Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 055 (Official Version)

I have the honour to lay upon the table, pursuant to subsection 23(3) of the Auditor General Act, the Report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development to the House of Commons for the year 2006.

[Translation]

This document is referred permanently to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.

* * *

[English]

Individual Member's Expenditures 2005-06

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

I also have the honour to lay upon the table a document entitled Individual Member's Expenditures for the Fiscal Year 2005-06.

* * *

House of Commons Calendar

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

Pursuant to Standing Order 28(2)(b), I have the honour to lay upon the table the House of Commons calendar for the year 2007.

* * *

Public Accounts of Canada 2005-06

[Table of Contents]

Hon. John Baird (President of the Treasury Board, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, Canada's new government is committed to openness, transparency and accountability. Today will be the first time in 25 years that the Public Accounts of Canada are being tabled publicly in the House of Commons.

Therefore, it gives me great honour to table, in both official languages, the Public Accounts of Canada for 2005-06.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. John Williams:

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to congratulate the President of the Treasury Board. As the chair of the public accounts committee for many years, we asked for, demanded, that these documents be tabled openly and publicly rather than surreptitiously through the back door. I would like to congratulate the minister for doing so.

* * *

National Ovarian Cancer Month Act

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Mario Silva (Davenport, Lib.)

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-355, An Act to establish National Ovarian Cancer Month.

He said: Mr. Speaker, on a day when this House and the Liberal Party are dedicating their time to advancing women's rights, I am humbled to be able to introduce a bill that would fight and raise awareness of a disease that afflicts over 2,600 Canadian women per year.

Ovarian cancer is often treatable when caught in the early stages. However, due to its vague symptoms, it is imperative that we support research into early detection tests and raise awareness of this disease across Canada.

Therefore, it gives me great pleasure to introduce my private member's bill which will declare September as national ovarian cancer month. I would especially like to thank Ryan Kelahear for his hard work on this file and extend personal support for the women and families fighting this disease. Together we can find a cure.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

* * *

(1005)

Questions on the Order Paper

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

Is that agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Business of Supply]

* * *

[English]

Business of Supply

Opposition Motion--Status of Women

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Maria Minna (Beaches—East York, Lib.)

moved:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government fails to recognize the many roles of women in Canadian society and the importance of providing all Canadian women with equal opportunity; and the House objects to the government’s partisan and discriminatory cuts in federal support for women’s programs and services.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Discussions have taken place between all parties and I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That at the conclusion of today's debate on the opposition motion in the name of the member for Beaches—East York, all questions necessary to dispose of this motion be deemed put, a recorded division deemed requested and deferred to 3 p.m. on Tuesday, October 3, 2006.

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

Does the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Maria Minna:

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me today to rise to support this motion.

The motion deals with an issue that is extremely important to all Canadians: equality for women.

Budget cuts affect us all, but mostly the very vulnerable in our country.

The Treasury Board president defends his government's cuts by referring to the cuts to social programs made by the Liberal government 10 years ago. However, we cut spending in a successful effort to deal with a $42 billion deficit resulting from the fiscal mismanagement of the previous Conservative government. The Conservatives had reduced Canada to what the brokers on Wall Street described as a third world economy.

Today's cuts are being made despite the fact that we have a $13.2 billion surplus, thanks to the prudent fiscal management of the recent Liberal government.

We are heading down the meanspirited path of Mike Harris in Ontario. Two former Mike Harris hatchet men are leading the charge in their new federal roles as finance minister and Treasury Board president.

Soon there will be no funding and no services, and it will take a generation to fix. The most vulnerable groups are affected first, including women.

It is all in the cuts. The list includes: $5 million from status of women; $45 million from housing, we were fighting for housing just two minutes ago and here we are now cutting; volunteerism, now the government is punishing volunteers; youth international internship programs; youth employment; literacy; court challenges program; and important support programs for the most vulnerable in our society. The government is hammering women, aboriginals and youth. This is totally unacceptable.

It is targeting equality seeking groups because this government believes that they are a threat to its voter base.

A government with only 125 seats out of 308 in this House has absolutely no mandate to make such major changes to the social fabric of Canada.

Let us not forget that this Prime Minister, during the recent election campaign, signed a commitment to “ensure that Canada fully upholds its equality commitments to women”.

How do we square that with the Draconian cuts to women's programs that this government has just made?

I have news for the folks across the aisle. The government must address the needs of all Canadians not just its favourite ones.

Our democratic system has to support the fight for equality rights for all citizens, including: minority language groups, immigrant groups, religious groups, disability groups, same-sex rights groups, and women's groups. They all need the resources to ensure their arguments are heard when their rights are trampled on.

We are approaching the 25th anniversary of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It should be a cause for celebration. Instead, this government dishonours that by shutting out equality seeking groups. Women were only included in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982, and that was only after they marched on Ottawa to demand recognition.

The court challenges program established under the Liberal government was meant to implement this kind of thing. That program was dismantled by the Brian Mulroney Conservatives. It was then reinstated by the former Liberal government. Now, this Conservative government has chopped this program yet again.

What does the court challenges program really do? It seems to me that people think it is a waste of time fighting for people's rights. Let me give some examples.

One example is ESL for immigrant women. In the late eighties the policy of the government was that immigrant women should not receive subsidized English language training because they were not deemed to be going to work, whether they did or not, it did not matter. They did not need English language training. Only men could get training.

It was as a result of a court challenge, which I personally, by the way, was involved with, that women were able to get that turned around.

(1010)

I have here another charter challenge. The Canada pension plan was extended to include on reserve workers after a status Indian, employed on reserve for many years, was excluded from CPP simply for working on reserve, funded by a court challenges program. This was another aboriginal woman again.

The other example is the rape shield. We all know the famous decision on that one, the protection of therapeutic and confidential files of sexual assault survivors in the context of criminal proceedings. These are only but a very few examples. I have many others if the members opposite are interested. The elimination of the court challenges program is just the beginning of the Conservative plan to cut the legs out from under all equality seeking groups.

The cuts that have just been announced are yet another example of the government's lack of compassion for ordinary Canadians. Women have many roles in today's Canada and face many problems of discrimination and violence. The government has to be there to protect. It has to be there for the people of Canada. Instead, the government guts the funding to equality seeking groups that help raise awareness and fight discrimination.

We are saddled with a minister who will not rule out the possibility that Status of Women Canada might wind up on the Conservative chopping block. Does the minister not see the important role this agency serves in promoting gender equality and the full participation of women in the economic, social, cultural and political life of Canada? If, as she has shown so far, she is not prepared to fight for Canadian women, she should resign today.

My colleagues were taken aback, as I was, to hear the minister say:

Our government is not a government that just keeps institutions alive in any of its areas...just for the sake of keeping an institution alive.

What planet is she living on? Maybe it is Pluto. Her attitude is offensive to all Canadian women struggling for decent affordable housing, a decent income and retirement years free from poverty. The minister has no heart in this case and no clout.

The minister says that money spent on women's programs can be farmed out to other departments. The other solution is to hide the problem. By mainstreaming responsibilities, she will be ensuring that no one is responsible for guaranteeing women's equality rights, rights guaranteed to them under the Constitution. When nobody is responsible, there is no accountability.

Without a full department under a real minister, the rights of women under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms will be non-existent. That is what the Status of Women Canada is, which is why it is so important that it be preserved and supported as a lead agency for all government departments in the ongoing quest for equality for the women of Canada.

The knowledge and experience that it has gained in such areas as pay equity, gender based analysis, just name it, must not be sacrificed on the altar of the REAL Women ideology. Canadian women are still marginalized within key political, social and legal institutions. These are still the realities of today. They must have a strong and independent women's movement to promote recommendations in support of women's rights. We must have that to support equality before the law, an adequate standard of living, to fight for meaningful employment and access to justice.

The government must demonstrate leadership and vision on women's equality on all those issues and many more and it must increase the women's budget and make it sustainable, not cut it.

The government must ensure that core funding is available to sustain day to day operations of women's groups. This is what is demanded and this is what is necessary. Instead of this, the President of the Treasury Board says that the government is cutting fat. For the Conservatives, parental leave is fat, affordable housing is fat and women's health is fat.

As we all know, we established the National Centers of Excellence in Women's Health all cross Canada, which was never done before and did not exist. I guess the present government considers the research centres of excellence to be fat. I guess the ESL for immigrant women that I mentioned earlier, which, under a charter challenge, were given the right to access programs, is fat.

(1015)

The Prime Minister says that Canadian men and women of the armed services coming home in coffins is the price we must pay for bringing freedom and equality to Afghani women. Meanwhile, his government is slashing spending on hundreds of programs upon which Canadian women depend for an improved quality of life. He is prepared to leave them voiceless.

Does anyone follow the logic of committing military force to protect the rights of Afghani women while, at the same time, slashing spending on programs designed to promote and protect the rights of Canadian women? I certainly cannot.

We need to further strengthen women's rights to equality and security of the person, not weaken them as the minority Conservative government is doing. The Conservatives are simply caving in to the pressure of right wing radical groups, such as REAL Women, that believe a woman's place is in the home, barefoot in the kitchen.

Women's groups still have a long battle ahead to achieve equality in this country. We are not there. The fight is a huge one. Women in this country were well on their way until the present minority government came along and removed equality from the national agenda altogether.

Liberal governments, on the other hand, are known for their commitment to women's equality. Building on the Liberal achievements from 1993 to 1994, the former Liberal government continued to take action. The following are only some of the things it achieved: first, Parliament established the Standing Committee on the Status of Women in September 2004, which the Conservative government tried to eliminate at the beginning of this Parliament.

In October 2005, an expert panel was created to provide advice and options to strengthen accountability mechanisms to advance gender based analysis and gender equality issues.

In 2000, parental benefits were extended to one year. National Centers of Excellence in Women's Health and the Institute for Gender and Health were created to work on health policy issues unique to women.

Thirty-two million dollars were committed on an annual basis to the national crime prevention initiative and $7 million were committed to the family violence initiative. Of that money, $1 million over four years is being provided to address violence against aboriginal women.

In the fall of 2005, trafficking in persons was added as an offence to the Immigration and Refugee Act, Bill C-49.

In response to the sisters in spirit proposal, the Liberal government provided $5 million over five years to the Native Women's Association of Canada. These funds support NWAC's work with other aboriginal women's organizations and the federal government on activities aimed at ending violence against aboriginal women.

To help make post-secondary education more affordable for lower and middle income Canadians, $2.1 billion over five years were committed to improving student financial assistance. There were $1.3 billion over five years committed to improving settlement and integration services for new immigrants to Canada.

Budget 2005 ensured that senior women would benefit from a $2.7 billion increase over two years to the guaranteed income supplement and a $15 million increase to the new horizons for seniors program.

Despite the progress that we have made, women still only make 71¢ for every dollar a male earns in Canada. The government, in conjunction with women's organizations, must deal with the growing problem of women's economic security.

The National Council on Welfare research shows that women, especially lone parents, stay in poverty longer than others. Poverty costs all Canadians in many ways: increased health care costs, social disintegration and associated crime, untapped potential and labour market activities.

Women are still disadvantaged by the employment insurance program. The program was supposed to be reviewed to assess the inequities for women. Still today, women are less likely to qualify and less likely to get full benefits. Part time workers, mostly women, are excluded. Maternity and parental benefits are least accessible to those mothers who need it the most.

(1020)

Senior women and caregivers are among those most severely at risk of poverty. The old age security and the GIS benefits are below the poverty line and do not factor in actual costs of living, such as rent in Toronto.

EI must be reformed. Hours needed to qualify must be reduced. Self-employed women must be able to contribute and qualify for maternity and parental benefits.

CPP is very important for senior women as well. This is another part that is based on employment but could be interrupted because of violence, child rearing and caregiving. This affects women in a totally different way than it affects men. Taking time out is something that affects women.

The poverty level of seniors is increasing. Unpaid work for women is a major cause of poverty, as I mentioned earlier, because of having to take time out. Caregivers of today are the poor seniors of tomorrow. Women making 71¢ for every dollar made by men is not acceptable. That has to change.

The way we structure the CPP has to change to allow women to deal with taking time out for caregiving, as we do when we have children, because, quite frankly, they are the backbone of our nation. They are holding up the nation right now and are saving us billions of dollars in caregiving. However, because they are pitching in they will pay the price when they are seniors and that is not acceptable.

Increased education levels for women have not changed and this is appalling.

The report from the Standing Committee on the Status of Women clearly shows that the current system does not work.

We need new pay equity legislation. The Liberal Party committed to introducing this legislation in the House but the Conservative government's response to the standing committee, which basically says that it will not introduce pay equity legislation, is further proof that the present government is dead set against equality for women. It has chosen to keep in place an archaic system that has not worked for the last 30 years and has refused to introduce pay equity legislation that would give women some semblance of income security. It is quite obvious that the government does not intend to respect and promote women's human rights. That is yet another clear reason why it is so important to ensure the ongoing federal funding for advocacy groups that defend women's rights.

The government's response to gender based analysis is that it will make sure it is adhered to but it is not prepared to put in place a process or legislation to ensure its use by every department, especially the Department of Finance and other departments that have traditionally resisted integrating gender based analysis of all programs into their systems, which would address the issues of inequalities. This could be identified up front before policies are made and before they impact on women in a negative manner. This is another area that the government completely refuses to act on. We are supposed to trust it on everything but it will eventually get rid of the Status of Women. It seems that it is on the chopping block and that will completely obliterate women's rights.

With respect to pay equity, it is absolutely unacceptable that pay equity is not part of the government's program. When we were in government, we committed to bringing in legislation because the departments were not prepared to function. The only place where we were successful was at CIDA and maybe one other ministry. We actually led the way in training the World Bank with respect to gender based analysis because we had the expertise in the Status of Women Canada department. However, we are not able to use that expertise in our own departments because there is no will to force it. We were prepared to push that with legislation but the present government has refused to do that.

I am proud to inform the House that the Conservatives received only 18% of the vote in my riding of Beaches--East York. My voters understood what the Conservatives would do if they ever came into power. These latest budget cuts demonstrate that my constituents were right when they concluded that the Conservatives were most definitely not fit to govern.

Hon. Peter MacKay: What a meanspirited speech, totally mean-spirited.

Hon. Maria Minna: Yes, it is a meanspirited government when it goes after children, youth and women. It has a surplus of $13 billion which means, of course, that it has to cut services because, my goodness, it does not have the money to pay for them. This is a very sad day indeed.

(1025)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Dave Batters (Palliser, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today and address a number of the comments made by the member opposite.

Maybe that is how campaigning looks in Beaches—East York, but it is fearmongering, plain and simple, going door to door and casting aspersions. I do not know how long that is going to work for that member. I just do not know. The picture she paints of the government is simply not true. The facts do not meld with what she has said. It is just pure fearmongering. Obviously that is what Liberal polls are showing: that this is the latest tactic, the tactic of the week.

Let us ask ourselves this. The member talked about what the government is doing and she cast all kinds of aspersions. Whose interests did the previous Liberal government take care of? It took care of Liberals. That is exactly what the sponsorship scandal was all about. Everyone watching today at home will know. They will remember the envelopes full of cash stuffed under the table in Montreal, Liberals taking care of their friends, Liberal insiders.

What did Canadians think about that? We are talking about millions of dollars, money that could have gone to support programs for women, money that could have supported programs for first nations, money that could have supported our seniors.

What did Canadians think of the Liberal sponsorship scandal? What did Canadians think of Liberals taking care of Liberals? Canadians unceremoniously dumped the Liberal Party from power. The member for Beaches—East York talked about her plurality, but that may change.

What are we on this side of the House doing? We are providing tax savings for all Canadians. We are giving money directly to parents to benefit their children, to families instead of it to advocacy groups. I would like to ask the member, given that this government--

An hon. member: You increased the income tax.

An hon. member: Nothing about women.

Mr. Dave Batters: We put $13.2--

[Table of Contents]

The Deputy Speaker:

Order, please. We do have a lot of people trying to get in and the member has already used up a couple of minutes.

The member for Beaches--East York.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Maria Minna:

Mr. Speaker, the member is throwing a lot of stuff in there. Let me set a few things straight. First, I do not do fearmongering door to door. I am very proud of that. You can check that in my riding. You can go door to door. I do not run dirty campaigns.

[Table of Contents]

The Deputy Speaker:

Order. The member for Beaches--East York has a couple of times already started saying “you” this and “you” that.

Could the member please sit down while I am talking?

The hon. member should not be using the second person. She has done it a number of times and I have hesitated to interrupt her, but I can only listen to it for so long. The hon. member for Beaches--East York.

(1030)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Maria Minna:

That is right, Mr. Speaker, and I will simply say that I do not, and I am not even going to go there any more.

Quite frankly, those members are not prepared to speak about the real issues. All they are going to is fearmongering. They are going through stuff from before. I am not going to go to the smear stuff. They are not prepared to address the real issues. They are afraid to talk about women's issues. There was no mention of what they are planning to do. I think it is despicable that they are going down to the level of the gutter, quite frankly, instead of addressing the issues we are trying to address today.

I cannot believe that the member is actually referring to and being proud of the $1,200. The government actually cut the supplement for children under seven from the poorest families. The government increased taxes for the poorest families and then taxed the $1,200 it is putting into their hands. These families will get a lot less than families with higher incomes. The poorest people will get about $585 or so whereas people in the upper income group will end up getting something closer to $900. That does not even begin to create an early education and child care program in this country.

We are the last country in the world to have such a program. Most progressive countries have a true early education program. The Conservative government is not even interested in discussing real issues today.

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I would certainly agree with the hon. member when she says the Conservatives are afraid to address the real issues as they relate to the status of women. The government has a pretty awful record from what we have seen over the last couple of days, with a billion dollars in cuts.

I would like to ask the hon. member about the record of her own government. The Liberal government's record is nothing to write home about. For the past five years when the Liberals were in power they made no significant increases to the Status of Women budget.

Also, the Liberals failed to introduce pay equity legislation. There was a massive two year pay equity task force review. There were wide consultations and a 500 page report. The Liberal government did nothing to move on that very important task force report, which would have brought in new legislation to ensure that women get equal pay for work of equal value. Why did the hon. member's government do nothing on that score?

The Liberals again failed when it came to child care. The former Liberal government had 13 years to bring in legislation around child care. Nothing happened.

I think it is very interesting to have this debate today, because it is about a record. I would ask the hon. member to look at her own government's record when it was in power. She will see that women's equality actually decreased, not increased, under the Liberal government's watch. What is the member's response to that?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Maria Minna:

Mr. Speaker, first of all, when the task force report on pay equity came in, the government made a commitment to introduce pay equity legislation. Actually, the hon. member's party knocked us out of power and therefore we were not able to do that. Maybe she needs to report that.

On early education and child care, again, we tried in 2000 with $2.1 billion on the table and we could not get the provinces to come onside. Finally, in 2005 we were able to, after much negotiation and $5 billion and basically with conditions saying that the provinces would not get the money otherwise. It took 13 years and we finally got the provinces to sign. Even with that, the province of New Brunswick, headed by a Conservative, was still hedging and it was only an agreement in principle.

The Liberal government did have in place a national program before that party knocked the Liberal government out. That program is still in place. The Conservative government intends to cut it in 2007. Had we been there, that program might have had a chance to actually survive a few years and take root.

With all due respect, we do not have much to apologize for.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I think this is an important debate from a justice perspective also, because we have just seen the cutting of the court challenges program.

I know that the member for Beaches—East York was involved in an early court challenges program that helped the status of women in this country.

I know also that the Law Commission of Canada, something that was established by Parliament, has just been cut by this government. It is not a funding project. It is a statute of this Parliament, the law commission, and that justice minister and his supposedly accountable government are choosing to ignore a statute of Parliament. The government is eliminating something that can only be eliminated with another law from this Parliament.

The justice minister is supposed to be accountable. Here he has to respond to law commission reports, some of which are about senior women. He has a duty to do that. That is what the statute says. What does the government do? Cut it.

I want to ask this member how she feels about the cutting of both the law commission and also the court challenges program and how that affects women.

(1035)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Maria Minna:

Mr. Speaker, what it tells me first of all is that the Conservative government does not believe in citizens being able to fight for their rights and defend themselves under laws that are made by governments.

We have a three-branch governance in this country. We have the parliamentary system with Parliament, the executive branch and the judiciary. The judiciary is there for a reason. The charter challenges program was there to support the most vulnerable citizens of this country in being able to fight for their rights.

The law commission is absolutely fundamental. It was very fundamental in helping us to develop the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to develop some of the rights that we now enjoy in the Constitution. It is there to vet our laws and to encourage and guide. I cannot believe that the government would get rid of the law commission, which, as my colleague said, is a statute.

As I said earlier, on charter challenges, these were immigrant women who were not able to get ESL. I mentioned that earlier. I will not go into it again, but many charter challenges have been made.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Bradley Trost (Saskatoon—Humboldt, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I noticed in the hon. member's speech that she neglected to mention a very positive initiative that the government has brought forward to help all women across Canada.

The government does not support elitist programs. We want to reach out to everyone. In particular, there is our child care program, which has delivered benefits to all Canadian families. I know the hon. member will talk about her party's alternative, but since the Liberals had 13 years in government and never implemented it, one has a hard time taking it realistically.

I want to ask the hon. member why she does not support a program that helps all Canadian families and all Canadian women, helping them to raise and support their children.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Maria Minna:

Mr. Speaker, I have said many times that the $1,200 as income support under the child tax credit is absolutely no problem. It is not an early education and child care program. It does not help all women in Canada. In fact, it hurts the poorest women in this country. As I said, the child supplement was cut and the Conservatives increased the taxes. The $1,200 does not provide any infrastructure for early education and child care. It actually does not help at all. It cannot be called a universal program.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Bev Oda (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Status of Women, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Kildonan—St. Paul.

As the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Status of Women, I am opposed to the motion brought forward by the member for Beaches—East York, first of all because of her misleading use of the facts.

However, before I proceed, I want the House and all Canadians to know that neither I nor any member of this new Conservative government believes that all Canadian women by nature are weak, frail or vulnerable. They are strong, determined and industrious individuals who want a chance to contribute to their families and their communities and succeed in their ambitions and dreams.

Society will have those who will need the help of others and this government will be there for them, but this government will not characterize all Canadian women as the frail and the vulnerable. We will recognize their abilities and vision and enable them to take charge of their lives and realize their full participation as Canadians.

This government has gone further to help women fully participate in the economic, social and cultural life of Canada than the previous Liberal government. We have gone beyond the talk and have taken action.

We all know that women account for over 50% of Canada's population. Women are single mothers, stay at home mothers, presidents, CEOs, business owners, students, and farmers, and the list goes on.

If anyone questions our commitment we have for women, they need only look at our actions. Contrary to what the member opposite would like, actions speak much louder than words.

For example, statistics show that nearly half of all Canadian small and medium sized enterprises have at least one female owner, and since 1997, on average, women have started small and medium sized businesses at twice the rate of men.

In budget 2006, we took action to benefit these businesses. We raised the threshold for small business income eligible for the reduced federal tax rate from $300,000 to $400,000. Also, we reduced the 12% rate for eligible small business income to 11.5% in 2008 and 11% in 2009.

All new Canadians, including immigrant women, are contributing to society. I am proud that this government has provided for increased settlement funding, funding that will enable these women to more quickly become part of the wider Canadian community.

Traditionally, aboriginal women have played key roles in their communities, but it is unacceptable that Canada's record over the past decade on aboriginal women is shameful. Canada, in October of 2005, was cited by the United Nations committee on human rights as failing to adequately address the high rate of violence against aboriginal women. These women and their children deserve safe communities where their economic, social and cultural lives can flourish.

I have met with first nations, Métis and Inuit women's organizations and their message was clear. They are looking for a government that will deliver change. We must continue to support those in the aboriginal community, like Sisters in Spirit, who are taking action.

Aboriginal women are strong leaders in their communities, leaders such as Tracy Gauthier, the Chief of the Mississauga of Scugog Island in my riding of Durham, who has ensured that the needed social and child care needs of her community are being met. Also, there is Leslie Lounsbury, who started the first ever youth magazine in Winnipeg. She is seen as an inspiration for aboriginal women across Canada and, indeed, for all women across Canada. These women are vibrant reminders of how vitally important they are to their communities and how women can make a difference if given a chance.

I would also like to remind the House of the measures this government has taken to strengthen Canada's response to the unique needs of the victims of human trafficking, victims who are often women and children.

(1040)

In the past these women and children were treated not as victims but as criminals to be detained and deported. The Canadian Council for Refugees has been calling for policy changes for several years under the previous Liberal government. This government responded within months of taking office.

As we move into this new century and as the diversity of Canada grows, women are faced with increasingly complex challenges: how to invest in their education, whether to start a family, caring for their elderly family members, or managing the time demands of this new era. The key to helping women and families is to provide the opportunities and choice.

We have implemented new programs that support families such as the new universal child care benefit. In 2007 we will be creating an additional 25,000 new child care spaces across the country each year. These measures reflect the government's commitment to support both women and men as parents in the workforce. We will ensure that all the policies and programs of the government reflect our commitment to the equality for all Canadians.

As the House knows, Status of Women Canada is the federal government agency that promotes the full participation of women in the economic, social and cultural life of our country. I am pleased to inform the House that yesterday the terms and conditions for the women's program were renewed with a mandate focused on achieving results for Canadian women. The women's program will continue to assist organizations such as Single Women in Motherhood Training Program in London, Ontario, which works to help young single mothers to get out of the cycle of poverty and gain access to education, training and employment.

We will also support the Community MicroSkills Development Centre in Etobicoke, Ontario, which is designed to improve the economic and social opportunities for immigrant, racial minority and low income women in that area.

The new terms and conditions are consistent with our commitment to accountability and value for money. Canadian women know the value of a dollar. They know what good use of hard earned money means.

The government wants to make a real difference in Canadian women's lives. We know they want accountability. We know they will test our results in that area because they have to budget every day and every week for their families, and we will meet that challenge.

As the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Status of Women, I would like to reiterate the commitment of the entire government, the new Conservative government, to the full participation of women in the economic, social and cultural life of Canada.

The government was elected on a promise to deliver efficiency and accountability. The government was elected to deliver change. The government was elected to stand up for all Canadians and not marginalize any sector within the Canadian population. The government will deliver and we will deliver so that we make a difference in the lives of Canadians, Canadian women, Canadian children, Canadian seniors, all Canadians in the future as we move forward.

(1045)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the minister. However, the mandate of the Status of Women is to promote gender equality and full participation of women in the economic, social, cultural and political life of the country. By doing that, it means we are investing in women's issues. We are ensuring that surveys are done. We are doing work on human trafficking. All of them are very important issues.

Given the fact that there is a $5 million cut in the budget of the Status of Women, contrary to an independent non-partisan panel that recommended the Status of Women should have an increase in its funding, could the minister explain what the cuts are, how will she deal with that issue and how it will impact Canadian women?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Bev Oda:

Mr. Speaker, I reiterate that the government recognizes, knows and does not have to be told that women are equal. We start from that premise. We do not have to consistently tell women they are not equal, they are vulnerable and, therefore, they need more surveys, more research and more studies. We want to deliver action.

Women across Canada will support the $5 million cut. It is not acceptable that it takes 31¢ to deliver $1 to a women's organization. Consequently, we also know that this 31¢ is not always going, as it had in the past, directly into the hands of women or organizations that will directly help women in their communities, in their families and in their daily lives.

The $5 million cut is through efficiencies. For example, we found locations where Status of Women offices have been renting separate space, when accommodations were available in those cities within federal government buildings already being rented. These are very simple, common sense efficiency cuts that we know we can find without affecting our direct assistance to the women across the country.

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, the minister responsible for the Status of Women has said that actions speak louder than words. Let us look at that. Why are all the Conservative chairs of the committees of the House of Commons male? What does that say about the government's record?

As the minister responsible for the Status of Women, why has she cut 40% of the annual operating budget of the Status of Women? She said that those were administrative things and that they did not affect programming. If that is correct, why did the money not go back into direct programming? We have not seen any increase in programming, so there is a real contradiction in the government claiming that it supports women's equality.

Why was the court challenges program cut, if the government supports women's equality? Why was a $13.2 billion surplus applied to the debt and not reinvested, ensuring that those programs reach women? Finally, when she talks about the Status of Women, why does the minister not defend her own department when she says that the government is not a government that keeps institutions alive just for the sake of keeping it alive? What does she mean by that? Will this department now disappear?

(1050)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Bev Oda:

Mr. Speaker, only a member of the NDP thinks the solution to everything is more money. Conservatives and all Canadian women believe that we need the resources, but we need the resources to do the job effectively. Before one can do a job effectively, one has to identify what needs to be done. Therefore, we have now committed, under the new terms and conditions, that the funds for women's programs will be directed more effectively to action that will make a real difference in Canadian women's lives.

I reiterate, Canadian women are Canadian citizens. Canadian women are Canadian taxpayers. Canadian women are part of the Canadian business community. Cutting down the deficit will impact and benefit them as equally as Canadian men. We recognize the role that the Status of Women can potentially play. It is the programs that are important. It is also important that the action benefits Canadian women and makes a difference in their lives.

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Joy Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, as the vice-chair of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, I must commend the members of the committee, particularly the minister in charge of the Status of Women for her work, for their work in considering the issues facing women now in Canada.

The Standing Committee on the Status of Women was struck for the first time in the 39th Parliament in 2004. In the last several months we have begun to approach a wider spectrum of issues facing women in our society today.

As members of the House, we bring forth varying opinions on issues from accountability measures for gender equality, to pay equity funding, parental benefits for self-employed workers, and the importance of providing all Canadian women with equal opportunity. As our minister has stated, Canadian women are Canadian citizens and they contribute in a major way to the Canadian economy and social aspects of our country.

The committee continues to expand and does not limit itself to a parameter of issues facing women, as all are important when they deter from one's capacity or capability, and we are making giant strides to explore, research and make change.

More recent, we brought forth discussions on the topic of human trafficking, or as some refer to it, modern day slavery. Many people may not be aware that Canada is a receiver of trafficked persons as well as a transit country for trafficking victims intended for the United States. The key aspect that distinguishes trafficking from other types of migration is the aspects of coercion and exploitation. Confiscation of travel documents, violence, threats to harm family members and debt bondage are used as tactics of intimidation and control over trafficked women. In the case of trafficking, the consent of a victim is irrelevant because of the coercion. The majority of transnational victims are trafficked into commercial, sexual exploitation.

Trafficking of women and children is the third largest illegal money making venture. According to Interpol, a trafficked woman can bring in between $75,000 and $250,000 a year for her captors, while costing as little as $1,500 to purchase.

The connections between the demands for prostitution, legalization of sex work and the trafficking in and exploitation of women are being explored. In countries, where sex work and prostitution are legalized, there is an increased demand for the services of trafficked women. This is unacceptable. This is the difference between our government and members opposite. We do not support the legalization of prostitution.

Our new government has recognized the need to respond and address human trafficking. Countries around the world are battling the same issue. We cannot turn a blind eye to the severity of cruelty to women in our own backyards. This is a woman's issue. This is a worldwide issue. We are partnering with organizations such as the Ukrainian-Canadian Congress in Canada to share ideas, stories and legislation, so, together, human trafficking will no longer be tolerated on our soil.

In the last couple of years the RCMP has produced a video to train officers on how to handle situations in human trafficking, which clearly shows that it is aware of this problem. Committees, people, organizations and NGOs are all getting involved to put a stop to this crime.

The motion put forward before the House is incorrect when it states that “the House objects to the government's partisan and discriminatory cuts in federal support for women's programs and services”. We take the issue of human trafficking very seriously.

Earlier this spring the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration announced new measures to help victims of human trafficking. First, victims of human trafficking will receive temporary resident permits for up to 120 days so they can recover from their ordeal and decide if they want to help in the prosecution of their traffickers. Second, the government will give these victims medical support and access to counselling services to help them begin to recover.

Does this sound like a government that is cutting funding for programs and services? I think not. Under the leadership of the minister, the status of women is going in the right direction for all Canadian women.

Human trafficking is a horrific crime and a very serious issue. It is an issue that affects women and children. Therefore, I strongly disagree with the motion put forward by the member opposite, which suggests that the Conservative government fails to recognize the many roles of women in Canadian society and the importance of providing all Canadian women with equal opportunity.

(1055)

Equal opportunity has to do with what the minister just previously said, building business, supporting women, putting money into programs for single parents, and action plans. Not spending 30¢ on the dollar toward those action plans but putting that whole dollar directly toward women's organizations. That is exactly what our minister is talking about today and that is what we are proud to talk about on this side of the House.

I also strongly disagree with the member for Beaches--East York who stated at the status of women committee:

If we deal with only trafficking, which is a small slice of the real issue--an important slice, no question at all--we will not address the real issue, and again we will be diverted to something that is really nice and sexy. It's high-profile, it will get attention and what have you, but it won't address the core problem, it won't.

In view of the fact that on April 6 there was a trafficking ring taken down right in Ontario, this is something that the member opposite should be very aware of and be really ready to study. This is the direction that our government wants to take. We believe, on this side of the House, that there is nothing nice and sexy about abuse, period.

I conclude by saying that we recognize that the many roles of women in our society unfortunately include victims, and by identifying and assisting them with support, we are providing them with equal opportunity. I am proud to be part of a government that continues to explore albeit traditional issues facing women but also those who fall outside of the traditional box. We are working to expand and set precedents.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Maria Minna (Beaches—East York, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I find it reprehensible that the member feels comfortable taking something that was discussed at committee, which I said, out of context. I did not mean sexy in that negative context. I was trying to be facetious in the sense that we needed to discuss also and primarily the economic security of women which underpins some of that issue. She seems to have chosen to quote only a part of it, which shows to me how seriously the government takes this issue.

The issue of trafficking, which is a heinous practice, does not take away from the fact that economic security for women underpins what is going on, whether it is trafficking, prostitution or any other situation. We need to address and tackle the underpinning situations. For instance, 36% of female lone parents are at the poverty rate, 38.4% of unattached women under 65 are at the poverty rate, and unattached senior women are at even a much higher risk.

These are real figures of economic security issues within Canada. There are situations, some of which I mentioned earlier, with respect to unemployment insurance biases, with respect to the Canada pension plan, and with respect to women who are now caregivers.

The member opposite is really skewing words. The issue is the cuts to the Status of Women, and not that we do not agree with trafficking. Of course it is something we need to address, but let us deal with the bottom line.

(1100)

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Joy Smith:

Mr. Speaker, I have heard many things over the past few days. One day the member for Beaches—East York writes that we cut funding to over 500 shelters and the next day on CPAC she says women's hospitals are funded by the women's program. It goes on and on. How can she tell women that spending over 30¢ to deliver $1 is good for Canadian women?

On this side of the House, we are going to be studying more the economic challenges of women. We have divided the Status of Women and the presentations into two parts. It was ruled by a vote that first we would study human trafficking until Christmas, then following that, we would study all these other economic issues, something that we are very concerned about.

The member opposite has taken this opportunity to stand on the Liberal bandwagon and make misleading statements. Canadians are not listening to that. Canadians want solutions to problems and so we are discussing problems and preparing an action plan that will solve those problems.

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member is the vice-chair of the status of women committee. I was surprised that she chose to only focus on one issue. Maybe she feels that she cannot defend anything else that her government has done.

I want to come back to the pay equity task force report. When the committee received that report last year, all parties on the committee voted to support the pay equity task force report and the need for new legislation because the existing regime is very ineffective. It is a complaint-based model. It is impossible for women to gain pay equity under the existing system. So very clearly, the report laid out the need for new legislation, which her committee adopted.

However, recently, the Conservative minister has now come back with his response to the committee, saying that he was sorry, he was not going to do that. It was not needed. The government is going to have more mediation, more education, more resources, but it is not actually going to adopt these recommendations.

I would like to ask the member if she agrees that the pay equity task force report should be implemented and new legislation is required, as voted by her committee last year?

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Joy Smith:

Mr. Speaker, indeed, pay equity is a very top priority to women all across our nation and it is a top priority to this government and to our minister in charge.

The recommendation was that new legislation come forth. Upon close examination over a number of months, clearly, if exercised, the government could simply say no to tabling pay equity, but right now we decided to work with the legislation that is there.

The minister has put in supports to support the current legislation, to put in supervisors who will be able to go into businesses and take a look and see if things are really happening. We do not want to waste taxpayers' money. We do not want to reinvent the wheel.

Pay equity is extremely important to this government. We believe in equality for all people, especially for women as we are speaking, and as our minister previously stated.

Having said that, we are looking at a very common sense program that supports pay equity for women and makes things work, and will make it work faster, instead of taking 13 years like the previous Liberal government did.

(1105)

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Maria Mourani (Ahuntsic, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, October is almost here, and October means not only Hallowe'en but Women's History Month. Unfortunately, as we will show, October 2006 will be a sombre month for women in Canada and Quebec.

Since 1992, Canada has celebrated Women's History Month annually in October. The highlight of the month comes on October 18, Persons Day, which commemorates the historic “persons” case in 1929, a decisive victory in Canadian women's struggle for equality.

This year is also marked by an important anniversary, the 25th anniversary of the ratification of the United Nations convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women. How can the government of this Prime Minister act in this way on the eve of this historic anniversary? It makes no sense.

Do I have to remind this House that social and human progress has been made largely through the efforts of women's movements? Women's struggle has always been humankind's struggle. Women have demanded rights not just for themselves, but also for children and for men the world over. I will give you a few examples of this.

Access to education: I do not think that education here in Canada is just for girls; it is for everyone. There is also women's right to vote, the right to own property, freedom of choice, the adoption of pay equity legislation in Ontario and Quebec, the institution of public day care and the introduction of an outstanding accessibility program in Quebec. Women in Quebec even helped set up a department of the environment under Bourassa. There again, the environment is for everyone. Those are but a few examples.

For over a century, women's struggles have led to major advances. Women have helped change social, economic and cultural conditions and, as a result, have enabled women to become full citizens, but they have also made an extraordinary contribution to all humankind.

In Quebec, we also recall milestone events, such as the bread and roses march that took place on May 26, 1995. At the time, women demanded a number of things from the Quebec government, including a tuition fee freeze—which Quebeckers now pretty much take for granted and do not want to see changed—more money for scholarships, a minimum wage above the poverty line and at least 1,500 subsidized housing units per year. They sought these things not just for women, but for everyone. I feel I need to clarify this, because people sometimes think that women's movements fight only for women's rights. That is not true; they fight for everyone's rights.

Throughout history, women have demonstrated the true meaning of the words solidarity, equality and justice. These are more than just words; they are concrete actions.

Women's groups in Quebec also helped found the World March of Women, a worldwide network of 6,000 feminist organizations in 163 countries and territories fighting poverty and violence, especially as they affect women and children.

Women have gradually been taking on what has become a crucial role in Canada and Quebec's political, economic and social landscape. But the fight is not over yet. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that we are far from achieving equality. There is still much work to do.

(1110)

Life for women in Canada is far from perfect and the situation remains worrying. In a report commissioned by the federal government dated December 2005, entitled Equality for Women: Beyond the Illusion, the Expert Panel on Accountability Mechanisms for Gender Equality sounded the alarm on the situation for women in Canada.

The report stated that women are underrepresented in the federal, provincial and municipal governments. This is not news; just look around this House. Less than 25% of the members are women. Girls are more vulnerable to sexual assault against minors; some 80% of victims are girls; 51.6% of single mothers are poor; 35% of single women live in poverty. Visible minority women are more often victims of job discrimination. New immigrants, 24 to 40, with a degree who work full time earn $14,000 less than people born in Canada and Quebec. We know that full-time salaried women in all categories earn 71% of what their male colleagues earn.

These figures speak volumes about the work that still needs to be done, at a time when this government is cutting funding for Status of Women Canada. During the election campaign, on January 18, 2006, the Prime Minister signed a letter in which he said:

Yes, I'm ready to support women's human rights and I agree that Canada has more to do to meet its international obligations to women's equality.

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.

You can see where I am going with this. Signing this declaration and making such cuts does not make sense. It defies logic. On September 18, 2006, the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Justice of Canada denied the request of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women to have the government introduce legislation on pay equity. This request was based on a lengthy report by the Pay Equity Task Force tabled in May 2004 after three years of work. This report found that the current legislative provision—section 11 of the Canadian Human Rights Act—was insufficient and that what was needed was federal legislation on pay equity, such as is currently on the books in Quebec and Ontario.

On Monday, September 25, with a surplus of over $13 billion, the Conservative government announced cuts of $5 million over two years to the $24 million budget for Status of Women Canada, representing just over 20% of its annual budget, excluding funds allocated to specific programs.

What has Status of Women Canada done to deserve these cuts?

Status of Women Canada focuses on three areas: improving women's well-being and economic autonomy, eliminating violence against women and children, and advancing women's human rights. We support their mandate. It is a huge undertaking.

This government has made cuts after the Prime Minister promised in the election campaign to support women's human rights and to take immediate and concrete action.

What more can I say? I just do not understand it and I leave it to the members to come to their own conclusions. On Monday, September 25, this government also abolished the court challenges program.

(1115)

Not only has this Prime Minister cut funds to programs that are already underfunded but, in addition, he is eliminating citizens' means of defending themselves. I would like to quote Mrs. Shelagh Day of the Canadian Feminist Alliance for International Action, who denounced this odious action, with just cause. She said, and I quote:

This program was the only means available to women to have their constitutional rights to equality recognized. The right to equality does not mean anything in Canada if women and other Canadians who are victims of discrimination cannot exercise them.

I would like to remind my Conservative party colleagues that the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women recommended, in item 356 of its report, that Canada:

—find ways for making funds available—

And not that it take away funding.

—find ways for making funds available for equality test cases—

I would like to remind this House once again that the Prime Minister signed a declaration whereby he undertook to protect and support women's human rights and to take more—the word “more” is there—immediate and concrete action. The government has refused to implement legislation on pay equity, has cut funding to the Canadian Feminist Alliance and has abolished the court challenges program.

In regard to the specific steps taken by this government—yes, these are specific steps—people are entitled to wonder and now they can pass judgment on these kinds of specific steps. They can pass judgment not only on the steps but also on the value of the Prime Minister’s signature and, by extension, his word. Here we see that the right-wing ideology innate in this government takes precedence over its promises. That is too bad and very sad. As the old adage goes, a leopard cannot change its spots.

A number of women whom I have met today think that the Prime Minister was hiding his true intentions during the election campaign. In view of his January 18 statement, many women are telling me that they feel deceived.

During question period, we have heard the Prime Minister and his ministers offer all kinds of explanations, utterly preposterous ones in my view, in response to our reproaches. Nothing, however, absolutely nothing can change the facts and the truth about the incredible and unacceptable disparity between what the Prime Minister promised and the steps he has taken since the last election.

In view of the current budgetary situation, in view of the $13 billion surplus—we must remember—nothing could justify such cuts to Status of Women Canada or the actual abolition of the court challenges program. What the Prime Minister should have done instead, in order to show his good faith, is what the Standing Committee on the Status of Women asked: increase the budget of the women’s program. That would have been a very good step.

The people are never wrong, but they can be wronged. Once again, this has been proved in spades.

What will be the effects of these cuts? First, it will likely be hard for Status of Women Canada to operate, especially as it was already underfunded. This agency is important to the women’s movements. The government did not actually cut the women’s program; it cut Status of Women Canada. In case this government does not realize it, in order for a program to operate, it needs someone to manage it. So if the administration is slashed, how can the agency be managed? It is a non sequitur.

(1120)

Any organization can be improved of course. But improved does not mean cut. To the contrary, improved means more funding and studies of how it operates in order to improve it.

I think that what is happening now to Status of Women will slow women’s progress toward real equality from the standpoint of physical safety, economic security, and democratic and political rights. Whether intentional or not, when there are cuts, groups cease to exist, in this case the groups that advocate on behalf of women.

I have been closely involved in international policy and am therefore able to say that after having tarnished 50 years of Canadian diplomacy on the international scene—I saw it when I was in Lebanon—the Prime Minister now apparently wants to destroy more than 40 years of Quebec and Canadian feminism.

As an aside, I would like to speak for a moment about the word “feminism”, an over-used word that it has become a catch-all. Some people have only negative things to say about feminism. What is feminism? Feminism is to believe in the equality of men and women and to seek that equality. Mr. Speaker, I am sure that you believe in gender equality, and you are therefore a feminist, like myself, and like everyone else in this House who also believes. To be a feminist is to believe in equality for everyone, including men and women. We should be proud of being feminists. I hope that the Prime Minister is also a feminist. If he believes in gender equality, then he is a feminist.

During question period two days ago, I asked the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Status of Women a question regarding these cuts, and she replied:

Mr. Speaker, I will reiterate that the women of Canada made their decision when they elected this new Conservative government and put it into power.

While it is true that Canadian women voted for the Conservative government, they did so based on false representations. That is how I see it. I think that women in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada voted for the Conservative Party because the Prime Minister, on January 28, 2006, signed a document affirming that he would defend the rights of women.

Since I only have a minute left, I will conclude by adding that the women's movement will not be defeated.We believe in peace, equal rights and access to justice for everyone. Long before any of us in this House was born, this country was being built by women who deserve our respect.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Joy Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite made an eloquent speech. The member has been a real voice for the women of Quebec. I have been so impressed with the work she has done in terms of the human trafficking issue.

We spoke earlier about the human trafficking issue. Perhaps the member expand a little on why it is very important that Status of Women work with this question and address this issue for all Canadian women across Canada. Whether they be in Quebec, Alberta, or Ontario it is a very important issue.

Could the member opposite comment on that please?

(1125)

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Maria Mourani:

Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, human trafficking is a serious subject.

As my colleague has mentioned, we will be dealing with it at the next meeting of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women.

It is essential that human trafficking should be dealt with in relation to prostitution. That is also a very important subject that we should be examining.

I would simply like to return to the question. Unfortunately, we are discussing cuts. In committee, surely we will look closely at human trafficking, but there are other groups that can contribute to this issue. Many women’s groups are working to combat human trafficking, trafficking in women and children. It is estimated—although I am not certain of this figure—that more than 90% of human trafficking involves women and young girls. These are often women forced into prostitution. That is serious.

If we cut funding intended for people who are fighting against human trafficking, against social injustice and for the rights of women, we cannot make any progress.

We will do great things in committee. I am sure because many members of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women are extraordinary women. There are also men there who do excellent work.

However, our role as members of the committee is to support all the women’s groups that provide input to us because we are not in the front lines. These women are in the real world and they know the subject well. We must not let them wither and die because they are underfunded or because Status of Women Canada cannot do its work because it is short-staffed due to budget cuts estimated at $2.5 million per year.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Wayne Marston (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I came into the House upset, as everyone will gather from my tone. I am the human rights critic for my party and I find it a sad turn of events to see what is happening to an organization that has fought so hard for so many years to elevate the human rights of women in Canada.

The member opposite might note that there seems to be an art of deflection taking place on the government side. It does not seem to want to talk about the fact that this organization, the Status of Women, that is being cut has promoted gender equality and full participation of women in the economic and social culture and political life in Canada and focuses on improving women's economic condition.

As we know, the fact is that women are concentrated in the lowest levels of pay in this country. Youth and women account for 83% of the minimum wage workers in our country. The average prepay income for women is just 62% of that of men.

Would the member agree that this is a slap in the face to Canadian women, especially those who have worked so hard to move the women's agenda ahead in this country? To see it happen in a time of historic surpluses is just unconscionable.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Maria Mourani:

Mr. Speaker, clearly this is a slap in the face. Since June or July, I have received an enormous number of email messages and calls from women’s groups all across Canada. Those women told me about rumours that Status of Women Canada and the women’s program would be abolished. There was a great deal of fear.

I asked for a meeting with the Minister responsible for Status of Women Canada so that I could eliminate those concerns, reassure those people and give them the correct story. When I spoke with the minister, I understood that everything was going well; that these were no more than rumours, and that the women need not worry. Status of Women Canada would continue as before—although there had been cuts—and that the only change would be new regulations for the women’s program We have seen that was not the case. There have even been budget cuts of $5 million.

It is time now to wonder about those famous regulations that will be introduced for the women’s program. Personally, that worries me. What kind of regulations will they be? I would like the minister to say more about them. I will be calling her office to get an answer to this question.

Indeed, as my colleague stated, I can only observe that women have been given a slap in the face. It is not a nice expression but I agree with his comment.

(1130)

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Maria Minna (Beaches—East York, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to say that the Status of Women was actually established in 1971. As the hon. member knows, it was a major catalyst in women getting their rights embedded in the Constitution of 1982. Women were not part of the Constitution at that time and did not have equality.

Since then, through charter challenges there has been a tremendous number of other rights which women have been able to receive. In fact, in the last 10 years there were over 1,200 applications for charter challenges which goes to show that there is still a major need.

Could the member tell me given the cuts, how will that impact on the ability for the Status of Women and for the women of Canada to actually exert their rights in this country?

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Maria Mourani:

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that having no avenue for asserting one's rights complicates things. Some women may not have enough money to hire a lawyer and pay astronomical sums to defend their rights.

It is an even greater paradox to say that we do not need pay equity legislation, then turn around and cut this program. It makes no sense not to have a law. People who are victims of inequity must prove it. If there is no way to prove it, how can they do so?

I would just like to tell my Liberal colleague that, unfortunately, the Liberal party has no reason to pat itself on the back. When it was in power, what was it waiting for to put more money into the women's program? Let us not forget: that government also had budget surpluses in the billions of dollars. That said, I share my colleague's opinion. She has good reason to feel indignant about what is happening. I would like the government to think twice about what it is doing and reconsider its position, because it cannot be that dogmatic.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Winnipeg North.

I rise in support of the motion, but it is a sad comment that we even need to be debating it. I will give the House a little context.

I had the privilege of serving on the very first parliamentary committee on the status of women. I want to acknowledge the very good work done by the member for Winnipeg North and the member for Vancouver East in making sure that committee became part of the parliamentary standing committees. It was the very first committee on the status of women. It was something for which the NDP had fought long and hard over a number of years. We were very excited about having that committee in place to tackle the very critical issues that were coming before women.

Let us have a little context. Back on January 18, 2006 while campaigning for the job of prime minister, the current Prime Minister signed a pledge which read:

Yes, I'm ready to support women's human rights and I agree that Canada has more to do to meet its international obligations to women's equality. If elected, I will take concrete and immediate measures, as recommended by the United Nations, to ensure that Canada fully upholds its commitment to women in Canada.

I wonder how that commitment to women's equality translates into a $5 million cut to the status of women and how it translates into cuts to programs like court challenges.

On the other hand we have the Liberals. I will talk a fair bit about the very sorry Liberal record. Although I applaud the member for bringing this important motion forward, I question why in the 13 years the Liberals were in government they failed to address the crisis in women's communities from coast to coast to coast.

In Canada 20% of women live in poverty. Senior women face double the poverty rates of men. Shelters and crisis lines have closed from coast to coast to coast. Although some of those are provincial responsibilities, there were cuts in funding that came from the federal government to the provincial governments to fund these critical programs.

Unless people think we escaped international notice, CEDAW, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, in 2003 cited numerous issues that the federal Liberals of the day had failed to address: women's shelters, poverty, aboriginal women not having access to all kinds of services. A very critical piece that the parliamentary committee on the status of women addressed was gender based analysis, how the Liberal government of the day had failed to consider the impact on women of programs and services across the board. We could cite any number of programs and services where the impact on women was not even considered, despite the fact that somebody may have checked a box that said they had looked at how it might impact on women.

One program in particular was the employment insurance program. When the parliamentary committee on the status of women looked at the impact on women on employment insurance, it found that women were disproportionately disallowed when trying to make claims. It found that the number of women who were eligible for maternity benefits was falling.

We had a government that failed to consider the needs of over half the population in this country.

In addition, another body, the United Nations Economic and Social Council, in May 2006 issued a report that talked about making some recommendations around extending the court challenges program to permit funding of challenges with respect to provincial and territorial legislation and policies, provide civil legal aid with regard to economic, social and cultural rights, take into consideration the right of women to work and the need for parents to balance work and family life by supporting care choices through adequate child care services.

We have a current Conservative government that has ripped up the court challenges program and destroyed the child care initiatives that had been signed with provincial governments. However, the Liberal government, when it had the opportunity, failed to enshrine in legislation a national child care act and failed to recognize the recommendations around legal aid that made sure that women and their children had access to legal aid.

During the very good work that the first parliamentary committee on the status of women did, it heard from women from across Canada. There were times when committee members were in tears when they heard the tragedy of the lack of funding for women's organizations and for the women on whom this impacted.

(1135)

One of the things that came through loudly and clearly in hearing from these women's organizations was the issue of funding. I am going to quote for members from the first report the committee put together:

The Committee has heard that the women's movement has played an important role in keeping equality issues on the public agenda, but that these organizations have been weakened over the past decade as a result of decreased funding as well as a shift away from core/program funding toward project-specific funding.

That was under the Liberal government. Now what we see is the Conservatives further eroding the ability of women's organizations, equality-seeking organizations, to adequately bring forward the needs of women in this country.

Again, I have a quote from a representative of the YWCA of Canada. She said:

The last fifteen years...have seen a marked decline in the visibility of equity issues on the Canadian social agenda. This decline is directly correlated to the significant funding cuts experienced by women's groups in the early 1990s.

As a result of hearing from women across the country, the committee had a unanimous report that went before the government, calling for a 25% increase in core funding to women's organizations. It called for 25% and what the committee recognized was that this amount of money was actually inadequate, but we thought that was a good first step toward ensuring that women's voices were at the table, that women's needs were met across this country, and that women actually had an opportunity to step into their full capacity and be full, active, participating members in our country.

When the committee was looking at its position, we recognized that with a total female population of close to 16 million, the funding disbursed by the women's programs to groups working toward gender equality is less than $1 per girl and woman. The committee thought that we actually needed $2 per girl and woman in this country, but we took a more reasonable step at that time by recommending only a 25% increase in core funding. That was not put in place by the Liberal government of the day. Now we have the Conservatives further eroding our ability to have women join their rightful place in this country.

In May 2005, the parliamentary Standing Committee on the Status of Women tabled another report, “Funding Through the Women's Program: Women's Groups Speak Out”. I will read three parts from this report for members. The first states:

Many women's organizations today are financially fragile because they depend on a web of unpredictable, short-term targeted project funding.

That is from a brief submitted by the Child Care Coalition of Manitoba.

The brief submitted by the Women's Economic Equality Society states:

Women’s organizations have a wealth of knowledge about project-based as well as core operational funding. They should be involved in the design of a new model.

The brief from Danielle Hébert, general coordinator, Fédération des Femmes du Québec, on May 10, 2005, states:

What is needed is mixed funding that better reflects the actual circumstances in which these groups work, by making sure they have the infrastructures they need to carry out their projects.

One of the things we have learned both internationally and domestically is that if we want to make sure that we have successful, effective programs and services, and successful, effective laws that address the needs of the people they are going have an impact on, we need to have the people at the table.

We had a Liberal government that failed to do this. Now we have a Conservative government that has just cut that $5 million with no consultation and no debate.

I want to read a statement from the Women's Centre in my riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan. These women are pleading for the Conservative government not to ignore their needs. This is their statement:

As a non-profit organization dedicated to promoting the political, social and economic equality of women, the Nanaimo Women's Resources Society opposes the [Conservative] government cuts. In particular we are concerned with the $5 million in administrative reductions to Status of Women Canada, and the elimination of the Court Challenges program.

It is disappointing to see federal support for women diminished, particularly after the severe cuts to women's centres throughout British Columbia. Status of Women Canada is the federal body responsible for promoting gender equality in Canada.

To wrap up, I would urge each and every member in the House to support this opposition motion before the House to ensure that women can achieve all they are able to achieve in this country, through having access to programs and services and through having access to the things that make them able to participate in this society in a full and equal way.

(1140)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Maria Minna (Beaches—East York, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member feels the need to slam and to criticize. Nobody is perfect. Sometimes it takes a few years to get things done, but--

An hon. member: Thirteen years.

Hon. Maria Minna: Yes, but we did a lot of great things in those 13 years. We did not have to lose the child care. We did not have legislation, but we did have an agreement. There was a structure in place for child care in this country. That was established.

On pay equity, we did have the study and we did commit. There is a report to the committee that we would introduce legislation.

We also established Centres of Excellence for Women's Health in this country. We established the court challenges program, which had been cut by the Conservatives and we reinstated. In addition, there were the OAS and GIS income increases.

I am not going to go through the list, because I could go through a very long list of things. What is most important here today, and what I would like the hon. members to share with us, having said all of the things we are saying, is this. The bottom line here is that we have a court challenge program that has been in place for some time, was cut by the previous Conservatives, was reinstated and now is cut again. We also have the cut to the women's program, which therefore will not be able to have the kind of strength it had before.

Could the hon. member tell me exactly what will happen for women in this country without a voice for them at the national level?

(1145)

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Jean Crowder:

Mr. Speaker, before I answer the second part of the question, I have to address the first part.

Let us just talk about pay equity for a minute. A full-blown consultation process began in 2001 and concluded in 2004. The Liberals had ample time to draft proactive legislation and get that put in place, particularly in the fragile ground that they were operating in as a minority government. They had an opportunity to do that and get it on the table so that women in this country would have equal pay for work of equal value. It was a lost opportunity.

What we see here is Conservatives continuing with a Liberal agenda. What we see here is Conservatives finishing the cuts that the Liberals started. What we are going to see is a worsening of the representation of women in this country. We are going to see an erosion of human rights in this country.

Again, I think it was a lost opportunity on the Liberals' part, but we need to push back on this at this point.

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Joy Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC):

Clearly, Mr. Speaker, program funding for women is not cut and will not be cut. There are no plans to cut that.

Members opposite repeat the same words over and over. But Canadian women are intelligent people. With the past government, when we boil the whole thing down, basically 30¢ on the dollar was used for women's programs. Now Canadian women are looking at this and saying, “Yes, we need to be frugal with our money, and we need to make those precious dollars work”. Women are used to budgeting. Women are used to making money work, to making money grow. Now when we look at this, program funding for women is not cut but the action plans are used.

I have a question for the hon. member on pay equity. Pay equity is a very serious thing and is something that members on this side of the House clearly pay very close attention to. In the status of women committee, yes, at that time, the majority of the people, including me, voted for looking at legislation. We looked at it. We decided that what had happened over the last 13 years was that the legislation was there and nothing was done with it.

This minister right now is taking this legislation and making it work. That is another way of making the precious tax dollars be utilized, so would this member not agree that utilizing what we have out there without starting right at point one is a more prudent thing to do? Why start all over again? It is there. Making it work right now is the more prudent thing to do.

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Jean Crowder:

Mr. Speaker, we have heard from women's organizations about how ineffective the current process is. Women are waiting as long as 20 and 30 years to have their pay equity complaints heard. It is unbelievable.

What was recommended in the report was proactive pay equity legislation. The women's organizations in this country, FAFIA, NAWL and a number of others, were prepared to step up to the table and work with the Liberal government of the day. I am sure they would be fully prepared to work with the current government to draft proactive pay equity legislation that would actually address the needs and the inequality of women.

Women earn, on average, 72¢ on the dollar. We cannot continue to have women not take full economic advantage. Surely the Conservatives, who often tout economic performance, should recognize the fact that if women earned as much as men they would actually have more money to generate in the economy. It makes good economic sense and it is a human right.

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, it is very important for us today to put on record and give voice to the concerns of Canadians who are deeply disturbed by the developments of the last couple of days, the decision by the Conservatives to arbitrarily, without any attempt at transparent and democratic government, slash $1 billion from programs and to in fact allow for another $13 billion to go straight against the debt.

I hear the Conservatives clapping, and I was hoping the Conservatives would clap again, as they do every time for their $13.2 billion going against the debt, because we have seen the display from both sides of this House, with both Liberals and Conservatives vying for who can screw Canadians the most. That is precisely what has been happening in this place over the last few days. It is time, through this debate, that we actually address the impact of those decisions and the costs we are incurring as a result of that kind of imbalanced approach.

There is no one in this House, and including women in this House or women across the country, who does not believe that we should not put some money against our debt. The question is, what is the appropriate balance? Women know more than anyone else that if we put all our money toward paying off a debt such as a mortgage, to the point where our kids go to school hungry or we do not have the ability to provide for fees to play hockey or buy pizza at lunch, we are cutting off our nose to spite our face. That is exactly what the government is doing. The government is refusing to present a balanced approach that would actually benefit all Canadians, especially women.

There is no question that the cuts of the Conservatives are very ideological. They do believe, and we have heard this time and time again, that in fact women should be home, barefoot and pregnant. They do believe that Status of Women should not exist. They have implied that. They have insinuated that. They have stood in this House and suggested that they know what is best for working women, that they know what is best for me in terms of my decisions around my children. They are going to limit my choices and the choices of women, which is contrary to everything that is part of this country and the values that built this country.

They in fact are supported by the likes of REAL Women, who just presented at the finance committee two days ago. I want to just Diane Watts from Real Women, who said, “Yesterday's announcement of long-overdue elimination of inefficient government programs, including...the status of women, is an excellent beginning in what we hope will be the eventual elimination of status of women”.

Is that not what the Conservatives want? Is that not who they are working with? Are the Conservatives and REAL Women not working together to ensure that in fact we get rid of any kind of program which ensures that women are able to pursue their fullest, to be who they are as individuals and to offer this country their talents and their abilities?

I was reminded in committee and I am reminded again today of just how much we have to battle that sentiment day in and day out. My son Joe, who is 17 years old today, was in a schoolyard at his local school when he was nine years old when somebody in the playground said, “Feminists are all women who kill children and divorce their husbands”. He stood up in that playground and said, “No, feminists are people who fight for women's rights”.

That is why Status of Women funding is important. That is why it is important to ensure that every group in our society has the benefit of some support to help themselves. That is what the government is destroying.

I think it is time, in fact, that we look at what real women are. Who are real women? These are women, whether they are in the home, trying to provide for the needs of their children and make a proper home with often limited resources. Real women are people trying to put their professions to use and contribute to this country. Real women are everywhere in all walks of life. They are not in one category.

(1150)

I want to reference a real woman's story by referring to an email I just received from Christine Robinson in Winnipeg. She tells me that she just had a daughter in March and that she has been searching for quality day care since before her daughter was born but that she cannot find any. She says that she is on a list for day care but that there are no guarantees she will get a spot for her daughter. She says:

I am starting to become very disgruntled and in turn am stressing so much about who will care for my daughter when I return to work, that it is beginning to get in the way of me enjoying my time at home with my precious girl.

I am a working woman who has great pride in her career as a teacher. I don't have to go back to work. I choose to. I love my job and helping to shape tomorrow's leaders. I find it very disturbing that the current Conservative government has made going back to work more difficult for me, and also developed institutional bias towards those of us that do choose to go back to work.

That is what is wrong with the Conservative's decision. That is why we are perceived to be ideological. That is why it has no place at all in this place or in Canadian politics at any time.

I began working in the field of status of women 30 years ago as a women's organizer for the federal NDP. The first thing we did was to encourage women to run for politics and this has reaped rewards today. Forty-one per cent of our caucus are women. At that time we put out a t-shirt that said “A woman's place is in the House of Commons”. The first t-shirt was worn by our beloved Stanley Knowles as a way of signalling to the world that we in the House had to deal with the disparity and the inequalities in Canadian politics.

During those 30 years I spent most of my time battling the Liberals. I spent most of my time trying to get them to be true to their words and to live up to the spirit of what status of women means, which is to treat people as equals and recognize what feminism really is. Every step of the way we have battled and lost.

As the Liberals stand today and question why we are talking about them in this debate, I must remind them that they did not build the foundations to ensure we have something to work from. In fact, under the Liberals we lost what we had gained 30 years ago. We lost in many ways.

I would remind Liberal members about unemployment insurance and what they did to a woman by the name of Kelly Lesiuk. She had just had a baby by c-section and needed EI. She was a part time worker but she did not have enough hours to qualify for EI. She took this to every level she could and won her case at the adjudicator. However, what did the Liberal government do? It rejected the decision and decided to appeal Ms. Lesiuk's right to have some access to EI, which she paid into, so she could look after her baby at home.

We can look at Kelly's case or we can look at what Anne McLellan did when she was minister of health. She denied a motion at committee to have 50:50 representation on a committee dealing with reproductive technologies. Not even at that level, in matters pertaining to women's health, did the Liberal government agree to gender parity?

Let us look at the question of funding. Where did this problem start? It started under the Liberal government when it took away core funding for women's organizations. Why do we have this huge problem today? The National Action Committee on the Status of Women pleaded with the Liberal government for years to restore those funds. Here we are today with the Conservatives taking what little bit is left and just frittering it away and leaving nothing at all.

I blame the Liberals more than anyone for the state of affairs in terms of women in Canada today. I hope they understand what kind of damage they have done to this country. I blame them for not acting on their child care policy in 1993. I blame them for creating the longest running broken political promise in the history of this country. I blame them for not taking action when the dangers were known about breast implants. I blame them for cutting back on health and education, which had a disproportionate impact on women. I blame them for suggesting that all we had to do was to get rid of the debt and the deficit and everything would be fine and we would build from there. I blame them for what they did to women in that process. I blame them for not recognizing that women need to pay off some of their mortgage while at the same time putting food on the table for their kids. Women still have to get their kids to school while trying to build their own future. If all their money is put toward their mortgage, then there children will have no future. We need to balance things out.

I will end with a definition of what we are talking about so people will understand that we are not biased and we are not trying to support one group of women over another.

(1155)

The following was said by Gloria Steinem 30 years ago:

We wish for all of us the courage to hold on to a vision of a world in which children are born wanted and loved, with enough food and care and shelter to grow up whole. The vision of all people as perfectible and transcendent -- free of social prisons of sex and race--and remarkable for the hopes and dreams and capabilities that exist in unique, unrepeatable combination in each of us

(1200)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Dave Batters (Palliser, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I felt the need to stand today and address one specific comment that the member made. I have a lot of respect for the member, as I do for all women and all hon. members in the House.

I stand here as a Conservative with the full appreciation for the full equality of women in this country. Women are not frail creatures that need protection. They are equal participants and very capable participants in this great country. We have very strong women in this chamber, the House of Commons.

I have been fortunate enough in my working career to work with a number of very capable women. Women are leaders in our business community. The day will come very soon when we will have a woman prime minister in this country.

I would like to give the member the opportunity to stand in her place and perhaps reconsider one of her comments. I hate to repeat a negative because perhaps it will be taken out of context and be put in her party's campaign literature, but she made a comment that the Conservatives think that women should just stay at home and be barefoot and pregnant.

I wonder if the member would rise in her place and take that comment back. I am a Conservative and I see women as full participants in this country. Laurie Kosior, a staffer in my riding of Palliser working in Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan, has just given birth to her second son, Owen. She looks forward to coming back to work and serving the people of Palliser.

Will the member rise in her place and just take back that comment? It is just out of place in a serious debate here today.

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis:

First, Mr. Speaker, I should thank the member for suggesting that women are capable. I certainly consider myself capable, educated and able to do a good job in this place. However, I am able to do this job because I came from a province where the government understood the importance of ensuring that choices were available to women.

Without the Manitoba government's decision to invest in child care, I would not have been able to take the very difficult decision of combining work and family responsibilities. It is because I was able to access quality, non-profit child care that I chose to enter, first, provincial politics back in 1986, get elected and then immediately go into cabinet holding four portfolios while raising a child who was two years old.

As an example of why I think Conservatives really do have a bias--

Mr. Dave Batters: Apologize.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I will not apologize because by their policies there is a bias.

Back then, when I had a playpen in my office, a Conservative stood up and suggested I was a high priced babysitter. That is discrimination and it is contrary to our beliefs on this side of what it means to have equality.

When a government puts in place a policy that gives more money as a child tax rebate to the wealthy banker's wife than to the single parent woman living in poverty, what does that policy say except that the Conservatives are biased in favour of women who stay at home?

If the member takes offence when I say that they believe women should be barefoot, pregnant and living at home, that is the implication and the outcome of their policies. What we are trying to suggest is that the government's policies should not be biased, which means that all women, regardless of where they come from and what they believe--

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Andrew Scheer):

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I know the member opposite has a long history of involvement in and commitment to improving the situation of women, both in Manitoba and in Canada.

The member had a lot of good fun going after the Liberals but she neglected to speak about the parental benefits and the fact that they were extended for a year. She neglected to speak about the many programs that were funded in our communities through the Status of Women Canada. I speak most particularly of the program at the women's health clinic that she and I both know well and that has had an impact on policy in the province. She neglected to speak about the fact that the trafficking of persons was put on the agenda. She also neglected to speak about palliative care and the fact that the government trashed the budget by 35%.

Will the member take responsibility for the fact that by bringing down the previous government we did not have a response on pay equity and the child care program was cut?

(1205)

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis:

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity to clarify why I have been so dismayed at the battles we have had to fight with the Liberals over the last 30 years.

I began working in the area of women in politics before I was elected to this place and I had to deal with Liberals standing in the House of Commons stating that “the unemployment rate is not so bad because it has actually dropped among men 25 years of age and over and, I suggest, with respect, that these are the breadwinners”. They also went on to suggest that working women were a social phenomenon.

Today, the Liberals are a little more clever and a little more subtle. They do not make direct disparaging remarks against women but the implications of their policies are the same.

If we look at the Kelly Lesiuk case, she was a woman who wanted to stay at home, look after her children and get the EI she deserved. What did the government do? It challenged her victory with the adjudicator and took it to court. Therefore, we did not get any kind of benefits for women like her.

In terms of appointments and affirmative action, the Liberals were a real failure. After 10 years in power and making 8,000 appointments to key positions in those three terms, the number of women in key positions had only increased by 1%.

I look at the loss of core funding for NAC, which is at the heart of what we are dealing with today. I look at the Liberals' failure to move on pay equity when they had a chance.

Yes, I believe the Liberals had every opportunity to implement their promise of 1993 for a national child care program, and to suggest now that because they brought it in the dying days of their government that the cut to child care is our fault is just nonsense.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Belinda Stronach (Newmarket—Aurora, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for St. Paul's.

Monday was an enlightening day for Canadians. We learned an awful lot about this Conservative government on that day. Let us take a closer look at what happened and what it says about the Prime Minister and some of his colleagues.

On Monday the government announced a budget surplus of some $13 billion. I am sure that like me many Canadians found it rather amusing to hear the Minister of Finance make it sound as though he actually had something to do with achieving that surplus. He seemed to be fishing for a pat on the back. Perhaps the ones he was giving himself were not satisfying enough.

The surplus was welcome news in this House and across Canada. It reflected a legacy of responsible management that put an end to deficits in this country of almost a decade ago. It represented another impressive example of what we can achieve together as Canadians.

However, that was not the only announcement the government made on Monday. The Minister of Finance also revealed a series of cutbacks. This was truly an instructive moment for anyone keen to understand the motivations and beliefs of those who so steadfastly refer to themselves as Canada's new government.

The true colours of a government can be seen in each of its decisions, both large ones and small ones, not only in how it spends its billions but how it spends its thousands. The true priorities of a cabinet can be seen in each of its choices, not merely those of grave significance that alter a nation's course.

The true measure of a Prime Minister can be taken not only from how he treats premiers and dignitaries but in the manner in which he treats the less fortunate, the disadvantaged, those whose voices are not always heard, and those whose place in our society is not always one of comfort, but often one of need.

What have Canadians learned about this government? On the very same day that it announced one of the largest financial surpluses in Canadian history, a windfall of billions upon billions, this government celebrated by turning its back on women, turning its back on those who cannot read, and turning its back on those of modest means who would seek to defend their rights as guaranteed under our charter.

On the same day that the government announced one of the largest financial surpluses in our nation's history, Parliament and Canadians were witness in this House to the exercise of cold ideology and the unmasking of this government's true colours, this cabinet's true priorities and this Prime Minister's true measure.

One of the biggest targets was the Status of Women Canada, which has long been on the hit list of hard core social conservatives. Its budget has been cut deeply. Its ability to do its important work has been compromised.

There will be a price to pay and that price will be paid by individual Canadian women in communities across our country: women who strive to escape violence; women who seek nothing more than the opportunity to participate fully in the economic and cultural bounty of Canada; and women who work so hard to advance the rights of other women and girls around the world.

As is true of many of the departments and programs that were cut, those who benefit from the work of the Status of Women are in many cases Canadians who lack the voice or the resources or the political influence to stand up for themselves, to stand up for their needs and fight back. It falls to progressive minded members in this House to speak on their behalf.

If it was not clear before, the Conservative perspective on women is clear now. This government has slashed funding to the department charged with helping women who need it the most. This government has turned its back on a plan that would have created hundreds of thousands of new and affordable child care spaces, in favour of a token payout that totals a few dollars a day, helping few and creating new spaces for none.

Also on Monday, this government again, showing its social conservative inclinations, announced its intention to eliminate the court challenges program. This is not a program that most Canadians will have ever heard of. Canadians will know its legacy and the social programs that it has helped bring to our country.

The court challenges program has helped minority groups, including women's groups, launch and fight, and win a series of historic court victories during the past three decades. It is a program that has helped to define Canada as one of the most progressive nations in the world; a country determined to protect the rights of all, not just some; a country that respects its history, its standing as a nation of minorities; and a people who see that history and that modern reality as a strength.

(1210)

In terms of the budget, the court challenges program is a small expenditure, a few millions dollars a year, but it has delivered tremendous value in helping Canadians to expand and to protect their rights and their freedoms. More than that, it is a symbol of the kind of country that we are.

More than 30 years ago we in Canada had the courage not only to enshrine a great Charter of Rights and Freedoms but to also dedicate a modest amount of resources to allow individuals and groups to launch court challenges to ensure those rights are being respected and correctly interpreted in today's context.

What good are rights if there is no way for someone to challenge those who would violate them? What good is the promise of equality if only those people who have the means and the abilities to ensure that promise is kept? These are important questions, but they are questions on which the government chooses not to dwell because they are inconvenient. They reveal more about the character of the government than the government would like Canadians to know.

Overall, the Conservative cuts announced on Monday were small in terms of the overall government expenditures and yet devastating to those who were affected. They were a surgical strike to the heart of our progressive society, a lashing out that spoke plainly and harshly to the government's uncompromising politics and its ideological agenda.

I have sat for long enough across from Conservative members and for more than long enough in their company to understand what motivates them, what their goals are, and what they seek to achieve in this round of budget reductions. The cuts brought down on Monday are not about budgetary matters or meeting financial demands. They are a triumph not of fiscal reason but of social conservative thinking. They are a jarring symbol of the hard and narrow perspective of the Conservatives and their fundamental distrust of the very institution that they fought so hard to lead.

The members of the Liberal Party understand the power at the government's disposal to help ensure Canadians are afforded equality of opportunity. The members of the Liberal Party believe in the government's ability to do good, to help raise people up, to improve their lives, to find their way, and so do members of the New Democratic Party and the Bloc Québécois. Government cannot do it all, nor should it do it all, but there is a progressive role it must play if we are to ever achieve the ideal of our nation as a truly just society.

The true colours of a government can be seen in each of its decisions, large and small. If we look beyond the numbers on a budget sheet, there are people, lives, homes and dreams. The Government of Canada represents all Canadians, not just the privileged. It represents all Canadians, not just those who voted for its members. A government achieves no progress for the people, no progress for any citizen when it isolates the vulnerable and subjects them to an ideological toll.

(1215)

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Joy Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the member for Newmarket—Aurora finds herself leading the so-called charge to save Canadian women. The member prized herself, I understand, on coming from a business background, so I have two questions.

I am wondering how the member can justify spending over 30¢ to deliver $1 to women's organizations. How does that past history wash with her? Is mismanagement of taxpayers' dollars good for women? I do not think so.

I would also like to ask her, if she believes so strongly in women's issues, why is there not one single woman on the board of directors at her company, Magna? Where is her leadership there, or is she just slipping into Liberal rhetoric with the perfect scripted speech and the perfect sentences? We are talking about women's issues, rights of women, professional women, and I think we have to talk about real women in the real world.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Belinda Stronach:

Mr. Speaker, let us talk about Real Women for a moment, as they are called: realistic, equal, active, for life. This group of real women does not believe equality for women. They are anti-choice. They are anti-gay. I do not have to go any further, just look at their website. It is despicable, actually.

This group has obviously contacted members across. Ian Brodie says that this group “raises interesting points that warrant close inspection”. I say to the members across and to the vice-chair of the committee and to the minister, who do they take direction from?

I would also like to point out that it has been about eight months since the minister has been before the committee to address some of these extremely important issues.

The member opposite raised some good questions about the economic status of women. Women only make 72¢ on the dollar of what a man makes. Women are the head of households. Two-thirds of women head up single parent households and 68% of the part time workers in this country are women. Women still have a long way to go and until we face the challenges and enable them to achieve economic security and parity, we will not have equality.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Bill Siksay (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the member a question about the pay equity situation in Canada.

It is incredible that even today we still do not have pay equity for women in Canada. Women still cannot expect equal pay for equal work. In the past, they have been subject to endless litigation around this issue and endless mediation. The Liberals introduced a complaints-based process that was found to be totally inadequate. In fact, a two year study of pay equity found the whole system that the Liberals set up did not really address the situation of pay equity.

In the last Parliament, at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women there was all-party agreement with the recommendations of the pay equity committee and that there was a need for new legislation, yet the Liberals did not deliver on that.

Why did the Liberals not deliver on pay equity legislation that had real teeth, real value and supported women? Maybe from her experience with the Conservatives, she can tell us why the Conservatives refuse to move in that same direction and are now only supporting the old, tired Liberal approach to pay equity in Canada.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Belinda Stronach:

Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring a little clarity to some of the comments the member opposite has made.

It was the intention of the former ministers of labour and justice to put forward a new bill on pay equity. It is unfortunate that the NDP defeated the government during the last go-round and perhaps many of the members regret it now. We agree with many of these important initiatives such as pay equity, improving the economic status and the rights of women, as well as child care.

It is unfortunate that we are losing ground. We have lost ground. We did all that good work and then it was defeated on the grounds of politics not on principle.

(1220)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Dave Batters (Palliser, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I have a quick comment for the member opposite and then a question. The comment she may choose to reply to.

In making her decision to leave this party and join the party opposite, surely that decision could not have been based on the Liberal Party of Canada and the government of the day's record on the status of women and advancing the cause of women and women's rights. The pay equity issue is a perfect example.

Surely the member, in deciding to make that jump, had to realize that the Liberals had 13 long years and did absolutely nothing on this file. That is my comment.

The member has a significant business background. The surplus of $13.2 billion put toward the debt will save $650 million annually to go to social programs that will benefit all Canadians: women, seniors, and first nations.

In her experience in the business world, is that a good thing, whether it is a major corporation or a government, to pay off debt and then put that capital toward good things that I just spoke about?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Belinda Stronach:

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member across the floor for giving me the opportunity to say how proud I am to be sitting on this side of the House. It is based on the principles that I crossed the floor. It is the principles in which I believe we give people the opportunity to achieve equality and economic freedom, based on a strong social infrastructure.

The member asked another question about the paydown of the debt versus the cuts. I am the first one to say that any time we can pay down debt, it is a good thing. We then have less interest payments and more money to spend. However, we also have to thoroughly examine the cuts and the impact of them.

The budget of the Status of Women of Canada is $10 million. That budget was cut by almost 40%. This is the one sole organization in the government that is there to advocate and uphold equal rights for Canadians.

I know some of the members opposite must be feeling pretty uncomfortable. I know they support equality rights for women. I do not know how they can go back to their constituencies and substantiate the cuts to this kind of program, knowing the effects they will have on their communities, women, girls and future generations.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to speak in favour of the Liberal Party motion. The House objects to the government's partisan and discriminatory cuts in federal support for women's programs and services, for one very clear reason: we are not there yet. The real attitude of the very new Conservative government comes through in this week's budget cuts.

Currently, while the rest of the world recognizes the importance of equality for women and young girls in achieving health and quality of life objectives, Canada is going to regress.

We are not there yet, not here in Canada, not anywhere in the world.

It is somewhat ironic to see that the very new Canadian government, which is so proud of the work of the Canadian Forces in Afghanistan to promote and protect the rights of women and young girls, wants at the same time to destroy our programs that are essential for doing the same here in Canada.

We are not there yet.

(1225)

[English]

The year 2006 is particularly significant for women in Canada as it marks 25 years since Canada ratified the most comprehensive treaty on women's human rights, the UN convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women, CEDAW. By ratifying CEDAW, the federal government has agreed to play a lead role in upholding women's equality rights. Unfortunately, however, without a more concerted effort by the federal government to fulfill its obligations under this UN convention and the Charter of Rights and Freedom, full equality will elude many women in Canada, particularly those of us confronting multiple oppressions.

There were six times as many female victims of sexual assault as male victims in 2004. More than a million women reported that they had been stalked in the past five years in a way that caused them to fear for their lives, safety or the safety of someone known to them. Male violence against women continues as a terrifying daily reality in Canada, preventing the equality of all girls and women. Feminist centres reveal that one in four women endures sexual assault in her lifetime and one in 10 women is beaten. Statistics Canada confirms that 51% of women have been criminally assaulted.

The UN has recommended that Canada ensure that all provinces provide necessary government and non-government services to those who suffer violence. Instead federal dollars have been withdrawn from women's equality driven advocacy groups. Further welfare cuts, disqualifications and workfare force women into dangerous dependencies on abusive men. Cuts to legal aid and legal services leave women without lawyers or advocates in custody and access fights after leaving dangerous men. Cuts to immigration settlement services, education and health services limit women's access to help.

Canadian women have built and developed networks of women's organizations and have worked tirelessly to ensure that women's issues remain on the public agenda at the local level and nationally. Further, women's groups have offered critical direct services to women and children and have sensitized all sectors among the public and the government to women's concerns.

The fact that violence against women and children has become an item on the public policy agenda is just one noteworthy example that shows the extent to which women's opinions and experience have shaped laws, policies and programs. Recognizing that women's participation is essential to the socio-economic and cultural health of Canada, the federal government has supported these groups with core funding.

Cutting funding severely weakens the ability to organize, to lobby, to do research, to offer services to women, in short, all things women need to achieve full participation in society. Given this situation, women's political participation will stagnate and there will be fewer opportunities for women to consult with governments on the many issues that affect their lives.

Since its inception in 1985, the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund has intervened in over 140 cases, which have helped establish landmark legal victories for women on a wide range of issues. LEAF has been funded by the court challenges program, which is also being cut by the government.

It is also a bit ironic, as the member for Newmarket—Aurora has said, that the government seems to be listening to special interest groups and have capitulated to their campaign of REAL Women, an organization based on ideology, when Liberals are asking for real research from real women, the single women, the victims of violence, those in the shelters. The motto of REAL Women is “women's rights not at the expense of human rights”. We have a small secret for them. Women's rights are, indeed, human rights or “les droits des femmes sont les droits de la personne”, as the member for Mount Royal has so eloquently said, one of our favourite members of women's caucus.

The Prime Minister refused to come to the 2006 conference on AIDS. Perhaps it was because he would have heard the eloquent words of Stephen Lewis when he said:

Finally, in my view, as delegates doubtless know, the most vexing and intolerable dimension of the pandemic is what is happening to women. It's the one area of HIV/AIDS which leaves me feeling most helpless and most enraged. Gender inequality is driving the pandemic, and we will never subdue the gruesome force of AIDS until the rights of women become paramount in the struggle....

I challenge you, my fellow delegates, to enter the fray against gender inequality. There is no more honourable and productive calling. There is nothing of greater import in this world. All roads lead from women to social change, and that includes subduing the pandemic.

(1230)

[Translation]

Two weeks ago in La Presse, Nathalie Collard wrote:

The fears of feminist groups are fuelled, among other things, by the REAL Women association lobby (an anti-feminist group with deep roots in western Canada that promotes the traditional role of the woman). This association has received subsidies from the very women's program it is denouncing today. It is hard to say whether this group, which could not be more vicious toward feminists, has a real influence in Ottawa.

[English]

In fact, the parliamentary committee on the status of women has asked for these groups to have their funds increased by 25%. Again, the government refuses to understand that the government reports to Parliament and we hope it will understand that next week when this motion passes.

I was once on the member for Mount Royal's cable show. When he asked me what the most important thing was facing the women of Canada, I said gridlock. Everything we care about rests in two or three different government departments, in two or three different jurisdictions, and we have been unable to account for the results. They are not measured in the silos of each government or across jurisdictions.

It is, therefore, extraordinarily important in the issue of the rights of women is that there be organizations that do the real research. As we say in management: if it is measured, it gets noticed; if it gets noticed, it gets done.

The critic for the Conservatives does not understand that gender based equality is not going directly to programs. She keeps asking the same question and she does not understand. The failure to have gender based equality is what the government does, as well as funding programs. She keeps insisting and mixing that up.

In fact, the justice minister has said, “I don't care what the research shows, this is what we are doing”. The government continues to use research like it is a swear word. Even having an understanding of people like Florence Nightingale, surely real women would understand the basic premise that she was a statistician who kept good records and understood the clusters of disease. This is exactly what the Status of Women Canada and all such organizations across Canada do.

It is so important to us, as Liberals, when we look at all the organizations that now compare themselves to the world. Monica Lysack from Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada has said:

When you look at women in Canada and their human rights compared to international standards, we have a long way to go.

[Translation]

We are not there yet.

[English]

We have to get going on all of the things that matter in terms of practice based evidence, and that is the role of government.

In closing, I would like to quote from my friend Nellie McClung. I think some of the members opposite should sit at her little table on the parliamentary precinct. She said:

Disturbers are never popular--nobody ever really loved an alarm clock in action-no matter how grateful they may have been afterwards for its kind services.

She also said:

I am a firm believer in women—in their ability to do things and in their influence and power. Women set the standards for the world, and it is for us, women of Canada, to set the standards high.

Next week, when the motion passes, I hope the government will do the right thing by funding the alarm clocks and those that set for the standards for Canada and for the world, in honour of those great Albertan women, the famous five.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Michael Chong (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and Minister for Sport, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to serve in a government under a Prime Minister, who believes that all Canadians, men and women, regardless of their race, creed or religion, should be full participants in a good society. I am very proud to be part of a government that is investing in programs to ensure men and women are equal participants in this society, and our government is doing exactly that.

I hear a lot of rhetoric on the opposite side of the aisle, but not a lot of substance. I hear a lot of rhetoric about visible minorities, minority groups and the importance of equality of men and women. I want to focus on the disconnect between the reality of the party opposite and its rhetoric.

In particular, I observed that there are about 23 seats in the city of Toronto. Of those 23 seats, 20 are held by Liberal members of Parliament. I count very few visible minorities among those 20 Liberal members of Parliament. Over 50% of the population of Toronto is not only minority, but it is visible minority. More than one in two people living in the city of Toronto are visible minorities.

How can the member opposite explain the disconnect between the rhetoric opposite and the reality of Liberal members of Parliament from the city of Toronto?

(1235)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Carolyn Bennett:

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of my colleagues, Ruby Dhalla and Gurbax Malhi--

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Andrew Scheer):

Please refer to your colleagues by their ridings.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Carolyn Bennett:

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, the members for Brampton—Springdale and Bramalea—Gore—Malton. We deal with the greater Toronto area. I am a very proud member of that caucus. However, I am completely fed up with the kind of distraction that occurs.

This is a debate about women. The government has no interest in protecting the women of Canada. Therefore, we have to put up with that kind of rhetoric, which completely runs around the fact that the government is about to gut the programs for women. We can show the women of Canada how they must vote in the next election.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, if I may have just a moment of latitude here. Today I would like to ask everyone in the House to join me in recognizing the retirement of one of our great civil servants, Mr. Ray Gauthier of the postal services. For almost 35 years Ray has basically provided service and advice to generations of parliamentarians and their staff. In fact, everyone calls him the book of knowledge. On behalf of everyone, I wish Ray a happy retirement.

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Andrew Scheer):

That sounded more like an S.O. 31 statement. Maybe the member would like to think of a question for the next speaker.

The hon. member for Davenport.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Mario Silva (Davenport, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciated the words expressed by the member for St. Paul's and the member for Newmarket—Aurora. Both of them spoke passionately about their concerns about equality and minorities. Certainly they both have been champions of minorities.

I was pleased to hear the member's statements on the UN convention against all forms of discrimination, which is a very important treaty convention.

On the international front, Canada has always been looked upon as a place with great advancements in terms of human rights and humanity dignity. Yet on so many issues on the international front, we are in fact going back on these treaties. On the issues of aboriginal women, we do not want to be part of that discussion.

I am very concerned about what direction the government is going with these international treaties and what we are doing at home. It is the cuts that are made specifically when there is a $13 billion surplus to areas like child care, literacy, women's equality and particularly the court challenges program. It is the types of choices that are being made that really shows that the government is not interested in promoting equality both here at home and abroad.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Carolyn Bennett:

Mr. Speaker, I too am very concerned, particularly internationally, about the way we will help not only ourselves fulfill the convention around all forms of discrimination but also how we will use CIDA to do the same.

I hope that the minister responsible for CIDA will account to us as to why gender equality seems to have been removed from the website, why groups applying for CIDA funding seem to no longer have to meet this imperative requirement. As Stephen Lewis and others have said in respect of gender equality, if ideology takes over from the reality, research shows that only with programs that deal with gender equality in the way that CIDA insisted will we actually be able to have equality of life and a fair and equitable world.

I also would like to point out to the member that I understand the status of women committee is still waiting for the minister to show up, after eight months of refusing to show up. This is appalling. I hope that the House will insist that the minister show up at committee in order to account for these cuts.

(1240)

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Andrew Scheer):

We have time for a 30-second question and a 30-second response.

The hon. member for Wild Rose.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I hope I can do it in 30 seconds.

The member talked about violence against women and children. Since 1993 I too have been pushing hard in this House to bring in some tough legislation to deal with men in particular, because the majority of them are men, who would dare seriously assault women and children. It makes me very angry when they do that.

I have seen in the last 13 years that we have come to some fairly decent decisions to now where I have seen grain farmers go to jail for selling their grain, an elk poacher go to jail for shooting an elk and in the same week, two cases of serious abuse and assault on a child and one on a woman, and the perpetrators receive house arrest and community service. Out of these cases, a very large majority, it was reported to the justice committee last week, are getting house arrest and community service.

I am suggesting that the member, based on her speech, is prepared to support this government's Bill C-9. Is the member going to support the bill that would put those people in jail? Serious crime deserves serious time.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Carolyn Bennett:

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his support in the ongoing and very complex problem of violence against women. We know that legal remedies are only a small part of this problem. We need to deal with the root causes of violence against women.

I urge the member opposite to talk to his government about taking the counsel of organizations like REAL Women who continue to denigrate the facts. They still think that half of domestic violence is instigated by women. They are absolutely wrong. All kinds of research has proven this. That kind of lack of policy development is what is driving the government.

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Helena Guergis (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Lévis—Bellechasse.

I am very proud to stand today as a member of this new Conservative government, for it is this government that is ensuring all women have the opportunity to meet their full potential, realize their dreams and aspirations, and to be recognized for the contributions they make to their country.

It is interesting that the party opposite would choose this issue to debate when it has failed so miserably to stand up for the real needs of Canadian women. While the Liberals are busy electioneering and writing the so-called pink book, proving once again that they are completely out of touch with the needs of Canadians, our new government has already taken concrete measures that directly benefit and improve the lives of all Canadians. Over 51% of our population is female. Finally, Canada has a government that appreciates this important fact. This government recognizes that improving the lives of Canadians, ridding government of corruption, and delivering on commitments are what Canadian men and women want, not more empty promises in a pink book.

Women are strengthening our economy, providing for our families, and leading successfully in their communities. That is why this government has put forward new measures to enhance the everyday lives of Canadian women. What have we done?

We have implemented the universal child care benefit, which provides all families with $100 per month for each child under the age of six. We will create 25,000 new child care spaces a year. This is something that we will deliver on. We will not talk about it for 13 years like the Liberals did. We will deliver it.

We have delivered a budget with more tax cuts than the last four federal budgets combined, including a cut in the one tax, the GST, that every Canadian pays. We have provided tax relief for low income Canadians, pensioners, and families taking care of a child with a disability, not to mention a new tax credit worth up to $500 to cover eligible fees for physical fitness programs for each child under the age of 16.

We have introduced important legislation that will strengthen our criminal justice laws for serious offenders, thereby creating safer communities for women and their families. We have introduced human trafficking initiatives that will help victims of human trafficking, who are all too often vulnerable women and children, and men as well. We will make available over the course of next year $1.4 billion for affordable housing across the country. While respecting cultural tradition, we will set up a new agency to expedite the recognition of foreign credentials so women new to Canada can more quickly contribute to Canadian life.

Canada's new government is committed to advancing equality and to the full and equal participation of all Canadians in the economic, social and cultural life of Canada.

Next month is Women's History Month. On October 18 we will celebrate the lives of the famous five. In 1929, Emily Murphy, Henrietta Muir Edwards, Louise McKinney, Irene Parlby and Nellie McClung fought for women's rights to be legally recognized as persons. These women are an inspiration to us all. Thanks to them I am not recognized just as a woman, but as a person. One of the famous five, Louise McKinney, said it best when she said, “The purpose of a woman's life is just the same as the purpose of a man's life: that she may make the best possible contribution to the generation in which she is living”.

I have met with a number of women from diverse backgrounds, and what I hear from them is that there is a genuine need for real action and real results. For this reason, each minister is working to improve policies and programs to better the lives of all Canadians. Thus, rather than making more empty promises in an election-style pink book, we are listening to the needs of Canadians and delivering on our priorities and our commitments.

Take for example a recent rant by the member for Beaches—East York who was outraged about the imaginary Conservative slights to women. The House will be interested to know about a very real and recent Liberal slight to women. It was a boys only weekend held by the Liberal leadership candidate who is supported by the member for Beaches--East York. That is right; women were excluded from this event. We do not have that in the Conservative Party. Before Canadians listen to trumped up claims thrown at the government from the other side, they might want to look at the Liberal Party attitude toward women's issues and its record of the last 13 years where there has been no success.

(1245)

Why should Canadian women so readily trust a party so riddled with scandal and corruption? The Liberals had over a decade to improve the lives of Canadian women, but they did nothing, so why should Canadians depend on them?

The member for Beaches—East York says that she speaks on behalf of all Canadian women. This is just another example of Liberal arrogance. The Liberal Party assumes it speaks for everyone, but just takes the support of Canadian women for granted.

Unlike the Liberals, we know we cannot take women's support for granted. We must work to ensure that every program, every service and every department must use the taxpayers' dollar in the most effective way, because these are taxpayers' dollars for women as well as men.

Unlike the Liberals, we do not characterize our daughters and our granddaughters as weak and vulnerable. Rather, we know that they are confident and full of potential. When I look around the House I see many strong and successful women who worked hard to get where they are today. What I have been hearing from so many women is that they are fed up with being portrayed as victims.

Canada's new government knows that Canadian women are a diverse population. Canadian women are single mothers, stay at home mothers, CEOs of some of the biggest companies, business owners, farmers, caregivers and much, much more. Canada now has a government that recognizes this reality and that this means women need the flexibility of choice that will allow them to meet their full potential.

Women are fed up with broken promises too. Canada's new government was elected to clean up the corruption and scandal that plagued the Liberal Party and still does to this day. We acted. We promised to act on child care; we acted. We promised to create safer communities; we acted. We promised to get rid of corruption and scandal; we acted. The fact of the matter is, the Liberals talk and we act.

Women want to see results rather than listen to more rhetoric and fearmongering. Every day, women more often than not manage the family budget. They ensure that their families and children get the best they can with their budget. They do this every day. They know how to get value for their money and they expect the government to act in the same fiscally responsible manner.

The accusations of the Liberal Party are completely false. In fact, the reality is the exact opposite of what the Liberals claim. We are delivering programs and services, not in a Liberal spending spree fashion, but with careful consideration of what is most effective and what is best for all Canadians, for Canadian women.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Mario Silva (Davenport, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, first I congratulate the hon. member on her speech. However, the more I listened to her speech, the more it came to mind that if her statements are accurate, every poll shows and research shows that most women do not support the Conservatives. It has always been known in every election that 50% of the population has a serious issue with the Conservative Party. Be it on child care, issues of the environment, social issues, women in general have been very, very suspicious of the Conservative agenda. It will show again in election after election that the vast majority of Conservative Party voters and supporters are male.

If her party, as she stated, is supportive of equality for women, I wonder why so many women out there are just not attracted to the Conservative Party?

(1250)

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Helena Guergis:

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to point out to the hon. member that I am a woman, a young woman at that, and I quite frankly could not ask for a stronger leader, a more supportive leader who understands and is there for me as a young woman in politics. The Prime Minister is exceptional. All of my Conservative colleagues are exceptional.

I want to talk a bit about my own personal experience. I have a great deal of experience. I volunteered for eight and a half years at the rape crisis centre. I was trained in crisis intervention and I was on call. I worked on organizing our first Take Back the Night march back home. I actually walked through four ridings to raise awareness of violence against women and children. Back then the statistics were that one woman out of three would be assaulted at some point in her life, and one out of two men before the age of 18. Those statistics have not changed. After 13 years, the Liberal Party had an opportunity to do something about that and it did nothing. Nothing has changed. We, the Conservative Party, will do something about that.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, during the election campaign her leader had a letter written to a woman named Joyce Carter who is the widow of a deceased veteran. In that letter he promised that immediately upon the election of a Conservative government, we would institute a VIP, veterans independence program, for all widows regardless of the time of death of the veteran.

It is now eight months and counting, and the government still has not acted on that promise. The member says it is a party of action. Here is an opportunity for her to stand up in the House and tell us when is the Conservative government going to honour the promise that her leader made to Joyce Carter and literally thousands of other women in this country?

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Helena Guergis:

Mr. Speaker, I want to address some of the other issues that we have been talking about today in the House. If the Liberal Party wants to claim that it is standing up for women, we have to stand up for all women.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Peter Stoffer:

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. You ruled me out of order when I did not respond to a particular statement made by a Liberal questioner. I have asked the hon. member a specific question and it would be nice to have a specific answer.

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Helena Guergis:

Mr. Speaker, as I was trying to explain, and this will be in response directly to him if he will bear with me, if we are going to stand up for all women or at least claim that we are, we have to be considering the women in Afghanistan right now. The Liberals and the NDP want us to pull out of Afghanistan and forget about the women and children there.

I think that is absolutely appalling. We do not just pick one group of women. If we are going to stand up for women, we stand up for all women.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Blaine Calkins (Wetaskiwin, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for her excellent speech. It was very refreshing to hear about the positive things that are happening for women in this country instead of the constant slander and victimization from the parties opposite.

I would like to point out to my hon. colleague that in Alberta, where we no longer have a provincial debt, we spend more money on social programs per capita than any other province.

I am wondering if the member could bring some sense as to why the Government of Canada just announced its major contribution to bringing down the national debt and what positive effect that is going to have for the future of all Canadians.

(1255)

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Helena Guergis:

Mr. Speaker, when we talk about debt repayment, because of the $13 billion that we will put on the debt, we will see $650 million more available a year. We can use that to spend on the incredible social programs that Canada has to offer to support not only women but men and very importantly children. We cannot forget that.

I would like to go back to some of the interventions that I heard earlier. We talked about matrimonial rights for aboriginal women. Again, I would like to point out that the previous Liberal government had an opportunity to ensure that aboriginal women would have matrimonial rights and it failed to deliver on that as well. This is of course something that our government will deliver on.

I have one more point. Having looked on the Magna website, if the member for Newmarket--Aurora is such a champion for women, why are there no women on that board of directors?

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Steven Blaney (Lévis—Bellechasse, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, the hon. member for Simcoe—Grey, for sharing her time with me. I also congratulate her on her excellent speech.

I am pleased to rise today in this House to reiterate the commitment of our government to supporting not only the equality, but also the emancipation of women, and women’s full and entire contribution to the prosperity of this country.

I would also like to disagree with the partisan motion introduced by the hon. member for Beaches—East York, which is contrary to sound management principles and would deprive not only women, but all Canadians, of the funds wisely invested in our social programs.

Let us make this clear. We are talking today about an administrative measure, and no fund for grassroots programs that benefit women will be cut. I can therefore tell the people in my riding, and organizations like Jonction pour elle, which does excellent work, that our government supports their initiatives more than ever.

Our government is entirely committed to supporting the emancipation of women. For example, after 13 years of inaction on the part of the previous government on the question of pay equity, my colleague the Minister of Labour has taken the bull by the horns and has finally taken concrete steps to ensure compliance with pay equity in undertakings under federal jurisdiction. The reason why our minister does not have to propose legislation is that the law already exists. We have the law, but the previous government unfortunately did not enforce it. What we have is therefore a concrete step taken by the Conservative government, which is committed to supporting efforts on the ground to enforce pay equity.

I would like to cite some examples of our government’s commitment to ensuring that there is a role for women and for all newcomers in our society. In the riding of Lévis—Bellechasse, where there are workforce shortages, we need workers, to encourage our businesses to continue expanding.

We are therefore aware of the importance of providing all Canadians, women and men, with equal opportunities, and that is what we mean to do. This is why Citizenship and Immigration Canada is required to analyze the impact of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and of the regulations under that act on gender equality, and to report to Parliament on that question. This is a requirement in the act itself, and it is unprecedented in the whole of federal legislation.

Citizenship and Immigration Canada is thus the first entry door for immigrants arriving in Canada. Because it is important to uphold the humanitarian tradition of this country, our government’s programs place special emphasis on protecting people who have special needs, and in particular women and children.

For example, certain groups of refugees have special needs when they arrive here. Working jointly with the United Nations High Commission for Refugees at the pre-selection stage, we analyze potential problems associated with gender and diversity. In that analysis, we look at women in danger, households led by single women, the risk that family members will be permanently separated, and age issues. All these criteria are examined in order to alleviate problems associated with the resettlement process, with gender and with diversity. Of course, we also look at single women and women heads of household, to assist them in integrating.

I have yet another example. Certain federal government immigration programs deal specifically with the problems of violence against women. For example, the Women at Risk section of the refugee and humanitarian resettlement program is designed to meet the needs of refugee women in situations where it is impossible to guarantee their safety. Since 1988, through Women at Risk, Canada has provided new and safer places to live for thousands of women and children.

(1300)

As we have mentioned today, the problem of violence against women does not exist only among immigrants. It also exists in our communities. This is why we need community agencies that can provide support to women in need. It is also why I submitted a private bill to help spouses whose lives are threatened by their former spouses. This bill is making its way through the various parliamentary stages. The purpose of this bill is to ensure that, when a woman feels threatened, society is responsible for protecting her. This is extremely important. There are various programs and mechanisms for doing so. The witness protection program, an RCMP program, enables women who request it—and this is the purpose of the bill—to receive protection without their identity being revealed. This is essential to ensuring people’s safety.

These measures are necessary to make sure that our country enables women to be properly integrated in our society and to go on playing their exemplary role.

Another example is human trafficking, which often involves women and children. For anyone wondering what human trafficking is about, it is about people who have had their papers taken away before they arrive in our country. Their legal identity is taken away. They come here under repression and coercion. So it is a woman, a child or any other person who is a victim of human trafficking. It is the third largest illegal market in the world. So it is not insignificant. As a country that sees itself as a defender of democracy and the promotion of women’s equality, we have a moral responsibility, not only to people who are victims of trafficking here, in Canada, but also to all countries.

Our government has taken measures to improve Canada’s response to the unique needs of victims of human trafficking. They are often women and children. They used to be treated like criminals who had to be detained and deported. It was one humiliation after another.

Our new government has ordered immigration officers to issue short-term temporary resident permits to victims of human trafficking. Thanks to these permits, victims have 120 days to recover from their frightful experiences and decide whether they want to apply to remain in Canada or whether they would rather return to their country of origin. These are important measures that are temporary but directly benefit women and children, who are the most vulnerable. The Canadian Council for Refugees has been requesting this basic change for years and our government has responded.

I would also like to point out that, under the interim federal health program, this government also provides asylum seekers and protected persons—many of whom are women—with basic emergency health coverage for as long as they do not meet the requirements for provincial health insurance. All these people are entitled to receive essential care.

As we know, immigration will pose a major challenge to our country, and in order to ensure that we benefit from what newcomers have to offer, it is important that they be successfully integrated into Canadian society. A lot of work needs to be done here, for example with professional associations as well as with our own values and ways of perceiving newcomers. That is why our government has established integration programs that are essential to provide a helpful environment for newcomers, including women. We also developed a new budget with $307 million in additional spending over the next two years for new arrivals, including women, so that they can integrate into the system. One specific example is that a woman who comes and settles in Canada will now be able to have day care for her children.

As a francophone, it is very important to me that new immigrants adapt to their surroundings, and that new immigrants speak French if they settle in Quebec or in the francophone minority regions. That is one specific example of action that our government is taking to help newcomers, including of course, women with children.

(1305)

There are a lot of other examples of this kind. I could go on almost all afternoon, but what I basically want to say is this: it is important for everyone to realize that the savings we are making today on behalf of Canadian taxpayers, whose money we manage, are not to the detriment of women, for example. Quite the opposite, the money we save will be reinvested in social programs to continue supporting our country’s growth.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Lloyd St. Amand (Brant, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, in his speech, the member opposite talked about various groups, including women, immigrant women, et cetera. He will probably know that the law commission was established by way of an act of this Parliament and was utilized over the years by many groups, including women's groups, to advance their issues and causes, and it was working rather well.

With absolutely no mandate from the House, no mandate whatsoever from the people of Canada, the Minister of Finance has decided to dismantle, cut and terminate the law commission. I would like the member's comments about that.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Steven Blaney:

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, who is concerned about the government infringing on human rights, for his question. I believe that he has a legitimate concern; however, it is also representative of a certain way of governing shown by the previous government, which practically appropriated taxpayers' money.

The philosophy of this new Conservative government is that we are here to manage taxpayers' money according to the law. When we act within the law, it is not necessary to resort to the courts and to spend taxpayers' money on futile legal proceedings.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I asked a previous Conservative member this question and got an Afghan answer, so I am going to ask this member the same question.

During the election campaign, the member's leader had a letter written on his behalf to Joyce Carter of Cape Breton. She is the widower of a veteran. The letter stated that if the Conservatives formed the government they would immediately invoke the VIP, the veterans independence program, for all widowers, regardless of time of death of the veteran.

It is now eight months into this so-called government. We still do not have the VIP extension, yet the government is swimming in billions of dollars of taxpayers' money.

My question is quite simple. When will the government or this member, on behalf of his leader, stand up and tell Joyce Carter and the thousands of others, mostly women, in this country that the VIP will be extended now?

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Steven Blaney:

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my honourable colleague for his question. And I thank him also for telling me about this program for veterans.

I can say to him that, as the member for Lévis—Bellechasse, I will be meeting veterans in my office tomorrow to hear their concerns.

I have already met with them on several occasions, and they have a long list of grievances. The VIP program, as my colleague referred to it, is not the only item that was neglected by the previous government.

These veterans deserve to be honoured and respected for their past contribution to the vitality of democracy in our country.

(1310)

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Maria Minna (Beaches—East York, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to some of the comments the member opposite made earlier with respect to the increased funding for immigrant women and settlement programs and so on, with which I have no problem, obviously.

As someone who spent 35 years in the field of settlement programs and fighting for immigrant women, I understand this very well, but I should tell the hon. member that it was as a result of a charter challenge that we were able to get language training for women in the mid-1980s. There are many other inequalities that still exist for women, such as pay equity and many others. In fact, immigrant women, if we look at the studies, are the most affected in terms of earning the lowest income possible at this point.

Spending on programs for immigrant women and immigrant settlement does not in any way justify the cutting of Status of Women Canada, which is for all Canadian women now and in the future. In fact, it impacts on and hurts the ability of those women to fight for their rights. How can the hon. member justify one with the other?

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Steven Blaney:

Mr. Speaker, I thank my honourable colleague for her question and I congratulate her on the contribution she has made to furthering the cause of women in our society. Recognizing the rights of women is one of the things that makes this a great country.

I would like to make it clear that my comments should be interpreted in the context of today's motion, which touches on the administrative cuts to the program in question.

Taxpayers and women expect cuts. Women are good managers. We await the day that a woman is minister of finance. We already have good management, but perhaps it could be even better.

Thus, my comments were made in the context of the motion being debated today. Yes, I believe that cutting administrative expenses will enable us to provide better service to Canadian communities.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Yukon.

I am indeed pleased to speak on the motion that the opposition has put forward today on equality and opportunity for women in this country. While there are many different aspects to speak to on this motion, I am choosing to speak on the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, the concerns expressed by women there and what it meant to them, on advocacy, and, because I know the program well and because it is located in Winnipeg, the court challenges program.

Many in this House will know that the Standing Committee on the Status of Women was struck in the fall of 2004. It came about on the initiative of three of the parties in the House and the concurrence of four parties. As an aside, I think it is important to note in the discussion that there was a request by members opposite to eliminate this committee this year, which gives me great cause for concern.

I was pleased to serve as the first chair of this committee. In order to establish its work plan, the committee heard from women from across Canada as to their priorities. Many appeared before the committee. We heard from 38 witnesses representing a wide spectrum of views and priorities. They included the YWCA, the Quebec Native Women, the Canadian Nurses Association, the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies, REAL Women, and the list goes on.

The committee heard that there was a concern over the lack of attention given by the government to women's issues and to substantive equality. We were urged to look at systemic barriers to women, most particularly those for women of colour, immigrant women and aboriginal women. We heard about racial discrimination. We were challenged to address a number of ways of improving the well-being of women.

Some organizations felt that the interests of women were best served by addressing women in the family unit. Other groups focused on a rights based approach to equality.

We heard much about the concerns of aboriginal women. We heard about the legal and jurisdictional mazes they had to wend their way through. We heard about the issues of particular concern to Métis women.

Four major themes arose from the six weeks of public consultation.

The first overriding theme was the matter of federal funding to women's organizations and the equality-seeking organizations, and their ability to provide service and advocate for equality.

The second theme dealt with poverty, with the incidence of poverty, the lack of access to pension benefits, social assistance, the wage gap, and affordable housing, and the list again goes on.

The third theme was the critical need to increase the capacity of the federal government to deal with the whole issue of gender based analysis, the analysis of policies, programs and budgets put out through federal programs.

Finally, the overriding theme was the issue that we heard about, violence against women, a significant factor in the lives of women from coast to coast to coast.

These women came to the committee in good faith. They spoke in good faith. They commented on the importance of being heard by government. They commented on the fact that all four parties were at the table listening. They spoke of being treated respectfully by government. They spoke of the value of having access to government.

As a consequence, the committee responded and put out several reports recommending an increase in funding to the department for the Status of Women, recommending an increase in funding and core funding. The committee did a report on pay equity. It spoke about parental benefits. Most important, the committee did a major report on gender based analysis, which women's organizations across the country called a landmark document.

Now what do these women have? The budget of the branch of government that responded to them has been slashed by 39% of the operating dollars. Now they have name-calling and are described as marginal by those groups that have access to government.

(1315)

We hear from members opposite that only the operating dollars have been cut. How do programs come about if there are no operating dollars to make them come about?

Two days ago on a television panel I heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board say that the government had no interest in supporting , “lobbyists, lawyers, interest groups and advocates”.

My understanding of advocacy includes actively supporting an ideal or a cause, speaking out on an issue of concern and arguing in favour of an idea or a policy. It also includes meeting with one's member of Parliament to change a law or policy, or simply telling a neighbour or friend about the impact of a law. It is often a clear expression of support for the rights of the individual, whether it is a person with disabilities and their families, an aboriginal woman or a child denied education. Those are the characteristics of the Canada I know.

However, I heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board say that his government was out to get those people.

With the cuts proposed to the Status of Women program, we will see an inability to articulate for a whole host of people and a whole host of groups, including women with disabilities, women dealing with spousal violence, Métis and Inuit women, first nations women, immigrant women, migrant sex workers and the list goes on.

Who will speak for those who cannot speak for themselves, either because of lack of means, lack of knowledge, lack of power and often because of a fear of the system, which, in my mind, this week's decision gives them greater fear of the system?

I want to speak to the court challenges program because I know it well. It is located in Winnipeg and it is very much part of the landscape of human rights activity and discussion in my community. Many have and many more will speak to the court challenges program. With an operating budget of less than $1 million, it was designed to provide the opportunity for groups, members of language minorities, disabled Canadian women and aboriginal peoples, to challenge federal laws, programs or policies that were discriminatory under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Is this program being slashed again because the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, or perhaps the president himself, said that we do not fund programs that we do not believe in?

Is it because REAL Women, who have the ear of the government, point to this program as being made up of “radical leftists, homosexual and feminist groups funding their own activities”, or is it because the court challenges program supported Democracy Watch, which intervened when the Prime Minister was head of the National Citizens Coalition when a challenge was made to the constitutionality of third party spending limits?

Let me tell the House about Mary. Some members may have read about Mary in the newspaper. Mary is a severely disabled young woman for whom the court challenges program made a huge difference in her life and the life of her family. Mary, her sister, Sarah, and her parents live in my riding. I have met with them often and I see them in the community at a whole host of various events.

Mary was born with multiple disabilities and was hospitalized for over a year. When it was time for one of Mary's parents to access the employment insurance program, the parent was denied employment insurance on the basis that the parent could not access it because of time limits. The court challenges program provided the opportunity for Mary and her family to benefit by this program.

For many, the court challenges program has been critical. The case of Lesiuk v. Canada and the EI system; R v. Darrach, the rape shield system; and the case of Doreen Demas, aboriginal women and their concerns.

(1320)

The court challenges program is important. It provides opportunity for those who cannot otherwise speak out and it is being chastised by the government and being cut off. It is one of the tools of government that allows people to seek redress to the real challenges of equality.

I submit that the decisions of the government are draconian, mean-spirited and deliberately directed at the 60% to 65% of Canadians who do not endorse its agenda.

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Joy Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I know the member opposite has put many years into women's issues but I was rather appalled or surprised to hear two things.

First, I would like the member opposite to clarify something. We on this side of the House are very proud of being a part of the Status of Women. We want to see real money put into action to support all the initiatives that we need to support and around the table we have a vote on what we will be doing. We are very happy with the Status of Women and the direction it has taken.

However, I believe I heard the inference that members on the other side of the House wanted to do away with Status of Women. I find that very strange because when I was standing in line at the airport ready to get on a plane someone came to me and said that they were told by the Liberals that there would be no Status of Women this year, that it was gone. By virtue of the fact that I just heard that comment in the House today, I find it disquieting because it is misleading and untruthful.

Second, I keep hearing members opposite slam the organization called REAL Women. In a democratic society I feel that organizations can say or do what they want, which is separate from the MPs and the House of Commons. Our job is to listen to all the variety.

Could l please find out, first, who, apparently on our committee, said that he or she wanted to do away with the Status of Women committee; second, when the person said it, because I will look up the documentation; and third, why are members picking on the REAL Women organization?

(1325)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Anita Neville:

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I missed the first question, so I would appreciate if the member opposite would repeat it, but I will address the other questions.

I would suggest that the member speak with her House leadership because I am advised that the House leadership on her side proposed folding the Status of Women committee into the heritage committee. It was only the objections of the other parties that sustained the Standing Order for the Status of Women committee to remain in place. This is a committee that women across the country fought hard to maintain and no one was prepared to allow that committee to be subsumed into another committee.

As for the question of REAL Women, I have no problem with REAL Women doing what it wants and saying what it wants. It has every right and opportunity to advocate for what it wishes, as do other organizations. What I do have difficulty with is the fact that this organization has the ear of government in a way that no other organization has. It also resorts to name calling, to putting down other groups, to not acknowledging the diversity of other groups and it sees no importance in allowing a whole continuum of voices to be heard.

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Penny Priddy (Surrey North, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, while I agree with some of the things in the statement put forward by the Liberal government today, I am interested in the fact that earlier today someone from the Liberal side said that if it had not been for the NDP taking down the government we would have had pay equity. Why did we not have pay equity the year before that or the year before that or the year before that? Mr. Speaker, let me know when I get to the number 12. The Liberals had a significant number of years to bring in pay equity but chose instead to wave it in front of the public as we neared an election. Therefore, I think that is a facile argument to make.

The Liberal opposition says that it wants to help all women and particularly women who are vulnerable. The United Nations report criticized Canada in 2003, which, as I recall, was under a Liberal government, for failing in areas such as providing support to single mothers and first nations women. I cannot think of groups of people who would be more vulnerable than many single mothers and first nations women.

I was very interested in a comment made earlier by a Conservative member saying that the Conservatives wanted to do things that did not cost money. I would suggest to them that one of the things might be to recruit more candidates since they only ran 38 women candidates with 12% being elected, compared to the NDP running 108 women candidates with 35% being elected. That is something that would cost no money, would increase women's representation in the House and would be a significant--

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Andrew Scheer):

I apologize to the member but I must allow enough time for a response from the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Anita Neville:

Mr. Speaker, the member's question on pay equity is a very important question. She is right when she says that it took a long time coming about. It took a long time getting a response from government but it underlined the importance of the Status of Women committee and the enthusiasm and the research done by the committee in promoting pay equity. The minister of labour and the minister of justice had made a firm commitment to bring forward draft legislation on pay equity which was going to come in February or March of 2006.

I say to the member opposite that the legislation in draft form would have been there if the government had not been defeated.

(1330)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, that party has been obviously characterized and demonstrated to be a party that leaves people behind more and more.

We were shocked when we heard the throne speech, with five priorities, leaving the other 95% leaving Canadians out. People were aghast, wondering where the rest of the throne speech was.

Then it came to the budget, when women, aboriginal people, single parents, senior, northerners and students were left out. We were offering $6,000 to students. What did they get? They got $40, not even enough for a textbook.

The Conservatives increased income tax to 12% for the poorest in society. They cut historical Canadian programs to help people: the Kelowna accord, $5 billion; a national day care program, $10 billion; and climate change that would help people reduce smog, reduce greenhouse gases by hundreds of millions of tonnes. They were criticized constantly for these, so we thought that would have been the end.

It was absolutely astonishing to me and many Canadians that the Conservatives went ahead and made these dramatic and drastic cuts to groups. One would almost think the party has a death wish.

In the throne speech and the budget, they did not fund them. Now they are aggressively cutting funding for the tourism industry, youth, museums, housing, aboriginal people, volunteers and for the people in B.C. and Alberta who are fighting the pine beetle, all with no warning. Members do not have to take from me. I will be spending the rest of my speech giving the voices of Canadians and of people in my riding in Yukon. They have expressed shock and surprise at the cuts along with dismay and anger.

I will start out with our grand chief in the area. When the anti-smoking programs were cut for aboriginal people but no one else, it is very upsetting. He was very dismayed too with the cuts to initiatives to help women, who have been making great progress lately and taking their place in society.

Our volunteer organizations have been cut drastically. As one of the founders of our Yukon Volunteer Bureau, I am very saddened by these cuts. We heard from Volunteer Canada that. It says:

Notwithstanding our efforts to facilitate program renewal, at approximately 4 p.m. today, the Government of Canada announced that its support of the Canada Volunteerism Initiative would be cut as part of its most recent program reviews efforts.

While shocked by the announcement, it goes on to say that hopefully the decision will be reviewed.

It further says:

Support of volunteerism is essential as we work at keeping our communities safe. Volunteers are the driving force behind many community based initiatives such as community policing, addictions treatment, and training and rehabilitation for those in trouble with the law.

How shocking it is that a government, in theory, says that it is fighting crime, but then it cuts all these crime fighting programs. Almost every Yukoner in my riding is a volunteer for something. It is part of the heart of our caring society in Yukon. To cut that is just unconscionable, especially at a time when we are about to host the Canada Winter Games, the first time ever that they have been north of the 60th parallel. We need the biggest percentage of our community as volunteers.

Let me go on to literacy, as a former president of literacy organization. People across Canada are dismayed that the government does not think that literacy is important. Let me quote:

As you can imagine, the Yukon Literacy Coalition is very concerned about the budget cuts announced by the federal government yesterday.

It did projects like literacy community development projects, family literacy initiatives, first nation workplace initiatives. That is the second time that the first nations have been cut, and there will more in my speech. It goes on to say:

Without this federal contribution literacy programs and organizations in the Yukon will suffer tremendously. I hope you will support us in lobbying the government for the reinstatement of these funds.

Identifying literacy as--

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Blaine Calkins:

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Could you find some time to review the objective of the motion today? It is about women's issues, but we seem to be discussing budget cuts. If we could have some relevance on this, I would appreciate your ruling.

(1335)

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Andrew Scheer):

I would urge all hon. members speaking to the motion to try to stick as closely as possible to the subject matter of the motion being debated.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Larry Bagnell:

Mr. Speaker, if the member opposite thinks that no women are illiterate in the country, I would be happy to receive that information.

It goes on to say:

Identifying literacy as of little value is interesting considering that research has shown that improving the literacy rates by 1% would increase the GDP by 1.5 billion dollars; ironically slightly more than the Conservatives' budget cuts...

Ask a learner if the money used to help them read was wasteful. Take a moment and think about how much of your ability to read is worth. Apparently, according to the government it isn't much.

The member just asked to hear about the women's groups. Let me quote from the women's groups:

We are saddened, dismayed and angered that the Conservative government has cut funding to the Status of Women Canada and the Court Challenges Program. These funding cuts will adversely affect the lives of Yukon women....

We are saddened that the Conservative Government has ignored the wishes of northern women and the Expert panel's recommendations that the Status of Women Canada needed to be strengthened in order to provide internal expertise and gender based analysis for government policies. The lives of Yukon women will be adversely affected through policies and programs which are not responsive to their needs and issues here in the north. We are saddened that Mr. Harper has chosen to make dramatic cuts to one of the smallest budgets at the federal government level.

We are dismayed that Mr. Harper--

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Andrew Scheer):

I remind the hon. member for Yukon, even when we quote letters or articles, we do not refer to hon. members by name but by their riding or title.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Larry Bagnell:

My apologies, Mr. Speaker.

We are dismayed that [the Prime Minister] has gone back on his election promise to “take concrete and immediate measures to ensure Canada fully upholds its commitments to women.” Canada is a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women and Children....

We are angry that...[the] Minister of Finance, said that “We won't apologize for our capacity to say no to bad ideas”. Does this mean that gender equality is a bad idea? Yukon women do not think that gender equality and economic security is a bad idea....

The Court Challenges Program was set up in 1994 to provide financial assistance for important court cases that advance language and equality rights guaranteed under Canada's Constitution. The Court Challenges Program has made some of Canada's most important Charter cases possible. It has been praised by United Nation bodies.

Treasury Board president...said “I just don't think it made sense for the government to subsidize lawyers to challenge the government's own laws in court” and he cancelled it. The Yukon Status of Women Council thinks it makes sense if you value human rights and fairness. Without the Court Challenges Program, it will be much easier for governments to violate the Constitution. We also do not think that a woman's ability to challenge discrimination is a bad idea.

Let us go on to the museums where there have been cuts. A lot of women either work or volunteer in museums. Just last week, the museums had a meeting with the minister, who announced that the government was going to come out with a new policy. All of a sudden, what is the new policy?

An hon. member: Cut them.

Hon. Larry Bagnell: It is to cut them dramatically. No wonder the executive director of the CMA was shocked, puzzled and felt betrayed by these cuts.

There are three projects in Yukon, and I have a list of hundreds of projects. Three projects were approved in my riding last year, two of them are for aboriginal museum cultural sites, another cut for aboriginal people.

A letter from Yukon's largest museum states:

MAP is [the] only federal program dedicated exclusively to museums. [It is] one of the few places we can go to get money to do collection work. Collection work is the backbone of museum work--without we cannot do the exhibition, programming, education roles...

Ed in the Yukon writes:

--it is hard to see how the Federal Museums' Assistance program is a “wasteful” program. This is an insult to all hard working museum workers who have worked for years for very little money in the preservation of our heritage....

--cuts to the Youth Employment programs is the very back bone of summer operations for small and large museums, especially during the summer season...GST rebates for tourists to Canada will help dampen visitations (especially conventions) at a time when other pressure on tourism, a strong Canadian dollar, the passport issue and terrorism...[have] already made this the worst tourism year...

Brent writes:

As you can appreciate, the museums folk here are very unhappy...that MAP is being cut....

I think the cuts to adult literacy, youth international programs, museums and other social programs indicate a government that will alienate Canadians sooner rather than later. To call these initiatives wasteful and not priorities of Canadians is particularly offensive.

It is not just all these groups that are writing. There are individuals.

Alejandro writes:

According to Treasury Board president...the $50-million program will not receive its last $10.8 million under the excuse that it is not effective enough and that you are saving Canadians money.

This is the--

(1340)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. John Williams:

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have listened to these continuous quotes by the member for Yukon. These are unattributed quotes that do not appear in any publication.

We are having a debate, but he is trotting out these unattributed quotes that we cannot follow up to find out if they are genuine or otherwise. If he has a problem with the issue or if he is supporting the motion on the floor, let him speak to it rather than come out with this stuff that we cannot understand and have no idea whether it is factual or otherwise.

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Andrew Scheer):

The hon. member for Yukon has about 45 seconds left.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Larry Bagnell:

Mr. Speaker, it shows that we listen to our constituents and the government does not really care what the constituents have to say, nor the groups across Canada.

I wanted to comment on the law commission, tourism and cutting affordable housing, but in conclusion, as the representatives who provide services to millions of Canadians have indicated, these are heartless cuts. By targeting the most vulnerable in our society, it is striking a blow to the very essence of our very caring, inclusive nation.

We will not forget and the minorities, the women, the youth, the aboriginal people and the vulnerable of the greatest nation on earth will not forget. We will stand by them all the way.

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Joy Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I had trouble sifting through the comments of the member. The motion on the floor today has to do with the Status of Women and with the budget around it. We were talking also a little earlier about other issues around that.

Is the member aware that the program funding for women will not be cut? I heard him list different organizations. The administrative savings for the Status of Women, the $5 million costs savings, were necessary. Those savings can be used in different areas to directly impact on women's issues, like combating violence against women and girls and contributing to the economic well-being of women across our nation.

Would the member please answer the question and tell me whether he is aware that this program funding for women will not be cut?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Larry Bagnell:

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member would love us to talk about the things that are not being cut, which are very few things. I will not be speaking on behalf of Yukon women, so let me just read what they had to say:

The lives of Yukon women will be adversely affected through policies and programs which are not responsive to their needs and issues here in the north. We are saddened that [the Prime Minister] has chosen to make dramatic cuts...

I would like at this time to pay tribute to Nellie McClung, Irene Parlby, Emily Murphy, Henrietta Muir Edwards and Louise McKinny, the famous five who fought for women's rights. They would roll over in their graves if they heard what the Conservative government did this week in cutting back the advancement of those rights through the law commission, through the charter challenge program and through cuts to the status of women.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, as we know, women provide most of the caregiving. A situation of which the member is aware is families with children with autism and the stress that puts on families. In some of cases, with which I have been dealing, the pressure has been so great that the marriage breaks up and the child is usually left with the woman.

There is no national health care plan for children with autism. It is up to the provinces to devise their own plans in this regard. Alberta has cared for children with autism up till age 18. In Ontario it is age six. New Brunswick and Nova Scotia have pilot programs. It is simply not good enough that families and women with children with autism have to suffer such great financial and emotional burdens brought about by this neurological disorder.

Will the hon. member, the good Yukoner that he is, support a national autism plan that would fall under medicare, where the federal government would work with the provinces and territories to develop a national plan that would benefit all families with children with autism? We then would have a uniform strategy across the country so people would not have to move to other areas to get it. It would help stabilize the families and provide those children, and especially the caregivers, the women who provide the care, some immediate help and respite in the future.

(1345)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Larry Bagnell:

Mr. Speaker, that is a wonderful question because just a few hours ago I replied to a letter from some children at a school in New Brunswick asking for a national autism strategy. I told them I was totally supportive of this and I congratulated them for their efforts at such young ages. I also sent them all Yukon pins.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Paule Brunelle (Trois-Rivières, BQ):

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.

(1350)

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.

(1355)

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.

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

I do not wish to proceed immediately to the question and comment period that would normally follow the speech given by the hon. member for Trois-Rivières. This would take too long and statements by members must take place at 2 p.m.

We will therefore proceed immediately to statements by members.

The hon. member for Winnipeg South.

Statements by Members

[Statements by Members]

* * *

[English]

Municipal Infrastructure

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Rod Bruinooge (Winnipeg South, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, after 13 years of waiting and broken promises, the residents of Winnipeg South were finally able to drive through Kenaston Boulevard without suffering at the mercy of train schedules.

This past Friday afternoon I, along with the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, cut the ribbon on the Kenaston Boulevard underpass. The federal government contributed $13 million toward the cost of construction and was on hand to celebrate the completion of this project.

The immediate benefit of the Kenaston underpass includes less traffic and reduced idling, thus giving cleaner air. For the fastest growing area in Winnipeg this underpass will ease traffic congestion and reduce travel time.

The government is committed to achieving results. With a population boom of 40,000 new residents in Waverly West expected in my riding, more investment infrastructure will be needed for the new roads and underpasses.

I am committed to working tirelessly to ensure that these needs and all the needs of Winnipeg South are met in the future.

* * *

Youth

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Maria Minna (Beaches—East York, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government's meanspirited cuts took over $10 million out of the international youth internship program, abandoning our young people.

This great employment program provides underemployed or unemployed Canadians with the opportunity to gain viable international development work experience.

Through CIDA Canada sponsors internships that help unemployed college and university graduates between the ages of 19 and 30 from all provinces gain international development experience.

Roughly 65% of the youth who benefit are young women and 98.4% of the interns completed their program. Of the 550 who completed their internship during the first year 71% were successful in finding employment within six months. An additional 19% returned to school and only 9% reported being unemployed.

Why has this government chosen to target Canada's unemployed youth?

* * *

[Translation]

Culture Days

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Maka Kotto (Saint-Lambert, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, September 29 and 30 and October 1 mark the 10th anniversary of Quebec's culture days. More than 1,800 free activities in 289 municipalities will bring together the general public and artists and creators.

Quebec's culture days provide me with another opportunity to remind this government of the vital importance of culture in the lives of people and societies.

To attack our culture the way the Conservative government does is to break up the foundation of our social connection, to destroy what makes sense in our existence and our identity.

What lack of concern, what thoughtlessness.

* * *

(1400)

[English]

Government Programs

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Chris Charlton (Hamilton Mountain, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, earlier this week the government announced that it was cutting vital community programs so that it could reallocate that money to the real priorities of Canadians. All told, those cuts amounted to over $1 billion.

Where do we find that money going? Why, into subsidies to the oil and gas industry in the Prime Minister's own province.

I have to say that is not the priority of families in Hamilton Mountain. They are already being gouged at the pumps and certainly would not agree to have more of their hard-earned tax dollars go to the oil and gas industry through government subsidies.

No, the real priority for Canadians is health care. In fact, the Conservatives recognized that during the election campaign when they promised to make health care one of their five priorities. Once elected, they dropped health care completely from their list of must do items.

New Democrats are not going to let the government get away with that.

I say to the Prime Minister that he has a $13 billion surplus. Cut wait times and improve care by hiring more doctors and nurses, expand home care and long term care programs, and bring in national pharmacare. The surplus belongs to Canadians. Spend it to meet their needs.

* * *

Robert MacIsaac

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Mike Wallace (Burlington, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, today I want to honour Mayor Robert MacIsaac of the city of Burlington. The mayor has announced he will not seek re-election this fall. This loss is a loss for my community.

Mayor MacIsaac has been a true municipal leader in Burlington, in Ontario and in our country. He has had nine very successful years as mayor. He understands the balance between a growing urban community and a city with more than half of its land mass being rural.

Mayor MacIsaac has pursued smart growth principles, formed the mayor's transit caucus, and chaired Ontario's greenbelt task force. He established team Burlington to promote all aspects of economic development and led the revitalization of the downtown and the waterfront. His mayor's gala has raised over $1 million for the community foundation.

We have not always agreed, but I have always admired his clear vision and his great contribution to the quality of life for the citizens of Burlington.

Mayor MacIsaac has done a great job for our community and the people of Burlington thank him. He will be missed.

* * *

Government Programs

[Table of Contents]