Nicole Demers

[Budget Implementation Act, 2008, June 6th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, we will never be in power, nor do we want to be. That is of utmost importance to us. The fact that we will never be in power is fundamental, critical even, to our freedom. That is why we can stand up for the rights and interests of the people we represent without fear of reprisals from big corporations trying to tell us how to vote. Most parties who have access to power are sometimes tempted to do as they are told.

It is all too easy for the Conservative government to lean right and do what right-wing lobby groups want. We, however, need answer to no lobby. We answer only to our fellow citizens, those who have given us majority after majority to represent Quebeckers. That is all I need to know, and that is all I need to believe. Frankly, having seen what that kind of power does to Quebec members who do nothing at all for Quebeckers, who dare not rise when they disagree with something, I want nothing to do with it. If that is what it does to a person, then thanks, but no thanks.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2008, June 6th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to speak to Bill C-50, Budget Implementation Act, 2008.

I can say right off the bat that, if this bill were a movie and an uncensored one, its title could be something like “In Search of Promises Kept”, because they are few and far between in this budget.

Take the promise made to seniors for example. Before the election, every member of the Conservative Party in this House rose to vote in favour of giving back to seniors the money owed to them in connection with the guaranteed income supplement. This is money that has been owed to them for several years now. Yesterday's vote showed that the government does not keep its promises to the people it was supposed to represent. The Conservatives were unanimously opposed. Every Conservative member in the House stood in his or her place and voted no. So, where seniors are concerned, promise made, promise broken.

One might also think of the promise made to veterans, their widows and their survivors to provide them with a more extensive support program than the current one, ensuring that all survivors of veterans and their widows would be eligible for help. Again, promise made, promise broken.

Take the promise to respect provincial jurisdictions. It is a promise that was made with great fanfare, but it still has not been kept. Instead of respecting provincial jurisdictions, the government, through this bill, is setting up PPP Canada Inc., a crown corporation that will work with the public and private sectors to support public-private partnerships. There are fears that this crown corporation will have a say in federally funded infrastructure projects in Quebec, whereas Quebec wants full control, including the power to decide on potential PPPs.

Bill C-50 also provides an additional $110 million for the Mental Health Commission of Canada, even though health and social services are Quebec's responsibilities.

The bill also provides for a $500 million fund for public transit, whereas we are calling for the block transfer of federal infrastructure funding so that Quebec can make its own choices, which it usually does quite well. All the other provinces look to Quebec, because Quebec's social programs and tax benefits are far superior to their own.

The government is still committed to setting up a common securities regulator, as we saw again last week. There were discussions about this.

Lastly, Canada would invest $25 million to help Canadians understand the impact of the environment on our health. This is a public health measure, and Quebec has its own public health agency. The government has therefore broken its promise not to interfere in provincial jurisdictions.

Despite its promise to govern with transparency and integrity, the government decided to sneak an immigration measure into Bill C-50 that would give the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration the power to decide who can enter Canada and who cannot. It is disgraceful to include an immigration measure in a budget implementation bill. I have never seen such a thing. It is really underhanded. I think that this is emblematic of this government's overall approach.

They also made a promise to correct the fiscal imbalance. This has not been kept either. Even though part of it was addressed by allocating some money, the idea of correcting the fiscal imbalance involves a lot more than just throwing money at it. We need to talk about tax points and many other very important aspects if we truly want to free the provinces from the federal government. Promise made, promise broken.

Lastly, I will talk about a promise made to women in January 2006. During his election campaign, the current Prime Minister assured women that he would do what is necessary to help them achieve true equality. He said that in January 2006. It is now June 2008 and nothing has yet been done to help women achieve true equality. On the contrary, the government has tried to muzzle women by cutting funding to Status of Women Canada, funding that has not been reinstated.

I even have some excerpts of speeches given by Kathleen Lahey and Armine Yalnizyan to the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. After carefully examining the budget, they came to tell us what they thought about it, taking into account the fact that the budget must address both the men and the women who pay taxes. Women make up 52% of the population, whether my colleagues like it or not. This 52% of the population deserves some respect when it comes to measures that are to represent or at least serve the entire population.

There is nothing in this budget for women or even anything that would benefit women, let us be honest. For example, $20 million has been allocated to Status of Women Canada, but there are 16.6 million women in Canada. That means that Status of Women Canada has to assume all of its responsibilities with a budget of just $1.21 per woman or girl in Canada. This is an overall budget of $1.21 per person for the duration of the budget.

In comparison, pork producers—and I am very happy for them—are getting $50 million to help them adjust to new market realities. With roughly 14 million pigs in Canada, that represents $3.57 a pig. The 10,000 or so pig producers are getting twice as much as is being allocated to help Canada's 16.6 million women cope with the serious disadvantages they face.

We can see which is more highly valued by the Conservative government: a woman is worth $1.21 while a pig is worth $3.57. Let us not think about it for too long; it is plain to see that this budget does not offer much to women.

Of course they talk about a plan—a vague plan that will not amount to much if it is not actually developed. They can talk about a plan for a very long time. They talk about it in the budget as something to come. However, we still have not seen a single word about this plan. We have not heard the minister say anything about this plan either. It makes us wonder whether the government is really serious about implementing a plan when one has existed since 1995 that was ratified and adopted by all the countries present in Beijing.

In closing, when women are mentioned just six times in the entire budget, and one of those occurrences is to make the distinction between fishermen and fisherwomen, it is because there is not much interest in or respect for them.

I highly doubt that we can support this budget. As hon. members know, the Bloc Québécois will be voting against it. We will all rise in this House with great pride to vote against this budget. We have no need for broken promises. We need the government to keep its promises.

[MercadOr Awards, June 6th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the 10th edition of the MercadOr awards gala recently took place. The awards recognize the success of exporters in the Laval region.

The leading exporter award went to Pelican International, a pleasure craft manufacturer and the third largest kayak manufacturer in the world.

Alpha Vision won for best foreign ventures, for its ability to set up shop close to its clients, both in the United States and Germany.

Équipement d'emballage MMC and Cirion won in the market diversification category. Équipement d'emballage MMC opened it doors in 1991, penetrated Latin American markets in 2005 and is now targeting Europe. Cirion, which specializes in biotechnology, entered the American market in 2000 and now does 35% of its business in Europe.

Lastly, Bedcolab, a laboratory furniture manufacturer, was honoured as best new exporter. It began exporting to the United States in 2003, and those exports south of the border now represent 40% of its revenues.

My Bloc Québécois colleagues and I would like to congratulate the award winners and commend their contributions—

[June 4th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, maybe that coffee cup is the reason he was unable to hear my arguments about Bill C-484.

Nevertheless, had he wanted to, he would have understood that I was asking the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Status of Women and Official Languages to stand up for women. That did not happen.

I am not surprised, but I am disappointed. This evening, I am disappointed on behalf of all women of the Fédération des femmes du Québec, and on behalf of the Fédération du Québec pour le planning des naissances, the AFEAS, the Fédération des médecins spécialistes du Québec and the Fédération des médecins du Québec. None of these groups want Bill C-484 to pass at third reading because they are all aware of the threat it poses to women.

I really hope that the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Status of Women and Official Languages will hear our appeal even if she chooses not to answer our questions. I hope she will assure us that she intends to stand up for this issue because if she does not, I can promise her that the women of Quebec and Canada will not forget.

[June 4th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, on April 3, I asked the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Status of Women and Official Languages a question. Unfortunately, the answer I received came from the Minister of Justice. I must say that the question really was meant for the Minister of Status of Women.

The Standing Committee on the Status of Women passed a motion advising the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights that it was not in support of Bill C-484. We asked the Minister of Status of Women to take over where the committee left off and inform her colleagues of the importance of quickly dealing with this matter in order to ensure that the bill would not go to third reading.

I hope that the minister will answer this evening. Because Quebec and Canadian women expect her to take her place and to demonstrate leadership for her colleagues and for Quebeckers and Canadians. She must let us know and make us understand what is happening. Above all, she must reassure us that the abortion file will not be reopened. Women want assurances that, where they live, they will not have to experience what happened 40 or 50 years ago when abortion clinics were illegal and women had to carry out their own abortions with knitting needles, and died as a result.

I know that the minister voted against this bill. Since she voted against it, I would like her to now show us that she is capable of convincing her colleagues and telling them that women do have the right to choose.

At present, women are very afraid and I can understand that. I am a woman, a mother and a grandmother and I know what it is like to be afraid of losing our rights.

This government took a very underhanded approach. There are four bills right now that could potentially reopen the abortion debate. Before they were introduced, funding was cut to Status of Women Canada for groups that defend women's rights. Then, the court challenges program was abolished. Furthermore, women's advocacy groups have had to close their doors for lack of funding.

Now that women are having a harder time defending themselves and bringing a case before the Supreme Court, they are being hit with bills that will likely reopen the abortion debate if they go through. This must not happen.

For all the women of Quebec and Canada, I sincerely hope that the minister will be able to give me a positive answer this evening. I hope she will tell me that she will defend women and that she will inform her colleagues and make them aware of this cause.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2008, May 30th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her question.

As the member is fully aware, we have been fighting for some time on behalf of women who come from the Philippines and work as live-in caregivers. Women who work in this field are often faced with many problems and difficulties, and we have been trying to help them for many years. The government, however, does not seem to want to listen to reason. Of course it changed a few of the rules, but that is not enough to give these women what they need.

One thing is sure, as my colleague from Jeanne-Le Ber so aptly put it: any legislation concerning immigration must be debated in committee. That is why I think his position is the soundest and the fairest.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2008, May 30th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for that lovely compliment. It is rare to receive compliments in the House. I very humbly accept it.

It is my great pleasure to rise to speak to Bill C-50, particularly part 6, which would introduce immigration measures that I find somewhat unusual because they would give significant additional powers to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

The government is trying to bring in these measures as part of a budget bill. If we agreed with the bill, we could let it go through, no problem. However, we do not agree with it, because it does not meet our fellow citizens' needs. As everyone knows, the people asked us to request a number of things for Quebec, and we submitted those requests.

What is even more unacceptable is that the government is trying to include these measures in bills that are not intended to change procedures within various departments. That is what part 6 of Bill C-50 attempts to do: change the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act significantly. This bill would give the minister the power to give some people priority over others. The minister would also have the power to refuse entry to some people without having to justify his or her decision.

This is troubling, particularly since we have a government that is known for breaking its promises to people. It broke its promise to women on equity and equality; it broke its promise to seniors on the guaranteed income supplement; and it broke its promise to veterans. Spouses and widows of veterans do not all have access to various programs offered by Veterans Affairs Canada to returning war veterans. All in all, this government was elected because of promises it made on major issues—promises that, for the most part, it has not kept.

We have to wonder what would happen if these measures in Bill C-50 were passed. Imagine for a moment that the ousted minister of foreign affairs became the minister of citizenship and immigration. Who would he give priority to? Who would he deny entry to? Many worries come to mind, even more so given that the minister would not have to answer any questions or provide any justification.

Conservative Party members have also made disconcerting statements about immigrants of certain ethnicities. What would happen if one of these members were appointed minister of citizenship and immigration? I would be worried about giving a minister the sweeping power to decide the validity of an application from someone who wanted to immigrate to Quebec or Canada. I find that very serious.

I even find it a bit immoral that these measures were introduced as part of a budget bill, and I wonder how many others feel this way. At the very least, we know that all of the organizations involved with newcomers, be they refugees or immigrants, are opposed to these measures, and with good reason, I might add.

We know that the committee has also made its views known. It is important to remember that the committee is not necessarily against amending the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

But if amendments are to be made, they must be done properly, through the usual channels. This means introducing bills, having them examined in committee, and hearing witnesses in committee to explain different parts of the bill. This did not happen here.

This amendment to the Immigration Act was sneakily included in Bill C-50, in the same way that a censorship measure was included in Bill C-10 without anyone noticing. We can see the effect that one has had, and the shock waves it has sent through the film community, in terms of copyrights and so on. Members must remember all of that and be very careful before passing Bill C-50 if it contains part 6. Giving a single person the authority and power to determine who will have the right to enter the country is inconceivable. The same thing happened with the Minister of Health with respect to public safety and quarantines. The government did not even keep its promises to those suffering from Hepatitis C. People are dying every day without receiving a cent from the government. This is a right-wing government if ever there was one.

That scares me. When a government that is so far to the right wants to introduce such measures in a bill, I believe that there is more to it than meets the eye. I do not want to have any part of it and I do not accept it. My party does not want to say yes to that. We will definitely vote against the bill. We cannot allow ourselves to give such rights to a party that has already shown its bad faith and ill will.

That was the case for Insite, in Vancouver. They prefer to let people die rather than helping them to obtain services in a place where they felt safe, where they could make important contacts and get help. They would rather let people die. And now they would like us to believe that it would be a good thing to give the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration the power to decide who can enter Canada. They should not take Canadians or Quebeckers for fools. We see the government's game plan very clearly. We know that the only reason this government wants to introduce this amendment to the Immigration Act is to have even more power and to decide what kind of immigrants will build Canada.

Some 900,000 men and women have been waiting for years to become Canadian citizens. They have been waiting patiently. They have gone through all the steps. They are entitled to be treated with dignity and respect by a government that follows the rules, not a government that changes the rules to suit its ideology and philosophy or to please voters of the same bent.

[Status of Women, May 30th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the Commissioner of Official Languages said in his report that the cuts to Status of Women Canada have affected the funding of francophone women's groups that bear the responsibility for the transmission of language and culture and that provide French-language social services to francophone minorities.

Could the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Status of Women and Official Languages tell us whether she will take the commissioner's comments into consideration, and restore the original criteria of the women's program?

[Health, May 16th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, experts have said that the silicone in silicone gel breast implants contains toxic substances from the cyclohexasiloxane family, wich are among the 200 chemical substances considered harmful to humans.

Does the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Status of Women and Official Languages plan on protecting women's health and urging her colleague, the Minister of Health, to put silicone gel breast implants on the list of products banned by Health Canada?

[Committees of the House, May 15th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that a member of this Parliament who knows so much about other areas does not seem to grasp this. Perhaps he does not understand women's problems because he is a man. Certainly, women who live in aboriginal communities want to remain in their homes.

Under the government's bill, women who want to stay in their homes would have to pay compensation to the spouse who leaves the home. However, in aboriginal communities, women with children are often the ones who look after the household, which is unpaid work. They are also the ones who care for the children and do the cooking, which is also unpaid work. Where are these people supposed to find the money to compensate their spouses who have to leave the family home?

Moreover, there is a serious housing shortage in aboriginal communities. If a woman who wants to stay in her home with her children kicks her husband out, where will he go? He will likely go into the community and try to come back into the family home, which can lead to assault and violence and force the woman to leave the home.

I take exception to the suggestion that I do not understand that women want to stay in their homes. They do want to stay in their homes, but not at any price. Proper parameters have to be put in place so that women can take advantage of them and not remain prisoners.