Nicole Demers

[National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women, December 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Chair, the date was December 6, 1989. In a few days the fall university semester would be ending. Christmas music was already playing in the shopping centres. Office parties had begun, and children were counting the days to Christmas. And then everything was turned upside down.

On that December day, 14 women were lined up against a wall and shot point blank in the École Polytechnique at the Université de Montréal for one reason only: they were members of the second sex, they were women.

The date was December 6, 1989.

Everyone who is old enough to remember, remembers where they were, what they were doing, who they were with, on December 6, 1989.

The news that day shocked us. Fascinated by the horror of what had been done, we followed the story on television; we were dumbstruck that such a thing could happen here. “Of course not, that can’t be,” people said. In other places, maybe, but here? Violence, horror, misogyny, in Quebec?

And then the event penetrated our minds. Horror gave way to realization. In Quebec, a profound sadness settled in. And of course, out of that, people came together, and candlelight vigils where held everywhere.

And the women and men of Quebec began to drag a millstone of pain around with them. Pain, yes, and also shame.

December 6, 1989, sullied us all.

December 6, 1989, ripped out a part of our soul, and it is now our duty to restore it.

The duty to remember does not offer absolution.

The duty to remember calls for action. The memory of those young women who were stolen from us calls on us to rise up for them. It calls on us to feel that pain again, to feel the void and the shame; it calls on us to rise in anger and indignation against the continuing violence, against the tragedies that still go on, the blows, the slaps across the face, that thousands of women still endure because they are women. Yes, the duty to remember calls on us to act and take action.

The pain that we still feel, and that we must preserve, is what prompts my outrage at this government, as it lays roses with one hand and supplies guns with the other.

Because we have not forgotten, we will carry on the struggle so that violence against women can be ended once and for all, starting by doing everything in our power to maintain the gun registry.

[Firearms Registry, December 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, Heidi Rathjen, a former student at the École Polytechnique, called the Conservative government hypocritical because it commemorates the tragedy but refuses to learn from it. “The government could not care less about human life, about people's safety, about women's safety or about violence against women,” she said.

How can women trust this government when it wants to get rid of a registry that helps prevent violence, particularly against women?

[Firearms Registry, December 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, 20 years ago, Marc Lépine walked into the École Polytechnique and killed 14 young women with a hunting rifle. His was a hate crime targeting women.

Nathalie Provost, one of the victims who was injured in the shooting, is pleading with the government to maintain the gun registry. She has reminded parliamentarians that the registry is a critical tool in preventing violence against women.

Will the Minister of State for the Status of Women act in accordance with her responsibilities and explain to her colleagues that the gun registry helps prevent violence?

[École polytechnique de Montréal Victims, December 1st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, today, female members of the three opposition parties attended a parallel event protesting the government's position on violence against women to commemorate the deaths of 14 young women at the École polytechnique de Montréal who were murdered with a long gun on December 6, 1989.

We were stunned and outraged to see that at the government's own commemorative ceremony, which also took place this morning, the member who introduced Bill C-391, which would exclude long guns from the firearms registry, was beside the Minister for the Status of Women.

This is especially disturbing because 88% of women killed with guns are shot with handguns or rifles. If violence against women is to finally stop, the duty to remember must translate into real action. That is why Bill C-391 must be rejected.

[November 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to listen to my colleague whom I hold in high regard.

It will come as no surprise that I think he is mostly right. Indeed, his government can act, his government can make decisions and his government can be proactive. Given that, according to him, the Bloc Québécois cannot do anything, why is the government not being proactive on this issue and ensuring that woman who want preventive withdrawal are paid, just as Quebec women are?

I think the partisan politics and the smoke and mirrors tactics need to stop. My colleague sidestepped the question in a very cavalier manner. He simply repeated what I said, but he forgot to talk about the part that is missing. What he forgot in all of this is that the women who go home from work because they cannot be transferred somewhere else have no income. Those women are left out in the cold.

[November 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, on September 30, 2009, I asked the Minister of Labour about the fact that a number of female workers in Quebec who work under federal jurisdiction do not have access to the preventive withdrawal program, because if they do use the program, they can unfortunately not receive income. They must take leave without pay.

At the time, the minister very clearly indicated that this was not the case. A worker who had concerns about her condition, her situation or her health did not need to worry. She could simply ask to withdraw from her workplace and continue to be paid.

We looked into the situation for female workers under federal jurisdiction, and it seems as though what the minister told us was a half-truth. In fact, a female worker under federal jurisdiction can tell her employer that she is worried about her health or the health of her unborn child, and can say that she does not want to continue to work. At that time, her employer will tell her that she can withdraw from work until a doctor, an expert, can examine the issue and determine whether this is justified.

It is true that, from the time the employee withdraws until the doctor or expert reports back, she will receive her full salary and not have to worry about it. However, it does not take long for an expert or doctor to determine whether the situation is dangerous for the employee who has concerns about her health. It seems that it is not a very long process and if the employee withdraws from her place of employment for a day or two, she will receive her full salary.

The problem comes when the expert or doctor renders a decision and has determined that it is dangerous for the employee to continue working in her position and that she should be transferred to another position or go home to take care of her health. If the employer does not have another position to offer her, then she has to go home. As of that moment, she is no longer paid her salary. That is what troubles us.

How can we ensure that every woman is entitled to the same preventive withdrawal leave and the same level of safety and can go home to await the birth of her child with increased peace of mind?

[Status of Women, November 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of State for the Status of Women refused to condemn the unacceptable remarks of a Conservative member who suggested that abortions might cause breast cancer. Not only is that statement medically untrue, but it also vilifies women. One might have expected the minister to vigorously defend women and their right to abortion rather than make comments more befitting of Sarah Palin.

When will the minister stop protecting her party's dinosaurs to the detriment of what women have obtained?

[International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, November 25th, 2009]

With pleasure, Mr. Speaker.

That this House marks the 10th anniversary of the formal proclamation by the United Nations of November 25th as the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women.

[International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, November 25th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask for unanimous consent to adopt the following motion:

That this House marks the 10th anniversary of the formal proclamation by the United Nations of November 25th as the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women.

[Status of Women, November 25th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, on this International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, let us think of our aboriginal sisters, more than 500 of whom have disappeared or been killed without any investigation.

Let us think of our 14 sisters from the École Polytechnique in Montreal who were killed with a shotgun. A number of people have insulted the families of these women by voting in favour of Bill C-391, which would repeal the Canadian firearms registry. These women were killed because they were women.

Let us think of all our sisters whose bodies are used, disrespected, violated and abused, and who are used as weapons of war in ongoing conflicts.

We must take action now. We must stop talking, researching, examining. We must take action. The government must open its eyes and its heart and put an end to its complacency. Let us find ways now to ensure that violence against women becomes a thing of the past.