Monique Guay

[International Women's Day, March 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, in 2000, the women of Quebec joined with their sisters in order to achieve recognition for the rights of women and the important role their words and deeds play in shaping the world we live in.

Five years later, the women of Quebec and elsewhere are pursuing that commitment in their legitimate ambition to change the world.

Francine MacKenzie, who left us in 1988, far too soon, said; “To gain access to power, any kind of power, is to assume responsibility. In their quest for power, women are not demanding one more right but rather the possibility of doing their duty. Not wanting something for the sake of wanting it, but rather wanting to focus their freedom on a project that will require accountability to others.”

The Bloc Québécois salutes the determination, the audacity, the generosity, the tenacity and the courage of the women of Quebec and elsewhere. You share a commitment with the men and children of Quebec to a world based on the values of justice and equality.

[The Environment, February 25th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, some, like Quebec and its manufacturing sector for example, have made an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and others, like the auto industry in Ontario, refuse to do their part.

Is the minister aware that his choice amounts to rewarding those who do nothing and doubling the cost to those who do make an effort?

[The Environment, February 25th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the intentions of the Minister of the Environment became much clearer yesterday, when he told the industry, “Bring me your tons of greenhouse gas emissions and we will give you funding”.

Did the Minister of the Environment not confirm in his own words yesterday that, in addition to continuing to subsidize major polluters, he will be giving them another gift by adopting the polluter-paid principle?

[The Budget, February 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Liberal government brought in a budget that once again isolates Quebec within Canada. With an unusual degree of transparency, the government has continued its Canadian nation building project, with no regard for Quebec's values and its distinct nature.

Quebeckers were expecting the Prime Minister to increase its share of equalization and loosen the financial stranglehold on Quebec and the provinces, which he himself orchestrated when he was finance minister.

But that did not happen. Despite the fact that he is awash in surpluses of our money, he has once again denied the existence of the fiscal imbalance and has not considered it important to support Quebec and the provinces in their efforts to meet their pressing needs in health care, education and income security.

By his budget choices and more clearly than ever, the Prime Minister of Canada has just told Quebeckers that Quebec will never reach its full potential until it achieves complete sovereignty.

[National Defence, February 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has always stated that, in the absence of a written guarantee that there would be no weaponization of space, Canada would not take part in the missile defence shield.

Since the information obtained is completely contrary to the written guarantees he was seeking, should the Prime Minister not take advantage of the NATO summit to clearly state that Canada will not take part in the American missile defence shield?

[National Defence, February 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, top commanders in the U.S. army are not discounting the possibility that the American missile defence shield could be used to destroy satellites or spacecraft, in defending American territory.

Does the Minister of National Defence not agree that this is in complete opposition to statements by the Minister of Foreign Affairs that Canada would never participate in the weaponization of space?

[Parental Leave, February 18th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, an agreement with Quebec is still $275 million away. Since 1996, no less than four federal ministers and four Quebec provincial ministers have attempted to negotiate a parental leave agreement, but without success. The ministers may change, but what does not change is the federal government's refusal to negotiate an agreement that satisfies Quebec. The deadline is today.

Can the minister tell us—yes or no—if an agreement has finally been reached with Quebec?

[Parental Leave, February 18th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, today is the deadline for reaching a final agreement in the matter of parental leave. If there is no agreement today, the implementation of the program will be compromised for 2006, and Quebec families will once again be paying the price for the federal government's stubbornness.

Does the minister realize that by refusing to reach an agreement with Quebec beginning this year, he is delaying by one more year the date when Quebec families will be covered by an improved system? Do we have to wait until 2007 for some action in the parental leave file?

[Child Care, February 11th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, not only were promises made by the Prime Minister, but the former Minister of Social Development declared, and I quote, “There are no strings attached” which means that Quebec was receiving the money unconditionally. That declaration does not match the words of the Minister of Social Development who talks about national child care standards.

What is the minister waiting for before making adjustments and transferring the share of funding that belongs to Quebec, without any conditions?

[Child Care, February 11th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, during the last election campaign, the Prime Minister declared that Quebec would get its share of child care funding without being held accountable to Ottawa. The Minister of Social Development said yesterday that the provinces who refuse to turn in accounts will simply be left out of the program.

Will the government be able to bring the minister back into line and insist that he respect the promises made during the election campaign and give Quebec its proper share of the child care program—without conditions?