Sue Barnes

[Manufacturing Industry, February 25th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, economists across the country agree that it is the strong Canadian dollar and the faltering U.S. economy that have hit Ontario's economy hard. These are clear areas of federal jurisdiction.

Why does the federal finance minister continue petty attacks against the Ontario premier and thumb his nose at the hardships faced by hard-working Ontario families?

[Manufacturing Industry, February 25th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, last year in the finance minister's infamous $122,000 budget speech, he falsely claimed that “a long, tiring, unproductive era of bickering between the provincial and federal governments is over”. Yet, he spent all of last week insulting the Premier of Ontario, the very man who had to clean up the $5 billion mess that the minister left behind in that province.

Why will he not partner with the Premier of Ontario and provide real help to the manufacturing sector instead of unprovoked attacks and bickering?

[Questions on the Order Paper, February 12th, 2008]

With regard to RCMP officers: (a) when will the 2500 new RCMP officers be hired; (b) how many additional RCMP officers will there be by the end of 2007; (c) how many additional RCMP officers will there be in 2008; (d) where will the additional RCMP officers be sent; (e) what is the proposed budget allocation for fiscal year 2007-2008 and 2008-2009; and (f) how many C-division detachments have been reopened since January 2006?

[Status of Women, February 7th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, there is a lack of understanding of the core issues. I know one has to fight to equality. It is not just about helping individuals. It is about changing the whole system and the dynamic.

Quite frankly, the government just does not get it. It has not gotten it for two years, even when organizations from all across Canada went before the Status of Women committee and complained about how the changes affected them. Organizations had to close their doors in this country.

When the minister responded to the Status of Women's request on this particular point, she did not address it. It was put out clearly as a recommendation and it did not address it. If--

[Status of Women, February 7th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I obviously know at this point in time that the member has not read the guidelines clearly because they do not allow for advocacy any more. They used to. We can produce services to individuals and we can help them with the problems that exist, some problem that currently exists.

However, we cannot get over the hurdle. We cannot change the equality by just coping with the problem. We have to have some understanding of what is really happening, the ability of those organizations to do the research.

There is still some allowance for small amounts of research, but they cannot use it to advocate for change. It is sort of like the court challenges program. We cannot challenge and we cannot make it better. We are not talking about keeping status quo or helping someone out. Those are all programs that can be done through HRDC or Immigration Canada.

The real focus of this program was under past governments, but not the member's government. All the members on that side have watched and were silent since 2006 when this changed.

I came into my office this morning. I checked the website. It was the same with just a couple of words on the front pages, similar to what the minister had said the other day. She never referred to anything in her opening statement to the committee when she came to make her presentation on Tuesday. Members had to draw it out of her.

Do we do everything in secret? There have been real changes over the last two years. We cannot deny that the offices have closed, but it is the work of organizations that had to be more creative in trying to get funding. However, they are not allowed to advocate for equality.

I am sorry but status quo is not acceptable. If we do not have champions, if we do not move for change, it does not happen. I am sorry, the government is failing in that regard.

[Status of Women, February 7th, 2008]

I should not have named our Liberal leader, my correction. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That is why we are working to have one-third of Liberal candidates in the next federal election be women. I would like to ask all Canadian women to look closely at the front benches of the government and ask themselves if this is the kind of leadership they want to fight for their rights.

The minister earlier this week repeatedly read her approved lines when asked at least five or six times by three opposition parties about the mandate of equality and the funding for the women's program. Despite words about equality, women are realizing, as I and my colleagues have, that the government is not serious about achieving real equality but rather using the word equality as a smokescreen for its inaction. What does the future hold for Canadian women as they continue to fight for equality with little help from this current government that does not believe in advocacy for equality?

Today, I am rising in this House to call upon the government to bring the goal of equality back into the terms and conditions of the women's program at Status of Women Canada. Of course, this would only be a starting point.

Canadians are asking the government to stop turning back the clock and start taking action. Canadians, especially Canadian women, want the government to listen, to understand and to act. That includes funding for advocacy and research.

Recently, my colleague, the hon. member for Beaches—East York, and I hosted a round table discussion in my riding of London West on issues that affect Canadian women. We listened to their ideas, their concerns, their struggles and their stories. They need affordable child care, it is that simple. The national child care and early learning program brought in by the previous Liberal government was the first step toward creating a comprehensive strategy that would leave no child behind. A 1984 Royal Commission on Equality and Employment stated that “child care is the ramp that provides equal access to the workforce for mothers.”

Canadian women deserve proactive pay equity legislation. Employers need to take action and ensure that all employees receive equal pay for work of equal value. But more recently, members of the Liberal Party women's caucus proposed several changes to current programs and legislation to deal with violence against women and housing affordability, among other issues.

Our women's caucus supports providing increased federal funds dedicated to civil aid under Canada's social transfer to ensure that women have much needed access to legal representation in family law matters. Our women's caucus also recommends that the federal government develop a national public awareness campaign to highlight the problem of violence against women and what can be done to eliminate it.

We have a national housing strategy that is inclusive of women developed by our women's caucus. Access to safe and affordable housing is a foundation upon which other economic and social outcomes depend. Low income women need affordable housing. It is for their well-being and the well-being of their dependant children.

I call upon the government to follow our example, take the ideas, fight for the equality of women, put real equality back into the mandate of the women's program, its funding guidelines, and provide these women with the opportunity to stand on equal footing with male counterparts, economically, socially, politically.

I understand the Conservatives will continue to say that they have addressed women's equality issues. I guess changing a website on the day of my motion does it for them, but women know the difference in the mandate and funding guidelines of the women's program, how it used to be and how it can be.

I ask members to support this motion for real, meaningful equality, not just words.

[Status of Women, February 7th, 2008]

moved:

That the House call on the government to reinstate women's equality as the goal of the Women's Program at Status of Women Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to bring this motion forward, but I am also saddened by the reality that in this day and age I still have to stand up and fight for equality for women in our country.

A few months ago, on October 18, the country celebrated Person's Day, a day recognizing the historic victory women won in Canada when they were declared persons under Canadian law. That was 1929. Almost 80 years later, women are still striving to achieve true equality with their male counterparts in society, in the workplace, in the household and even in Parliament.

Equality is not a word to use lightly. Fundamentally for most Canadians, the word “equality” describes a set of values, more important, a vision that Canadians have fought hard for. A vision alone will not create equality. Hard work through research and advocacy is necessary and this is not yet changed. We may have de jure equality rights, but we need substantive equality in Canada. After all, using the word “equality” without adding any substance to the terms and conditions of the women's program is frankly a very deceptive and dangerous road to take.

The history of the politics behind the women's program is a very interesting one.

In 2006 the Conservative government chose to ignore its own officials and removed the word “equality” from the terms and conditions of the women's program at Status of Women Canada.

After two years of concerns expressed by many across the country, including members of the Standing Committee on Status of Women and my caucus, I tabled this motion in November 2007 to bring the goal of equality back into the women's program.

Recently, without any fanfare, or notification or any press release or no notification to the committee, which originally highlighted this issue, the minister revised the wording of the home page of Status of Women Canada's website to include the word “equality”. The minister did not mention any change to the mandate in her opening remarks to the committee this past Tuesday. In fact, it was soon discovered that this change was meaningless as the funding guidelines for the women's program did not reflect this so-called changed position.

Today, after two media releases which highlighted this error, our office has just observed the magical changing of the mandate on the website of the women's program. We must be one effective opposition and that must be one desperate government. Nevertheless, women's groups and organizations are still being ignored because nothing has really changed.

The Conservative government ignored the valuable work that was being done by countless women's groups and organizations, which relied upon funding from Status of Women Canada to do research and advocacy. The government ignored the fact that the tireless work of these groups and organizations had an impact on women's rights in many ways.

For example, it was women's advocacy groups that helped bring about change, including the introduction of maternity benefits in the Unemployment Insurance Act in the seventies, family law legislation which would ensure economic justice for wives and improvements in child support guidelines and amendments to federal and provincial human rights and justice legislation to prohibit and prosecute acts of sexual harassment.

When the government removed the word and the concept of equality from the funding guidelines of the women's program, it turned back the clock. Without any changes to the funding eligibility requirements, the word “equality” has little meaning for the groups and organizations.

Instead of maintaining the original mandate for the women's program and continuing the work that needs to be done to advance women's equality, the government closed 12 of 16 regional Status of Women offices across Canada. It totally eliminated the policy research fund, which supports policy research on gender equality issues, and it changed the rules of eligibility for funding. This is what matters most.

Today, while not for profit organizations across Canada have either closed or downsized because of the punitive measures taken by the Conservative government, these changes have paved the way for Canadian tax dollars to go right into the coffers of for profit organizations.

Recently, several of my colleagues on this side of the House revealed the incredible disparities that existed with pay equity and economic security for Canadian women. The disparities do not stop here.

A federally commissioned report entitled “Equality for Women: Beyond the Illusion”, released in July 2006, reveals the following facts: girls are the victims of more than four out of five cases of sexual assault on minors; four out of five one parent families are headed by women; the employment income gap between male and female university graduates has widened; and women still only earn 71¢ for every $1 a man makes. The list goes on. We know the House has only one in five female members of Parliament.

A lot of work does need to be done, and despite what the Conservative government would want us to think, we cannot do it alone. We need the knowledge, the dedication, the passion and the results that advocacy and research organizations provide. We need the grassroots.

Now that these organizations are no longer eligible for the funding that they used to get for research and advocacy activities because of this unilateral change two years ago, how can these organizations contribute in the ways that they have in the past? How can we achieve the full participation of women in the economic, social, they said cultural, and political life of Canada without the work of these groups that research and advocate for equality? Equality is important.

I will now spend a few minutes focusing on what I believe are three critical areas where we need to achieve gender equality: economic, social and political. All three aspects are heavily intertwined. Economically, independent women are able to secure social rights for themselves and their children. Furthermore, those who fall behind economically and socially will not be able to find the time to be involved politically. Of course, as we see here, with a lack of political leadership, it will be that much harder to fight for economic and social rights for women.

On all three fronts, the Conservative government failed to address the incredible challenges that Canadian women face. For example, at every level of education women in Canada earn less than men. In 2003, women who were high school graduates earned 71% of what male high school graduates earned at full time work. Similarly, women with post-secondary degrees earned 68.9% of what their male counterparts earned.

In female dominated professions such as teaching, nursing and clerical work, men still earned more on average and the majority of minimum wage workers in Canada are women. These statistics are even worse for women of a visible minority or of aboriginal descent.

Today, women are finding it harder to keep up as the primary caregivers because of the rising costs of raising their children and finding the care for them that they need. Removing the word equality from the mandate of the women's program is one thing, but the government has also turned its back on Canadian women in other ways.

In 2006, the government ignored the recommendations of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women which endorsed the changes to pay equity legislation as stated by the federal task force on pay equity. To top it off, the government chose to deliver child care through the mailbox and Canadian women are still waiting for the government to fulfill its promise of creating thousands more desperately needed child care spaces.

There is no choice when there is no space and no spaces in Canada are being added by the government.

There are real issues of violence against women. In 2006, Canada had 553 shelters for women. These shelters admitted more than 100,000 women and dependent children than in previous years. Statistics Canada shows that three-quarters of these women were victims of abuse, 66% were feeling psychological abuse, 55% physical abuse, 41% threats, 37% financial abuse, 28% harassment, and 23% of these women were victims of sexual abuse.

There were close to 5,000 solved homicides between 1994 and 2003, of which 38% were family related. Spousal homicides accounted for about 18% of all solved homicides and almost half of all family homicides. The point here is that women are much more likely than men to be killed by their spouse. The spousal homicide rate against females is five times higher than the rate for males. Too often women stay in physically and/or sexually abusive relationships. Those who do get out of these relationships have difficulty finding affordable housing.

In 2003, 42% of renter families headed by single mothers had difficulty finding affordable housing. The government may say that it funds service programs, but in reality it is not really funding real change through the research of the advocacy that formally was fostered by the women's program.

In reality, removing the word equality is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to this government's lack of action and disregard for Canadian women who need support the most. But it is indicative of its thought pattern.

In 2006, the government cut the budget for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation by $45 million. In the same year it also announced a $200 million reduction in federal contributions over the previous year toward creating new affordable housing through signed agreements with the provinces and territories.

Aboriginal women in Canada are also confronted by a number of challenges. The life expectancy of an aboriginal woman is 76.8 years versus 82 years for a non-aboriginal woman. Aboriginal women are more than three times more likely to report being victims of spousal violence than non-aboriginal women.

In 2004, 24% of aboriginal women reported that they had been victims of spousal violence in the previous five years. Outside of the home in 2001, 17% of aboriginal women in the labour force were unemployed. For non-aboriginal women this was 7%. According to Statistics Canada in 2000, the median income of an aboriginal woman was $12,300, about $5,000 less than a non-aboriginal woman. And these women are also more likely than aboriginal men to be working low-paying jobs.

In light of these statistics representing real people, the government refused to implement the Kelowna accord, an agreement with the first nations, Métis and Inuit communities across the country to improve their quality of life. These women are looking for leadership, yet when they look at the current Conservative government, they see very few women being put in leadership roles to enable them to play key roles in shaping our country.

In 2006, the Conservative Party fielded the fewest women candidates, a meagre 10%. Out of the 26 current cabinet positions, only five of them are filled by women. Today, while women make up more than 50% of the nation's population, women only comprise 20% of the seats in this House. The United Nations has ranked us 30th in the world in terms of representation of women in Parliament, behind countries like Norway, Trinidad and Tobago and others.

The Liberal Party, under the leadership of Stéphane Dion, is committed to ensuring that more women hold positions in the House of Commons.

[Questions on the Order Paper, February 1st, 2008]

With regard to the arming of Canadian border officers: (a) how many officers will be armed by the end of 2007; (b) how many officers will be armed in 2008; (c) how many years will it take to train and arm all officers; (d) what dollar amount is being spent per officer; (e) what dollar amount will be spent in total to train all officers; and (f) how does the government justify disregarding the results of the ModuSpec job hazards analysis?

[Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, January 31st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I have worked with the member before. When we had witnesses before committee, as he knows, they came with some excellent suggestions for improving the bill. Not only that, members around the table tried to put in amendments to this bill.

The public needs to understand why some of these very good suggestions could not be incorporated into the bill at this point in time, because of the stage it was at when it came to the committee. I remember that the member had an amendment that was ruled out of order. I would like the member to go over some of the activity that occurred to try to improve this bill, but which improvements could not be incorporated because of the way in which the government chose to send the bill to committee.

[Petitions, January 30th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, my constituents want to draw to the attention of the House the following: that Canadian museums have over 59 million visitors a year, including 7.5 million schoolchildren, that the economic impact of Canadian museums is estimated at over $17 million; that adequate federal government investment is necessary to the survival of museums; and that museums across the country preserve our heritage and provide opportunities for both Canadians and visitors to learn and appreciate our past and future potential.

Therefore, the petitioners request the House of Commons to implement a new national museum policy that: reinstates full funding to the museum assistance program that was cut in 2006; increases the museum assistance program by $75 million; provides multi-year annual operating funding to ensure that museums can operate in a stable environment, therefore allowing them to plan for long term success; provides special project funding to allow museums to undertake special projects such as travelling exhibits and professional development conservation; and provides research funding for museums to conduct important educational research, as they currently do not qualify for funds from other federal agencies such as the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. I present this petition on behalf of these constituents.