Diane Bourgeois

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I know the minister and President of Treasury Board and am well aware of how attuned she is to the working conditions of public servants. I think she places great importance on respect of the individual. It also seems that health was a very important issue in the throne speech.

This morning, a newspaper article reported on psychological harassment of public servants. Psychological harassment is a very serious thing.

I would like to ask the minister what she intends to do in the very short term to deal with the problem of psychological harassment?

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for this opportunity to add a little more information to my speech, or to at least clarify some of my points.

I think there are tow main aspects arising from my colleague's questions. First, there is the aspect of women's demands. I agree that this needs to be discussed and will respond to his question.

There is one aspect that must not be lost sight of, however. If, in the year 2000, women were making demands, and still are—and in fact were making them earlier than that, when one thinks of the Bread and Roses March—what is always involved is getting their children out of poverty and lessening the poverty of families.

What are these women asking for? They are calling for social measures, not only ad hoc ones, but also measures that will provide them with assistance in getting into the work force.

To take the example of the employment insurance program, how can a woman who has had a family, who has not been able to accumulate the number of weeks required, be able to draw employment insurance benefits? I am sorry to say that self-employed workers are not covered by the parental leave program, and more and more women are trying to make ends meet through this type of employment.

I am being told that my time is up; unfortunately, I will not be able to devote any more time to this extremely important response.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the members opposite for their questions.

I do not have a personal answer to this type of question, as I am not an expert. What I do know, however, is that there are women's groups in Quebec and probably in the other provinces of Canada that work specifically to improve the living conditions of women.

Indeed, when people are educated, when they have a certain level of education, they are able to stay informed about habits that have a negative impact on their health. Obviously, it is very difficult for a woman to see a male doctor and talk about health issues, just as it is difficult for a man to see a female doctor to discuss his prostate. Let us not fool ourselves. It is normal to be shy about some things.

If we advocate having more women professionals to deal with women, then we will have to invest more money in organizations that will be there to help women. Incidentally, in closing, I would just like to remind the member opposite that during the World March of Women, there were 13 demands that came from one Canadian committee of the World March of Women. Women were asking for money to put an end to violence, obviously, but also for women's centres, sexual assault centres and women's shelters.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 3rd, 2002]

88Mr. Speaker, it is my turn to have an opportunity to express my views on the Speech from the Throne. As you are no doubt aware, I am the Bloc Quebecois critic on the status of women. As such, I will try to reflect the concerns of the women of Canada and of Quebec in my speech. The throne speech we have been treated to has added nothing new, as a number of my colleagues have already pointed out in the past few days.

I would go still further: in this political last will and testament, the government is perpetuating the social disparities and social exclusion affecting the majority of the population, that is women.

Behind all the empty promises, it is impossible to detect any real commitment by the federal government. Worse still, this speech is indicative of the government's total lack of concern for women.

The federal government is announcing that it will throw a few crumbs to women, thus continuing to impoverish them, their families and, consequently, their children. Crumbs, because women are the ones most likely to be poor. Ottawa has done nothing to ensure them of fair treatment, economic and social parity.

The women of Quebec and Canada have always shouldered their share of responsibilities and they wish to remind the Prime Minister that federal cuts to transfer payments earmarked for services and activities relating to health, education and social programs have worsened the poverty of women and, as a result, of their children as well.

Women thought it wise to wait for the Prime Minister's clarifications in his speech following the reading of the Speech from the Throne. They were right to do so. There is nothing anywhere indicating any measures aimed at improving women's living conditions; nothing about the demands made by the world march of women; nothing about the interference in areas under Quebec jurisdiction; nothing but an intrusion that will bring more upheaval of which the population will bear the brunt; nothing but a government strategy for bolstering its centralizing power.

Once again, we find that women, who make up more than 50% of the population, are the ones left out of the government leader's political testament. Not only are they cut out of the will, they are totally ignored and frustrated of their right to be given the consideration they deserve. This lack of consideration, this ignoring of their existence, clearly sums up the situation of the women of Quebec and the women of Canada as well.

Battered women often tell us that it is far easier to get over a blow or an insult than to survive being treated with indifference or ignored, as they often are. They also tell us that economic dependency adds to their distress and greatly lessens their chances of escaping from their situation.

However, in its statements, the government has shown that it does not understand the problems women face; it is therefor perpetuating the cycle of violence. Worse, because of their lack of interest for the plight of women in Canada and in Quebec, the Prime Minister and his government are sending a clear message that they are not taking into account the differences and specificities of both women and the provinces.

Yet, in September 2001, the meeting of the federal, provincial and territorial ministers and secretaries of state responsible for the status of women pointed out the commitments and the scope of the investments made by the Quebec government to improve living conditions for women. All the ministers and secretaries of state in Canada showed a great deal of interest in the Quebec's achievements, and they stressed how innovative the measures taken by Quebec in all areas relating to the status of women were.

The ministers and secretaries of state also pledged to strengthen the economic independence of women and to ensure their active participation in the labour market. They also pledged to continue their action, so that tax policies take into account the unpaid work done by natural caregivers. That was one year ago. I should also point out that the concept of parental leave put forward by the federal government was openly criticized, while the one presented by the Quebec government was truly innovative.

Quebec women expected, and this is normal, to find in the federal government's priorities concrete measures to properly deal with the chronic poverty in which they and their children are living. This fine Speech from the Throne does claim that, as a democratic society, we can define our needs and rest assured that they will be met. But who will hear us? And what guarantees do we have that we will get the support and help necessary to get our children out of poverty? There are no such guarantees in this speech.

Women now know that this government does not intend to recognize them and provide them with adequate support. Nothing in this speech guarantees a better quality of life for all women and their families. On the contrary, the government will continue to exclude women, which will have the effect of keeping them poor. Worse still, the government will continue to boldly and contemptuously bring about social disparities, leading to more poverty, including in the middle class, thus dashing the hopes these families have of improving their financial lot and playing an active role in social and community development. Through its indifference and its inability to recognize the particular problems, the government is once again forcing women to shoulder the tax burden of the inadequate and outdated measures it continues to promote.

Women reflect the province they come from. The women of Canada and Quebec are finding fair and intelligent solutions to the many social problems. Over the years, they have built up expertise and innovated with solutions that address the social and economic concerns of all members of the public. They have invested in a social vision, without waiting for the federal government to support them. They have mistakenly believed that, over time, not only would the government recognize their efforts, but that it would ensure adequate and decent funding in order to help them in the fight against poverty, just as Quebec has tried to go beyond the limits imposed by a centralizing federal government which deliberately ignores its distinct character.

The federal government is no more taking into account the demands of women than it is the legitimate demands of Quebec. This is an attitude that defies common sense and logic.

In the coming months, women and the Bloc Quebecois will be looking closely at the motivations and behaviour of a government which is doing nothing to eliminate the poverty of women and which is, on the contrary, continuing by its stubbornness to keep us in poverty. Canadians, like Quebeckers, are entitled to the respect and recognition of the federal government.

It is time that this government took note that there are areas, programs and activities where women are exercising their skills according to the needs of their community and according to the needs of their province.

It is also time that the government stopped interfering in programs under provincial jurisdiction. If it wants to fight poverty, it would make more sense for it to invest in the autonomy of women and the provinces, rather than eradicating a chronic problem across the board, which is of no help.

Children are poor because their mothers are regularly victimized by social injustices caused by the lack of respect for differences and the ignorance of the federal government when it comes to the specific reality of women in Quebec.

[Award Winners at Gala des Mercuriades, June 13th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, at the recent gala des Mercuriades, two municipalities from my riding particularly distinguished themselves.

I want to congratulate the City of Boisbriand for being named the 2002 City of the Year. Mayor Robert Poirier, his administrators and the residents of Boisbriand have every reason to be proud of this honour.

Even though they are very affected by the upcoming closure of the GM plant, all are making huge efforts to maintain their town's excellent financial situation and to ensure an enviable quality of life.

I also want to mention that the town of Rosemère distinguished itself by winning the “Coup de coeur” award for its taxation system.

Mayor Deschênes was able to manage efficiently the municipality's finances, thus maintaining one of the best taxation levels in Quebec.

The Bloc Quebecois sends its warm congratulations to those who are responsible for these successes, and it is very honoured to represent them in the House of Commons.

[Government Contracts, June 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister is doing everything he can to avoid a public inquiry, is it not because he knows that he is the one who would be at the centre of this inquiry, since he has known for two years and he tried to cover up the whole thing?

[Government Contracts, June 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, in June 1994, the Prime Minister said:

The trust in institutions is as vital to a democracy as the air we breathe, a trust that once shattered, is difficult, almost impossible to rebuild.

By not allowing a public debate on the whole issue of sponsorship just before the election campaign, is the Prime Minister not the one who will have done the most to undermine public trust in our political institutions?

[Petitions, June 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I table a petition signed by people in my riding.

The signatories are concerned by the situation being experienced by rural route mail couriers who have, as we know, been fighting for some years to obtain Canada Post's recognition of their right to negotiate collectively and freely.

The petitioners call for these people, most of whom are women, to be treated fairly and given decent working conditions.

[Lise Waters, June 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, a recent article by Pierre Jury in Le Droit caught my attention. It was about an exceptional resident of the Outaouais, Lise Waters, a retired teacher and a volunteer for over 30 years with youth in sport.

As Pierre Jury wrote, Lise Waters is a woman who works for absolutely nothing, for the pleasure of giving, for the pleasure of staying young at heart.

President for the past 12 years of the Unité régionale de loisir et de sport de l’Outaouais, each election finds her hoping that she will be able to make way for someone younger. Unfortunately, but fortunately for the clientele, when no candidates step forward, the sexagenarian generously takes on the job, anxious not to leave a gap.

The Bloc Quebecois joins with me in paying tribute to Lise Waters and wishes her many more years of success among the young people of whom she is so fond.

[Public Safety Act, 2002, May 30th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, a while ago I had the opportunity to speak on Bill C-55. After that, I received two phone calls from women's groups, ones that represent not just Quebec, but all of Canada. They are listening as we speak, and I send them greetings. They have been so kind as to indicate to me the position of these two groups as far as this debate is concerned.

I will try to convey what they think in a polite, honest and transparent manner. I have no prepared text and I will try to reflect what they think as faithfully as possible. Anyone wishing to verify this can have the names of the two women's groups.

This morning I was saying that women are greatly concerned about the security of their children and families. There is no problem there. They realize that Bill C-55 arises out of the events of September 11, but they express outrage at the haste with which this bill is being debated in the House, when they have been demanding for ages that their safety be ensured in the face of the violence they have to deal with constantly.

They also express some skepticism as far as the intentions of this bill are concerned. I am reporting what they told me. They see it as official hypocrisy, for the simple reason that they are well aware that the women of Afghanistan had been living with terrorism for more than 20 years without any reaction by the international community until the events of September 11.

These women pointed out to me that we live in the era of globalization. This morning I consulted yesterday's news clippings. One of them read “Globalization: the phenomenon of prostitution”. This phenomenon exists in Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto. We know that these are the hubs for it. When a girl services dozens of clients a day, her security is of no importance.

They also pointed that we in Canada are currently facing a horrifying situation of dealing in weapons, drugs and women. All of this is connected with organized crime. There is no law to ensure the safety of women and children in this context.

When a bill such as Bill C-55 on public safety is introduced, these women feeling it is lacking in judgment. How will this bill provide any more safety for women, when there is no law in place at this time to protect them from violent men, or violent gangs which can at any time terrorize or hurt their children?

A spokesperson for one of these groups told me that these women had no faith in this bill. The government introduces legislation to deal with hazardous products, but not with men who are a danger to children and women. Why is that? There is a lot of talk about legislation on sexual predators, but none is as harsh as this one.

Yesterday, these women watched the House of Commons debates on television. Even the Prime Minister downplays violence against women. Yesterday, these women expressed outrage. It had escaped my attention, but women are very vigilant about this issue, and they heard the Prime Minister try to defend himself or one of his ministers, by saying “One could ask a member whether he beat his wife yesterday”. The women who called me earlier were really outraged.

They told me that the Canadian parliament was passing a bill whose harshness the government was never able to justify. But does violence against women and children, which is being downplayed, not justify very strict legislation with no loopholes? If the Canadian government cannot ensure the safety of women and children in its own jurisdiction, how will it ensure public safety?

This is in reference to what I said earlier in the day. I wanted those who are listening to us to know about this. When two women's groups phone to say “Perhaps this is worth mentioning”, I think it is important.

I want to make one last comment. I was reading the press review for today, May 30, including an article published in La Presse , under the title “Hells Angels Invited to Queen Jubilee”. Since we have very close ties with Great Britain, these women told me “What assurance do we have that, some day, the Hells Angels will not be invited here, in Canada, and that their actions will not be condoned?”

As we know, many women work for the Hells Angels, who control prostitution. How many Hells Angels have already killed women and children, planted bombs that killed women and children? All this makes us wonder.

I also want to salute these two women's groups for giving me an opportunity to rise and to talk about their daily lives. We, who are responsible for the status of women, often need the support of women's groups who tell us “This is what it is like in real life, in our everyday life”.