Diane Bourgeois

[Health, December 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, for years now the Bloc Quebecois has maintained that the federal government has not been pulling its weight in health care funding. Eighteen months and $15 million later, the Romanow commission has acknowledged what we already knew.

If the Liberal government had not tried to buy some time with this commission, it could have immediately transferred funds to Quebec and the provinces. Instead of putting the $8.9 billion surplus into the debt, it could have transferred some of it to health.

Five billion dollars for health means $1.2 billion for Quebec. This represents, for the riding of Berthier—Montcalm, over $21 million. With $21 million we could hire 75 more physicians, 50 more nurses, and over $2 million worth of equipment.

The people of Berthier—Montcalm have had enough waiting. Now they want their fair share of that money to spend on health.

[Child Poverty, November 26th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, twelve years after a unanimous vote in the House to eliminate child poverty, there are still a million poor children in Canada today. We know that if there are poor children, it is because there are poor parents.

If the government wants to really do something to help poor children, what is it waiting for to increase funding for social housing and to make the rules for employment insurance more flexible?

[Violence Against Women, November 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, on this International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women, I would like to highlight the efforts of advocacy and feminist groups whose mission is to fight the effects of violence against women and children.

The threats, abuse, human rights violations, violence, intimidation, harassment and discrimination suffered by millions of women around the world is unacceptable, and we must not tolerate it.

As a member of Parliament, and on behalf of all the members of the Bloc Quebecois, I thank all those who have contributed on whatever scale to fighting the devastating effects of violence.

I would also like to make my colleagues in the House aware of the importance of doing all we can to fight this phenomenon. Therefore, I would invite the federal government to provide funding for the struggle to eliminate violence against women.

[Social Housing, November 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, in order to deal with the current housing crisis, including in Montreal, the federal government told us loud and clear that it had joined efforts with a coalition of community groups from the City of Montreal and the Quebec government, under operation Solidarité 5 000 logements. However, this initiative is experiencing major delays because, among other reasons, of the lack of available land.

Could the federal government establish standards for Crown corporations that come under its jurisdiction, such as the CBC, so that these corporations take into account government policies, including in the area of housing—

[Social Housing, October 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, as we speak, the Front populaire en réaménagement urbain de Montréal, in conjunction with the Canadian networks, is holding a rally on Parliament Hill, calling for an appropriate response to the urgent social housing needs of the population.

It is clear that the federal government is continuing to drive the people of Canada, and the people of Quebec in particular, into poverty by providing blatantly inadequate funding to meet glaring housing needs.

Now that the government is investing again in affordable housing, the Bloc Quebecois believes it is imperative that it deal with the issue of social housing, which concerns the most disadvantaged families.

The Bloc Quebecois joins all the representatives in demanding further investment, and reminds the federal government of its duty, responsibility and commitments to combat poverty and to meet the basic housing needs of the public.

[Health Care System, October 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, today we have been treated to a true plea in favour of Canada's health care system.

I now have the opportunity for a few minutes to condemn what is going on in the House. We have wasted time on a meaningless and empty motion, as my colleague said. I do not know how much it costs the House to talk into a void for a day on a motion that asks that we take note that discussions are currently taking place. We are all able to read the papers and everyone knows that discussions are underway.

I do not know how much this type of day has cost. What I do know is that community organizations, organizations that work in the area of mental health for women and organizations that help families, are having trouble making ends meet and they would not want us to spend money in an alleged attempt to control the problems in health care. They would not want us to spend money on empty talk about motions that do not mean anything.

Today, I read a document from Carrefour familial des moulins. This organization is involved, among other things, in providing respite care to women who have had difficult deliveries. It also provides young women aged 13, 14, 15, 16 years and older with eggs, milk, orange juice and the like. These are single mothers who did not marry and are in school. Carrefour familial helps women with several children by providing classes on food preparation, teaching them to help themselves out of poverty.

Carrefour familial describes its precarious financial situation and asks “When will something be done to help us?”

Today, all the discussions I have heard dealt only with immediate care. I heard nothing about prevention. Nothing either about the overall health of women. Looking after the health of women, children and families requires being able to take an overall look at what is causing the health problems.

The problem with this government is that it does not have any global vision of how to address health problems. The World March of Women asked “Where are the federal Liberal MPs, the government MPs, from Quebec?”

I must not be the only member to have starving community groups in her riding. I must not be the only one to receive requests from women's groups, shelters, family centres, early childhood centres. Where are these federal Liberal MPs from Quebec? They are keeping quiet right now. They are not asking for money for the people in their ridings.

Where are the federal Liberal MPs from outside Quebec who have French-speaking communities in their ridings? These communities came to my office telling me they did not have access to health care in French, nor to psychosocial services.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to at least describe one situation, and to vent, because this is infuriating today.

[Correctional Service Canada, October 24th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, for several months, the climate in federal correctional institutions has been unpleasant. An in-house survey commissioned by the President of the Treasury Board revealed that 20% of employees, regardless of gender, experienced some kind of harassment without anything being done to remedy the situation.

Will the new Solicitor General of Canada show the leadership necessary to put an end to this and ensure a harassment-free work environment?

[Nuclear Safety and Control Act, October 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise this afternoon to speak to the amendment put forward by my colleague from Jonquière. This amendment says, and I quote:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:

Bill C-4, An Act to amend the Nuclear Safety and Control Act, be not now read a second time but that it be read a second time this day six months hence.

I think this is very wise. People have mixed views about nuclear control regulations.

If I refer to the bill introduced by the Minister of Natural Resources, it seeks to amend subsection 46(3) of the Nuclear Safety and Control Act by replacing it by the following, and I quote:

Where, after conducting a hearing, the Commission is satisfied that there is contamination referred to in subsection (1), the Commission may, in addition to filing a notice under subsection (2), order that the owner or occupant of, or any other person with a right to or interest in, the affected land or place take the prescribed measures to reduce the level of contamination.

The enactment amends the Nuclear Safety and Control Act to vary the classes of persons that the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission may order to take measures to reduce the level of contamination of a place.

At first, there was no agreement as to who should be responsible for cleaning up. Public opinion is divided on the issue. As we will see later on, this is not the only problem; there is also the fact that the government does not think other forms of energy could be developed to replace nuclear energy, and I will get back to that later on in my speech.

As it is presently drafted, the legislation says that the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission may, and I quote:

—order that the owner or occupant of, or any other person with a right to or interest in, the affected land or place take the prescribed measures to reduce the level of contamination.

Currently it says “any other person with a right to or interest in, the affected land or place”, which is very broad.

This means that any person with an interest may be made to pay in case of a spill or any other kind of problem. A bank that loaned money to a plant could thus be sued and incur what would inevitably be very high costs should the land have to be decontaminated.

Already there are people saying “Wait a minute”. Banks cannot be allowed to shirk their obligations. For instance, a bank that sells a house with a hidden flaw has an obligation just as would any private citizen selling a house. It is the same here. People with a financial interest in a project would not have to face up to their obligations. I think this is an element worth thinking about and taking into account.

Already, public opinion is not very favourable. Right from the start the Bloc Quebecois has believed this amendment not to be appropriate.

The reason why I support the amendment aimed at postponing consideration of the bill for six months or ten years, or putting off indefinitely making decisions regarding the deregulation of the nuclear industry is simply that, on the one hand, nuclear energy comes with too many risks and, on the other, that other so-called renewable energies could be used.

At the international level, there are a number of countries that are no longer interested in nuclear energy. These states are turning to something safer, cleaner and cheaper.

I could mention the case of Germany, which just made the historic decision to gradually stop using nuclear energy. In so doing, Germany is following the example of many other countries that have also concluded that this type of energy is not good. These countries include the United States, Spain, Italy, Great Britain, Austria and Sweden. It is rumoured that Canada is considering doing without nuclear energy.

As a consumer, as an ordinary citizen, I believe that Canada is thinking about doing without nuclear energy. However, the government wants to amend the legislation to make it more flexible, because otherwise no bank will want to invest in nuclear energy. This is fishy. This smells of privatization and of leaving this sector to foreign interests. I have no guarantee that these interests will act with caution, as I would with the government.

I want to get back to those countries that want to drop nuclear energy. The “Sortir du Nucléaire” network is a federation of close to 250 French associations that have been fighting for years against the use of nuclear energy. This network hopes that the example of Germany will make investors think, particularly certain large businesses and banks. The power to make decisions belongs to politicians, but they cannot ignore the public's determination to drop nuclear energy for safety reasons.

In western Europe, Finland, Great Britain, France and Switzerland, as I mentioned earlier, also expect to soon opt out of nuclear energy.

What could replace nuclear energy? The Bloc Quebecois has made proposals, including using wind energy. In Quebec alone, the wind industry could help create over 15,000 jobs. Wind energy could also be used elsewhere. All across Canada there are provinces where it is windy and where such jobs could be created. Even here in the House, where it is very warm, we could use wind energy.

Canada could sign the Kyoto protocol to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. That would be a step against nuclear energy.

The Bloc Quebecois would like to have a federal investment program in the wind energy industry because it could create at least 15,000 jobs in Quebec, as well as jobs in other provinces.

In my last few minutes, I would like to draw to the attention of the House a fundamental development. In New Brunswick, a Canadian commission has recommended against any investment in the Point Lepreau nuclear plant, saying it would be too expensive. There is no justification for investing $845 million in this operation. Ultimately, the very existence of the plant may have to be reconsidered. Private investors are not interested because they have no guarantee that the government will let them use the plant without assuming the liabilities.

My time is up, but I can tell you it is not easy to make a ten minute speech when it is so hot.

[Canada Pension Plan, October 22nd, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague from Kings—Hants, who, by the way, had the fortitude to warn us against the dreadful partisanship that seems to prevail where the management of the Canada Pension Plan is concerned.

I would like to know if my colleague thinks the money is being well looked after by the government? If so, why? If not, why? And how could we make the administration of this fund more transparent?

[Fédération des agricultrices du Québec, October 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, this year, the Fédération des agricultrices du Québec is celebrating its 15th anniversary. In 1987 a group of women came together to develop a true community and meaningful professional strength in the evolution of agriculture in Quebec.

For the women involved, the challenge at hand was to have the agricultural sector recognize their invisible contributions. In 15 years, these women have established structures giving them access to power and ensuring their right to property. The actions by the women farmers of Quebec have led to significant changes and have eliminated the discriminatory clause that made the spouses of farmers ineligible for grants.

The Bloc Quebecois would like to publically thank the women farmers of Quebec, recognize their merits and encourage them in their work to affirm the place of women in agriculture.