Diane Bourgeois

[Microbreweries, May 5th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the microbreweries, the Competition Bureau has stopped its investigation although it says that if the major breweries were to continue their practices, this could hinder free competition.

Although the Competition Bureau has identified practices that would have a negative impact on microbreweries, such as monopolizing shelf space, how can the Minister of Industry explain the Competition Bureau's decision to stop its investigation?

[Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, May 5th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for advising me that I was not in my place. It is probably, no doubt, a lack of experience. This is the first time this has happened to me.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve a question. He told us that the bill mentions that the commissioner would be somewhat like an ombudsman and be the liaison between the federal government and the general public, if I understand correctly. I would like him to tell us more about this.

Second, the hon. member talked about the federal government interfering in Quebec's prerogatives. With respect to the social union, could he tell us what vision the federal government, in its actions toward the provinces, is showing?

[Status of Women, April 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, on March 4 of this year, the United Nations expressed severe criticism concerning the status of Canadian women. The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women calls on the Canadian government to intervene rapidly to stop the rising tide of discrimination against women in Quebec and Canada.

The United Nations committee spotlights the damaging effects on girls and women of the cuts to social programs over the past decade. They are the first people affected by the Liberal government's slashing of funding.

The UN committee says it is astonished that in a country as rich as Canada, 54% of single mothers, 43% of first nations women, 37% of women of colour, and 48% of new immigrant women are poor.

It is intolerable that women should bear the brunt of government cuts. We in the Bloc Quebecois deplore this government's deliberate weakening of women's living conditions in recent years.

[Health, April 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the SARS epidemic continues to be a very serious situation that requires a great deal of our attention. While prudence is called for, we must not give in to panic, but concentrate instead on appropriate measures to ensure and safeguard public health.

This tragedy that has already claimed many victims around the world must be controlled as soon as possible in order to contain the risk of SARS spreading.

The Toronto area has unfortunately been hit very hard by this epidemic. The Bloc Quebecois sympathizes with all those who have been affected, directly or indirectly, by SARS.

We are convinced that it remains imperative to take all necessary action, and the government can count on our full cooperation to that end.

[Social Condition, April 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I know I do not have much time to convey the opinions of the various ACEFs in my riding. An ACEF, or Association coopérative d'économie familiale, defends the rights of consumers, the disadvantaged and the poor. Nevertheless, I want to express, on their behalf and my own, all the dismay I feel with regard to the governing party, which refuses to support this motion that would, essentially, right a wrong.

It is a wrong that poor and disadvantaged people have had to live with for many years, possibly more than 20, but especially since the MacKay report made its recommendations. These recommendations were made in 1998 and accepted by the House Standing Committee on Finance. The committee not only accepted but promoted these recommendations, which were aimed at recognizing that poor people have trouble getting recognition in our society, particularly from banks and telecommunications agencies.

It is appalling that members are playing on the fact that they do not know what the motion means when it refers to “social condition”. Everyone knows what this term means. There is no way to quibble about the specific purpose of this motion, because everyone agrees that poor people do not have access to telecommunications services like everyone else. They are being denied the right to have bank accounts. But we are going to quibble about words. It is shameful.

A bank account is a form of social recognition—a recognition of social condition; it is a right. We must respect people who have problems. Mr. Speaker, if you had a child with impaired mobility, if you were a single mother with a young baby and a sick child, and you had to get to a bank to cash your social assistance cheque, you might find that difficult. If you were alone, disabled, receiving an income supplement from Quebec or a province, and you had to go somewhere to cash your federal government cheque—which should be good—and they ask you for a deposit and freeze a certain amount of money for 10 days in order to guarantee this cheque, would you not find this shameful? That is what people are living through every day.

People simply used the wording of the motion to condemn the federal government's lack of action. Back then, it was the Minister of Finance, who is running for the Liberal leadership, who did not do his job. The Liberal Party has not done its job and has forced people to make a detour and move a motion to recognize social condition as a ground, because the government has not recognized it. The government has failed to recognize that there are poor people who need protection. It is shameful.

On behalf of all of Quebec's ACEFs, the ACEF in East Montreal, the ACEF in North Montreal, the south west ACEF, the ACEF on the south shore, the ACEF on Île-Jésus, the ACEF in the Basses-Laurentides and all of the organizations that these ACEFs represent, I say to the current Liberal federal government that it has demonstrated no concern or compassion for people who live in poverty.

Contrary to what my colleague from the Liberal Party said earlier, social condition has been clearly defined by committees of this House, and on numerous occasions. Human rights are entrenched in the Constitution and protected by other legislation at the provincial and territorial level across the country.

We are arguing that even if social and economic rights are not clearly defined, governments must prevent them from being abused, for example, discrimination based on one's social condition. As for those who say they do not know what social condition means, that is simply a way to skirt the issue, and it is shameful.

I would like to thank my colleagues from Vancouver East and St. John's West for their support. This shows that they are close to their constituents. I find it hard to believe that there is even one member of this House who would vote against this motion, who would not accept it. I am sure that every single member has, on at least one occasion, heard from a disadvantaged person, a poor person who has had problems making ends meet and was not able to open a bank account, to make withdrawals or to use an automatic teller.

Do you know what this ends up costing? The fringe banks referred to charge $1.25, if not $1.50, to withdraw money and if anyone wants to cash a cheque the charges amount to usury.

The bank chooses its customers to an increasing extent. As my colleague from Sherbrooke has said, they have to investigate, and the people without a bank account are told, “You are not a profitable proposition for us, do you have $5 to open an account?” Even then, they will get no service. They are told, “Go elsewhere if you want service”. That is awful.

And how much does it cost these people to cash a government cheque? How much does it cost seniors who receive the guaranteed income supplement—if they manage to get it—to cash their cheque if they have no account? How else can they cash it?

I would not wish it on anyone here to get so disabled or sick that they are unable to get to a bank, because they will have problems cashing cheques. How can a person cash a cheque if they have no bank account? At an ATM? Not everyone can use those machines, for instance seniors who do not see well. What about a single mother with four children who goes with them to the bank to try to get her cheque cashed but has no account. How will she manage?

I see that my colleagues over there are nodding their heads. Are they going to be able to support this motion in a while? They are nodding yes. And will they? I hope so.

I just wanted to speak to this issue because I find it shameful to be debating wording without paying any attention to people's social condition.

[Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, April 8th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I find this bill very interesting in itself. Still, I think it is very general — it just gives very general guidelines.

I am wondering if the hon. member has foreseen the details: that is my first question. Second, with whom are the employees going to negotiate? At present, the employees are paid out of public funds, even though they are our employees. What position would we occupy in negotiations in such a case?

[Invisible Work, April 1st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, April 1 is Invisible Work Day. I want to pay tribute to the contribution made by all the women and men who work behind the scenes, particularly those who work in the home and volunteers in the community.

Close to 70% of the work accomplished in our society is unpaid work done by women. Statistics Canada estimates the annual value of unpaid work to be between $235 billion and $374 billion.

I am taking this opportunity to make hon. members, and particularly the federal government, aware of the need to recognize invisible work. The lack of measures remains an obstacle for women and, all too often still, it traps them in a spiral of poverty.

My Bloc Quebecois colleagues join me in paying tribute to the women and men who work behind the scenes to help build our society.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2003, April 1st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for this opportunity to explain how women feel about February's budget.

The federal budget, we believe, does not respond to the needs and concerns of women. Furthermore, it is far from recognizing the fundamental connection between social policy and economic policy, despite what the Minister of Finance says.

This budget and this government have ignored women and will continue to do so.

In October 2000, during the World March of Women, women demanded that the federal government take steps to end poverty and violence. Three years later, these demands have not been taken into consideration, and nothing has been done to help women cope with the poverty they, in particular, face because they are more vulnerable.

Usually, poverty is measured in terms of income. However, poverty also results from other factors and from a lack of access to various resources.

Housing is the first such factor. It plays an extremely important structural role. A roof over one's head, safe adequate accommodation, a place to raise our kids and be self-employed is essential.

Currently, 25,000 low income households in Quebec are battling the shortage of rental units, and over 300,000 other households are grappling with unaffordable housing.

This situation would not exist if Ottawa had not unilaterally stopped all participation in the construction of social housing since 1994, and if it had invested in this area as women and Quebec organizations advocating for renters had asked.

Unfortunately, the federal government insists on investing in affordable housing for, apparently, young persons and self-sufficient seniors. Under the affordability and choice today program, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation is granting home builders subsidies of up to $20,000 each to build this type of housing that will encourage urban areas to become more dense.

Since the owners set the rent, this type of housing has proven inaccessible to the poorest and most vulnerable members of our society. As a result, homelessness is increasing, a problem now affecting women and their families on a longterm basis. At the same time, discrimination against those seeking housing is increasing.

If this government truly wants to support a socio-economic program, it must consider social housing as an investment that ensures a community's long-term interest, which this budget does not do.

Women also suffer a great deal from a lack of access to employment insurance benefits. Since women hold the majority of part time jobs, since their status is often precarious, since they make up the greatest share of the self-employed, and since these jobs do not allow them to accumulate the 600 hours required to qualify for parental leave, sick leave and maternity leave, women are often forced to turn to social assistance to meet their needs.

By making the rules of eligibility for employment insurance more flexible, this government could truly demonstrate that it recognizes the fundamental relationship between social and economic policy.

Women had called for “the surplus in the employment insurance fund to be used to increase benefit payments, extend the benefits period, increase access and improve maternity and parental leave”.

Also, women need true maternity or parental leave. Nothing in this budget mentions the federal government's intention to negotiate with Quebec to reach an agreement for the transfer of employment insurance premiums to Quebec so that it can create a parental insurance plan.

Quebec's parental insurance plan is a new income replacement program designed to replace and strengthen maternity leave and parental leave under the federal government's employment insurance program. With improved eligibility—because self-employed and seasonal workers would qualify—and greater benefits, such as an income replacement rate of up to 75%, women could have children under much better and easier conditions.

A fourth factor that causes poverty is that, right now, old age security does not provide enough to live reasonably. The majority of seniors are women who live alone.

The budget contains nothing in terms of tax measures or other measures for seniors. There are no increases for pensions or old age pensions. Yet, income levels for this segment of the population have been declining steadily. Since women make up more than half of this group, they are the ones, for the most part, that are paying the price.

Safety is also an issue. For many women and children, poverty is often directly linked to family violence. The women taking part in the World March demanded that the federal government allocate “$50 million to front-line, independent, feminist,women-controlled groups committed to ending violence against women, such aswomen’s centres, rape crisis centres and women’s shelters”.

Yet there is no mention of this in the 2003 budget. Judging by the statistics on this phenomenon, which show clearly that it is increasing, what conclusion can one reach about a federal government that has nothing to say about it.

Now for the six weeks of compassionate leave mentioned in the federal budget. Taking care of a disabled person or a person requiring long term care implies that women, who are generally the ones to assume these responsibilities, will quickly become more impoverished, because they have fewer hours available to work for pay.

As a result, any pretence that allowing six weeks of employment insurance on compassionate grounds to those looking after a sick parent, child or spouse will compensate for lost earnings is a kind of “magical thinking”. When people are on EI, they are not making money. On the contrary, they are losing it. On employment insurance people merely exist, period. One might well ask how much money the government makes from the role of natural caregiver.

In closing, I will touch on the fact that the government also announced in its budget a higher ceiling for RRSPs. Even at the present level of $13,500 for this year, I hardly need point out that there are very few women to whom this measure applies.

We could also discuss inadequate health measures. The response I will get is that improvements have been made to the national child benefit and access to child care. In actual fact, however, these actions are so tentative that they will have only minimal impact on women's struggle against poverty.

In Quebec, the Landry government has already put measures in place that meet women's needs, but it is hampered by the fiscal imbalance, which the federal government does not acknowledge.

If the money invested by the federal government in useless programs, in waste and in insufficient transfer payments could go to women, surely their living conditions would be improved.

[Caregivers, March 31st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, a growing number of people are leaving their jobs to help a family member who has a disability or an illness, or who is elderly. These individuals known as caregivers make a difficult choice in staying with a loved one 24 hours a day, seven days a week, without pay.

More often than not, they are women. Indeed, 80% of caregivers are women.

Sadly, last week, this House did not pass Bill C-206, which would have provided caregivers with financial support. Sadder yet, in voting against this bill, the Secretary of State for the Status of Women ignored one of the demands made by the International March of Women.

[Supply Management, March 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the supply management system—a development tool for Quebec's agricultural industry—is being jeopardized by the federal government's lack of leadership.

Supply management provides farmers with stable income from the market without government assistance. The fact that Canada is allowing into the market dairy ingredients and blends that are specifically created to get around the tariff barriers in place threatens the stability of the supply and therefore the income of Quebec's dairy farmers.

The federal government must make a clear commitment to protect the domestic egg, poultry and dairy product markets. The Minister for International Trade must adopt a clear negotiating position in order to protect the interests of farmers and consumers in Quebec.