

[Business of Supply, February 3rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, on the one hand, the member wants to lower taxes, but on the other, he refuses to legislate to set limits on the fees that banks can charge. This means it would simply be a transfer of money. People will have a little more money in their pockets because they will pay less in taxes, but at the same time, they will have less money because the Conservatives refuse to legislate on the ATM fees people are being charged. Basically, is that not a covert way of raising taxes?

[Financial Administration Act, February 3rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am really pleased to have this opportunity to rise again in the House today to continue the debate on my bill, Bill C-473, which proposes changes to the Financial Administration Act.

The purpose of the bill is to improve the representation of women on boards of directors of crown corporations and only crown corporations. I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate that gender equality must be a priority for Canadians. In its Constitution, Canada recognizes that men and women are equal. However, when it comes to economic independence, equality in decision-making, violence against women, pay equity and other issues, there remains a great deal of work to be done in order for men and women to be equal in economic, social and political spheres in Canada.

In previous debates, some of my colleagues raised a number of questions that should be clarified for everyone's benefit. I hope my responses here today will answer their questions. First, I would like to remind everyone that the heads of crown corporations—even though those corporations operate at arm's length of the government—are appointed by the ministers. The government therefore has the power to take the necessary corrective action to put an end to any undue discrimination currently practiced against women in the hiring process.

During my last speech, my main argument was that Canadian women are more qualified than ever, and accordingly, the government needs to bring in measures that maximize the potential of all that talent. Thus, I have to be critical of the parliamentary secretary's tactic of using misinformation when she stated the opposite of what I said. As I explained last time, the problem has nothing to do with qualifications, but rather with accessibility. Women have the skills needed, but they are not recruited as much because their resumés do not make it onto the minister's desk.

The solution is simple. We have to make sure that, during the appointments process, CVs from women and men with equal skill sets are provided to the minister's office. Quebec is a perfect example of how that can work. Contrary to what the parliamentary secretary said, there have been no problems and no negative repercussions on performance. There has been nothing rigid or arbitrary about this process, simply a pool of male and female candidates to choose from. My colleague opposite also presented an argument based on the effectiveness and benefits of the voluntary measures put forward by the government. Norway tried the voluntary approach, but it did not work. The Conference Board of Canada says that it will take another 150 years to reach parity if we rely solely on the voluntary approach.

I also want to mention the brave step that Morocco took in introducing legislation after the Arab Spring. Female representation in that Arab country went from 19% to 50%. Here in Canada, the voluntary approach has resulted in women being under-represented on boards of crown corporations and holding only 27% of senior management positions. How can the government claim to be doing everything it should be doing when the figures are clear and do not lie? There has been no progress on this issue. That is clear proof that the voluntary approach does not work and does not produce the expected results.

In a speech she delivered last fall, Christine Lagarde, managing director of the IMF, supported the introduction of quotas “because nothing has changed in the past 25 or 30 years!” I would therefore urge all of my colleagues to recognize the obvious and take appropriate measures to ensure that we achieve the goals Canada wishes to set for itself in terms of gender parity.

In response to other questions that some of my colleagues had, I would like to add that I am very aware that this bill does not fix all of the problems related to women's rights, especially not access to senior positions. However, I sincerely believe that Bill C-473 is a step forward, a corrective measure. Without it, a laissez-faire approach will change nothing.

I strongly suggest that we refer this bill to a committee so that we can give more thought to issues such as transgender individuals and sanctions in cases where boards do not achieve parity by the deadline. Experts, including people who were in charge of implementing the new process in Quebec, will be able to advise us on this matter.

It is our responsibility as parliamentarians to pass corrective legislation so that women can benefit fully from their rights. The NDP has always been and will continue to be a champion of women's rights.

[Quebec Bridge, January 29th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the member that during the 2006 election campaign, the Conservatives promised to fix the bridge and make it safe.

In the wake of the Lac-Mégantic tragedy several months ago, I cannot help but point out the government's failure to understand the importance of railway safety.

The insignificant response I got to a completely legitimate question I asked a few weeks ago is proof of that.

The people of the greater Quebec City area are concerned and have every right to an answer. They need to know that the bridge is not a danger to them and that it is safe for them to use in the coming years, especially given that the volume of traffic is increasing.

Rust is clearly visible, and if CN does not do something to ensure that the bridge is viable, the federal government cannot sit idly by.

I hope that the government understands the urgency and that it will move beyond its long-standing disputes with CN.

[Quebec Bridge, January 29th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people of my riding and the people in the greater Quebec City area and the south shore who use the Quebec Bridge regularly in their travels, I would like to take this time to come back to an important question I asked in the House a few weeks ago.

Following a recent article about the accelerated deterioration of the Quebec Bridge, I asked a rather simple question in the House with a view to reassuring the people of Quebec City who use this route on regular basis.

I asked the government what it was doing to ensure that CN was assuming its share of responsibility and that the bridge was being maintained as it should be to ensure the safety of its users. In response to that question, the hon. member for Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière simply reminded me that the bridge did not belong the federal government and failed to provide any explanation.

I would like to use my remaining time to go over some of the federal government's obligations with the member opposite. It is worth noting that just because the bridge is now the private property of a former crown corporation that has since been privatized, this does not mean that the federal government is no longer responsible for ensuring the safety of the people who use the bridge.

The Quebec Bridge is subject to the federal regulatory framework on railway safety by virtue of the fact that it is crossed by train tracks. I am referring to the Railway Safety Act, which authorizes railway companies to formulate rules on safety operations. Those rules must be approved by the Minister of Transport.

What is more, a major federal regulation also requires railway companies to be equipped with safety management systems. These are official plans for promoting a culture of safety within an organization by requiring all levels of responsibility to report on safety. It is Transport Canada's responsibility to periodically verify the effectiveness of the railways' safety management systems.

If the bridge deteriorates and the rail line that goes underneath it becomes a danger, it is up to the federal government to ensure that the companies that own it—such as CN—take the necessary action to ensure that passengers and goods are transported safely.

I should also point out that the Quebec Bridge is an economic asset to the region. Luc Paradis, the former president of the Quebec City Chamber of Commerce, recently said that the economy of the region—and even the province—relies on the Quebec Bridge, which is why it is so important to keep it in good condition.

Mr. Paradis said that the old bridge, originally built for trains, is the only rail link across the St. Lawrence east of the Victoria Bridge in Montreal. It is used to transport goods and people from one shore to the other. He also said, “If I had to shut down the bridge, even temporarily, Quebec City would suffer, but the province would as well”.

Because of the strategic importance of this bridge to regional economic development, the federal government must ensure that the bridge owners safeguard its long-term viability and ensure adequate long-term maintenance. That is what the two parties agreed to when the bridge was privatized in 1995.

I would also like to remind my colleague that the bridge was designated as a national historic site of Canada in 1995. It is the longest clear-span cantilever bridge in the world and also the first to use the K truss system and significant quantities of nickel steel. It is no less than a masterpiece of civil engineering.

Although the bridge's status as a national historic site grants it no legal protection, the federal government has a moral duty to preserve this structure, not least because it is functional and key to economic activities on both shores.

I will ask again: what is the government doing to ensure that CN fulfills its responsibilities?

[Questions on the Order Paper, January 27th, 2014]

With regard to jobs in the public service between May 2011 and September 2013, broken down by department, located in the ridings of (i) Portneuf–Jacques-Cartier, (ii) Charlesbourg–Haute-Saint-Charles, (iii) Louis-Hébert, (iv) Louis-Saint-Laurent, (v) Québec, (vi) Beauport–Limoilou: (a) how many positions were cut; and (b) how many full-time and part-time employees were hired?

[Situation in Ukraine, December 10th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, we are approaching the end of a debate that I believe has been very fruitful, with the exception of a sour note from a member who sees Communism everywhere. He might want to lighten up a bit. We would prefer to forget that speech. We must provide our collective support to Ukrainians.

I would like to put a question to my colleague, who gave an excellent speech. Could he tell us how we should support the actions of the Ukrainian people?

[Situation in Ukraine, December 10th, 2013]

Mr. Chair, could the hon. member tell us whether Canada has taken any steps with the international community to suggest solutions or to help find a democratic solution to this conflict?

[Situation in Ukraine, December 10th, 2013]

Mr. Chair, nearly 1.3 million Canadians have Ukrainian ancestors. In 2009, Canada sent $25 million in aid. The purpose of Canada's international development program in Ukraine is to increase economic opportunities and to promote a healthy democracy.

Could the member speak to the condition of democracy now, as well as before and during the crisis? How does she think Ukraine will be able to emerge from this crisis?

[Situation in Ukraine, December 10th, 2013]

Mr. Chair, in Kiev, riot squads pushed back protestors who were blocking access to government offices. The more than one million Canadians of Ukrainian descent think this crisis situation is completely unacceptable.

Could the member tell us a bit more about Canada's historic and current relationship with Ukraine?

[Situation in Ukraine, December 10th, 2013]

Mr. Chair, could the hon. member tell us what economic and political ties between the European Union and the Ukraine mean for this country's future?