Paule Brunelle

[Business of Supply, September 28th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Laurentides—Labelle.

The Bloc Québécois will support the Liberal motion, because we believe that the cuts to Status of Women Canada that have been announced are symptomatic and provide disturbing evidence of how important women are in the mind of this government.

The Bloc Québécois calls on the government to take a step back, because we believe that this cut is being made not in the spirit of budget rationalization—because we know that this government has surpluses—but rather from an ideological perspective, one that is contrary to the values of Quebeckers. We think that women in Quebec are being judged based on how Status of Women Canada’s programs are being managed.

The Conservative government has announced cuts of $5 million over two years to the secretariat of Status of Women Canada, whose budget is only just over $24 million. That means a cut of 20% of its budget, a budget that it was allocated after heated battle.

I would like to remind this House of the tough battles that were fought, with the Bloc Québécois among those leading the charge, to have the Standing Committee on the Status of Women created. For more than 10 years, we had to call for this committee and demand that it be created, and it finally happened in October 2004. I was among the first group of members who took part in that committee’s work. At those parliamentary committee meetings, where we heard ordinary people, experts and ministers, but most importantly many representatives of groups and organizations, we saw that the needs and the problems are enormous.

That is why I find it absolutely incomprehensible that today the organization that manages those programs is having its budget cut, when women are barely starting to get access to services and the needs are growing.

That committee was given the authority to review all issues arising from the mandate, management, organization and operation of Status of Women Canada, and also to hold an inquiry. If we make cuts to the management of Status of Women Canada, however, who will deal with that committee’s reports? The Standing Committee on the Status of Women is important.

Let us recall that five reports have been submitted. There was a report on maternity benefits, employment insurance parental benefits, that talked about the exclusion of self-employed women—and that is still the case.

A very important report on pay equity was submitted. We know that the pay equity problem is a grave injustice, and that it is very difficult to deal with it. In Quebec, we have made significant progress, but here in Canada women’s wages are still much lower than men’s.

A third report about funding by the women’s program was also submitted. The question was what the women of Canada thought about it.

Of course a report on increased funding for equality-seeking organizations was also submitted. The organizations are underfunded. We have identified a lot of flaws, particularly recently, when Women and the Law had to close down because the minister dragged her feet on providing the funding it needed.

Another report dealt with gender analysis. When we are dealing with discrimination against women, it is important to understand that we have to have an analysis, department by department, to be able to prove what is being argued and prove what women need.

We are concerned that if Status of Women Canada's budget is cut, the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, an essential committee, will have few respondents and few responses.

Yet the Conservative government may well need the expertise of Status of Women Canada—this was abundantly clear in the child care agreement. The Conservative government's decision to cancel the child care agreement, which was signed by the governments of Canada and Quebec on October 28, 2005, was anything but unremarkable.

That legally binding contract, which took months to prepare and was announced with great fanfare, was cancelled the following year by the Conservatives. It is this failure to follow through on promises that women in Canada and Quebec find so discouraging. I would like to remind the House that this cancelled contract represents a loss of over $800 million for child care centres in Quebec.

In its place, the government is offering a $1,200 annual, taxable allowance. This shows just how out of touch this government is with women's needs. It would have been wiser to listen to the Bloc Québécois' suggestion and grant a refundable tax credit, but the government refused to do so.

As further evidence of their obsession with making sure everyone knows about their ideas, it seems that for the first two months, the minister sent parents their $100 cheques through the mail rather than electronically. The cost to taxpayers: $2 million. This is a great injustice.

So when the government comes back to tell us about accountable financial management, that raises more than a few eyebrows.

What about attempts to get preventive withdrawal for female federal employees who work under conditions that could pose a risk to their children's safety, whether at border crossings or elsewhere? Preventive withdrawal for pregnant women is still not the norm.

As for work-life balance, it is clear that the government has no vision about this. We should have a vision about child care, in order to develop a solid network of child care centres for the future so that we can have a safe place for our children and avoid health and dropout problems later on.

Yet, the minister responsible posted this on the Status of Women Canada website. Yesterday, September 27, 2006, we could read this:

As a member of the Canadian Heritage Portfolio, Status of Women Canada plays an important role in the life of Canadians.

Status of Women Canada is responsible for promoting gender equality, and over the next year it will work to achieve the objective of supporting the full participation of Canadian women in all aspects of society. I am pleased that particular attention will be given to those challenges that are currently faced by Canadian women. I look forward to working with them on such issues as the economic stability of women and the situation of Aboriginal women.

Given the circumstances and given the quote from the minister, how could she have written and approved that after announcing a 20% cut in the organization's funding?

Often, when we talk about the economic stability of women, what we are really mean is poverty. Children are living in poverty in Canada because families are poor, and we know that the poorest families in our society are single-parent families, most of which are mother-led families.

Although the Canadian economy grew by 62% between 1994 and 2004, which produced nearly $480 billion more each year in market value during those ten years, more and more women saw their salaries stagnate or barely change, while hard costs such as housing, tuition fees, child care and public transit have increased, which has had an impact on family economies.

In conclusion, it is important that we continue to fight to stop the cutbacks that have been announced. We demand that the government reverse its decision and cancel the cutbacks.

It is important to understand that these cuts are not the result of rational thinking, rather they result from an ideological approach that completely opposes the values of Quebeckers and everything defended by the Bloc Québécois.

We can only conclude that this government is reactionary and, unfortunately, misogynous. We in the Bloc Québécois will continue to rise and defend the women of Quebec and ensure equality in all areas for Quebec's women.

[The Governor General, September 25th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, there were many developments last week following the publication of The Globe and Mail article, but nothing could have prepared us for the surprising statement by the Governor General to mark the first anniversary of her installation. This weekend, Ms. Jean stated, among other things, that it was time for Quebeckers to stop looking for what makes them distinct.

The Bloc Québécois will not stop explaining why Quebeckers form a distinct society in Canada. We will continue to do so because our values, our culture, our way of doing things are distinct. For the Governor General, as the representative of the British monarchy — and not elected for that matter — to preach to Quebec goes well beyond her mandate. If she feels like taking up politics, then she should run for office, get elected and only then will we be interested in having a debate with her.

[Early Learning and Child Care Act, September 25th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to speak about child care. First, I would like to talk about Quebec and its family policy. According to the 2001 census, Quebec had 450,000 children under the age of 6. Of this number, 200,000 are already in the provincial day care network. In addition, it is estimated that 110,000 children are in full- or part-time care outside the network. This family policy therefore clearly meets a real need.

The family policy is built on three main pillars: early childhood centres, the refundable tax credit and parental leave. The refundable tax credit is a quarterly allowance paid by the Government of Quebec, based on family income, household income and number of children. A refundable tax credit does not have the disadvantage of the $1,200 paid out by the Conservative Party. Families receive this tax credit, and it is not clawed back at the end of the year, regardless of their income. Parental leave allows mothers and fathers to stay home longer after a child is born.

In all, Quebec spends $4.5 billion annually on family support, in addition to parental leave, which is funded by Quebec pension plan contributions. In our opinion, day care goes hand in hand with family policy. We also think that a true family policy is a provincial responsibility exclusively. Parental leave, income support and the day care network must be combined in a coherent whole. In our view, for the sake of efficiency, this entire network, all these family policies, must come under provincial jurisdiction alone.

One function of day care centres is to pass on values, culture and language. That is why we maintain that the government closest to the people is better able to meet those needs.

Last week, at a meeting of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, francophones living outside Quebec told us how much they would like to have French-language child care to facilitate early language learning and promote the survival of the language.

We know in this House that the Bloc Québécois opposed the taxable $1,200 allowance and suggested a refundable tax credit for all families. Lower-income families would have benefited from this deductible amount.

We feel that this measure is definitely not a child care service. It represents a social program, at most, and not enough money to be useful. I was infuriated to learn that, in July and August, the government sent out paper cheques in the amount of $100, rather than send them electronically. The operation cost $2 million.

Doing it that way allowed the minister to attach to the cheque a message for the parents, indicating that the universal child care benefit was paid directly to families because the government believes that parents know better than anyone what is best for their children.

In my opinion, the government is clearly trying to play politics at the expense of Canadian children. This must not be tolerated.

Bill C-303 has proven to be quite a matter of conscience for the Bloc Québécois.

On one hand, this bill does not respect the federal-provincial jurisdictions as set out in the Constitution. In our opinion, the Constitution clearly states that education and family policies are not federal jurisdictions. Furthermore, under this bill, child care service providers would have to commit to respecting a series of federal criteria regarding child care. The provinces would also have to commit, given the purported spending power, the legitimacy of which has always been contested by the Quebec government. In our opinion, this bill clearly was not introduced in the right Parliament.

On the other hand, this bill excludes Quebec entirely from this federalizing of family policies.

It respects the motion unanimously passed in Quebec's National Assembly on November 3, 2004, which states:

That, in the negotiations with the federal government on the implementation of a new Canada-wide child care program, the National Assembly support the Government of Quebec in its efforts to obtain funding with no strings attached and in the respect of Quebec's constitutional jurisdictions.

We also see that by accepting the social union agreement and by agreeing to align their family support policy with child tax benefits, the provinces, except Quebec, have allowed the federal government to take the leadership role in matters of family policy. Outside Quebec, the federal government has truly become the master of family policy.

We believe that passing this bill would allow Quebec to recoup the $807 million the Conservative government is denying us as a result of tearing up the agreement on funding child care. That is why we are in favour of this bill.

When the Liberal child care program was announced in 2004, reaction from defenders of this child care service truly showed us the difference in where Quebeckers and Canadians stand. In Canada, this announcement was seen as a promise to create the Canada-wide network of child care centres that people were looking for, and we can understand that. However, in Quebec, the child care service network already existed. The only thing Quebeckers saw in the child care program was just another unconditional transfer.

We would like to be relieved of the financial burden we are suffering as a result of the fiscal imbalance. We are making a tremendous investment in our children and families and we want proper financial compensation for our efforts.

Bill C-303 takes into account, which is quite rare—we have not seen much of this at the federal level—these two opposing tendencies in federal-provincial relations. In Quebec, we reject interference, but outside Quebec, Ottawa is seen as the guarantor of social progress, which is highly conducive to centralization.

In Bill C-303, with clause 4 allowing a right to opt out with full financial compensation, we believe this takes into account these opposite views of Canada; these two very different ways of seeing things.

We believe Bill C-303 recognizes the unique expertise of the Government of Quebec in the area of day care in North America. This recognition comes three years after the OECD had already stated the following in a study on day care:

There are, however, positive developments that are important to underline:

The extraordinary advance made by Quebec, which has launched one of the most ambitious and interesting early education and care policies in North America. ... none of these provinces showed the same clarity of vision as Quebec in addressing the needs of young children and families.

Therefore we support this bill. We only want the best for all Canadian children. Let us create a day care program that will meet those expectations.

When the member for Victoria spoke of equality and inclusiveness, it was clear that creating a policy enabling children to grow and to develops is very important to her. In my opinion, by investing in day care we are visionaries and we are thinking about the future. By supporting day cares activities focussing on socialization that lead to learning at a very early age, we will eliminate a great deal of illiteracy and violence in our societies. It is important to have a vision for the future. It allows us to create a progressive society, a society where education is a priority.

[Securities Industry, June 22nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, unless the Prime Minister wants to start a round of constitutional negotiations, will he remind his Minister of Finance that it is not up to him to decide whether or not the government will respect the Constitution as regards the securities sector? In other words, will he bring his minister back into line immediately?

[Securities Industry, June 22nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Finance said this about securities, “—the issue is not whether this falls under provincial jurisdiction. The important thing is the best interest of Canadians, who must be protected in our securities markets”.

How can the Prime Minister allow his Finance Minister to ignore the provisions in Canada's Constitution so he can do what he wants and centralize the securities sector in Toronto?

[Government Policies, June 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, there is more. Other issues that are very important to Quebeckers have received no more than a passing glance from his government.

Limiting imports of milk by-products is a priority for agricultural producers, but it will never happen because his government does not believe in it. Older workers need help, but the government has not made any POWA announcements. The softwood industry needs loan guarantees urgently, but his government refuses to give them.

How can the Prime Minister claim to be on the same wavelength as Quebeckers when what is important to them is not important to his government?

[Government Policies, June 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister will be in Quebec City for the Fête nationale, but unfortunately, everything Quebeckers hold dear seems unimportant to his government. The Kyoto agreement is a priority for Quebeckers; his government has struck Kyoto from its agenda. His government plans to abolish the gun registry, which 76% of Quebeckers support. Antiscab legislation is a reality in Quebec but not in Ottawa because of his government.

Given this context, how can the Prime Minister justify telling Quebeckers that his government shares their priorities?

[Canadian Dollar, June 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the rising Canadian dollar is a major economic obstacle for exporters. This factor is wreaking havoc in the riding of Trois-Rivières and elsewhere.

The rising Canadian dollar cuts into our factories' profit margins, which results in job losses and a local economic slowdown.

For example, Kruger announced job cuts at its main plant in Trois-Rivières. Over the next two years, restructuring will result in the elimination of 80 jobs.

Job losses are having a direct negative effect on consumption, as well as repercussions on small and medium-sized businesses who must also cut jobs.

This situation is very troubling. The Bloc Québécois urges the federal government to implement energy measures to support the manufacturing sector, which is such an important source of jobs in the regions.

[Federal Accountability Act, June 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I take the floor in this chamber. Perhaps I shall succeed, as women often do, in restoring a little moderation to all these discussions.

Let us look first of all at the evolution of this bill. As it is a bill on accountability, one cannot help but be struck by the way that certain powers have been removed from the parliamentary committee by hastening the debate and ending up with certain amendments that will reduce the power of parliamentarians.

As a parliamentarian, I take my responsibilities to heart. The citizens of Trois-Rivières have placed their trust in me. For me, it is important to guarantee democracy in this Parliament. The committees are an important mechanism for achieving that goal.

The Bloc Québécois is in favour of the principle of this bill. For some months now, it has proposed numerous recommendations for improving the current accountability framework.

The Bloc Québécois did its homework and tabled 72 recommendations in the wake of the Gomery commission. Those 72 recommendations were made necessary by all the ethical problems that have been encountered. We wanted to locate the sponsorship money, assign powers and resources to officers of Parliament, amend the Access to Information Act and the Lobbyists Registration Act, and protect whistleblowers. All of these subjects are addressed in this bill—unfortunately, some not so successfully.

For example, consider ethics. Ethics was certainly at the heart of the last election campaign. The sponsorship scandal was revealed by the Bloc Québécois. The Bloc was constantly alerting the public on this subject, and so helped to oust the Liberals from power.

What did the public tell us in electing a minority Conservative government? It told us that this government had to clean up political practices and establish accountability in this Parliament. However, one can wonder why it is necessary to do this so quickly, in such a rush.

The Bloc Québécois has some major criticisms to make about the passage of this bill, which is crucial and much awaited by the population, and which deserved more extensive review. Why the urgency? We have the right to ask the question.

The Gomery commission produced a set of recommendations which have to be implemented: that is certain. However, given all the abuses we have seen, it is clear that the problem is not caused by a lack of rules, but by the fact that those rules are not being followed. Now what does this bill propose to us? It proposes new rules.

In the opinion of the Bloc, the bill has certain weaknesses in this regard, insofar as the process is not clear. This amendment calling for a review every five years, to which the Bloc has just given its support, can certainly provide the beginning of a solution.

In five years, perhaps we will be having the same discussions, to the effect that we have a lot of rules, but no means of preventing the rules from being circumvented and that a review is needed.

Accountability demands a great deal of transparency. One wonders how an abuse can be denounced if it is not known. That is why the Bloc called for a reform of the Access to Information Act. Information is power. For the Bloc, it is important for all information to be accessible. It is also important for all the foundations and crown corporations to be subject to this Access to Information Act.

One cannot be halfway transparent or a quarter or an eighth of the way transparent. When we talk about transparency, we must be sure that everything is on the table so that parliamentarians, and parliamentary committees in particular, can debate it and come up with solutions. Human nature being what it is, we know full well that there will always be individuals who will sneak through the back door. That is how we end up with such significant abuses.

There is another crucial aspect that is very little talked about and that is the real will of the government caucus and all parliamentarians in this House to intervene and change things. I have been a member here in this House for two years now. Judging by a number of bills and committee reports, we find that political will is lacking. Things do not change. Another election is called and we end up dealing with the same problems.

What is more, in this bill, the government refused to increase the penalties for those who contravene the Ethics Act. We feel this lacks transparency and this certainly would have been a way to prevent abuse. It is important for this bill to be debated in this House. It is a shame it is being debated so quickly. Even elected officials from France, on their recent visit to Canada, said they were watching what was going on this House and mentioned that they, too, were having challenges with respect to accountability and that our work could, perhaps, have been used as a model. Nonetheless, it seems we are missing a good opportunity to get to the bottom of things because we are only skimming the surface and moving far too quickly.

[Business of Supply, June 15th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Laval on her passionate speech. It is easy to see that her broad experience with this issue is a major asset to this House.

It is quite surprising in this debate that they want global solutions when local services provide the best answer. I think that is what my colleague from Laval was trying to say when she talked about the need to be close to seniors to be well informed of their needs and expectations.

Rather than try to create new interferences and new tools, let us look at existing programs such as the Program for Older Worker Adjustment (POWA), and providing retroactivity for the guaranteed income supplement.

I would like the hon. member for Laval to continue to illustrate this need for the federal government to invest in programs. We want unconditional money transfers and that is certainly not what this motion is proposing.