House of Commons Hansard #7 of the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was women.

Topics

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech From The Throne

4:25 p.m.

Conservative

Devinder Shory Conservative Calgary Northeast, AB

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the speeches very carefully and have actually read the budget as well.

I am a new Canadian and many of the constituents who live in my riding of Calgary Northeast are also new Canadians.

I like the comment made by the member for Nanaimo—Alberni that Canada is the best country live in and that is why I believe I chose this country.

I understand the budget measures will not only help to sustain the jobs but also to create jobs in the coming days. I also understand that many private sector economists have applauded the second phase of our economic action plan.

As a new Canadian, the foreign credentials recognition issue is very near and dear to my heart as well as to many constituents in my riding.

When I came to Canada it took eight years to get my education recognized. I am a living example of that. Since our Conservative government came into office, the Prime Minister has taken a leading role and the government has invested millions and millions of dollars to address this issue.

I would like my friend from across the floor to comment on this matter.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech From The Throne

4:30 p.m.

Liberal

Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL

Mr. Speaker, I think many of the questions of the member for Calgary Northeast, and I do not mean this disparagingly, should probably be directed toward the member who sits ahead of him and not across the way to me, but I will comment on some of the things he has said.

On foreign credentials, the hon. member made a valid point. Here is why. I will compare his riding with mine. In my riding one of the major foreign credentials issues has been the delays in the procedures for getting someone in my riding practising medicine without any encumbrances when it comes to bureaucratic red tape.

Physicians in my riding have been asking for this for quite some time. We are, as I mentioned, a rural riding of 170 communities plus. The member has a valid point because the delivery of health care is a difficult thing to do in a rural setting. It is difficult. It is not the fault of any government, but is just a matter of space. When people live that far apart, when we talk about ambulances, primary health care and home care, it is a major issue.

We have had shortages of physicians, as well as nurses, for quite some time, and I believe that the credentials issue has to be looked at even further than what the government has done. Thus, if the member wants to congratulate his government for doing what it has done, great, but let me raise the bar and say that you have more work to do.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech From The Throne

4:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

I remind the member to address his comments through the Speaker and not directly to his colleagues.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech From The Throne

4:30 p.m.

Bloc

Roger Pomerleau Bloc Drummond, QC

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor talked about seniors who are having difficulty with their pensions. He thinks the bar should be set higher. In this case, I absolutely agree with that statement. However, I would like to remind him that it was the Liberals who took almost $60 billion out of the employment insurance fund, which had an extraordinary impact on pensions. In many cases, people who were excluded from employment insurance had to cash in their RRSPs before they could get social assistance, which therefore decreased their future pension. It was the Liberals who did that.

I would also like to remind him that the Liberals created tax havens. Barbados is a good example. Any tax money not received here, of course, does not get distributed to people who need it, including those receiving pensions.

At the time of the Liberals' defeat, 68,000 people who were entitled to the guaranteed income supplement had not been notified. This represented something like $6,000 a year for the poorest people in society, in most cases isolated people and women. We are talking about 68,000 people who did not get anything.

The Liberals are now criticizing what the Conservatives are doing, but where are the Liberals' figures? Where are their programs? We never see that.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech From The Throne

4:30 p.m.

Liberal

Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL

Mr. Speaker, I followed the dictum for so long, and when the hon. member started to talk about tax havens, I am not sure whose tax haven he spoke about. I certainly do not have one, I can remind the hon. member of that.

The other issue is this one. I talked about raising the bar. If the hon. member wants to make an effective change in the House, I applaud his party for coming forward with some private members' legislation that I felt was effective. Those bills were not necessarily passed in the House, but they were effective in challenging the government for better EI reforms.

There is an issue with the $60 billion that was stolen and whether it is still there. However, it is in general revenue. There is a different way of looking at this, depending on how one looks at it. Nonetheless, I want to remind the hon. member that where we stand together is on the upfront qualifications for getting benefits. It is not just a back end situation.

The government has extended benefits. That is true, but the problem is that in many cases people are unable to qualify upfront, and there is still only a fraction of people who are able to qualify.

One of the first issues I worked on when I got here was to get rid of the divisor rule and to go back to 14 weeks. With that, it allowed many more people to be eligible. That is the type of thing I am talking about. That is where we get into the front end benefit situation we want to get to. Let us stick with that argument and raise the bar.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech From The Throne

4:35 p.m.

NDP

Jim Maloway NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the member's speech. I want to draw his attention to page 8 of the throne speech and the issue of the national securities regulator. As I see it, it is basically a feel-good exercise on the part of the government. It is planning to spend $160 million creating a bigger bureaucracy and is probably not going to change the people running the organization.

The organizations are not the problem; it is the people running them that are the problem, because they are being hired from the very companies they are supposed to be regulating. That is the real problem. That is why Conrad Black was not put in jail in Canada. He was put in jail in the United States, even though he committed his crimes in Canada. The Canadians could not do it.

The government members think that somehow if they can set up a national securities regulator, it is going to solve all of their problems. The government is not going to be able to do that unless it staffs the organization with people who are not coming from the companies they are currently regulating, that is, staffing it with people who are going to be more investigative in nature and have a better enforcement approach.

I am not sure what the hon. member and the Liberal Party's position is on this particular issue right now, but I want to make the point that just changing the structure is not going to amount to a more effective organization, unless one changes the people running the organization.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech From The Throne

4:35 p.m.

Liberal

Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL

Mr. Speaker, I see from page 8 that the hon. member has a valid point, no doubt about it. I suppose one could make the same case for politicians: change the people, instead of changing the policies. Perhaps it is something we should all be aware of in this minority Parliament.

I want to give the hon. member another example of what I fear is coming down the road, and that is the arm's-length setting of rates for EI. One issue that keeps coming up is the idea of higher payroll taxes. When one uses an arm's-length organization to do that, unfortunately, higher payroll taxes may be coming and no one will really take responsibility for them. Maybe that is what he is talking about in that particular situation.

It is almost as if one farms out fundamental decisions, which is usually the case with this government. Members get our jobs here because people elect us. They get a chance to hire us and we work for them, as opposed to the other way around.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech From The Throne

4:35 p.m.

Conservative

Bruce Stanton Conservative Simcoe North, ON

Mr. Speaker, I was delighted to hear the hon. member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor speak of his support for sealers in Canada. It was a delight to hear, but I wonder if the hon. member has had a conversation in caucus with his colleague from the Senate, who continues to push forward a bill that seems to be in direct contradiction to the admittedly supportive comments of the other side.

The difficulty is that it is creating a different message to people around the world, to the markets that are potentially important to sealers. Would the hon. member tell his colleague in the Senate to call off the dogs?

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech From The Throne

4:35 p.m.

Liberal

Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. member for Simcoe North, who let the dogs out?

I am going to make this very brief. Mac Harb is wrong; he is absolutely wrong. Does the hon. member want us to take disciplinary action? If that is the case and that is what the hon. member endorses, here is the deal. The hon. member for Edmonton East talked about Louis Riel, and how Riel had blood on his hands, and the next day the PMO distanced itself from those remarks.

I suggest the hon. member for Simcoe North kick the hon. member for Edmonton East out of caucus.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech From The Throne

4:40 p.m.

Saint Boniface Manitoba

Conservative

Shelly Glover ConservativeParliamentary Secretary for Official Languages

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my friend and my colleague from Calgary East.

Budget 2010 is our government's response to the recession, our road map to ensure a complete recovery and sustain Canada's economic advantage now and for the future.

Canada is coming out of the recession propelled by one of the strongest economies in the industrialized world. As 50.5% of the population and well over half of the paid labour force, women are more crucial than ever to Canada's success.

Budget 2010 marks the beginning of year two of our economic action plan, which will invest $19 billion in the Canadian economy and includes a number of important initiatives for women and girls.

Women are more important than ever to Canada's success, both here and around the world. When women are able to fully participate in society, they can attain a better standard of living, take on leadership roles and contribute more to the decisions that will help strengthen our country. In fact, a strong Canada goes hand in hand with strong women.

Budget 2010 highlights the Government of Canada's new initiatives to support women and advance gender equality. Our efforts to promote the full participation of women revolve around three main themes or principles: ending violence against women, including aboriginal women; increasing women’s economic security and prosperity; and increasing the number of women in management and decision-making roles.

Canada recognizes that, despite declining rates of violence in many areas, women are still more likely than men to be victims of violence. Women need to feel safe in their homes and in their communities, and they want a justice system that includes, respects and represents women.

The Government of Canada's decision to prioritize protecting women and children who have been victims of crime will benefit both of these vulnerable groups. Women want to be able to raise their families in a safe environment. They want protection from emerging threats, such as cybercrime, to which children are particularly vulnerable.

Women will approve of the government's vigorous action to better protect children from exploitation on the Internet, to bring in tougher sentences for sexual offences involving children, and to strengthen the national sex offender registry.

More support for victims of crime and their families, including special employment insurance benefits for the families of murder victims, will help many Canadian families who have tragically lost a loved one.

To ensure that Canada emerges from the recession stronger than ever, we need a flexible, skilled workforce to create a more sustainable economy. Human capital is one of the keys to productivity. The 2010 budget recognizes and addresses this issue.

For example, this budget allocates more than $600 million over three years to help develop talented people, strengthen our capacity for world-class research and development, and improve commercialization of research outcomes. These measures will create more opportunities for women entrepreneurs and women with post-secondary education—over half of all Canadian women—as well as many other talented and visionary Canadian women whose skills and leadership abilities are being underutilized or not being used at all.

Budget 2010 includes $2.2 billion to support industries and communities. This will support adjustment and provide job opportunities in all parts of Canada that have been hit hard by the economic downturn. It will create job opportunities for women. It provides support for affected sectors, including forestry, agriculture, small business, tourism, shipbuilding and culture.

In addition, the proposed elimination of tariffs on manufacturing inputs and machinery and equipment will encourage investment in the manufacturing sector.

In 2009, Canadian women made up 47.2% of the labour force. Although women in the labour force are slightly less likely than men to experience periods of unemployment, women as well as men lost their jobs because of the recession. Budget 2010 includes measures to support these women, other vulnerable members of society and families.

Year two of Canada's economic action plan includes $4 billion to create and protect jobs by improving employment insurance benefits, thanks to a freeze of the low premium rate, and creating more opportunities for training and skills development to help unemployed Canadians through this transition period and ensure they are equipped to re-enter the labour market and prosper.

The government is providing $1.6 billion in 2010–11 to strengthen benefits for the unemployed. This support includes providing up to an extra five weeks of EI regular benefits for all EI-eligible claimants, providing greater access to EI regular benefits for long-tenured workers, and extending the duration and the scope of the work sharing program.

The government is providing almost $1 billion in 2010–11 to enhance training opportunities for all Canadian workers. This includes additional support to the provinces and territories to expand training and skills development. It also includes helping youth to gain work experience and necessary skills and offering more opportunities to aboriginal Canadians.

Budget 2010 also proposes a change to the universal child care benefit, so that single parents receive comparable tax treatment to single-earner two-parent families. This measure will especially help single-income single-parent families, most of which are headed by women.

Improvements are also proposed to the registered disability savings plan to help parents and family members provide long-term financial security for a severely disabled child. Budget 2010 also proposes to extend the enabling accessibility fund, which supports projects that allow the full participation of people with disabilities in their communities.

Budget 2010 proves that our government cares about the future of Canada and the people who live all across this country. We will balance Canada's budget, but we will not do so at the expense of women. In fact, this country cannot really succeed without women's full involvement. Canada's strength depends entirely on the strength of its women.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech From The Throne

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

Shawn Murphy Liberal Charlottetown, PE

Mr. Speaker, in her speech, the member talk about productivity, which is so important because, as we enter an era where we have a decreasing workforce, that will depend upon the increase in productivity of the workforce that is left.

However, there are a lot of issues that she and the previous speakers from that side did not touch upon which are major challenges facing this country: the demographic challenges that the country faces, the pensions that are unaddressed, and the deficit, which is the largest in Canadian history, to be followed by the second largest. The government is saying that it is only temporary but I would remind everyone that it was saying the same thing in 1993 when the previous Conservative government was here. It also said that it was only temporary.

We are facing competitive challenges and literacy challenges where 40% of our population does not have the literacy skills to function in today's economy. The most egregious challenge, of course, is the environmental issues. The Conservatives are in their fifth year of office and no one in this House can suggest that they have done anything at all. These are intergenerational issues. It is unfair. It is inequitable.

After listening to everything that has been said here today, what does the member across have to say? Considering that all these issues have not even been talked about, certainly the environment being one, what does she have to say to our children and generations to come?

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech From The Throne

4:50 p.m.

Conservative

Shelly Glover Conservative Saint Boniface, MB

Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat disappointed that the hon. member neglected to validate the things that were said in my short speech, which dealt with women, our aboriginal people and a number of issues that are important to Canadians. I understand that he does want me to address a wide variety of things but the budget is several hundred pages long and I encourage him to read the entire budget to get answers to the full extent of the possibilities here, because I only have a certain amount of time with which to answer the question.

I want to touch on one specific thing the member asked about, and that is literacy. I am pleased to answer that question because our government has put money toward financial literacy, which is so important, not only for women but for seniors who are not just women but men as well. This is a situation that has affected our seniors for a very long time and I am proud to be part of a government that is addressing that.

I would be pleased to speak with the member afterward to explain further what is in budget, if he wishes to do so.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech From The Throne

4:50 p.m.

Bloc

Guy André Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the portion of the hon. member's speech on the status of women. We know full well that inequality between men and women is still quite significant in our society.

I am going to talk about social housing. In Quebec, and in the rest of Canada, social housing is often meant for low income families and single mothers. It allows such people to devote a certain percentage of their income to housing, which helps them to provide their children with a better upbringing, among other things.

The guaranteed income supplement has not been improved. This will prevent seniors, including many women living alone, from having a better income.

There is also the issue of employment insurance. It is often women who bear the burden of closures in the manufacturing sector, whether in the textile industry or other areas—

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech From The Throne

4:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

I have to interrupt the hon. member in order to leave enough time for the hon. member for Saint Boniface.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech From The Throne

4:50 p.m.

Conservative

Shelly Glover Conservative Saint Boniface, MB

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member opposite for his question and for acknowledging that I was talking about women in my speech.

The government is certainly aware of the social housing situation. The previous economic action plan invested $1 billion in social housing. The government is staying on the same track in budget 2010 by allocating another $1 billion to social housing.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech From The Throne

4:50 p.m.

Calgary East Alberta

Conservative

Deepak Obhrai ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak on behalf of the constituents of Calgary East in reply to the Speech from the Throne, followed by the budget the next day, outlining the way this government will proceed.

It is important to recognize that when the economic crisis hit around the world, this government immediately took strong action to address the issues and, through that action, we introduced the economic action plan, the stimulus action plan.

We know that the Liberals, the Bloc and the NDP opposed that action plan. Today, however, because of that economic action plan, we are poised with the Speech from the Throne and the budget to look forward. We are now at the stage where recovery has started and we now need to address the issues going forward.

I recently returned from a diplomatic tour across Central Asia, the South Pacific and Europe. Wherever I went, there was an admiration for Canada and for the way Canada had handled its affairs. Everywhere I went people were saying that we had done an excellent job.

Knowing what happened in the U.S., Britain, Germany and everywhere else, Canada stood out showing that its fiscal system was in order and was the one that took the shocks of this global downturn.

We need to take credit where credit is due and, as other institutions have said, we have done a good job minus the fact that the NDP and the Liberals would not support those actions.

Now we have come to the stage of asking what we do next. Everybody is looking to Canada. Now it is time to address the deficit. Canadians are saying that they did belt-tightening and want to know what belt-tightening we will be doing.

The Speech from the Throne clearly said where the government will go in belt-tightening. The government has asked all the MPs, ministers and senators to freeze their salaries. Not only that, the government also said that every budget of the MPs and ministers will be frozen, including those of the departments. It has asked all MPs to do that.

I am happy to say that since I came to Parliament I have been returning my MOB to the government every year to the tune of $25,000. It is by example that we lead by and it is by example that this government leads by.

I am happy to state that the government has taken the step to address the deficit. The Liberals will not like it because the Liberals know how to spend money but not how to save money, as we know from the sponsorship scandal.

The Speech from the Throne and the budget address important economic issues facing this country, which are tackling the deficit and putting our house back in order as is needed.

I would like to talk about the most important issues concerning my constituents that this government has addressed.

The three parties on the other side oppose any action plan that we put forward. It was a very sorry state to see all three parties joining together again yesterday to work against our budget, a budget that would reduce the deficit. I do not know what seems to be their problem. Why would they not support a budget that would reduce the deficit? Some members did abstain from the vote so that we would not have an election. When the previous Liberal leader did not want to support a budget, his Liberal members would not stand up. The important thing to recognize is the fact that this budget is taking steps to address important issues.

Let me get back to what I was saying about my constituents.

Like other Canadians across the country, the number one priority of my constituents is jobs. This government addressed this point very well. EI benefits had been frozen. Our government gave more extended benefits to people for retraining.

All the announcements that we made were very well received by constituents in my riding so they could meet the challenges of losing a job and being retrained. That was another important point that this government made. Let me repeat something which I think should be repeated more often: the opposition voted against that.

Seniors in my riding are concerned about the OAS and other matters. This government again addressed their concerns. We addressed one of their issues through the tax free savings account so seniors could save money and not pay taxes on their savings. We also allowed seniors to take advantage of income splitting. Those were very good moves that we made so seniors could have more money in their pockets.

I see my colleague is shaking his head, but what would he know? Seniors would tell him that this government took very important steps to address their concerns.

My riding is made up of many new Canadians. Close to 27% of new Canadians from all over the world live in my riding. During bad economic times it is important for them to know what will happen with respect to their credentials. I am happy to state quite clearly that this government has acted on the issue of foreign credentials as opposed to the Liberals, who for many years said they were going to do something but did nothing. This government addressed those concerns.

With respect to our tough on crime agenda, Canadians are concerned about crime. This government has put forward some of the strongest legislation on crime. We did not expect the Bloc or the NDP to support us, but we thought the Liberal Party would have supported our agenda.

A strange thing happened with respect to our crime legislation. When our legislation was sent to the other place, Liberal senators would cut it down. They would not listen to the will of this House, including their own members here.

Canada is on the world stage and looking forward to remaining on the world stage when we host the G8 and the G20.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech From The Throne

5 p.m.

Liberal

Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman sitting behind my colleague, who just spoke, is I believe from Kootenay—Columbia. I would like to wish him all the best in his future endeavours as he will not be running in the next election I understand. It has been a pleasure to serve with him over these past few years, since 2004.

There is an issue that pertains to Newfoundland and Labrador when it comes to Hibernia. The government has 8.5% ownership in Hibernia but the holding corporation that is involved is not in Newfoundland. It is actually in Calgary. I wonder if the member would like to move that office back to Newfoundland.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech From The Throne

5:05 p.m.

Conservative

Deepak Obhrai Conservative Calgary East, AB

Mr. Speaker, I join the hon. member in wishing my colleague here a happy retirement. It has been a pleasure serving with him here in the House. Being more senior to me, he had a lot of wisdom to give to me in debate, and I thank him very much. He also served with me on the committee as well.

In reference to my friend's question, I am extremely proud that Calgary has been the headquarters for that. Calgary, if the hon. member forgets, is part of Canada and so is Newfoundland.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech From The Throne

5:05 p.m.

Bloc

Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC

Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but smile every time a Conservative member stands in the House to tell us all about how much money the Conservatives have saved. They may have frozen ministers' and members' budgets, but they increased the budget for the Privy Council and the Prime Minister's Office by 21% so that he could control all of his ministers.

Speaking of fighting the deficit, just today, Kevin Page, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, said that the deficit will be $20 billion more than the Conservative government expected. We know about outrageous Public Works and Government Services Canada expenses, such as $1,000 doorbells and $5,000 lights. The way the Conservatives spend public money reminds me of the time when Brian Mulroney was their leader. Back then, Canada's deficit ballooned from $160 billion to $500 billion. That is how the Conservatives operate.

I would like the member to explain why the Conservatives are once again running up the deficit, just as Mulroney did in his day.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech From The Throne

5:05 p.m.

Conservative

Deepak Obhrai Conservative Calgary East, AB

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Works has said that she is looking into those things the hon. member is talking about. There is no boondoggle. As soon as it came to light, we are looking into it and investigating that issue.

In reducing the deficit, we have to take the first steps, and move in that direction. We are taking the first steps, and giving everyone indications that the government is very serious in reducing the deficit. We will proceed with that. The deficit will certainly not go away overnight, as the hon. member is talking about.

These are the first initial steps that will be taken, and let us not go to other issues. Let us go on to the bigger issue that the government's direction is the right direction and that is the way the government should go, and ultimately we will reach the target of reducing the deficit.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech From The Throne

5:05 p.m.

NDP

Jim Maloway NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the hon. member that our tourism industry in this country is suffering because of this government. In fact, American tourists are not coming up here in the numbers that they were before the passport regulations came into effect.

The government had lots of warning, had an opportunity to deal with the issue, and when the provinces tried to get the government to reduce the cost of passports, or at least come in with a passport light, the government refused, so provinces like Manitoba had to come up with their own enhanced driver's licence, and basically duplicate the functions of the Passport Office, something they should not have had to do.

The question is, will the government make a move to reduce the cost of passports, perhaps have a two for one or a half price passport for a number of months to increase tourism?

When I read in page 14 of the Speech from the Throne that the Conservatives plan to introduce the biometric passport, I have my doubts that they will ever get around to doing that because in order to do that, they have to negotiate the form of that passport with all other countries through a passport organization. Cards have to be able to be read in the countries that--

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech From The Throne

5:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

Order. I regret having to cut the hon. member off, but there are only 20 seconds left for the parliamentary secretary.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech From The Throne

5:05 p.m.

Conservative

Deepak Obhrai Conservative Calgary East, AB

Mr. Speaker, it is only NDP logic whereby we would increase tourism by reducing passports at half the cost for Canadians. How would that increase tourism in Canada? It could be that the hon. member is talking about reducing the passport fee for Canadians leaving the country because it would not increase tourism into this country. I do not understand the hon. member's logic.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech From The Throne

5:05 p.m.

NDP

Irene Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Burnaby—Douglas.

On March 3, the country listened to a less than inspiring Speech from the Throne. The throne speech was a prelude to yet another disappointing document, the budget of the Conservative government, a budget that promised little to hard-working Canadians and even less to women.

We now have an additional $6 billion in corporate tax cuts that benefit the country's wealthiest, mostly men in profitable corporations.

The government itself has admitted that corporate income tax cuts are not effective in the promotion of overall economic growth and yet it is spending $10.1 billion to widen the gender gap and drive up poverty rates among women and single parents.

The government continues to show its disdain for women with a $9.6 billion in infrastructure spending that leaves women out completely. No gender equity requirements have been introduced in any of these infrastructure spending projects and social infrastructure is entirely missing.

The Conservatives talk a good game by reducing the lowest income tax rate from 16% to 15%, but at least 40.4% of women receive no benefit from any of these cuts because their incomes are too low to qualify.

Budget 2010 does nothing to expand employment insurance and Canadian women bear the brunt of this. Women in this country will continue to struggle to qualify for EI. Recent studies suggest that right now only one-third of Canadian women will benefit from EI enhancements.

The Conservative government has no plan to assist the 810,000 Canadians laid off during the recession and clearly no plan to assist the 70% of women in part-time or seasonal jobs who pay into EI but who are unable to receive benefits when they are laid off.

The government continues to betray the women of Canada who fought long and hard to achieve equal pay for work of equal value. Budget 2010 offered nothing to move pay equity forward. The government has upheld the regressive changes it made in budget 2009, regressive changes shamefully supported by the Liberals which transformed pay equity in the public service from a right to a bargaining chip to be decided upon during labour negotiations.

Once again the Conservative government has made it clear that women and children of this country are its last priority. The Speech from the Throne promised to strengthen the universal care benefit for sole support single parent families, but budget 2010 reveals that this was purely rhetorical. The $3.25 a week will not even buy a happy meal let alone child care.

If the government was truly committed to making Canada the best place for families, as the throne speech claims, it would invest in a quality universal, accessible national child care plan, not just toss change at Canadian parents who are in the lowest income brackets.

Canadian families, and particularly Canadian women, need a national day care plan to ensure their economic security. Yet time and again, the government and its predecessor have abandoned single parent families and women with young children with insulting measures like the $168-a-year for so-called strengthened child care.

It is not just single parent families who suffer. The poverty rate for senior women in Canada is almost double that of senior men. In the throne speech the government promised to protect transfer funding for pensions, yet budget 2010 offers mere consultations. It does nothing to increase the guaranteed income supplement above the low income cut-off and therefore nothing to help lift a disproportionate number of senior women out of poverty.

Both the throne speech and the budget seemed encouraging with regard to the government's commitment to focus on missing and murdered aboriginal women with a pledge of $10 million to Sisters in Spirit, but there is only vague information about how that funding will be distributed or even when it will be available. It is paramount that this funding be directed to the organizations of aboriginal women who are experts on this issue, who have already done the research and who know where the funding will have its biggest impact.

The Speech from the Throne cites the government's commitment to greater investment in maternal and child health in developing countries. I confess I am speechless over the hypocrisy of this claim from the same government that slashed funding to the Canadian Federation for Sexual Health, KAIROS and UNRWA, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency.

How can a government that claims to value the health of women and children in developing countries cut funding to these key organizations which are mandated to protect women from rape as a weapon of war; help victims of violence, predominantly women in developing countries; escort child refugees to safety; and protect the human rights of the most vulnerable?

Those are mean-spirited and ideological cuts that undermine the justice and relief work that KAIROS, CFSH and UNRWA bring to the very people the government says that it wants to help. It is time for the government to do more than make empty promises. It must do more than mention the G8 maternal and child health project.

In Malawi, 14 women a day die in childbirth. In India, a woman dies every five minutes as a result of pregnancy or birth-related complications. Both the throne speech and budget 2010 cite maternal and child health around the world as a priority, yet no funding for this initiative is indicated in either. It is time for the government to live up to its human rights commitments on the global stage.

Women and children around the world deserve more from Canada and so do the women of this country. Older women, women living alone and single mothers are the Canadians most likely to have to choose between food, heat and housing and yet budget 2010 offers nothing for housing. In fact, over the next three years, the government will take $300 million from the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.

This behaviour continues to entrench the poverty of Canadian women. The priorities outlined in both the throne speech and budget 2010 are an insult to 52% of Canada's population. Once again, the Conservative government has failed women.

Positive action for women can be achieved. New Democrats have made fairness for women our policy. Part of that plan includes making equal pay the law. Canada needs proactive pay equity legislation that would compel employers to ensure that all employees are getting equal pay for work of equal value. The NDP plan would make Canada a leader in gender equality with the implementation of the recommendations of the 2004 pay equity task force and the introduction of proactive federal pay equity legislation.

New Democrats would increase access to employment insurance. The NDP plan to ensure that access to EI includes an overhaul of the legislation governing employment benefits. In the 40th Parliament, NDP members have introduced 12 private member's bills to improve access to this vital income support. Establishing a $12 minimum wage is also crucial. Two-thirds of minimum wage workers over the age of 15 are women and many of these women are living well below the poverty line.

Clearly, the federal government has a role to play in setting fair pay to ensure the welfare of all hard-working Canadians and their families. The NDP has tabled a bill to reinstate the federal minimum wage at $12 an hour, the minimum wage that was scrapped by the previous Liberal government.

Creating a national child care program is at the centre of economic security for all Canadian families. The House should pass the NDP's national child care act and establish a network of high quality, licensed, not-for-profit child care spaces. The creation of new, reliable child care spaces would mean that women are no longer forced to choose between work and family.

Improving parental and maternity benefits is another part of the NDP plan. One in every three mothers lacks access to maternity and parental benefits under the employment insurance program. Women are paying an economic penalty for having children.

New Democrats are also calling for the creation of a pension guarantee fund, which will ensure that Canadian workers actually receive the retirement benefits they have earned, even if their employers go out of business. We support the augmentation of the guaranteed income supplement, as well as a doubling of the basic CPP benefit.

This side of the House supports funding to global maternal and child health initiatives and the G8 project. However, our party also supports funding for advocacy groups that work to end the inequalities suffered by Canadian women and groups who work to curb violence against women and improve the lives of the Canadian children we see living in poverty.

New Democrats believe that funding cuts to KAIROS, the Canadian Federation for Sexual Health and UNRWA are misguided and immoral. We call for a full restoration of this funding. We strongly believe in work to establish ecological and economic justice that promotes and enhances human rights around the world.

The NDP prioritizes affordable housing as a critical and positive policy that helps all Canadians. We have tabled bills that include the initiative to enshrine the right to safe, affordable housing into law and exempt affordable rental and non-profit housing from the GST.

We can achieve equality for women in Canada and we can support families but we lack the political will in the House. The past Liberal government stalled and the Conservatives have ignored problems and chosen not to promote equality. Women come last and profitable corporations come first with the members across the way. They have—

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech From The Throne

5:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

We need to move on to questions and comments as the time has expired for the member's speech.

I will go first to the member for Mississauga South.