Debates of Nov. 1st, 2007

Opposition Motion--Status of Women

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure I heard a question from the member, but she had a lot of good comments. Certainly I have enjoyed working with this member on different committees. I know that she has spent a lot of time on pay equity issues as well as other issues for women. I thank her for all her contributions.

The one thing I really want to say today is that this government does believe in fairness for everyone. As the member opposite pointed out, the pay equity laws and the legislation we are working under have been here for many years. However, this government is trying to be more proactive than other governments have been. We are working to eliminate gender based wage inequities within the federally regulated sector.

We are committed to the principle of pay equity. We are taking action and we agree that action must be taken. The minister announced last September that there is a pay equity program that is increasing the economic security of women, and it is ensuring they are paid fairly for the value of their work.

We have local labour program officers who are actively promoting the legislation and educating the employers so they do know what their responsibilities are, and so that when women and anyone else in the workforce have concerns about pay equity issues, the employers know that they have requirements and that they do have responsibilities.

To this point, over 250 employers have been visited. Education sessions have been held with many employers across this country. We are continuing to offer these services and we will continue to further fairness in pay equity.

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this evening I will be splitting my time with the member for Kitchener Centre.

Tonight we are talking about economic security for women. For centuries the answer to the question of women's economic security was singular. It was a good husband, who was a good provider. Girls and young women were taught this maxim even during the first half of the 20th century. From the attitudes and values I have heard today from members of the Conservative government, I believe some of them are still stuck in the first half of the 20th century. Canadian women living under the Conservative government will understand their own government better if they examine its initiatives through a time lens of about 1957.

The government has to wake up and realize that in the 1960s many women woke up and realized that they were just one man away from poverty. Mothers began teaching their daughters the importance of getting a certificate, a diploma, or a degree, so that they could get a job and work experience before they were married. These mothers, and many mothers who followed, had already witnessed the difficulties of friends whose husbands had run away and abandoned them and their children. They knew that these women had paid a horrible price for their poor taste in men. There was even a popular song that was their theme song. It was called “A Good Man is Hard to Find”.

Women who entered the workforce soon learned that they were making about sixty cents for every dollar earned by a male doing equivalent work. They learned that younger men they had been asked to train were often chosen ahead of them for the fast track to management.

But there was some good news. Through a multitude of organizations that sprung up, a women's movement formed and was assisted by professional organizations, unions, women journalists, and women studies departments in universities. Together, these groups began to build a consciousness about the inequalities and the barriers to progress for women. I want to take a moment to thank them today for their very hard work. People like Kay McPherson, Ellen Fairclough, Judy LaMarsh and Monique Bégin come quickly to mind.

At the same time, in every community local women gathered to address local, national and international problems that prevented women from full participation in decision making bodies.

Looking back 50 years, one could say we have come a long way, but facing the realities as exposed in the committee's report, one would have to add that we have a long way to go.

Today I think we should all thank our colleagues on the Standing Committee on the Status of Women for two reports to this House, one on pay equity and one on the economic security of women. The committee's recommendations are excellent.

At the same time, I would like to condemn the government's written responses. Whoever wrote these responses must have a broken arm from patting himself or herself on the back. The government acknowledges the progress that women have made and acknowledges many of the problems that remain, but it does not commit to address these problems. For example, on page 3 of the report, the government says:

Certain groups of women are at higher risk of persistent low income, such as women with disabilities, immigrant women, and Aboriginal women. These groups are less likely to secure an adequate level of earnings.

I expected to read on with the solutions to that problem, but no. In the next paragraph the government changes the subject. It does not give any answers to the problems that it lists for us. Then it changes the subject, and one might assume that means the government has no ideas on how to solve these problems. The status of women committee presented the government with solutions. One can only conclude that the government is refusing to listen.

I was particularly appalled by the section on “non-standard work”. This is a nice name for the kind of work that often has odd hours, no benefits, less than appropriate working and safety conditions, low pay, and no labour standards protection.

How does the government respond to that unfairness? The government whitewashes it with the following on page 4:

The concept of non-standard work covers forms of employment that in some cases have existed for a long time.

As if that makes it all right.

This kind of employment has grown considerably over the past twenty-five years. This phenomenon likely reflects a combination of factors, such as new technologies, the desire of businesses to be more flexible to adapt and compete, and the needs of some workers, including women, to reconcile their work and family-related responsibilities.

That is ridiculous.

Consider the plight of one of my constituents, an immigrant woman who 10 years ago had little English but had to work. She went to an employment agency which found her a job in a factory at minimum wage as a contract employee and therefore, there were no benefits and only short term security. The agency received a portion of her salary every payday. She continued to work because she had been told that after a year or so with a good record she would get a raise and would be moved from contract to a regular employee with benefits.

For nine years she worked and waited. For nine years the agency received part of her wages. She was never moved to regular employment status.

The employer must have been happy with her work as she was not fired. The employer was even happier with the minimum wage and no benefits. This is exploitation and this is non-standard work.

The whitewashed explanation of the government is disgraceful. It omits even the possibility of a motive of greed on the part of the employer. It omits the collusion of the employment agency and it omits the lack of surveillance by the government.

Much needs to be done to ensure that all workers are treated with respect. The government's answer in its response to the committee seems to suggest that all the programs needed by women can be handled by the provinces.

The federal programs mentioned are mainly from the past. It seems that the government has no intention of helping Canadians through new federal social programs. The government's answer to the child care crisis which women face is a new baby bonus in an amount totally insufficient to pay for that service.

I do not think that the government believes in social programs. It seems from its economic budgets and economic statements that it is dedicated to tax cuts and military spending.

I believe most Canadians have been very proud of the unique nature of Canada. At an international meeting, former Prime Minister Chrétien was asked how Canada had achieved such a peaceful, tolerant and fair society. He answered that many countries in the world invest very heavily in military spending, but Canada invests heavily in its people because Canadians want to care for one another.

The committee on the status of women, made up of members from all parties, has shown the government the way to continue this honourable tradition, a tradition of caring and fairness, a tradition which has proved so successful. The government's response to the lead of the women on the status of women committee is very disappointing.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that when we talk about this topic, from whatever party one comes from, whether it be the Liberal Party, the Bloc, the New Democratic Party or the Conservative Party, we try to lead by example, we try to set an example.

The members of the official opposition, including the member who has just spoken, has spent a great deal of time saying how inadequate this side is on women's issues.

I do recall when the leader of the official opposition was running for the leadership of the member's party, he said that 33% of the candidates running for the Liberal Party would be women. However, recently the Leader of the Opposition pushed women aside so that Bob Rae and Gerard Kennedy could run in those particular ridings. He announced his shadow cabinet and in the process he dropped four women from their portfolios.

When we talk about leading by example, is the official opposition prepared to lead by example and assist in women's issues when the leader of the official opposition and the Liberal Party act in that fashion?

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to assure the member opposite that my leader, who has committed to 33% of his candidates in the next election being women, will achieve that goal. As far as the planning and priorities committee, 34.8% of the members are female, and that is the main planning body of our caucus to advise the leader.

I really do not know what the hon. member is talking about. We will achieve 33%. I find it odd that he would raise this point, seeing as his party has the least number of women members as a percentage of the whole in this House.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the member, but before she answers, I have a little bit of a follow-up, because I do not want to set a trap for her.

Has the federal government a responsibility to actively protect and defend the rights of Canadian women? I want to warn the member that the member for Winnipeg South Centre said that for the federal government to actively defend the rights of aboriginal women on the reserve would be paternalistic. For government to be active on trying to protect the rights of Canadian citizens, whether they are aboriginal women or anyone else, if I understand it correctly, we cannot do that because it would be paternalistic.

What is your position and what is the position of your party?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Prince Albert has much experience in this House and knows that he should speak in the third person. The member for Oakville is recognized to speak.

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in response to the member, let me say that I find it odd that a member who has been in the House as long as he has is asking a question as to whether or not the Canadian government has responsibility to protect the rights of women or, in fact, the rights of any Canadian. Anyone who has been here as long as as he has been should know that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms gives the government that responsibility.

As far as situations on reserve for aboriginals, he should also know that it is very easy to come up with quick solutions, but the way to move aboriginal people forward, the way to make sure they do exercise all their rights is to consult. That is, I believe, what the member for Winnipeg South Centre was talking about, that the consultations that have gone on under the government have been inadequate, and if one does not consult but instead applies solutions, then one could be accused of being paternalistic.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely pleased to get up today and talk about this incredibly important issue.

The motion calls on the government to develop a strategy to improve the economic security of women all across Canada.

This is a very historic place. We should never lose sight of how significant what we do on a daily basis is to Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

When I walk up the Hill on my way to work, I pass the statue of the “Famous Five”. It reminds me that there have been initiatives, there have been rights and there have been advancements made for women by the women who came before us. It is incumbent on all members of the House, male and female, to ensure that those gains continue for our daughters, our granddaughters and all generations to come.

It is not easy making a living. While the government endeavours to convince Canadians that we are living in the lap of luxury and that there is great prosperity, it is simply not the case for all Canadians. Indeed, it is not the case for most Canadians, particularly for Canadian women.

Liberal members understand that pay equity is a fundamental human right, protected by the Canadian Charter of Human Rights. Equality for women is not possible without pay equity. Without it, women are simply denied economic equality.

The evidence is clear. The current pay equity law is not working. The lack of effective pay equity hurts women and by extension, it hurts their children.

Statistics Canada tells us that women generally have lower incomes than men. In the year 2003 the average pre-tax income for women was $24,400, while men earned an average income of $39,300.

At a time when action is absolutely needed to improve the economic security of women, what do we see? We see a government that continually steps aside, making cuts in the areas that need study and require action. Economic security goes hand in hand with equality. Actions taken by the Conservative government continue to squash the efforts that build toward equality and a better life for Canada's women and children.

The Conservative government has made deep cuts into those social programs that empower and enable women. When this minority Conservative government announced an unprecedented $1 billion cut in federal social spending, on September 25, 2006, women and other vulnerable groups were disproportionately bearing that burden. These cuts included $18 million from the national literacy programs, $55 million from student summer jobs programs, $45 million taken from affordable housing programs and $10 million from the Canadian volunteer program.

These cuts have come from a Conservative government that has recently announced a surplus that comes close to $14 billion. This is the same government that earlier this year recorded the biggest spending budget in Canadian history, yet it chose the most vulnerable in our society to bear this burden. This is a government that picks winners and creates losers. It has done nothing to enable women to recover from the challenges that they face in society, in the workplace and in their homes.

A few years ago, I was a member of a Liberal task force on women entrepreneurs. We spoke to dynamic women entrepreneurs across the country, women who were ambitious, talented and determined. Yet these women continued to face gender challenges as they launched and developed those businesses.

The fight for women's equality must continue and the Canadian government has a role to play in that fight. We all win when women get ahead.

A recent study by Catalyst determined that Fortune 500 companies with the highest representation of women board directors attained significantly higher financial performance on average with those in the lowest representation of women board directors.

While the Conservative government may choose to ignore the logic of women's equality, surely it cannot be blind to the value to the economy that women can contribute.

Further, University of Alberta Professor Karen Hughes has recently published a research paper indicating that women are contributing over $18 billion to the Canadian economy and own over 800,000 businesses in Canada.

Women are opening four out of five new businesses at a rate that has tripled over the last 20 years. However, women entrepreneurs continue to face challenges with the lack of benefits, a lack of protections and a lack of social services.

I am very proud of our previous Liberal government's commitment to women's equality. It was a former Liberal government that established the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, a committee that the current government was willing to get rid of. It was going to abolish it.

It was a Liberal government that created an expert panel to provide advice and options to strengthen accountability mechanisms to advance gender based analysis and gender equality issues.

It was a Liberal government that extended parental benefits to one year. I cannot think of a single program that our Liberal government brought forward that has not benefited people in my riding. They have said that it makes such a difference to their families. Parents often share it so it is a benefit where a family can choose to have the father or mother remain at home for part of that first year of their child's life.

A Liberal government created centres of Excellence for Women's Health and Gender and Health Institute to work on health policy issues unique to women.

It was a Liberal government that achieved results for Canadian women. This is in sharp contrast to what we see with the Conservative government, a government that continually demonstrates that it neither has interest or inclination to address the poignant problems facing Canadian women.

I will take this opportunity to tell the House about the women in my community of Kitchener Centre.

Kitchener is a popular settlement area for new Canadians. Immigrant and refugee women face an array of challenges, both social and cultural. As well, they are often targets of racial discrimination and they have difficulties in finding places in the labour market.

Statistics Canada will tell us that immigrant women, on average, have an income of only $16,700. This was a statistic for the year 2000. That is roughly about $6,000 less than a Canadian born woman would earn. As we recall, Canadian women earn significantly less than Canadian men.

The majority of women immigrating to Canada arrive with their families. Those who can find work face the added challenge of finding suitable child care and this challenge has been compounded by the Conservative's absolute lack of interest in a national child care system. The Conservatives have created no new child care spaces. They are giving Canadians, with children up to the age of six, $100 a month, which any parent will tell us is bus fare and not child care.

The Conservative government demanded the word “equality” be removed from the mandate of the Status of Women of Canada. Women in Kitchener Centre, not unlike women across the country, continue to be victims of violence.

The UN has recommended that Canada ensure that all provinces provide necessary government and non-government services to those who suffer violence. Instead of federal dollars being added to this, they have been withdrawn from women's equality driven advocacy groups. This limits women's access to help. There is an undeniable link between the achievement of women's equality and the elimination of violence against women.

There are few acts more courageous than a woman taking her children and leaving an abusive relationship. I believe that governments have to be there to support women and their families. This includes a commitment to equality. It includes a commitment to affordable housing. It includes affordable, quality child care.

All these things have been absolutely ignored and the government has not only refused to invest in it, but it has taken away funding.

I look forward to questions from my colleagues.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague has made some excellent remarks.

I want to take this opportunity to thank the hon. member for Beaches—East York for her good work on behalf of Canadian women. In addition, I congratulate the member for Don Valley East for her report.

Could my hon. colleague comment on the fact that the government has sat for quite a few months and has decided to do absolutely nothing about the report?

The report, which is called “Improving the Economic Security of Women: Time to Act”, is from the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. It has a series of recommendations that are very worthy and that need attention by the government.

One recommendation is that the federal government play a leadership role in improving labour legislation to extend a greater protection for the growing segment of non-standard workers and to ensure that working conditions of non-standard workers are placed on the agenda of future meetings of provincial labour ministers.

It also talks about the fact that parental leave, which is something the Liberals brought in, should be extended from one year to six years.

There is a series of recommendations also for live-in caregiver programs. We know, and it has been discussed many times in the House, that the majority of caregivers, about 80%, are females. What is the government doing about it? Absolutely nothing.

Could my esteemed colleague comment on what she can do to persuade the government to act on this very important report.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that governing has a responsibility with it. By the choice of this opposition day motion, we are making it very clear that the Liberals value the role of women in society and recognize that there is an appropriate role for the federal government to play in the equality of women and families. There are many female-led households. They are looking for the kinds of changes in legislation that my hon. colleague has just outlined.

Clearly the government has demonstrated that it has no interest in women. It is not a priority for it, which is why it has not acted on the thoughtful recommendations that have come forward from an all party committee and have been supported by the majority of parliamentarians on that committee.

Clearly action is called for and the government has no interest or inclination in stepping up to the plate.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I sense there was some misleading of the House when she suggested that women have equality of rights in Canada. I agree with that notion. The problem is with the previous 13 years of the Liberal regime. What happened under that regime? Did the Liberals ever move to extend human rights protection to the aboriginal women of our country? Of course not. Did they ever move to bring in legislation to ensure that aboriginal women finally had matrimonial property rights? Of course not.

Finally, I remind her that it is her party, the Liberals, who oppose our intervention in Afghanistan. This intervention ensures that women in Afghanistan now have the ability to live more freely, to start their own home based businesses, to live lives somewhat similar to what we have, with the freedoms that we enjoy.

Could she explain that?

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot begin to express how appalled I am that an hon. member of the House would say that women's equality is a notion. It speaks for itself.

The government brought in a Speech from the Throne that had nothing about health care, nothing that helped women in the least. Women and families were absolutely left out of the throne speech.

The member wants to talk about aboriginal rights. The Conservatives threw away the possibility and the opportunity of a generation when they got rid of Kelowna. If the government had any concern about aboriginals, it would have taken that fine document, which was negotiated with all parties, including all aboriginal leaders, in respect and it would have implemented it.

[Catherine Bell, NDP, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time today with the member for Vancouver East.

When I saw this Liberal motion yesterday, I almost laughed. In fact, I thought it was a Halloween joke. But, really, it is no laughing matter. It is a cruel joke, one that the Liberals have been playing on women for far too long. Their actions speak louder than words.

The Liberal track record on pay equity and other supports for women is dismal, at best. While it may appear that they supported women in our fight for pay equity, they were busy over the past 13 years that they were in government, of which 12 years I might add were in a majority position, dismantling programs for women.

Some credit needs to go to former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau for creating Status of Women Canada. Many gains were made by women in the years following the implementation of that agency, but unfortunately, they did not go far enough.

For years, women called on the Liberal government to make Status of Women Canada its own department. Because of women's inequality in this country, we still need this, but it has not happened.

The former finance minister, the member for LaSalle—Émard, made drastic cuts to the budget of Status of Women Canada in 1997. These cuts were announced by the member for Vancouver Centre, who was then the secretary of state for Status of Women Canada. This action slashed programs and supports for women across this country.

Now, the Conservatives have cut it even further, forcing the closure of 12 of the 16 status offices, as well as cutting the funding for much needed advocacy programs for vulnerable women in our communities. As a result of those Liberal and Conservative cuts, the Campbell River Women's Resource Centre in my riding has to constantly apply for grants for its programs on a project basis that is dictated by the minister responsible for Status of Women Canada, instead of receiving the ongoing funding and support that would provide appropriate programs, stability and support for the women in the north island community.

The New Democrats have always stood side by side with women's groups to support equality. Whether speaking out on issues like choice on abortion, breaking the silence on violence against women, pushing for proactive legislation on pay and employment equity, actively encouraging the increased participation of women in politics, or making sure that every piece of legislation is examined for its impact on women, the NDP is the party that has walked the talk when it comes to fighting for women's equality.

However, the Liberals did not stop with cuts to women's programs. In fact, they never even got started on other programs that they promised and never delivered on them, such as a national child care program.

In 1993, the Chrétien government promised 150,000 new child care spaces, but the Liberals never delivered. After much pressure from child care advocates, they finally introduced a patchwork of agreements with the provinces, but no legislative framework that would guarantee the creation of spaces for children and the accessibility, affordability and stability that parents, especially women, still the primary caregivers, are looking for.

The Conservative attitude toward a universal child care system is simply wrong-headed. Twelve hundred taxable dollars a year does not create one space. Because of inaction on the part of both Liberals and Conservatives, parents in Vancouver Island North are paying exorbitant fees and enduring wait lists of up to two years for spaces for their children.

The NDP believes that women's equality is fundamental to this country and is committed to achieving it in every walk of life, from pay equity to child care. In our document “Fairness for Women”, the NDP lays out a plan to put the priorities of women first by making Canada a world leader for women's equality.

However, I digress. We are talking today about pay equity and economic equality for women. The Liberal motion before us today cites the need for pay equity and calls on the government to “develop a strategy to improve the economic security of all women in Canada and present this strategy to the House by February 1, 2008”.

In 2004, the pay equity task force was set up and did a comprehensive review of federal pay equity legislation since it received royal assent in 1977.

Its news release of May 5, 2004 stated:

--the Task Force commissioned independent research on a wide range of relevant issues and conducted a cross-Canada consultation process seeking the views of a diverse population of individuals, stakeholder groups, and government departments and agencies.

During those consultations the task force had agreement from all sides that “--pay equity is a human right...[and that the] current federal pay equity regime lacks clarity and has resulted in uncertainty, tension and frustration”.

The report noted the wage gap for women at that time was about 68¢. Today women earn 72¢ for every dollar a man earns, so we see we really have not come very far on this score. It also noted that women of visible minority groups, women with disabilities, and aboriginal women face even more discrimination in the labour market. Sadly, very little has changed on this front as well.

The pay equity task force called on the Liberal government in 2004 to implement proactive legislation, so that women would not have to make a human rights complaint when they were discriminated against on the basis of pay. The Liberals accepted that report and agreed that pay equity is a fundamental right. Three and a half years ago a majority Liberal government failed the women of Canada. It had an opportunity to raise the economic security of women, but it did nothing.

The pay equity task force was confident in 2004 that its recommendations in its report “Pay Equity: A New Approach to a Fundamental Right” would be taken seriously. It provided a clear framework to ensure the goal of pay equity would be achieved and urged the federal government to implement those recommendations quickly.

I find this motion hypocritical. The hypocrisy is that the Liberals would choose an opposition day to put forward a motion to call on the Conservative government to do something they should have done when they were in government over three and a half years ago.

However, since it is here and we are given an opportunity to speak to it, I would like to say that I will be supporting it. I guess the phrase “better late than never” is appropriate here. Having said that and given the Conservatives' lack of understanding and commitment to supports for women, I would like to tell them why pay equity and economic security is important for women, their families and for all their communities. I am going to do even better.

First, and because there are maybe some members here in the House who have never heard of it, I will explain what pay equity is. It is the right to equal pay for work of equal value. A woman has the right to be paid just as much as a man for work that requires a similar level of skill, effort and responsibility, and is performed in similar working conditions.

Second, I would like to tell members why this is necessary. On average, women still earn less than men regardless of their occupation, age or education. Today a woman earns 72.5¢ for every dollar that a man earns. For aboriginal women, women of colour and racialized or new immigrant women, the wage gap between their earnings and the earnings of white men is even greater than the wage gap between white men and women.

Historically, work that women have traditionally done has not been considered as valuable as men's work. Caring for children and elders, performing clerical tasks, cleaning houses and offices and teaching, for example, are traditionally considered undervalued and underpaid.

This devaluing of women's work can be explained by many factors including systemic discrimination, racism, the lack of women in political positions and occupational segregation. Pay inequity hurts women and their families. It makes women and children more vulnerable to poverty.

In Canada, more women than men live in poverty and the majority of single parent households are headed by a woman living on a low income. Since pay inequity contributes to poverty, it can have devastating health and social consequences, poor nutrition, inadequate housing, poor concentration and performance at school, and social isolation.

Pay inequity is also related to economic dependence which affects a woman's ability to leave an abusive relationship. Women bringing home lower paycheques also receive lower retirement incomes. Too often, senior women are living hand to mouth until the end of their lives.

Pay equity legislation helps to compensate women for this historic and systemic discrimination. Effective pay equity laws are a critical tool in advancing equality rights for all women and other historically disadvantaged groups.

The NDPs “Fairness for Women” document developed by our NDP caucus is available on our website. This will be a very helpful tool for the government. It must use it as a framework in developing a strategy to improve the--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Dufferin--Caledon.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member speaks very passionately about this topic and I commend her for that.

I have read the report of the committee on the Status of Women, and I have read the dissenting opinion of the New Democratic Party to this report. I do not know whether the member has had an opportunity to read that report, but I have a question because it is quite relevant to some of the things that she was saying, and it has to do with work done by women that is unpaid. I assume that means stay-at-home moms, but maybe the member could clarify that.

I am quoting from the minority report which says:

--nevertheless this work is very important. Unpaid work such as child rearing provides significant value to society. However, because this work can take up a great deal of time without compensation, it may leave some women in a position of economic insecurity.

I understand all that. Are we assuming from this statement that the New Democratic caucus is suggesting that the taxpayer pay all stay-at-home women, or stay-at-home fathers for that matter? If so, does the member have any idea what that would cost?

[Catherine Bell, NDP, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, a few years ago in New Zealand a member of Parliament named Marilyn Waring did a study on the value of work. The book was called If Women Counted: A New Feminist Economics. She followed that up with a documentary where she placed a value on home care, child care, doing the dishes, doing the laundry, and all kinds of things that were undervalued and not paid work in society. The documentary found that if those jobs that women do, or anyone does, that are unpaid in the home or outside, were added to the GDP, it would make a significant increase.

She also compared that to some of the things that create wealth in our society such as oil spills and accidents. For example, when an ambulance is called out to an accident, people are paid to clean up and things like that. These things are talked about as value for our economy because they create work. It was quite an interesting documentary. I just want to let the member know about it.

What we are suggesting here is that women who are working should be adequately compensated. We are talking about pay equity for already paid work. I hope the member and I can have a conversation about this at some other point.

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for raising the issue of the closure of Status of Women offices. I have one of the largest ridings in Canada and I do not have an office within 200 miles. The Conservative government closed that office in its cuts to women's issues.

The member used the word hypocritical quite a few times. Her leader supported the Conservatives in the last election and that is the reason why the Conservative government was elected. It is the height of hypocrisy to say that the NDP wants to support the Conservative government that put in all these cuts and then blame somebody else. The NDP can go back and find credit where it wants. It is ridiculous in this House to blame us for the issues when the NDP in fact supported the Conservative government and continue to do so to this day. How long are those members going to do it with their leader?

[Catherine Bell, NDP, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, let me repeat myself. Hypocrisy knows no bounds with the Liberal Party these days. That party is best friends with the Conservatives in the House. Those members just supported the government on a throne speech and a mini budget. How much more support does the government need? It seems like we have a de facto majority in the House. It is unheard of. It is a shame.

For all the years that the Liberals had a majority government, they did nothing for women. They could not get it done for women's equality. Here we are today in 2007 having the same argument that we had over three years ago.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, because I believe I am the last speaker, I want to sum up by saying that I have been listening to the debate today and what an incredible farce it has been in regard to the motion brought forward by the Liberal caucus.

What a history this motion has. Let us look at the record. Let us look at the record of the 150,000 day care spaces that were promised in 13 Liberal budgets but were never delivered. And the Liberals have the gall to bring forward this motion?

Let us look at the $25 billion in lost transfer payments because of Liberal governments and let us look at the status of women in this country today.

Then, a few days ago, we saw the so-called mini-budget brought in by the Conservatives, with the biggest giveaway to corporate Canada and with huge rollbacks in corporate taxes. Who sits on their hands and supports the Conservative government? That same Liberal Party.

I have to say that it is pathetic what the Liberals did today and the record will show what they have really done for the women in this country, just as we are now seeing from the Conservative government as well.

In my community of east Vancouver, we recently had a visit from the special UN rapporteur on affordable housing who came to east Vancouver to see that homelessness has doubled in my community. He issued a damning preliminary report, not only of the previous Liberal government but of the current Conservative government, a report that asks why, in a country as wealthy as Canada, we have people who are homeless. Why do we have 1.5 million Canadians who are in need, according to CMHC, of core housing? Why do we have 2.5 million Canadians living below the poverty line? It is because of the Liberal budgets and it is because of the budget brought down just a few days ago that gave this massive rollover to the corporations.

I have to ask what kind of scale it is that is being used here to provide any sense of equity. It is a scale that says if people already have a lot, we will give them more, and if people do not have anything, sorry, we will forget about them. But those are my constituents and those are average Canadians who have been forgotten.

We are here to stand up in the House and to call for the truth on what that motion from the Liberal Party is about, but also to expose what the government's mini-budget is all about. It is about reaping rewards for the wealthiest corporations in this country. They are profitable, the oil companies, the gas companies and the mining companies, and they do not need handouts from the government.

Maybe the manufacturing sector needs some support. We have heard about the 300,000 jobs that have been lost in the manufacturing sector. We have heard about the workers who have been laid off.

However, I will tell members what we are really losing out on and that is the social deficit that has been built up. It is really shameful that we now have come to the realization that the UN rapporteur has to issue a report pointing out to us, as members of Parliament, to the government and to previous governments that we have a significant issue of poverty. We have a growing gap in this country. Even Statistics Canada shows us that the wealthiest people are getting wealthier while other people are being left behind.

Yes, we do need an economic strategy that puts women first, we do need pay equity and we do need child care, but neither of those parties has had the guts, the political priority or the vision to deliver on that. They both have failed the people of Canada miserably on that score.

We are here today as New Democrats to stand up and be counted. We voted against that so-called mini-budget because we know it is the wrong direction for Canada and we know it is the wrong direction for the vast majority of Canadians.

People want to see a social investment. Women in this country want to see a social investment in education for their kids. They want to see the social investment in child care. They want to see a social investment so they can afford their prescriptions and do not have to take money out of their housekeeping money or food off the table or worry about paying the rent. Those are the basics that I hear about from my constituents. I know that other members in our caucus hear it from their constituents too.

I want to say to the Liberal members who have been debating their motion today, really, what gall, and what a shame it is for them to stand up in this place and peddle this line that they now want to see equality for women after 13 years of downgrading women.

That was not an economic statement that was about an update. It was an economic statement that left more and more people living in misery in this country and those members are going along with it. We know which side we are on, but obviously Liberal members do not know which side they are on, so we say shame on those members.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Order, please. It being 5:48 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today all questions necessary to dispose of the opposition motion are deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until Tuesday, November 13 at the expiry of the time provided for government orders.

Is there an hon. member who is willing to suggest that we see the clock? The hon. member for Leeds—Grenville is rising.

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we would like to see the clock as 6:03 p.m.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

It being 6:03 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Phthalate Control Act

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

moved that Bill C-307, An Act respecting bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, benzyl butyl phthalate and dibutyl phthalate, be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, no offence to the distinguished Speaker, but one of my favourite parts of this bill is to hear the various Speakers in the House attempt the pronunciation of the name of this bill, which we did not do, Mr. Speaker, I will offer you that. That was done by some of the drafters of the legislation who worked with us.

All kidding aside, this is a very serious piece of legislation. We have been working through it for over a year and a half now with various supporters from across the non-profit sector and the health community and various members of Parliament. It has received broad support.

While I have to mention a small source of disappointment here, there have been many inspirational moments along the way as we have worked diligently on this bill to see it through. It is something that we believe is good for Canadians and particularly good for the health of our children.

The first point came when we saw that what was meant to be an hour or so of debate in committee turned into four to six hours, with constant foot dragging by some within government, and with some within the bureaucracy itself taking out elements of the bill that, I would remind those in government, have now been adopted in full scale and measure in California law and in the entire European Union.

Somehow the claim that this was dangerous for the Canadian economy was some sort of excuse for stripping out the important aspects of health. Now, tonight, when we have an opportunity, an opportunity we believed we had with all four parties in this place, to move this bill through quickly and get it into law, which all parties claim to want to do, we have the government deciding that it needs to take the full measure of its time to debate.

To debate what exactly? Nothing. The government has nothing to fundamentally disagree with in this bill. We have made the changes. We have listened to department officials. Now the government wants to spend yet more time on it. This is apparently a government in a hurry to not do much, because tonight we have the opportunity to move this bill through and all three opposition parties are willing to do so. The government is not willing to do so and for no coherent reason whatsoever.

We have attempted time and time again to work with government officials and to work with my colleagues on the government benches, to allay their fears, to modify the bill and to work this legislation through to a point of satisfaction. We have arrived. The bill is satisfactory to all parties. We expect unanimous consent on the bill.

However, here in an opportunity we have to move it forward, there is some strange alchemy that happens in the deep bowels of the government such that it decides this cooperation just does not feel right somehow, so it has to wind the clock out again.

Nevertheless, we need to talk about the merits of the bill and its prospects of improving the health and welfare of Canadians in regard to dealing with phthalates. This group or family of chemicals is the absolute poster boy for unintended consequences.

Typically when a chemical is designed by chemical manufacturers and producers, they design it for an industrial purpose, to apply it in some commercial product and to perform some function. In this case, it is the softening of plastics. Phthalates allow certain plastics to be more malleable. It seems like a pretty innocuous effort, but unfortunately this type of chemical also leaks out and causes serious and considerable health effects, particularly in children.

Now clearly we took on an issue and wanted to prove a point. We think we have been able to establish that point: the merits of the precautionary principle, the principle that says we must take all precautions before we allow something onto the market and into Canadians' blood. Unfortunately, the sad history of chemical law in Canada has been far too cautious in the other direction. There is an assumption of innocence until proven guilty. Unfortunately, that has led to far too many ailments for Canadians, far too many illnesses and deaths.

In this case, phthalates now have been substantially proven across this whole region, in Health Canada reports and in others in the United States and Europe, to have serious health considerations. We think the bill is measured in its approach to banning this in some of the most serious and significant areas.

It is also duly noted that one of the few ways phthalates can be released from a product is through mastication, or chewing, and the unfortunate convergence of having this material in toys and implements for children that are meant to be chewed has created this awful scenario. That of course was not designed by the manufacturers, but it creates a health worry for Canadians.

Right now in Canada when a parent or a family member buys a toy for a child, there is absolutely no way to know whether it contains these chemicals or not. There is no proper labelling system in this country and there obviously is no proper ban; hence the need for this bill. We also find this chemical in women's cosmetics and certain vinyl sidings and floorings and in some surgical equipment.

Through all of this, there is this constant effort to pit the economy against the environment. We heard time and again from some witnesses, particularly those from within the department, what would happen if we banned phthalates in medical equipment. I can remember one official who said that Canadians would die on the surgery tables because there would be no medical equipment available to them because of this bill.

That is remarkable because in that same testimony there were nurses and doctors from the United States who brought products with them that were phthalate free. They had lists of entire hospitals that have declared themselves phthalate free and have banned the chemical entirely from their hospitals with no consequence.

It is an important lesson for us all as parliamentarians when we think about doing our work in this place, that the interests of the people we hope to represent must be first and foremost. Any argument made against those interests has to be verified before we accept it.

When the manufacturing sector, for example, comes forward with a doom and gloom scenario, or a department official for whatever reason presents evidence, too often in this place we are willing to take it as scripture. We are not willing to challenge it to its core and present alternative views and really get to the truth of the matter.

WIth respect to phthalates, the truth of the matter is that the role and responsibility of government is to protect our citizens. Whatever stripe the government has, its role and responsibility first and foremost is to look after the well-being particularly of those who are unable to look after it themselves, in this case children and those receiving care at a hospital.

As these plastic softeners are removed in California and Europe and many other states, Canada must get in line because there will be a reverse consequence on industry. If we do not ban this chemical in our manufacturing cycle, it will put Canadian companies at a disadvantage because they will not be able to sell into those markets anymore. They will only be able to sell to the Canadian market which allows these toxins to be present in materials.

It becomes an absolutely insane scenario. Clearly we have made enough arguments in this place and at committee that this should be accepted.

It is important for us all to look at how the government has functioned to this point similar to the previous regime when dealing with chemicals. It is very difficult for Canadians to get a full grasp of the myriad of chemicals, thousands upon thousands of chemicals, where the studies are often limited and scripted to not necessarily bring us to the full conclusion.

There are studies that have been done over a 24 hour period, nothing longitudinal at all. There are studies that have been done where there is no combination of chemicals given. Two chemicals may appear safe on their own, but combine the two and put them in a breakfast cereal and there is a real problem.

There is no capacity within the government as it goes through its chemical screening to present to Canadians a completely safe product stream with any kind of certainty.

This is a bill which sets a precedent. Health Canada did a study and tested the products not so long ago and came to the conclusion that this was safe for Canadians. We questioned what products had been looked at. Did the study look at children's toys? Did it look at cosmetics? No, it did not.

The study had excluded the very products where the concern lay and yet officials were standing in front of us saying that these things were okay. They said that a certain group of chemicals was okay to apply when the main area of concern, the main way in which they enter the human system, was excluded from the study. It is patently ridiculous, specious and dishonest. It is time for us to take full measure and account for what it is that we accept and what we allow into Canadians on a daily basis.