Nicole Demers

[Conservative Members from Quebec, November 21st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, what have the 11 Conservative members from Quebec done for low-income seniors in Quebec?

[Donkin Coal Block Development Opportunity Act, November 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her presentation, which has given us an understanding of what is involved in this bill, which some of us initially found a bit unclear.

Having listened to what she had to say, I would like to know one thing. Clause 13 provides that the Governor in Council may make regulations excluding any employment in connection with the operation of the Donkin coal block from the application of the Canada Labour Code.

Does that mean that employees working at the Donkin coal mine will not be subject to the Canada Labour Code and will therefore have the same working conditions as all workers in Nova Scotia? Consequently, if anti-scab legislation were in effect in Nova Scotia, could these employees also benefit from it, unlike other employees governed by the Canada Labour Code, who cannot benefit from such legislation?

[Status of Women, November 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the disdain and arrogance of the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Status of Women and Official Languages are equalled only by her inability to stand up for women with her cabinet colleagues.

The minister claims that you have to be in power to act. She is in power, yet she is doing nothing. What did she do to prevent Women and the Law from closing? What has she done to introduce proactive pay equity legislation? What has she done to reinstate the original criteria for the women's program of Status of Women Canada? What has she done to revive the court challenges program? Nothing, absolutely nothing.

That is why I am telling the minister that the truth does not need a microphone to be heard. All it needs is people who are convinced that their demands are legitimate, and I am one such person. I will therefore continue to speak out and to express the displeasure of all the women who are being muzzled and hurt by this government's regressive policies. I will keep on until we are victorious.

[Status of Women, November 15th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the former heritage minister ignored advice from her own officials, cautioning against changing the objectives and funding criteria with respect to the Status of Women program, and we know what disastrous results that has had.

Does the current minister intend to be more receptive to advice not only from her own officials but also from organizations like the World Economic Forum, women's groups and all the opposition parties, which are telling her that she is on the wrong track?

[Status of Women, November 15th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, a study by the World Economic Forum suggests that the gender gap has an impact on the competitiveness and economy of countries. The larger the gender gap, the lower the competitiveness. According to the same report, Canada slipped in world rankings on gender equality from 14th to 18th.

In light of this, does the minister intend to act and take tangible action for women, by adopting proactive pay equity legislation for instance?

[Business of Supply, November 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

During question period, the member for Kildonan—St. Paul accused opposition members of spreading lies about Status of Women Canada and its new criteria.

Would my colleague like to confess and admit to these lies, or would she like to refute what the member for Kildonan—St. Paul said?

[Business of Supply, November 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me the floor. I would also like to thank my colleague for her eloquent speech.

Given that pay inequity has been prohibited by the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms since 1975—32 years have passed if I am not mistaken since pay inequity was recognized—does my colleague not believe that this government should be more proactive and stop dithering?

To date, the government's response to this problem have not been very concrete. As she indicated, pay inequity is a serious problem.

I would like to hear her views on how long this has been allowed to go on. Given that it is found in the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, is it not somewhat immoral that the government is not doing something about this?

[Sitting Resumed, November 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot do anything about the member's impotence. He should see his doctor about that.

When we are talking about abolishing programs and about women's access to programs, I would remind the government that 12 of the 16 regional offices have been closed.

Eligibility criteria for these programs have been restricted. Now, groups that defend women's rights, lobby groups and research groups no longer meet these criteria. With the change in philosophy of the women's program and the elimination of promoting women's equality from its mandate, women's groups that work for egalitarian reform of legislation and policy are being muzzled. There has also been the abolition of the court challenges program, even though the government is the first institution that should support all organizations that defend women's rights.

[Sitting Resumed, November 1st, 2007]

Believe me, Mr. Speaker, we are in no way opposed to bills that are meaningful, that can help women. However, in a government with a $14 billion surplus, surely there is room to fund social programs as well as defend rights. Up until now, we have sent $37 billion to Afghanistan. I am very sorry, but I do not think this money was well spent. Our soldiers work very hard. But we could have used some of the $14 billion to at least defend the rights of women here.

[Sitting Resumed, November 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say right away that I will share my time with the member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert.

I am pleased to have the privilege to discuss the motion put forward this morning.

If elected, I will take concrete and immediate measures, as recommended by the United Nations, to ensure that Canada fully upholds its commitments to women—

This was the promise our Prime Minister made to women during the January 2006 election campaign. It is now November 2007. He was referring to Canada's commitments under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.

I must point out that in 2003, the United Nations committee overseeing the implementation by member states of the measures referred to in the quote, put pressure on Canada to do more for women. The committee was highly critical of a number of Canadian policies and called on the government to seriously address a number of issues such as poverty among women, wage inequity, discrimination against aboriginal women, and child care.

When the United Nations made those comments following the promise by our Prime Minister, one might have expected tangible and satisfactory results for all the women of Quebec and Canada. The sad reality is that did not happen. It turns out that the new government, as it likes to call itself, has done nothing tangible or positive for women.

It is absolutely true that they have taken tangible actions. However, because they concern social services, those actions should be under the jurisdiction of the provinces, not the federal government. While this government claims to have an open mind in terms of provincial jurisdictions, it increasingly interferes by assuming a role in social services which has nothing to do with its mandate.

Instead of becoming involved in those programs, it would be better to concern itself with its own areas of jurisdiction; for example, first nations women or older women who receive the guaranteed income supplement. People should know that 18.9% of older women in Canada who receive the supplement are living below the poverty line. To be living below the poverty line means they have so little money that they must choose between groceries and prescription drugs.

If that is what they call equality for Canadians, if that is what the minister calls equality achieved, I would like her to come back down to earth because she needs to see reality.

This government slashed the women’s program and women’s advocacy funding, saying there was no need to defend women’s rights because women had achieved equality. At the same time, they offer grants of $500,000 to a coalition of associations that promotes the rights of people who own firearms. They have a right to advocate if they want to own a firearm but women have no right to advocate that they should be respected. What planet are we living on?

I really wish my Conservative colleagues—since it is always Conservative colleagues who adopt this arrogant air and who will not listen to the truth—would, at least, have the decency to listen to what they are being told. These comments are not coming from the member for Laval, but from groups of women that my colleague for Laurentides—Labelle and I met with over a full year.

And I especially wish those from Quebec would listen. Unlike our Conservative colleagues, we took the time to tour the whole province to meet with women’s groups as well as representatives of homes and shelters for women and women’s advocacy centres. We met with all the groups who work on behalf of women in whatever way. It was those very women who asked us to represent them in this House, to make known their dissatisfaction to the different parties.

The member for Laval did not simply decide to do this one morning. Indeed, some of the people that we met live in ridings represented by our Conservative colleagues and they, unfortunately, were unable to gain the ear of their elected representative.

A great number of the women we met also told us they wished that the federal government would resume its work in various programs that existed previously, especially those programs to help residents of Canada’s north to obtain food and products that they need to properly feed their families.

In northern Canada, a litre of orange juice costs $22. I do not know who could feed their children properly if they are paying $22 for a litre of orange juice. There used to be programs so that people could get less expensive food, at a price that we might consider normal. But those programs, which made it possible for women to meet their needs and for other women on reserves to apply for assistance, have been eliminated.

We pride ourselves on wanting to have programs so that women can have financial and economic security. But we cannot even pay $100 a month more, through the guaranteed income supplement, so that our older women, who helped to build this country, can live decently. We are told that the guaranteed income supplement has been raised, but it was an increase of $17 a month over the last two years. Is that a real increase? Did my colleagues get a pay raise of $17 a month? I think not; neither did I.

I may seem to be angry and over the top. But I am not ordinarily angry. I am normally even-tempered, and people who really know me can attest to that.

I have spent my entire life, since I was very young, standing up for the rights of women, children and seniors, who have been poorly represented and poorly served by their government. The reason that I decided to be a candidate for the Bloc Québécois was that I believed it was the only party that was genuinely advocating on behalf of people’s interests and rights. It was the only party that was not somehow connected with Bay Street. It was the only party that owed nothing to any corporation and that could not be bought by any corporation.

The reason I chose to join the Bloc Québécois was that I sincerely believed that we could make this government understand that an opposition is a healthy thing in a democracy. When the Conservative government was in opposition, it believed the same thing. I would therefore like the government to open its ears and listen, today, to the women who are calling on it to revisit its position and its policies, because what is at stake today is the quality of life of thousands of women.

When we are talking about economic security, we absolutely have to ensure that women have access to that security, and that requires policies. We have to invest in social housing and provide a decent income through the guaranteed income supplement, and a decent income for older women who lose their jobs.

I see that my speaking time has run out. That is unfortunate. I would have had many things to say, to get my Conservative colleagues to understand that what we want is our rights, and that we have a right to what we want.