House of Commons photoLost her last election, in 2011, with 32% of the vote.
Standing Orders of the House of Commons March 13th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the member for Beauce. With regard to House of Commons private members' bills that make it through three readings in this House and find a sponsor in the Senate, are they treated differently in the Senate than Senate private members' bills?
Does the Senate treat its own bills differently than those originating in the House?
Points of Order March 13th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, we on this side, the official opposition, the Liberal Party of Canada, support the ruling that the Speaker made the other day and your ruling today upholding the application of that ruling.
I would urge all members in this House, from all parties, including members of the governing party, to keep that ruling in mind when they are preparing their statements, questions, or speeches to take part in the deliberations in the House.
The Economy March 13th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, the choice for Canadians is between 3.2 million new jobs under the Liberals and nearly 300 000 jobs lost under the Conservatives. For visible minorities, the unemployment rate is two to three times higher than for the general population. I think that the choice for Canadians and Quebeckers is clear: jobs with the Liberals or unemployment with the Conservatives.
The Economy March 13th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, under a Liberal government, 3.2 net million jobs were created. We did not have those job losses. Canadians were not losing their jobs like they are under the Conservatives. Young Canadians aged 15 to 24 have lost 29,000 jobs just in February. That brings their total job loss to over 100,000 jobs since October.
Yes, it is very funny, is it not?
While everyone knows that the unemployment rate for visible minority youth is two to three times higher than the--
Madam Speaker, this is another example of disinformation.
In her January 21, 2009 letter to the Conservative Minister of Finance, Quebec's finance minister, Ms. Jérôme-Forget, had this to say:
You provided this information five minutes before the end of the meeting. You did not accept any questions and it was not possible to have any discussion whatsoever despite the importance of the subject.
Accordingly, when we left the November 3 meeting, we did not know the details of the changes you wanted to impose on the equalization program as well as the impact of those changes on Quebec's equalization entitlements in subsequent years.
On the issue of equalization going up 15%, may I say that the Quebec minister also deals with that issue and says quite clearly—
Madam Speaker, on February 2, I asked the Prime Minister a question about equalization transfers to Quebec. The Minister of Finance was the one who failed to answer, even though he stood up and talked for a while.
I had asked the Prime Minister to explain his actions with respect to his handling of changes to Quebec's equalization payments. Instead of addressing the question, the Minister of Finance decided to speak about other matters.
The issue I was addressing was the manner in which the Conservatives decided to alter the equalization program without consulting the Quebec government. It seemed as though the Quebec government was only informed of the changes as an afterthought, long after they were made and with much obfuscation of the facts.
In fact, the Quebec minister of finance, Madame Jérôme-Forget, felt so maltreated by the Conservative government that she had to resort to sending a letter to the Minister of Finance outlining the misinformation being provided to the public on this issue.
I am not at all surprised. We have seen time after time the Conservative government give out misinformation. We saw it today in the House during question period, for instance, when the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance rose and said that the opposition was holding up the stimulus package, which is patently untrue. Anyone who understands how things operate in the House knows it is not true.
It was not surprising therefore to see the Conservative government, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance attempt to obfuscate the whole issue of the changes they brought to the equalization payments.
Madame Jérôme-Forget, in her January 21 letter to the Minister of Finance, states this on page 3:
This is what she said in the letter:
In a letter sent to the Premier of Quebec on March 19, 2007, the Prime Minister of Canada stated that the 2007 federal budget marked—and she quoted the Prime Minister of Canada—"a fundamental return to fiscal balance in Canada" and that "henceforth all governments will receive resources in a way that is based on principles, predictable and defined over a long-term basis to carry out their responsibilities."
She added:
However, barely 18 months later, we are forced to conclude that the federal government has broken its word—
Does that not sound like income trusts?
She went on:
—regarding the equalization program. Quebec is of the view that the federal government cannot change the rules of the game as it sees fit, in particular when we face an economic downturn.
We now know that this is worse than an economic downturn; even the Prime Minister has acknowledged that this is a recession, if one can believe anything he says. He claims to be an economist, but nobody else thinks highly of his university education because he got the numbers all wrong. He was wrong about Canada's economic situation on several fronts, and now, as a result, Canadians are paying the price.
Citizenship and Immigration March 11th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism tried to sweep under the rug the fact that he appointed Pharès Pierre to the Immigration and Refugee Board. How can Mr. Pierre, who is closely linked to the Aristide regime, pretend to have the impartiality required to rule on the status of his compatriots seeking asylum here? How will Mr. Pierre avoid an apparent conflict of interest if one day he refuses to grant asylum to one of his formal political rivals?
“I did not know. If I had known, I would not have done so.” That is all the minister has to say. He tells us that what is done is done, and is trying to pacify us by saying that he accepts responsibility. So the minister should show us that he is taking responsibility. What is he waiting for to tell Mr. Pierre unequivocally that he must step down immediately, before he is dismissed by cabinet?
Status of Women March 9th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, according to the International Labour Organization, women will be relatively harder hit by the economic crisis. The Conservative government's economic stimulus plan focuses on areas that employ more men than women, such as construction and engineering.
Why has the Minister of State (Status of Women) not made a concerted effort to protect women's jobs during the economic crisis?
Government Spending March 9th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance is still refusing to tell us how, exactly, he plans to spend the $3 billion.
For 11 months now, the government has been sitting on $4 billion allocated to infrastructure spending. Now it wants a blank cheque for another $3 billion, but it does not want to tell Canadians just how it plans to spend the money.
Why? Does the government have a plan for the $3 billion or not? If it does, can it tell Canadians what that plan is?
Status of Women March 5th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, March 8 is International Women's Day.
The majority of the world's poor are women. On average, women earn 40% less than men for the same work.
Throughout the world, the current economic downturn will make things worse for women because the hospitality and retail sectors, which employ primarily women, will be especially affected.
Next week I will be attending a reception held by Black Women's Civic Engagement Network to salute black women in Canada whose leadership, influence and accomplishments have paved the way to success for future generations.
As elected members of a democratic country, we have the moral obligation to achieve true gender equality throughout Canada.