Debates of March 6th, 2008

Opposition Motion—Status of Women

[Johanne Deschamps, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell my Liberal colleague that, once again, Quebec is showing its openness. It is ahead of its time when it comes to implementing measures and programs that correspond to reality. Quebec is also very aware of issues related to the status of women and women's equality.

As for the pay equity legislation my hon. colleague has referred to, once again, Quebec has shown that it was very aware of and concerned about the place of women in Quebec society.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want first to congratulate my colleague from Laurentides—Labelle, who did such a good job of explaining the Bloc Québécois’ position on the Liberal opposition day devoted to the status of women. As well, I am very pleased that we are speaking on the eve of International Women's Day about the status of women, improvements in that status, and equality between men and women.

I am very sorry, though, that this is being done in connection with a partisan motion that ends on a partisan note and tries to stick it to colleagues in the NDP and Bloc Québécois for reasons that are not very clear in the motion. It is also very regrettable that the Liberal Party’s motion intrudes on jurisdictions belonging to Quebec, the Quebec nation and other provinces. It is too bad that the Liberals are interfering once again in areas of Quebec’s jurisdiction. That really is too bad.

All the women in Parliament are extremely fortunate and privileged to be here and to be able to further the well-being of our fellow citizens, especially women. On the eve of International Women's Day I think it would have been appropriate to make a grand gesture of solidarity, all the women together, to find a way to advance just one of the causes dear to women and to take just one step toward improving the status of women. Instead, we are busy here saying one party thinks this and the other party thinks that. That is really too bad.

It is even worse that International Women's Day is being marked so shortly after the passage yesterday of Bill C-484, an act to amend the Criminal Code (injuring or causing the death of an unborn child while committing an offence). I can hardly express how offended I feel, as a woman, by this bill. I am offended in several different ways.

First, this bill makes a pretence of protecting pregnant women and fetuses. In actual fact, it provides legal status to fetuses, which could even result in women who try to get an abortion being imprisoned as vile criminals. This is a bill that deprives women of control over their own bodies. What upset me the most is the fact that, even though the women in the party that introduced this bill were opposed to it, the people who voted in favour were mostly men. That is a real setback for the status of women. I think the Conservative Party will set the status of women back in several ways.

Among them are the cutbacks to Status of Women Canada on the pretext that the money does not go directly to women. Nothing could be more misguided. The need is still there. Status of Women Canada is an agency that teaches women how to fish rather than just giving them fish. I suspect the government knows very well what it is doing. On the pretext that the money does not go directly to women, it is eliminating the regional offices of Status of Women Canada.

Something else really shocked me. On one occasion, I had to sit in for one of my colleagues on the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. I was amazed to see that the main witnesses were two experts on the status of women representing Status of Women Canada. They had come to share their expertise with this government, particularly with the representatives of the Conservative government, who were asking them for opinions and advice and who were drawing on their expertise, all the while saying, in public, that Status of Women Canada was not doing its job.

I was enormously shocked, and I still am. I cannot come to terms with the fact that Status of Women Canada has had its budget slashed and Bill C-484 has been passed. I know it will be studied in committee, and I hope it will never get out of committee.

As labour critic, I am going to talk about women’s working conditions. There was a question from the member for Beaches—East York concerning pay equity. I have to say that women in Canada generally have incomes lower than men. There is still a lot to be done regarding the status of women.

In 2003, the average annual income—income from all sources before taxes—for women aged 16 and over was $24,400. That included income from employment, transfer payments, investment income and other pecuniary income. It amounted to only 62% of men’s income, which averaged $39,300 in the same year.

In Quebec the Pay Equity Act of 1996 has remedied the wage gap within the same company where it results from gender-based discrimination against people employed in predominantly female job classes. That law affects all women in Quebec, with the exception of the just under 10% of women covered by the Canada Labour Code.

Although section 11 of the Canadian Human Rights Act provides that an employer who establishes differences in wages disparities between male and female employees who are performing work of equal value in the same establishment is committing a discriminatory practice, there is still a wage gap between men and women at the federal level.

The Bloc Québécois is calling for the existing pay equity model, which is based on complaints, to be replaced by a separate, proactive new pay equity law that would make pay equity a fundamental human right, consistent with the situation in Quebec, so that there would no longer be two classes of women workers in Quebec.

On the subject of two classes of women workers in Quebec, I would like to talk about the anti-strikebreaker law. This is another thing that results in two classes of women workers in Quebec. It is the same two classes—women who come under the Quebec Labour Code and have access to a number of reasonable privileges, and women who come under the Canada Labour Code, who work in banks, ports, airports, communications and telecommunications, who are less fortunate. Not only do they not have pay equity, but they also do not have protective reassignment or anti-scab legislation.

This morning, the Minister of Labour said that Canada ranked first among G-7 countries in the number of person days per worker lost due to labour disputes. I would like to remind the minister, as I have told him on several occasions in our discussions on the anti-scab bill, that from 1992 to 2002 in Quebec, out of 1,000 employees, 121 person days were lost, while in Canada, there were 266. The main reason, if not the only reason, is that Quebec has anti-scab legislation that works and that changes the employers' negotiating strategy. It gives unionized and non-unionized workers a means of applying pressure to match that of their employers. The anti-scab legislation also means that women who work in Quebec and are covered by the Canada Labour Code are in a more difficult situation than those who are covered by the Quebec Labour Code.

I would now like to address the question of protective reassignment. Women who work in Quebec under the Canada Labour Code have only the employment insurance program, which is not working well and needs improvement, as coverage when they must withdraw from a work environment that is harmful to them or their baby. Thus, a pregnant or nursing woman must meet the eligibility criteria for the employment insurance program. When we know that, in 2001, only 33% of women paying into EI were eligible for benefits, this means that many women have no protection.

Moreover, women entitled to these benefits only receive 55% of their gross pay, whereas in Quebec, under the occupational health and safety act, expectant mothers receive 90% of their net pay. In addition, this forces pregnant women working under federal jurisdiction to mortgage their maternity and parental leave because weeks used before the birth are deducted from their total weeks of benefits.

In Quebec, pregnant or nursing workers are covered under the Quebec workplace health and safety commission, the CSST, which provides wage protection for the number of weeks deemed necessary by their doctor to ensure the safety of the woman and the child, without having to use up their weeks of employment insurance.

Determined to rectify the unfair situation of Quebec women in workplaces under federal jurisdiction, the Bloc Québécois introduced a bill on May 10, 2005, to provide these workers with the right to be benefit from the provisions of the Quebec plan.

In spite of Liberal opposition, the Bloc Québécois succeeded in passing the bill at second reading, but it was not adopted before the end of the parliamentary session and died on the order paper. We realize that it is only a matter of time.

In conclusion—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Unfortunately, there is not enough time for the conclusion.

We will now move to questions and comments. The hon. member for Surrey North.

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by the member opposite.

The minority Conservative government prides itself on fiscal accountability, making sure that every dollar is used in an appropriate way. That is fair enough. But by cutting back on the Status of Women offices, how will the Conservatives evaluate these projects that are to help the economic, cultural and social lives of women?

One of the major challenges to projects is the empirical evidence and qualitative, not quantitative, evaluation to see if they are indeed making a difference in the lives of women, not just how much money is being spent.

The government is so concerned that the money is used appropriately and that we are prudent. I am wondering how the member would see that kind of empirical evaluation being done with all of the cuts to Status of Women which previously carried out that work.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for her question, but I must tell her that I am not a specialist in program evaluation and the adequate use of public funding, in particular for Status of Women Canada.

Of course the Bloc Québécois is of the opinion that the tax dollars of citizens, of Quebeckers, should be put to good use. That money must be used to serve the interests of the voters and taxpayers. It is not our money we are managing here in Parliament, but money that belongs to Canadian and Quebec taxpayers. Their money and taxes should be used to reflect their values. One value that is important to the Quebec nation is equality between men and women.

To help women in need in any way possible, this government must drop its hidden political agenda that is inspired by the right-wing women's group REAL Women of Canada. In any event, it is not by cutting funding to Status of Women Canada, nor by passing bills such as Bill C-484, that the government will be able to help defend the interests of Quebeckers and promote their values.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government was talking about lifting women out of poverty. The best way to do that is for women to work.

I know that in Quebec the child care program is a very extensive one and a model we are all looking at, and tried to bring across the country at one point. Could the hon. member tell us how this particular program has helped women with respect to getting jobs, and has the number of women going to work actually been increased as a result of that program?

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in Quebec, we are very protective of our jurisdictions. We also know that employment is one of the jurisdictions of the Government of Quebec. The Government of Quebec therefore has responsibility for developing national programs and strategies—and by “national”, I mean “for Quebec”, of course—to create jobs and raise people out of poverty, and it does a very good job of this, as my colleague just said.

Currently in Quebec, as is likely the case in the rest of Canada and across North America, the poorest segment of society is not seniors, although they are not very well off either, but single parents, especially women, who make up the bulk of this group. They are one of the poorest segments of society.

The Government of Quebec has jurisdiction to develop national strategies in this area, and it will continue to do so.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for New Westminster—Coquitlam.

I thank the House for providing me with this opportunity to speak about the serious issues facing women in Canada. I will also be providing solutions in the action plan for women created by New Democrats with the help of civil society, the women of labour, our first nations sisters, and women's organizations across the country.

New Democrats believe our action plan can and will make a difference in the lives of women, their families and our communities because no nation can hope to fully realize its potential, create a strong economy or support successful communities when half of its citizens can be silenced by poverty, violence or powerlessness.

My Liberal colleagues opposite have raised a number of issues in regard to the shameful treatment meted out to women across the country. I am happy to address the points of their motion, but first I believe it might be helpful to take a brief look at the last 30 years of women's advocacy, to have a better sense of what Canadian women and their organizations currently face.

In 1979 the United Nations signalled to the world the necessity of an international bill of rights for women and the absolute need for a plan of action. Hence, there was the creation of the UN convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women, CEDAW.

Among CEDAW's 23 recommendations to improve women's rights around the world are requirements for signatory countries to ensure women's equal access to, and opportunities in, political and public life, education, reproductive health, employment, family law, child care and social security.

Canada signed CEDAW in 1980 and adopted its optional protocol in 2002. How have we done in the past 28 years? Unfortunately, the response by government to women's organizations working for women's equality has been less than stellar.

In 1995 the Liberal government dismantled the Canadian advisory council on the status of women and in subsequent years further eroded core funding for other women's organizations. It cut funds for women's shelters and transition houses, ended federal programs for affordable housing, cut funds for legal aid and disadvantaged women with punitive changes to employment insurance, and failed to bring forward proactive pay equity legislation and needed changes to maternity and parental leave benefits.

It does not end there. The current Conservative government changed the mandate of Status of Women Canada, cancelled the court challenges program, closed 12 regional offices, and removed lobbying, advocacy and research from the initiatives Status of Women Canada is willing to fund.

Both Liberal and Conservative governments have undermined women's equality. Both have attempted to still the voices of dissent.

One has to wonder what is so threatening about the work of these women's organizations that Liberal and Conservative governments felt compelled to close them down. Today's motion points out that the women of Canada deserve better. The reality is that Canadian women still face gender-based violence and poverty, and have trouble finding safe affordable housing and affordable child care.

The lack of proactive pay equity must also be added to that list. Interestingly enough, what the motion fails to address is the Liberal failure to remedy any and all of these concerns. The Liberal government had 13 years of majority government to promote stable economic security for women, 13 years of majority government in which to implement progressive pay equity legislation, and what did it do? It cut spending to Status of Women and failed to implement any of the 113 recommendations from the 2004 pay equity task force report.

The Liberals also failed to bring forward a workable national child care act. In fact, after years of promises and eight consecutive surpluses, all Canadian families were offered was a mishmash of insecure options.

One former Trudeau aide called the Liberal child care policy a death bed repentance. It was a death bed repentance dished up on the eve of an election that was sparked by the damning findings of the Gomery commission, and just in case anyone has forgotten, Judge Gomery found the Liberals culpable in the disappearance of $40 million taxpayer dollars.

Just for the sake of absolute accuracy, in the wake of the sponsorship scandal, the federal Liberal Prime Minister announced to Canadians that there would be an election in February 2006. Interestingly enough, that scandal ridden government did not survive a confidence vote and so the election took place one month earlier in January 2006.

Liberal government failures did not end with the lack of workable child care programs. Consider that the Liberals cancelled our national housing program, a program brought forward in 1971 by David Lewis and the NDP caucus. The national housing program provided the housing women so desperately needed if they hoped to escape poverty and violence.

Half of all Canadian women will experience criminal violence in either their homes, communities, workplaces or schools. Aboriginal women are five times more likely to die from violence than other Canadians and hundreds of aboriginal women have gone missing from their communities.

Clearly, we must redouble our efforts to achieve equality rights for women. To that end the federal NDP caucus launched the fairness for women action plan. It is a plan that not only reflects our long standing policies in support of women but also the workable achievements of NDP governments across Canada.

The solutions are obvious: stop funding the banks and big polluters with multibillion tax cuts and restore services to women. Our comprehensive action plan addresses six major areas of concern for Canadian women: fairness for women at work; better work-family balance; an end to violence against women; ensuring women's voices are heard; fairness for marginalized women; and equality for women around the globe.

Fairness for women at work means making equal pay for work of equal value the law. No excuses, no delays.

Increasing access to employment insurance because today only one in three unemployed women collects employment insurance benefits, down from 70% in 1990.

In the 39th Parliament the NDP introduced eight private members' bills to improve access to this vital income support and tabled a bill to reinstate the federal minimum wage, scrapped by the Liberals, and set it at $10 an hour.

New Democrats have introduced a private member's bill that would ensure universal child care through our national child care act that would establish a network of high quality, not for profit, licensed child care spaces. This child care program would be protected in law.

Better work-family balance also includes improved parental and maternity benefits.

New Democrats believe that violence is best addressed by ensuring access to justice for women such as reinstatement of the court challenges program, restoration of funding to legal aid, community-led prevention strategies to end violence that are initiated and directed by women, and opening more healing centres.

Status of Women Canada, SWC, must become an independent department with full funding and its own minister. An effective status of women department must be able to research, monitor and advocate for women's rights, support the women's groups who are promoting gender equality, and offer program-based and core funding. It must also include the 16 regional offices that once existed.

There must be a recognition that too many senior and disabled women live below the poverty line. Seniors must have decent pensions and women living with disabilities must be able to participate in our society.

The New Democratic Party is committed to women's equality. We are very proud of the action plan we have developed and we will continue to work for its implementation because equality is fundamental to our future as a nation. It is far more important than tax cuts for big banks and big polluters.

All that remains is the part of the Liberal motion that makes reference to those who are self-serving. I would say to Liberal Party members who are afraid to face the electorate, who are guilty of convenient amnesia, who are forgetting it was the people of Canada who voted them out, and who are incapable of summoning up the courage to live up to election promises by sitting on their hands and pandering to this vile Conservative budget, that this is most certainly self-serving.

I have an amendment to the Liberal motion. I move that the motion be amended by deleting all the words “that, therefore” and all the words after, and replace them with: “that this House acknowledge International Women's Week and call on the government to reinstate the court challenges program, restore funding to research and advocacy groups under women's program, reopen the 12 regional offices of Status of Women Canada, create a national housing program, provide resources for an early learning and child care program, implement proactive pay equity legislation, address violence against women, reform the employment insurance program to allow women better access to it, and recognize that women in Canada deserve fairness, affordability, equal opportunity, equal pay for work of equal value, a decent standard of living, and the freedom to live without fear”.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Before ruling on the receivability of the amendment, it is my duty to inform hon. members that an amendment to an opposition motion may be moved only with the consent of the sponsor of the motion.

Therefore, I ask the hon. member for Beaches—East York if she consents to this amendment being moved.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

I do not, Mr. Speaker.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Therefore, pursuant to Standing Order 85, the amendment cannot be moved at this time.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Beaches—East York.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member speaks, it would behoove her to stick to the truth. With all due respect, that would be very nice. She talked about fiction, and there is quite a lot of fiction in her comments.

The Liberals did not cancel the national housing program. It was Mulroney, and she needs to understand that. When she said that we stole the voices of women, it was the Liberals who reinstated the charter challenge program, which had been eliminated by Mr. Mulroney. She may have forgotten that.

[Dawn Black, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

That is not true.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Yes, it is very true. The charter challenge program was cancelled by Mr. Mulroney and we reinstated it.

She also conveniently forgets that there was a huge deficit in 1993 when we came in, but we immediately got back to investing in people.

[Dawn Black, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

On the backs of women.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

No. In fact, the parental leave program, which works very well, was introduced by the Liberals.

With respect to child care, we started to invest in child care in 2000, with $2 billion, followed by another $300 million or $400 million the next year. Three years later, we invested $5 billion. Mr. Harris in Ontario did not have child care. He called it “early years” because he refused to have child care. We had some difficulties in negotiating with the provinces. However, money was flowing to the provinces. Therefore, the national child care program was in place and it started in the year 2000.

[Dawn Black, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Not one child care space, not one.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Yes, there were many child care spaces, if you had bothered to check with your members across the country.

This is a comment rather than a question. When we speak, we ought to at least try to stick to the facts.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I would just remind all hon. members not to speak directly to one another, but to address comments through the Chair.

The hon. member for London—Fanshawe.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond. I have a good memory too. I remember that in 1993 the Conservative government, under Mr. Mulroney, did remove funding from the national housing program. However, I also remember that in 1993 a Liberal government was elected. It had every opportunity to restore affordable housing, and it did not.

In fact, in 1996 the Liberals cut the program entirely. It was only due to the fact that a few provincial governments provided affordable housing that people survived at all. Among those survivors were women fleeing violence, fleeing the lack of affordability and trying to raise their kids.

I also recall that when the Liberal government was elected in 1993, it had a little red book. In that book it promised that there would be a national child care policy program in place after three consecutive surpluses. After eight consecutive surpluses, no legal child care program was in place.

[Dawn Black, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there are words in the motion that are worthy of note and respect. In fact, the motion says that women's equality is a matter of human rights. I think most people in the House would agree with that.

The motion calls for an adequate supply of high-quality child care spaces. It says that this is essential. It talks about the need in Canada for a national housing strategy. Of course that is an essential program for Canadians and one that most Canadians lament losing.

We have had, until the last two years, 13 years of Liberal governments. Three of those governments were majority governments. Yet the Liberals never implemented a national child care program in our country. In fact, I remember the red book in the 1993 campaign, when the Liberals came to government after defeating a Progressive Conservative government. In that red book the Liberals solemnly promised to bring in 150,000 child care spaces. I remember them going across the country saying that.

When the Liberals were defeated in 2006, the Liberals had not implemented any national child care program. Canada is one of the few developed countries in the world without a national child care program. Canada is also one of only two developed countries without a national housing program. The Liberals cut the national housing program when they had a majority government.

In the motion the members of the official opposition are trying to blame the opposition parties in the House of Commons for their defeat in the 2006 election. The reality is the people of Canada became very tired of Liberal scandals. The Gomery commission came out with a great report, documenting Liberal scandal and corruption.

Canadians became tired of Liberal inaction on the items that they had promised election campaign after election campaign. Canadians were the people who defeated the Liberal government.

I want to highlight what a few Liberals have said about their defeat in 2006. One quote says that the Conservatives won “because Canadians believed they had to take power from the Liberals”. Who said that? It was Liberal candidate Bob Rae, who is running in a byelection right now.

Another quote, after the fall of the Liberal government in 2006, is by the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore. He said, “There are aspects of our party that are sick as hell. We are a deeply factionalized and divided party. The test of things will be to find a leader who can bring us together”.

This quote is from ex-Liberal aide, Tom Axworthy. He said that the Liberal government's national day care program was “a deathbed repentance”.

The hypocrisy in this motion is staggering, when the Liberals blame the opposition parties for their defeat in 2006. The hypocrisy of the official opposition is absolutely overwhelming, and Canadians will see through it.

Let us look at the Liberal record on women during the 13 years the Liberals were in government. We had no child care, no pay equity, no national housing program. They made changes to the employment insurance program, which disenfranchised women and made it much more difficult for women to access benefits under employment insurance. That is what the Liberal government did.

In March 1997 the then secretary of state for the Status of Women, the member for Vancouver Centre, eliminated program funding for women's organizations. The Liberals disbanded the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women. Program funding for women's organizations was cut by more than 25% over the 1990s, while the Liberals had majority governments.

It is not only the Liberals who have impacted negatively on the lives of Canadian women. The Conservative government cut an additional $5 million to Status of Women Canada. It has eliminated any funding for research and advocacy for women's equality rights. It reduced the Status of Women Canada budget by 38.5%. The government has even removed the word “equality” from the mandate of Status of Women programs and taken out the whole raison d'être for women's struggle for equality in our country.

We can look back also at the years when the Liberals had majority governments and see what they did with respect to social programs.

Starting in 1996, the Liberal government cut over $25 billion from transfers for health, education, social assistance. The Liberals eliminated the Canada assistance plan in their 1995 budget. They changed employment insurance and based it on eligibility of hours worked rather than weeks worked, which disproportionately hurt women.

In their 1996 budget, the Liberals ended the federal role in social housing by cutting it out totally. We see the devastation on the streets of every city and community in Canada. Homeless people are living and sleeping on the streets. Twenty years ago, people would have said that would be impossible in a country as wealthy as Canada, and now we see it every day in every region across the country. The Liberals cut any federal role in social housing in Canada.

What did the Liberal government do with the surpluses it started to register in 1998? Did it reinvest in education? Did it reinvest in housing? Did it reinvest in women's programs? No. Did the Liberals invest any of it in child care? No, they did not. They allocated over $1 billion to tax cuts, while programs that benefited women, children and the disenfranchised in Canada were left out.

In 1993, and I remember this well, the Liberals promised to create 150,000 child care spaces. After 13 years of government, three of them majority governments, they created none. We still have a crisis in Canada with child care. In fact, my son and daughter-in-law have just had their first child. They were searching for child care in the Vancouver region. A little over a week and a half before they were due to start back to work they found an adequate and proper child care space for my granddaughter. I hear from members of my community all the time about their struggle to find child care for their children, and I now know about it first-hand.

What have the Conservatives done on social programs? They have a sorry and sad record too. They have posted a massive $13 billion surplus, $5 billion more than they expected last year. Yet none of that has been put into social programs. That is a shame on our country. It saddens most Canadians to see their fellow citizens living in poverty when the government could have helped.

I have one final point to make for the official opposition members who have brought forward this hypocritical motion today.

On March 4, the Conservative budget was passed, with the assistance of 18 Liberal women members of Parliament, representing London West, Brampton West, St. Paul's, Oakville, Guelph, Brampton—Springdale, Laval—Les Îles, Vancouver Centre, Mississauga East—Cooksville, Thornhill, Nunavut, Churchill, Sudbury, Beaches—East York, Winnipeg South Centre, Don Valley East, York West and Newmarket—Aurora.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that with the option today to make a speech, to speak to issues that concern women and to move forward together to build some sort of support for the programs that have been cut, to reinstate them and to deal with this issue, what we heard here was a tirade, much of which was not actually based on fact.

I would like to answer very clearly with regard to this issue. It has been said over and over by the hon. member's party that it was the Liberals who cut national social housing. I would like the hon. member to go back into the books and check it out, because that was done under Brian Mulroney's Conservative government.

In 1995, when the Liberals had in fact gone a long way toward getting rid of the Mulroney deficit, we actually did not bring social housing back in at the time because there were other priorities, such as health care and homelessness, which we decided to deal with. The Liberals then began to bring in a national housing program by signalling a national housing interest, by creating a minister of state for housing beginning in about 2000, and by putting $2 billion into second-stage housing for women who were victims of violence, as well as moving to bring in the SCPI program, which everyone has lauded.

When we speak of hypocrisy, it is really interesting to hear this hon. member talking about child care and all of these issues, which our government brought in, which they say they supported and then--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order. I will have to stop the hon. member there. The hon. member for New Westminster—Coquitlam.

[Dawn Black, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to address the whole issue of housing in this country.

Ten per cent of women who seek shelter are turned away due to lack of space in shelters for battered women in this country.

Canada is one of only two developed countries that does not have a comprehensive national housing strategy. The official opposition had the opportunity for 13 years while in government to ensure that we did have a national housing strategy and neglected to do anything about it.

It is true that the previous Mulroney government cut funding for social housing projects, but it was the Liberal government that eliminated the program altogether and took no action to reinstate a national housing program in this country.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I find it really frustrating in this place when misinformation is persistently put forward. If we want to have a debate, let us at least deal with some facts. It was not the Liberal government that eliminated the funding and eliminated the program.

Shortly thereafter, as soon as we were able, we were back into housing and homelessness. In Ontario, $602 million was announced for housing, and in fact it was announced in my riding, to partner with the Government of Ontario. We were doing this right across the country. We were back into housing quite aggressively.

I also hear this constant cry about child care, but if that party truly wanted to keep child care in place, then why would it vote us down? Those members had power with us. For the first time in 30 years, that party had the power to actually influence government policy. It did not have to go to an election. Now the NDP wants to go to an election yet again. What for this time? What is it going to accomplish with another election? Will it bring child care to them or not? It will not do any of that.

With all due respect, I am tired of hearing misinformation in this House constantly.