Nicole Demers

[Business of Supply, February 15th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. As I said earlier, we heard from women from all regions of Canada. Yesterday, we had a woman from Yukon who travelled for a whole day to get to the committee meeting.

Whether from New Brunswick, Yukon, Alberta or British Columbia, women from all regions have told us the same thing: in many cases, cutting these programs will force their organizations to shut down. If that happens, women will no longer have access to services that were vital to ensuring that they obtain the rights and other services they are entitled to.

[Business of Supply, February 15th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the House that I will share my time with the hon. member for Trois-Rivières.

It is with great sadness that I rise in the House today because, in many regards, the motion before us forces us towards a sad conclusion. My speech here this morning will focus mainly on the part of the motion that deals with the cuts made to Status of Women Canada.

For the past several weeks, the Standing Committee on the Status of Women has been hearing from representatives of women's groups directly affected by these cuts. These women's groups have made remarkable progress in achieving gender equality within our society for the women of Quebec and Canada.

These women have travelled from across the country to try to convince the government to reverse its decision. What is most shocking about these cuts is that they have been made deliberately.

The Minister for the Status of Women even stated—she had the audacity to say—that 12 of the 16 Status of Women Canada offices were being closed because the employees in those offices provided too much support to groups that lobby for women's rights rather than focussing on providing direct services to women.

First, I would remind the minister that direct services fall under the jurisdiction of the provinces and territories. Second, it is extremely pernicious to do this sort of thing. It shows very little respect for women who are fighting to obtain their rights.

I fail to understand. Every day, it seems, this government tells us that Canadians are important to it and that it wants what is best for them. But every day, it seems, as a result of ideological decisions, the government makes them more vulnerable. I can not understand it. Women represent 52% of the population. Women all across Canada are protesting these cuts. To date, there is perhaps one group that I have heard of that was in favour of these cuts. That group is REAL Women of Canada.

I remind members that REAL Women of Canada represents 50,000 people while we represent 52% of the population, that is almost 18 million women. Consequently, 50,000 people out of 18 million is a very small number on which to base the policies that affect all women.

In addition, Gwen O'Reilly of the Northwestern Ontario Women's Center tells us that the cuts affect all the groups in communities that benefited from the services that were previously offered: francophones, aboriginal people, rural residents, and women’s groups working on issues of poverty, violence, access to justice and employment.

Yet, in December 2005, the Prime Minister made an election promise to respect and promote the human rights of women.

Where is he now? When do we hear him standing to speak out against the decisions of his ministers? Women know that he is not listening, as Mrs. Day of CFAIA put it so well.

Clearly, this government is very hostile toward women who form groups to defend and promote the principle of equality for women. The closing of 12 offices is an extreme measure to ensure that women’s organizations can no longer participate and make their voices heard in the development of public policies.

It is shameful to treat women this way, to try to muzzle them and to try to ensure that women will no longer have the chance to be heard in defence of their rights. It is shameful. I would even say that by changing this program into a program of services to individuals, the government wants to make women even more dependent.

The women of Quebec and of Canada do not need charity. That is what the government is now doing by changing these programs; it is offering charity. For too long, women were under the thumb of the Church. Everything they received was given as charity; they had no rights; they had to bend to the will of people who decided what rights we were entitled to.

Now, women have come into their own. We have developed tools and programs to ensure that all women have the same rights, that all women will have access to equality and that all women will have access to equity.

These budget cuts are designed to ensure that we will return to the middle ages and that women will become “real women”. That may be the Prime Minister's position. In my opinion, real women are persons unto themselves and REAL Women of Canada does not represent all Canadian women and especially not me. I consider myself to be a real woman and I believe that I have the right to express my disagreement when I do not agree with the decisions made for me and not by me.

As I was saying, Quebec and Canadian women do not need charity. We thirst for justice, equity and respect. Even though the Prime Minister and the Minister of Status of Women are trying to silence us, we will be heard. We will continue to speak out until the Prime Minister, his Minister of Status of Women, his cabinet and his members have understood and reinstate the programs and tools needed to attain these objectives of respect, rights, justice and equity.

[Status of Women, February 14th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, after years of fighting, 300,000 Quebec women in the public sector have achieved pay equity. In the meantime, women working in the federal public service and the private sector are still waiting.

If the Minister of Status of Women is so concerned about equality, what is she waiting for to adopt pay equity legislation to provide justice for all women under her jurisdiction?

[Hats Off to You!, February 9th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the “Hats Off to You!” competition gives bursaries to young women who dare to study in fields that lead to traditionally male-dominated occupations.

Currently the average salary for women is just three quarters that of men, except when women are in male-dominated occupations, where they are paid equally. However, women make up just 11% in vocational training and 20% in technical training.

This competition is indispensable because it provides young girls models for success, breaks traditional stereotypes and broadens their horizons.

Today is the last day for entering the competition and winners will be announced on May 7. They will be given cash prizes ranging from $500 to $5,000 and offered paid work placements and career development trips to France, to encourage them to continue down this path.

On behalf of all my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois, I commend all these women who dare to be different and I wish them good luck.

[Business of Supply, February 8th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I will make the question even simpler. Will he vote for or against the Bloc Québécois motion?

[Business of Supply, February 8th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it appears my honourable colleague from Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière is very familiar with the information available all over the Internet about greenhouse gases.

But I wonder if he has taken the time to read the documentation out of Nairobi this summer, when it became clear that the only American plan receiving any praise was not the Conservatives' plan; it was Quebec's plan. Even so, his government is refusing to give Quebec the $328 million the province needs to put that plan into action.

Does my honourable colleague think that only his party has the right idea and that everyone else in the whole wide world is wrong?

[Criminal Code, February 6th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, we must not have read the same bill. I do not understand. The objective of the bill is clear. It is not to help the provinces legislate; it is to help the government tell the provinces what to do.

[Criminal Code, February 6th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in this House to debate Bill C-26.

I will be sharing my time with the member for Richmond—Arthabaska, my worthy and eminent colleague, who always comes to the defence of the farmers. He does so in this House and outside it as well, in the ridings and throughout the regions.

I rise in this House to debate Bill C-26 because we in the Bloc Québécois support neither the bill nor the principle of it. I know of no industry that would ask government to legislate a restriction on its profits. My colleague alleged that the industry needed regulation. Regulation of the consumer industry is a provincial and territorial and local business matter. It does not come under federal government jurisdiction.

The aim of the bill, as I read and understand it and as I examine it like my Bloc colleagues, is to amend the Criminal Code, which already contains provisions to restrict the charging of usurious interest rates. Businesses operating in this type of industry want rates higher than those currently in effect under the Criminal Code.

I am not here to protect people represented by other MPs or the people of Canada. MPs will decide what legislation is needed to support their fellow citizens and protect them as required. We must not forget that 547,000 Canadians work for minimum wage and it is primarily they who need payday loans and make use of this industry.

The industry is well entrenched throughout Canada, except in Quebec. Why? Because in Quebec the government has passed legislation in this regard. Rates of interest have been set below the usurious rates charged elsewhere in Canada, well below the figure of 60%. We must keep this in mind.

Quebec passed this legislation because it is entitled to do so under its authority to legislate to protect its citizens, so that all consumers are well protected against an industry that is abusing its power and making money at the expense of the poor.

That is how I see it. It is an industry that makes money at the expense of the poor and, at present, it is primarily the industry that is pressuring the government to reconsider this legislation. That is wrong. Members have to realize that we must not give in to lobbying by the industry and that we must respect those who elected us to this House. We must provide the best framework for our citizens. Once again, this the is a provincial responsibility.

Furthermore, if we accept this bill as it is now written, we will be opening the door to a great danger. The bill states that the federal government would have the right of oversight and veto regarding provincial and territorial legislation. Imagine that the Prime Minister in this House decides to examine Quebec's legislation. We decided that an interest rate of 60% was too high and the Prime Minister could say that he does not agree. Would all Quebeckers have to pay what the rest of Canadians have decided to pay? That is not right. We have established rules to protect our citizens. That is precisely why it is important that we not adopt this bill. It meddles directly in areas of provincial and territorial jurisdiction.

Since the government was elected, the Prime Minister has been making very public speeches claiming he wants to limit encroachment on provincial and territorial jurisdiction. Yet this bill does just the opposite, giving the federal government even more powers than before. Does that make sense? I am asking you, Mr. Speaker. I realize you cannot answer me, but I know that you have been thinking about this and coming to the conclusion that what the government is doing does not make sense.

I hope my colleagues will also give this some thought and come to the same conclusion that when we legislate, when we decide to bring in a new law, that law has to represent as many people as possible, the interests of as many citizens as possible, the interests of citizens who do not have a voice.

That is why we are here. We are not here to represent industry, though we often do so when it is in our best interest. We defend industry when our citizens have jobs they want to keep and when they have the right to work.

Our first duty is to the citizens who elected us as members of Parliament. We must remember that as we discuss this bill in the House. We have discussed it over the past few days. I hope my colleagues will remember that.

I hope they will remember that the people who use this kind of service are society's poorest—the ones earning minimum wage. If we give people the opportunity to borrow money from these places, they will sink deeper and deeper into a cycle of debt from which they will have a very hard time escaping. We must remember that.

Payday lending is short term lending involving unsecured loans for small sums of money—a few hundred dollars for a couple of weeks.

Lenders require that the borrower provide a cheque so that they can get their money as soon as the borrower is paid. Earlier, the claim was made that people earning minimum wage do not have access to banks. But if they are able to write a cheque to pay a loan, then they must have a bank account. We therefore need to work with the banks to make sure these people have access to loans at much lower, much more reasonable rates. Interest rates on personal loans, consumer loans, currently range from 6% to 7%, nowhere near the usurious rates payday lenders charge.

Even the Consumers' Association of Canada is very concerned. Yet the background information on this bill says that it is at the request of the Consumers' Association of Canada and the people who use this type of company that the government is introducing legislation to amend the Criminal Code on criminal interest rates. This legislation has served Canada well to date, but Quebec has more restrictive legislation.

All consumers will lose because of this legislation. The Consumers' Association of Canada understood this. And if the Consumers' Association of Canada understood this, why are we having so much trouble understanding it? If an association that represents so many people properly, effectively and professionally understood it, why are the members who are here to represent their constituents' interests having so much trouble understanding it? The association even believes that the industry is calling for this amendment for its own benefit.

Consumer protection is within the jurisdiction of the Government of Quebec and the provinces. That is why I would ask all my colleagues in this House to think carefully before giving in to pressure from payday loan companies. I would ask them to think about all their constituents who could become trapped in this cycle of debt. We must be very careful. This bill is not what it purports to be. This bill will not help the public. It will help the payday loan companies.

[Status of Women, February 2nd, 2007]

Yesterday, the provincial and territorial status of women ministers met to prepare an action plan to convince the federal minister that she needs to reverse her decision to slash the budget of Status of Women Canada, because the cuts will have a dramatic impact on women.

During the last election campaign, the Prime Minister proclaimed, “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 in Canada”.

Women's groups were hopeful, but the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Status of Women has eliminated or modified programs that are crucial to meeting that goal, changing funding criteria, prohibiting advocacy activity, cutting 43% of the budget of Status of Women Canada, closing 12 of its 16 offices, abolishing the court challenges program and refusing to adopt improved pay equity legislation.

We must denounce this backward step and demand that the minister reconsider her decision, which is undermining women's equality and rights.

[Canada Pension Plan, January 29th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Joliette is perfectly correct.

Unfortunately, too often when we talk about seniors, we talk about seniors in general, and very often we forget that, for the most part, seniors are women. That is because women have a much longer life expectancy than men. Yet, despite all the difficulties that women face it is hard to go into great detail on this subject.

As I stated earlier, 38% of seniors in my riding are over 75. That means that most of them have never asked for any kind of help. These people have always been self-reliant. They have always managed to get by and, unfortunately, today they find themselves in a difficult and deplorable situation. We do not have access to these people because, having never asked for help, they are not known to local health agencies and welfare groups, or to social workers. They do not know that they are entitled to help and that they have a right to GIS benefits. They are in dire straights because they are not aware of their rights. They do not know that if they had access to the guaranteed income supplement they might be able to eat better instead of spending their money on medication. They could perhaps decide to spend money on heating instead of having to wear layers of clothing because they do not have the necessary financial means to pay for housing, medication and food as well as for heating. Frequently, these people have to do without a telephone. Often they have no visitors because they have been predeceased by other family members.

Not many years ago, when someone retired at 65, it was thought he or she would be around till age 75 or 76. They had put aside enough money for 10 years or so. Today, these people are 90 or 95. What they managed to save, often with great difficulty, has vanished.

The interest rates that banks pay are not very generous. Indeed, our banks are very stingy. In fact, interest rates have been reduced to 1%, 2%, or a generous 3%. As a result, these people have neither capital nor income. They do not know whom to turn to for their basic needs. It is essential that we do our utmost for—