Thomas Mulcair

[Pay Equity, February 23rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the only proactive thing in this legislation is the Conservatives' clear and determined intention to deprive Canadian women of the right to equal pay for work of equal value. They are raising the occupational concentration threshold for women from the current 55% to 70%. They are inventing a new exception for the market economy, even though the market is responsible for the discrimination.

Obviously, the minister thinks that women's right to work is a joke. He ought to be replaced.

[The Economy, February 13th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the budget bill will allow more and more foreign takeovers of Canadian companies. The people of Sudbury are suffering the consequences of the Conservatives' inability to ensure that the agreements associated with such takeovers are honoured. When the government allowed the Swiss group Xstrata to take over Falconbridge, the deal was that there were to be no job losses for three years, yet nearly 700 people are unemployed.

How can anyone possibly hope that the government will protect jobs during future takeovers, if it cannot even protect the workers at Xstrata today?

[Outremont Rail Yard, February 13th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Outremont rail yard is a site with tremendous development potential. One precondition is cleaning up the site, since it has serious environmental liabilities.

The former Liberal member of Parliament for Outremont had promised $25 million for that, but never kept his promise. The Conservative government is promising money for infrastructure, but that money is conditional and, above all, partisan.

Citizens groups are worried because their social objectives and quality of life could be compromised if harmonious, sustainable development is not ensured. The City of Montreal, the Université de Montréal and more importantly the public have been waiting for years and deserve to see some action.

The Conservative government must therefore recognize the historic role of the federal government in such a rail site and use some of the money earmarked for infrastructure to finally develop this exceptional site in a way that is socially acceptable.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2009, February 11th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, we have had the opportunity to see just how this budget contains certain provisions aimed at doing secretly what the Conservatives would never have the nerve to do publicly: deprive women of the right to institute legal proceedings, that is to say, to go before the courts in order to obtain equal pay for work of equal value.

I would like my hon. colleague to describe the reaction of women in her riding to the fact that the Conservatives, backed up in this by their Liberal accomplices, are preparing to take this fundamental right away from the women of Canada.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2009, February 11th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague on his speech and ask him to talk specifically about one of the poison pills hidden in the Conservative budget, that is, the fact that they are taking away women's right to equal pay for work of equal value.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2009, February 9th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I was listening with great interest to the speech from my Liberal colleague. I heard in particular her litany of complaints against the bill with regard to a woman's right to equal pay for work of equal value. I know she was part of the status of women committee when the report was brought in and the Liberals were in a minority situation.

At the end of her comments she said something that fascinated me. She asked why the government does not listen to the opposition and bring in changes. However, the Liberals have not asked for any changes, not one.

Interestingly enough, when four members from Newfoundland said they could not vote for the budget because of what it would do to Newfoundland, all six of them were actually required to vote against it.

Here is my question to the Liberal member who just spoke: is she going to be making a proposal to amend the bill? If the government does not respond to that proposal, or if she chooses, like the rest of her colleagues, not to make a proposal, is she going to follow the lead of her colleagues from Newfoundland and stand up for the principles she just said she has and be courageous and vote against the bill, or is she going to fold like all the rest of the Liberals and vote with the Conservatives against women's rights, against employment insurance rights, and against the environment?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2009, February 9th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, my question to the hon. member concerns the three Es.

It is employment insurance; equity, as in pay equity; and the environment.

The bill, contrary to the needs that are obvious, does nothing on employment insurance. It especially does not take away the two week penalty for people who lose their job through no fault of their own. That is money that could be given, flowing directly into the community. We could also extend the base of people, applying the same rules across Canada.

On the environment, the bill provides a rule making power that is not even made public. The government intends to take away the requirement for an environmental assessment for any project under $10 million. If people are destroying a precious wetland, it matters little the value of the project that is going to destroy it, it is the value of the ecosystem that we should be looking at.

The third e, of course, is equity, pay equity. Unlike the provinces that the minister referred to today where they did everything to make sure women had pay equity, here the Conservatives want to take it away.

How can a party that calls itself Liberal support measures like that?

[Points of Order, February 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the facts are abundantly clear. Quebec never did away with equity, as the Conservatives have done. I withdraw the word without hesitation, and I would just like to say that what the minister said was the opposite of the truth.

[The Environment, February 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the minister's affirmation concerning Quebec is a pure falsehood.

The bill also proposes to remove environmental safeguards by making it possible to build certain projects without environmental assessments. The government does not seem to understand that if a precious wetland is destroyed, it matters little that the infrastructure that replaces it is worth less than $10 million. It is the value of the ecosystem that matters.

Does the Prime Minister not understand that in addition to bequeathing a financial debt to future generations, he is also leaving them with an environmental deficit that can never be compensated?

[Pay equity, February 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the government, with the help of the so-called Liberals, is preparing to take away a woman's right to go to court in order to earn equal pay for equal work. Sections 401 and 402 of the bill would take away the possibility for a woman, or her union, to defend her fundamental rights before the courts.

Can the Prime Minister tell us how the economy will benefit from taking away women's rights?