Nicole Demers

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, March 30th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am also rising for the second time to speak to this issue, which is particularly important to me.

I am responsible for status of women issues, and the last time I rose in the House to speak to this bill, which was then Bill C-23, I did not have enough time to make an eloquent speech, because all I did was read out the names of the women who worked in unions and who had been killed because they were union activists. Naming the women killed in 2008 took up all of my time.

Despite what the Minister of Labour had the audacity to say this morning, things have unfortunately not changed, and it is wrong to believe that other countries are working with Colombia and have signed free trade agreements with Colombia, fully aware of the human rights issues.

That is all very easy for us because we are far from Colombia. We are very far from the people who are suffering. We are very far from the people who are being killed. It is easy for us to say we can use human relations to improve the fate of people who have only known suffering so far and whose rights have been denied. It is very easy to say.

It is easy as well to think that a free trade agreement can improve the living conditions of Colombians. It is easy to think such a thing, but we are not that naïve. On this side of the House—at least in this party because I should not speak for the other one—we are not naïve. Our eyes are wide open.

The government is agreeing to sign an accord with a country whose government is widely known to be shot through with corruption, a country that engages in international drug trafficking, a country that still commits acts of violence and even murder on a regular basis. It is taken for granted. People there are afraid to walk down the street because they never know when they might die.

There is a very surprising fact that I would like my Conservative and Liberal colleagues to ponder. Why do they think the countries that have a common border with Colombia refrain from signing any free trade deals with it when they would be the most likely to do so, given their shared border? Have my colleagues ever wondered about that?

It is only natural that these countries do not sign any such agreements because the people there are very close to what goes on every day in Colombia. They see and hear what we in this House choose not to see and hear.

It is very sad that the government refuses to listen to all the requests we have received from unions, groups that take an interest in humanity, and all the groups that defend rights here in Quebec and Canada. All these groups are begging us not to pass this bill without ensuring it has iron-clad guarantees, because Colombia is continuing to do what it always does.

Instead of that, the government imposes constraints as easy as putting a price on someone’s heads. The head of an employee, a worker or a union member is currently worth $200,000. That is what they say. But what is $200,000 to a drug trafficker or a hired gun? That is the question they need to ask themselves.

There are fines for committing murder. Can someone tell me where are we headed? Where are we headed as human beings?

It is confusing sitting in this House when we see what goes on. Does the government over there not have anyone who thinks for themselves? Can it not make decisions without CFAC? Is that the problem? It always needs someone to tell it what to do and then it does so with blinkers and with no thought and no consideration for the consequences.

As I was saying, it is easy not to think of the consequences when one lives far away, when one is not there every day with the people who are suffering and the people who are dying. It is very easy, but for the love of heaven, at some point in time the ministers of this government will have to start talking to each other, read more and look at what is happening in the world. Rather than read L'Osservatore Romano, which only covers religious matters, let them look at what is going on in Colombia and get on with the job that should have been done long ago.

We do not ask a country to sign a free trade agreement and ignore the workers. That is not done. What the government has tried to have us believe this morning, though its Minister of Labour, is that everything was just fine in the best of worlds, that every country wants a free trade agreement with Colombia, perfect country that it is. Once we get there after concluding our free trade agreement with Colombia, it will become perfect. The government will no longer be corrupt. There will be no more murders. Employees and workers will have decent working conditions. Everyone will have a roof over their head. No one will be worried, and no one will be selling cocaine. That might upset some of them.

I think we have to be serious when we talk about people's lives. The government is refusing to bring back home people who are accused and risk getting killed in other countries, like the two young men from Montreal who had an unfortunate accident in a schoolyard in Kuwait. It refuses to bring them back home. Nothing is being done for them, but now prices are being put on the heads of union leaders in a country we know nothing about.

We were in Argentina last week. My colleagues and I had discussions with people who look after trade among South American countries. Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay have agreements together and work together because it is a good thing to have free trade agreements, but these agreements take into account the needs of each as well as human rights, unlike the free trade agreement the government wants us to approve here in this House. How is it that Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay and Paraguay, which have a lot to offer and need a lot, have not concluded a free trade agreement with Colombia?

Who are we to think that we are better than others and will succeed where others have failed? Colombia has to clean up its yard, it must clean up its human rights record, recognize its errors and implement the practices and procedures that will ensure respect for human rights and protect the lives of individuals, even if they are union workers. Let Colombia do that, and then we will reconsider. So long as this does not happen, we are not going to ask the fox to tend the henhouse. That is what we are doing at the moment.

So, we will continue to say no to this agreement, as we have done in the past. My only regret is that the Liberal Party changed its mind on this.

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, March 30th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, as always, it was a pleasure to listen to my colleague. In listening to what she had to say, I realized something. More and more, the Liberals support Conservative Party positions, even though those positions, especially in regard to human rights, richly deserve our condemnation.

Last week, the Liberals supported the Conservatives again by voting against their own motion. Does my colleague see another worrisome development there? Are the Liberals and Conservatives basically the same?

[Supreme Court Act, March 29th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am also very pleased to rise here today to speak to Bill C-232 introduced by my NDP colleague.

I am especially pleased to do so because I firmly believe that everyone, whether they speak French or English, has the right to be heard by someone who understands them. Of course, Mr. Speaker, you understand me, but if I am not lucky enough to have an interpreter who gives an excellent translation, you will not understand me.

Sometimes certain differences in terms of culture or language might not be properly understood. There are certain nuances in the language spoken by a particular group of people or nation that cannot necessarily be translated, regardless of the quality of the translation.

That is only one of the main reasons the Bloc Québécois and I personally believe strongly in this bill. Indeed, everyone is entitled to a full and complete defence. Everyone is entitled to be heard and understood by the Supreme Court judges who must rule on these matters. They are asked to make very important decisions and examine very serious issues. If they cannot read the files in their original language, they may not be able to understand the essence of the issue, not because of a lack of intelligence, but rather because of a lack familiarity with the culture associated with the other language.

When a judge cannot read newspapers or listen to the news in French, and cannot hear a conversation in French and understand the essence of it, how can that judge rule on potentially disturbing facts and on important decisions that may become part of case law?

I would like to give an example. Last week, from March 13 to 20, we were in Buenos Aires, Argentina. That week, a big story in Canadian papers, especially in Quebec papers—because there was a time when Quebec was a very religious nation, a nation of believers—was the scandal in Rome concerning pedophile priests. Apparently, the Pope had trouble removing pedophile priests from their functions.

When I arrived in Buenos Aires, this was the top story on television and everyone was talking about it. It got constant airtime all day long. That is because people in Buenos Aires, Argentina, are still very religious. The news was of tremendous importance to them. However, in the United States, Canada and Quebec, other stories were on the front page. In the United States, the top story was the health care bill that Barack Obama was trying to get through the Senate and the House so that all Americans could have access to health care. Here, Afghanistan and the documents we were supposed to get from the government but had not yet received were still making headlines. We have received some documents since then, but they are so heavily whited out that they are unreadable.

Clearly, one nation's realities are not the same as another's. To understand these realities, the people who legislate and who decide what goes into a Supreme Court report or ruling must be able to understand not just the words, but the overall context. The people who do that have to be bilingual at the very least. The Commissioner of Official Languages was absolutely right. He dismissed claims made by the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, who was elected by a francophone majority and then had the gall to act against its wishes and, as a member of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, decide that English was the most important language for judges to speak.

I do not understand why that hon. member thinks an anglophone judge is better qualified and more knowledgeable than a bilingual francophone judge.

What is more, most francophone judges and lawyers speak English as well. We very rarely see a bilingual anglophone judge. Most anglophone judges have not bothered to learn French. But when someone wants to rise to such a high position, a position where they represent the people and make the important decisions, they should at least make the effort to learn both official languages of the country they represent. It is an indispensable condition.

It is hard to believe there could be a Supreme Court justice who does not understand French, who is unable to read and understand rulings that have been made and who has to rely on translations. Even though these texts are translated well and convey the meaning, basically, they do not explain motivations.

As the Liberal member was saying earlier, Quebec has decided to replace the religious school boards with linguistic school boards. I do not know if that has been done elsewhere, but the nation of Quebec has made the necessary decisions. Even if this is not being done elsewhere, the Supreme Court of Canada has to make decisions that reflect all of Canada, Quebec and the Atlantic provinces.

My honourable NDP colleague has mounted a strong defence of the Francophone cause. However, we must ensure that measures are in place to protect the rights of French-language communities—those inside as well as outside Quebec—in 10, 15 or 20 years. Every day, senseless decisions are made.

For example, the Vancouver Olympic Games showed that it is difficult to ensure respect for the French language. Not long ago, the citizens of Burnaby, British Columbia, received a brochure that was printed in five languages, but not in French. This was highlighted in our press review this morning. And yet, Francophones make up a fairly large segment of British Columbia's population. Why continue to deny it?

The City of Ottawa is bilingual. However, the mayor does not speak French; he cannot speak to citizens in French. When Ms. Harel wanted to run for mayor of Montreal, she was accused of not speaking English; she was never told that she speaks impeccable French. And yet, that is the case. It was not the English press, but the French press that objected to the fact that she did not speak English. We are quite concerned about the Anglophone minority. However, this should be the case for the Francophone community.

True concern for the Francophone community does not mean talking out of both sides of one's mouth. The Conservatives are very good at that, as demonstrated by their advertising campaign. One day, they will have to face the facts: the Francophones of Quebec and Canada will no longer be pushed around. We will not put up with it. We have rights and we will ensure that those rights are respected.

[Business of Supply, March 23rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague.

I would like her to tell me what is behind the fact that, since this morning, the Conservative members have been rising one after the other, saying ad nauseam that we want to re-open the abortion debate when, in reality, they are the only ones who want to do that in the House.

What does she think is behind this?

[Business of Supply, March 23rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I would very much like to answer my colleague's question, but I am not attuned to my Conservative colleagues' way of thinking. I cannot fathom that they do not understand. And yet, it is fairly simple: when a young woman is pregnant and experiencing difficulty, we must help her. That is not complicated. Why my Conservative colleagues do not understand this is a mystery to me.

[Business of Supply, March 23rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Laval—Les Îles for her question.

It is true that abortion is not the only subject being debated in the House today. However, it is a very important subject. It is true that contraception is also very important and that it can help young women and young girls. In Liberia and other African countries, young girls age 9, 11 or 12 are married and have no choice. They do not have access to contraception and family planning resources. They end up pregnant and die in labour because they are not physically mature enough to give birth to a child.

It is true that other points of this motion are also very important. The Bloc Québécois is pleased to support this motion. We believe that every tool should be offered to women who in live in developing countries.

[Business of Supply, March 23rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am especially pleased to hear the question asked by my colleague from Lévis—Bellechasse. He probably does not know that I was the person who brought about the arrest of the first person charged with human trafficking in Quebec. To avoid talking drivel, one must be sure one knows all the facts first.

The Bloc Québécois has always fought against human trafficking and will continue to do so, but in a concrete way. We will not do so simply to put on a good show during an election campaign, only to do nothing afterwards.

[Business of Supply, March 23rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I want to inform the House that I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for La Pointe-de-l'Île. I will have to be sure not to forget it.

It is a pleasure for me to rise and speak in this debate.

I am obviously an unabashed supporter of the motion being debated today in the House. I too think that the government’s G8 maternal and child health initiative for the world’s poorest regions must include the full range of family planning and sexual and reproductive health options, including contraception.

I too think the government’s approach must be based on scientific evidence.

And I too think that the Conservative government should refrain from advancing the failed right-wing ideologies previously imposed by George W. Bush in the United States, which made humanitarian assistance conditional upon a global gag rule that required all non-governmental organizations receiving federal funding to refrain from promoting medically-sound family planning.

I do not think any of this is very surprising. International maternal health assistance should be based on a scientific, open-minded, non-ideological approach. Family planning should obviously be included.

But opposite us is this pitiful Conservative government, fuelled by right-wing ideology, that hears family planning and immediately thinks abortion and contraception, that hears abortion and immediately sees the hell fires burning.

This government is Manichaean in its ideology and incapable of drawing fine distinctions. Everything is seen in terms of good and evil. Good is the freedom to have a nice little weapon; evil is terminating a pregnancy.

We need to remember whom we are dealing with here, remember it was this government that made pay equity a negotiable right and it was this government that cut the funding for the Canadian Federation for Sexual Health, which does family planning and is affiliated with the International Planned Parenthood Federation. We need to remember that this government has done virtually nothing for aboriginal women and we should remember the women’s program, the court challenges program, the closing of the Status of Women Canada offices and the government’s close ties with REAL Women. We need to remember what this government is.

The Minister of International Cooperation said yesterday in question period that the government was not going to open a debate on abortion. But who in the House is bringing up the abortion issue? Is it the opposition? I do not think so. Who introduced Bill C-484? Was it the opposition? I do not think so. Who said that the purpose of the government’s G8 initiative was to save lives, thereby excluding family planning? Was it the opposition? I do not think so.

What I believe is that when this government says it does not want to have a debate on abortion, it means it has a closed mind on the matter. It means it is refusing to talk about it.

Do the Conservatives want to avoid a debate that might displease our American neighbours? Who knows? Do they want to avoid taking a stand and showing their real face to the world? Who knows? All we know is that they will not revisit the debate.

Studies on this issue are clear. In 2007, the medical journal, The Lancet, stated that of the 42 million abortions performed around the world annually, 35 million of them take place in developing countries. In 2003, 48% of induced abortions happened without any medical assistance. This is a 4% increase since 1995. The authors, including Iqbal Shah of the WHO, wrote:

In developed regions, most abortions (92%) were safe, but in developing countries, more than half (55%) were unsafe...

It is estimated that 97% of unsafe abortions were performed in developing countries.

In Africa, where abortion is highly restricted by law in nearly all countries, there are 650 deaths for every 100,000 procedures, compared with 10 deaths per 100,000 procedures in developed regions. In Liberia, it is common to see lethal complications resulting from illegal abortions that were induced by herbs or unsterilized sharp objects. Such abortions are very common.

Knowing that, who would dare say that abortion is not a public health issue? Who would dare say that professional abortion procedures, in proper hygienic and medical conditions, do not save lives?

Abortions are performed in developing countries, but they are not performed safely. We have the choice of improving medical conditions or doing nothing.

Women are dying. They are bleeding to death because there is no professional support.

Knowing that, should we be taking the abortion debate to the G8? Should we be telling our partners that we are more than willing to support family planning, contraception and abortions, wherever necessary, and ask them to support it as well?

Obviously we should. Not doing so would be akin to not helping someone in danger.

But I am delusional. I forgot who forms the government. I forgot its dogmatism and ideology.

The Conservatives will not put all the options on the table. They will not re-open the debate on abortion. They do not want to upset their fundamentalist base.

I am so very tired of this debate. It makes me so bitter. For the Conservatives, it is not a question of public health or international aid. It is a question of values, their values.

It is easier to change the government than to change the values of the government we have.

And so I would like to personally apologize to the women who are unlucky enough to be born, grow up and become pregnant in a country without proper medical care. I apologize because the government where I live is doing nothing, despite knowing the facts.

[Business of Supply, March 23rd, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the very eloquent speech by my colleague from Laurentides—Labelle.

I would like to know what she thinks about the fact that the government, over the past four or five years, has cut 99% of the funding that was allocated to the Canadian Federation for Sexual Health, which is directly related to the International Planned Parenthood Federation.

How does this fit into the context of what she was saying? What does she think about the government's sudden about-face on contraception this week? Barely a week ago, the government was not a proponent of contraception. Suddenly—they must think the women of Quebec and Canada are naive—they would have us believe that contraception is now an integral part of their measures.

What does the hon. member think of all this?

[Status of Women, March 22nd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to three great Haitian feminists who died in the January 12 earthquake. They were three pioneers in the fight for equality and against violence.

Magalie Marcelin helped Haitian women to be heard, to tell their stories and to carve out their future, and also founded Kay Fanm, a shelter for battered women.

Myriam Merlet was a feminist author and researcher, a revolutionary and a visionary with a very big heart. Thanks to her determination, a Haitian court handed down a guilty verdict to a man who had beaten his wife.

Anne Marie Coriolan fought by their sides in order to change the law to make rape, long used as a political weapon, a punishable crime.

Together with my colleagues from the Bloc Québécois, I commend their courage and their exceptional work. We will remember them.