Nicole Demers

[The Budget, March 9th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech. I heard her concerns about the lack of social measures in the budget.

However, I would like to know what she thinks about the announcement of $10 million to combat violence against women, particularly aboriginal women. There was no mention of where this money will go, and no mention of the Sisters in Spirit program, which is calling for renewed funding.

[The Budget, March 9th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to the member for York West's remarks, and I applaud everything she said. What she said about this budget's shortcomings is absolutely right.

I would like to know what the member thinks of the fact that the government chose to create a seniors day to recognize their contribution instead of improving the guaranteed income supplement, which is something that we and seniors have been asking for for a long time.

[Petitions, March 8th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, like my colleague from Jeanne-Le Ber, I am pleased to table a petition signed by 1,287 people who are asking the government to review its position on the firearms registry.

As we know, a number of Quebeckers are opposed to this bill. We will continue to oppose it and we hope that the government will reconsider its position in order to ensure that women will truly be safe here, in Quebec, and elsewhere.

[Status of Women, March 8th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government is trying to export to the rest of the world its regressive attitude toward abortion and contraception, measures that are intended to help women and children in developing countries.

Why does the Conservative government refuse to recognize that these are essential tools for improving the living conditions of women here and elsewhere?

[THE BUDGET, March 8th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague very much for that question.

We might have hoped that the government would restore the court challenges program in the interest of reinstating some rights, some fairness and some equality among people. Poor people cannot fight and do not have access to the courts, but a similar program could give them financial assistance to do so.

Recently, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in the Sharon McIvor case. Without the help of the court challenges program, this woman never would have been able to plead her case before the Supreme Court. This sort of program is crucial to defending this type of case.

In the previous budget, the government told us that it would make an exception and set up a program so that people who suffered discrimination because of their language could defend themselves. But all the government has done is set up a very small program that does not meet people's needs.

We need a comprehensive program that gives people the right to defend themselves against this government.

[THE BUDGET, March 8th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, it is not true that the government is looking out for women's economic security when it takes away their right to pay equity, when it refuses to increase the guaranteed income supplement for seniors and when it refuses to pay the guaranteed income supplement to the people who are entitled to it.

The government is refusing to give women what they are entitled to. It is not one office per province that Status of Women Canada should have. It used to have 16 offices, and 12 of them were closed, leaving only four.

This government is governing by manipulating and scaring people. People are afraid to say how government cuts are affecting them. It is not true that organizations are receiving money. They are sometimes waiting one, two or three years to get an answer from Status of Women Canada. The answers are not forthcoming.

It is wrong to say that Status of Women Canada is doing its job. It is not doing its job, any more than the minister is doing hers, because she cannot even convince the cabinet that her job is to defend women, not the cabinet.

[THE BUDGET, March 8th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I wish to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Terrebonne—Blainville.

Today, March 8, is International Women's Day. For once, we are discussing the budget on this date. That certainly comes as somewhat of a surprise. More surprising and astonishing yet, but much less edifying, is the fact that, once again, this government has failed to pay attention to women, who represent 51% of the population in Quebec and Canada. Once again, there is nothing for women in the budget. There is so little for them in here that, as usual, they are barely mentioned. Reference is made to Canadians and Canadian workers, but with hardly any specific references to women, one can only assume that they are part of the population.

Does the government believe that women have no reason to complain because they are working and hardly manage to earn as much as their male counterparts? To this day, women are continuing to earn 21% less than men, even for the same number of hours and weeks of work. It is true, however, that most women do not work as many hours as men. Because they do not have access to adequate child care, most of them are forced to work part time. These women who are not working 35 hours a week do not qualify for employment insurance.

In this budget, the government overlooked EI; it did not make any change to EI to allow more workers to be eligible to benefits. I find that very distressing, especially since women are contributing to the EI fund and making it grow.

I also find very distressing the gall displayed by the Prime Minister in stating in this budget that he will get rid of the gun registry. Down with the mask and the secrecy. He has asked one of his members of Parliament, a woman, to introduce a bill to eliminate the part of the legislation dealing with long guns. We can see now that, all this time, his true intention was to get rid of the gun registry. This registry was established at the request of women, women whose children had fallen victim to a crazed gunman in 1989.

The fact that they had the nerve to do this, and include it in a budget, I believe, is an insult to women. I find it very insulting and I would even say I find it very distressing, because it means that this government just does not get it. Ever since it came to power, so for four years now, unfortunately, this government has failed to understand that women have something to say, that women have rights and that they have the right to exercise them. The Conservatives are trying every way they can—every subtle, twisted way—to divest women of their rights. They are trying to take away everything that we have fought so hard for over the years.

Today we are celebrating the 100th anniversary of the declaration of International Women’s Day. Yet here we are discussing a budget that contains nothing for women. It is so serious that Kathleen Lahey, an analyst and economist at a university in Toronto, has studied the budget and the economic stimulus plan that was supposed to be just as good for women as it is for men. She found some serious problems with this economic plan, especially in terms of investments.

Consider the following example. Only 0.00006% of approximately $9 billion, that is, about $572,000, was spent on improving women's shelters in Inuit and first nations communities. Only $572,000 is being spent to improve all women's shelters, while triple that amount is being spent on improving three animal shelters in Canada.

Does this mean that animals are more important to the government than women? This is not such an unfair comparison, because it is clear that the government has done absolutely nothing.

For years now, it has been making cuts to Status of Women Canada and to programs that would have given women the opportunity to conduct fundamental research. Women no longer have that opportunity because funds have been cut. Cuts have also been made or will be soon to organizations that offer family planning services and ensure that women and men who choose to have children have all the tools they need to make informed choices. Although this is happening here, the government is also pushing its agenda on developing countries. Claiming that it wants to help women and children, it is cutting funding for a number of organizations that were providing very important services to women and children in developing countries.

By cutting this funding, the government is showing yet again that it does not care at all about the health of women and children. It is wrong to claim that it cares about the health of women and children when it does not give them the chance to have all the tools they need to determine whether they want to bring a child into this world, whether they have the necessary resources to raise the children, or whether they have the right to terminate their pregnancy if necessary.

When a government like this slashes funding to women's organizations, to family planning organizations, to a firearms registry that was very functional—because police officers told us so, the RCMP told us so and women's groups told us so—and the registry is used many times every day by the police forces across Canada and Quebec, that same government has the audacity to send our Minister of State for Status of Women to the United Nations to have her say that Canada has made great strides in helping women and that women in Canada are moving forward. That is not true.

Over the past four years, Canadian women have taken several big steps back. We have taken so many hits that it will probably take us 20 years to get back to where we were four years ago. Once things start going south, it is very difficult to turn them around, to get those rights and that funding back. Once things are cut, they are cut for good. After that, it is very hard to find new money to support organizations that are critical to protecting women's rights and to fund important research and vital programs like the court challenges program. I understand why the government cut the program: it does not want anyone to say that the government is not doing its job. It does not want anyone to challenge it. It does not want any of us, as human beings, as citizens, to speak out against its decisions. That much is clear. A program that cost Canadians just 18 cents apiece was cut. Not because it was expensive, but because it made the government uncomfortable. It allowed people to stand up for their rights, allowed victims to stand up for their rights, allowed victims of crime to stand up for their rights, and allowed victims of discrimination to stand up for their rights.

Such actions make it perfectly clear that this government does not really care about women and children. Some people lie and make up all kinds of stories about how they care for the safety of children and others do not, but the Bloc Québécois really does care about children's safety. Keeping children safe means making sure that parents have enough money to shelter and feed their children and send them to daycare. It means knowing that families will not end up with less money because they send their children to daycare. Unlike other Canadians, Quebeckers get less money because they have adequate daycare services.

Unfortunately, my time has run out, but that is fine, because my colleague from Terrebonne—Blainville has more to say.

[International Cooperation, March 4th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, women who do not want children must have access to contraception, and women experiencing an unwanted pregnancy must have access to abortion, in conditions that do not endanger their lives.

Why does the government refuse to finance these two essential tools to improve the lives of women in the least fortunate countries?

[International Cooperation, March 4th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, it is appalling that the government does not include abortion and contraception as part of its measures to assist women and children in the world's poorest countries.

Not only are they inadequately responding to the needs of women in this country, but they are also exporting their hidden agenda to the rest of the world. It is no coincidence that the minister was not warmly received at the UN. No applause, nothing. No one is fooled.

Can the government set aside its ideology and ensure that all women have access to all the methods that enable them to make an informed choice?

[Address in Reply, March 3rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the throne speech, particularly to see whether the government would propose anything to improve the economic status of women in Quebec.

After listening to the speech given by the hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, I realize that I am not the only one who found nothing in the throne speech. Although I listened very carefully, there was absolutely nothing in the speech. Indeed, all this government has done is make pay equity a negotiable right, thereby undermining the status of women, rather than improving it.

How can this government justify ignoring the needs of over half the population and proposing nothing to improve women's living conditions, for instance, allowing female workers covered by the Canada Labour Code the right to preventive withdrawal from work or proposing real proactive pay equity legislation?