Gilles Duceppe

[Status of Women, May 6th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, it will really help women to send preachers such as themselves to Africa or to have the Bible translated. What a huge help and so essential. Meanwhile, the government has justified cuts to the Department of Status of Women—it irritates them, does it not?—by saying that it was a financial decision.

How can the government explain that it is spending up to $800,000 on religious groups or sects—because that is what they are—while cutting funding for organizations that are helping women battle poverty on the ground?

[Status of Women, May 6th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, it is just one surprise after another with the Conservative government. Yesterday we learned that it slashed funding for at least a dozen women's groups whose opinions on abortion differ from those of the Conservative Party. Today we learned that the government decided to fund religious groups that believe in the imminent return of the Messiah and translate the Bible into African and Asian dialects.

Will the government admit that the decision to finance religious groups or sects is an ideological decision along the same line as the decision to cut funding for pro-choice women's groups?

[Maternal and Child Health, May 5th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the only thing that will separate Canada from other G8 countries is its backwards attitude.

Yesterday, the Conservatives expended a lot of energy on attacking and attempting to destroy the credibility of a Conservative senator, who said out loud what they have been trying to hide for weeks.

Will the Conservative government stop spreading falsehoods and finally admit that the Conservative senator said out loud what the Conservative caucus thinks about abortion and says about it when they are all alone?

[Maternal and Child Health, May 5th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government cut funding for 12 women's groups that—as luck would have it—had protested the Conservatives' refusal to fund abortion abroad. It seems clear that these cuts were dictated by ideology.

Will the government admit that its real objective, in cutting funding to pro-choice groups, is to silence any opposition to its policies regarding abortions abroad?

[Maternal and Child Health, May 4th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, we are told that the senator does not speak for the government, but she hears what is said and discussed in the Conservative caucus, because she is sitting at the table. Moreover, she was very clear when she told groups to shut up about this issue and said that if they pushed things, there would be an even greater backlash. The Conservatives do not repeat what is said in caucus here, and they do not want to talk about it here, but they are getting ready to change things. That is their true face.

[Maternal and Child Health, May 4th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday a Conservative senator showed the true face of the government. During a speech, she advised pro-choice groups to shut up about the government's decision to stop funding abortions abroad, because that would allow the government to reopen the debate in Canada and turn back the clock on women's rights.

Will the government, which is guided by a regressive, narrow-minded ideology, finally acknowledge its true intentions, which are to reopen the abortion debate in Canada by cutting off funding abroad?

[Access to Information, May 3rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, that is why the government just got an “F” in this subject.

For example, the affair involving the former status of women minister and her husband, Rahim Jaffer, is a prime example of lack of transparency. It has been weeks since the former minister was fired and kicked out of the Conservative caucus, yet we still do not know what was behind the Prime Minister's decision. If the Prime Minister is serious about wanting to silence rumours about this affair, why does he not make the reasons for his decision public?

[Access to Information, May 3rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, on this World Press Freedom Day, it is important to remember just how secretive the Conservative government is. It was elected on a promise of greater transparency, but the fact is that that was just smoke and mirrors. The Conservative government puts more energy into blocking access to information requests from the media than answering them.

Will the Prime Minister admit that in an attempt to control everything, he has made opaqueness, not transparency, his hallmark?

[Appointment of Judges, April 29th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the rules of the system are not the same as Quebec's. Here, the Minister of Justice can appoint whoever he wants, regardless of recommendations that are made.

Whether it is a sign of incompetence or lack of judgment, or both, Justice Léger did not find it appropriate to make his past relationship with the Hells Angels public and was preparing to preside in a case in which they are involved.

How can the Prime Minister accept that his justice minister did not make inquiries before appointing Judge Léger to the Quebec Court of Appeal? And if he did, how does the Prime Minister explain that his justice minister was so blinded by partisanship that he decided to ignore Justice Léger's past?

[Appointment of Judges, April 29th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, this government never stops boasting about being tough on crime. We have recently learned that Jacques Léger, a judge appointed to the Quebec Court of Appeal by the Conservative government, represented the business interests of the Hells Angels for many years. Jacques Léger is a former president of the Conservative Party of Canada.

How can this government, which says it supports law and order, be so partisan as to appoint a judge who represented the Hells Angels to the Quebec Court of Appeal ?