Paule Brunelle

[Justice, June 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, according to the Montreal Gazette of June 13, the RCMP estimated in February 2004 that 800 people enter Canada annually to be sold, most of them in the sex trade. Traffic in human beings means their recruitment by some kind of intimidation or offer of payment by someone with authority over them, for purposes of exploitation.

What measures is the government taking to prevent this abomination of trafficking in people, trafficking in foreigners?

[Department of Social Development Act, June 8th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I wish to congratulate my colleague for Lévis—Bellechasse on his speech.

This bill speaks to me, because I heard a number of women victims of poverty—I use the word “victims” advisedly—during the numerous sessions of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. This is indeed a scourge and solutions must be found.

I am certain that the solutions best adapted to the needs of the population are developed by front-line agencies where the problems are clearly understood, and certainly not by 12,000 public servants issuing rules and monitoring the situation. All the money that ought to be going back to the people will get lost in the bureaucracy.

My colleague outlined a couple of solutions in his speech, including a refundable tax credit. I would like to hear some detail from him on how that money could be refunded. The problem of the fiscal imbalance is this: what is lacking is neither ideas nor solutions, but money. The money needs to be as close to the community as possible. This idea of introducing a refundable tax credit may be a new approach requiring less administration and will certainly be a bit more efficient.

[Status of Women, June 2nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois supports the recommendations in the third report of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, which was tabled in the House of Commons on May 20.

The committee recommends that the federal government increase funding to the women’s program at Status of Women Canada by at least 25% for investments in women’s groups and equality seeking organizations. The present amount is far from sufficient, as it represents less than 60¢ per woman per year.

The committee recommends that the government heed the unanimous call from equality seeking organizations for core funding to allow them some financial stability. In addition, there will have to be some project funding to meet new challenges.

The organizations in Quebec are in desperate need. This is why the Liberal government must act promptly and transfer this funding to Quebec to enable it to continue promoting equality for women.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, May 17th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, the federal budget tabled on February 23 is not acceptable for a multitude of reasons. I would like to focus on one aspect, that of the economic situation of women and the budget's impact on them.

The budgets of the past 10 years have done very little to increase women's economic security. A recent review by the Canadian Feminist Alliance for International Action of the last 10 federal budgets reported that women are doubly penalized by this government's budget measures.

Between 1994 and 2004, the Canadian economy grew by 62%, that is, Canadians produced almost $480 billion more in market value per year. And yet, during that period, the salaries of a growing number of women failed to increase or increased only barely, while costs of essentials, such as housing, tuition fees, child care services, public transit and public services continued to rise. We are therefore not surprised to see poor children, because the parents are poor. We know that single mothers are our society's poorest.

Women in part time jobs, earning low wages, continue to be the hardest hit. In Canada, one woman in seven lives below the poverty line. This is totally unacceptable. In Canada, statistics indicate that, in 2002, 51.6% of women living on their own earned salaries below the poverty line.

Cuts in federal spending between 1995 and 1997 affected women disproportionately, especially those most vulnerable. Billions of dollars in lost funding have drastically cut support for women as their responsibilities increase.

According to the public accounts, federal funds for essential programs were cut by nearly $12 billion between 1994-95 and 1996-97. In addition, the restructuring of federal tax arrangements concluded with the provinces was accompanied by the withdrawal of billions in transfer payments between 1995 and 1998.

We note that women suffered more cruelly with the fight against the deficit. From 1997-1998 to 2003-2004, the federal government accumulated over $60 billion in surpluses. Did women benefit from the seven years of surpluses? Certainly not. From the time surpluses first appeared, the federal government has done nothing to repair the damage, and this latest budget is no exception.

We have seen a considerable decline in the social fabric, and it has been really dramatic for women. Between 1998 and 2004, the federal government earmarked $152 billion for tax cuts, which obviously benefited the richest people. Are women part of this group? Of course not.

In comparison, its transfers to the provinces during this period were only $34 billion in net new funding for health care and child care. In addition, it failed to cancel the changes made to the employment insurance system during the deficit period, which reduced the number of women eligible and the benefits that they received.

In 1994, 49% of women were eligible for employment insurance. After the reforms in 2001, only 33% were eligible, in comparison with 44% of men. And this budget fails to correct the situation.

Quebeckers have long wanted an independent fund and commission as well as improvements to the coverage provided by the employment insurance system, that is to say, the eligibility threshold reduced to 360 hours, an increase of five weeks in the duration of the payments, and so forth.

I personally introduced a bill to this effect just a few months ago. I can assure you that Quebec workers were not very impressed by the insensitivity shown by the Liberals who voted against this bill, thereby denying a right to the unemployed women of Quebec, namely the right to employment insurance.

In this budget, in addition to refusing to make improvements to employment insurance or to correct the fiscal imbalance, the Liberal government is now patching together ad hoc agreements with certain provinces to the detriment of Quebec.

Since the mid-1990s, the investment in programs to improve the financial security of women and families has been maintained at levels not seen since the late 1940s.

There is an urgent need to rectify the situation. But this budget fails to make the changes we hoped to see in order to improve the financial situation of women.

The Standing Committee on the Status of Women, on which I sit, requested over 25% in increased funding for Status of Women Canada programs. These programs go directly to help women. But there is no trace of this in the budget. Status of Women Canada has only $10 million in its programs for all the projects and all the programs of women's groups across Canada. This is far too little and nothing gets solved.

That is why the Bloc Québécois is opposed to this budget.

[Pay Equity, May 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, on May 4, the women of the Pay Equity Network demonstrated on Parliament Hill calling on members of Parliament to pass proactive pay equity legislation.

On Saturday some 5,000 women, gathered in Quebec City to welcome the world march of women's global charter for humanity, called for pay equity, among other things.

Over a year ago, the federal pay equity task force published its report recommending passing new legislation. One year later, the Liberal government still has not tabled a bill to correct the present injustices. Under current legislation, the onus is on women to file complaints.

Need I remind the House that equal pay for work of equal value is a human right? What is the government waiting for to acknowledge this through appropriate legislation?

[Quarantine Act, May 5th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the hon. member for Hochelaga on his oratorical skills. It is always a pleasure to hear him speak. I would, however, like him to make a few clarifications.

With respect to this Quarantine Act, he told us about a concern over dead bodies that might be on a ship. What is the concern? Should there be concern over dead animals? Might they pose a danger to the public? How does this bill address these questions?

[Petitions, May 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is in support of the freedom of choice in making health decisions. These petitioners call on Parliament to provide Canadians with greater access to non-harmful preventive and medicinal options. They therefore urge parliamentarians to enact Bill C-420, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act.

[Petitions, May 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, today, I would like to present two petitions.

The first one is against Bill C-38, on same sex marriage.

[Right to Vote, April 18th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, 65 years ago today, the National Assembly of Quebec passed legislation granting women the right to vote and to be eligible as candidates in elections in Quebec.

For younger people, it is probably hard to believe that, before 1940, in Quebec, women did not have the right to vote in elections and were considered ineligible as candidates in an election.

Gaining the right to vote and to run for office in an election was a key milestone on our path toward social equality for men and women. Women's access to power facilitated the introduction of many changes which helped Quebec's society evolve.

I thank these pioneers who mapped the path to gaining this right. Thanks to them, we now live in an increasingly fair and equal society.

[Sponsorship Program, April 11th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, just like former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services is wrapping himself in the Canadian flag to justify the Liberals' unspeakable behaviour in the sponsorship scandal.

Does the Minister of Public Works and Government Services realize he is dishonouring the flag by using such a line of defence?