House of Commons photoLost her last election, in 2008, with 37% of the vote.
Manufacturing Industry December 13th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, since the dollar started its rise, more than 400,000 jobs have been lost in our manufacturing sector and another 50,000 could be lost by next June.
In short, the sector is hemorrhaging jobs and the government is totally indifferent. It has ignored 21 of the 22 unanimous and practical recommendations from the industry committee.
Just what does the minister plan to do to defend Canada's manufacturing heartland and tens of thousands of jobs?
Ethics December 5th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, the code of conduct targets “using public office to unfair advantage in obtaining opportunities for outside employment”.
Given Mr. Mulroney's apparent work on Bear Head both during and after he was prime minister, will the public inquiry examine Mr. Mulroney's compliance with his own conflict of interest code?
Ethics December 5th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, in 1985 the Conservative government of Brian Mulroney brought in a conflict of interest code of conduct. It says:
Public office holders shall not act, after they leave public office, in such a manner as to take improper advantage of their previous public office.
Given Mr. Mulroney's involvement with the Bear Head project as prime minister, would accepting money to lobby on this same project not put him in breach of his own code of conduct?
Federal-Provincial Relations November 22nd, 2007
Mr. Speaker, Canadians believe in fairness and that means having real representation by population, but they also believe in respect. The approach that the minister has used in dealing with the Premier of Ontario is a disgrace.
The minister simply cannot explain the fundamental unfairness of his bill so he has resorted to insults.
Is this what the government meant by the end of federal-provincial bickering?
Federal-Provincial Relations November 22nd, 2007
Mr. Speaker, this is one more broken election promise from the Conservatives.
Their platform said that they would restore representation by population for Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta but their bill does exactly the opposite. It ensures that every province has representation by population except Ontario.
Why are the people of Ontario the only ones who do not deserve representation by population?
Royal Canadian Mounted Police November 15th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, today the Liberal critic for public safety called for public hearings into the overall use of taser weapons.
We on this side of the House are taking action on this case. In the public interest, will the minister support the Liberal call for public hearings on taser use?
Royal Canadian Mounted Police November 15th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, extremely disturbing video footage has been released in the case of the man tragically killed by a taser in the Vancouver International Airport last month.
Canadians want answers now before more lives are lost.
Is it standard operating procedure for the RCMP to use tasers when there is no obvious physical threat?
Business of Supply November 1st, 2007
Mr. Speaker, in response to the member, let me say that I find it odd that a member who has been in the House as long as he has is asking a question as to whether or not the Canadian government has responsibility to protect the rights of women or, in fact, the rights of any Canadian. Anyone who has been here as long as as he has been should know that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms gives the government that responsibility.
As far as situations on reserve for aboriginals, he should also know that it is very easy to come up with quick solutions, but the way to move aboriginal people forward, the way to make sure they do exercise all their rights is to consult. That is, I believe, what the member for Winnipeg South Centre was talking about, that the consultations that have gone on under the government have been inadequate, and if one does not consult but instead applies solutions, then one could be accused of being paternalistic.
Business of Supply November 1st, 2007
Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to assure the member opposite that my leader, who has committed to 33% of his candidates in the next election being women, will achieve that goal. As far as the planning and priorities committee, 34.8% of the members are female, and that is the main planning body of our caucus to advise the leader.
I really do not know what the hon. member is talking about. We will achieve 33%. I find it odd that he would raise this point, seeing as his party has the least number of women members as a percentage of the whole in this House.
Business of Supply November 1st, 2007
Mr. Speaker, this evening I will be splitting my time with the member for Kitchener Centre.
Tonight we are talking about economic security for women. For centuries the answer to the question of women's economic security was singular. It was a good husband, who was a good provider. Girls and young women were taught this maxim even during the first half of the 20th century. From the attitudes and values I have heard today from members of the Conservative government, I believe some of them are still stuck in the first half of the 20th century. Canadian women living under the Conservative government will understand their own government better if they examine its initiatives through a time lens of about 1957.
The government has to wake up and realize that in the 1960s many women woke up and realized that they were just one man away from poverty. Mothers began teaching their daughters the importance of getting a certificate, a diploma, or a degree, so that they could get a job and work experience before they were married. These mothers, and many mothers who followed, had already witnessed the difficulties of friends whose husbands had run away and abandoned them and their children. They knew that these women had paid a horrible price for their poor taste in men. There was even a popular song that was their theme song. It was called “A Good Man is Hard to Find”.
Women who entered the workforce soon learned that they were making about sixty cents for every dollar earned by a male doing equivalent work. They learned that younger men they had been asked to train were often chosen ahead of them for the fast track to management.
But there was some good news. Through a multitude of organizations that sprung up, a women's movement formed and was assisted by professional organizations, unions, women journalists, and women studies departments in universities. Together, these groups began to build a consciousness about the inequalities and the barriers to progress for women. I want to take a moment to thank them today for their very hard work. People like Kay McPherson, Ellen Fairclough, Judy LaMarsh and Monique Bégin come quickly to mind.
At the same time, in every community local women gathered to address local, national and international problems that prevented women from full participation in decision making bodies.
Looking back 50 years, one could say we have come a long way, but facing the realities as exposed in the committee's report, one would have to add that we have a long way to go.
Today I think we should all thank our colleagues on the Standing Committee on the Status of Women for two reports to this House, one on pay equity and one on the economic security of women. The committee's recommendations are excellent.
At the same time, I would like to condemn the government's written responses. Whoever wrote these responses must have a broken arm from patting himself or herself on the back. The government acknowledges the progress that women have made and acknowledges many of the problems that remain, but it does not commit to address these problems. For example, on page 3 of the report, the government says:
Certain groups of women are at higher risk of persistent low income, such as women with disabilities, immigrant women, and Aboriginal women. These groups are less likely to secure an adequate level of earnings.
I expected to read on with the solutions to that problem, but no. In the next paragraph the government changes the subject. It does not give any answers to the problems that it lists for us. Then it changes the subject, and one might assume that means the government has no ideas on how to solve these problems. The status of women committee presented the government with solutions. One can only conclude that the government is refusing to listen.
I was particularly appalled by the section on “non-standard work”. This is a nice name for the kind of work that often has odd hours, no benefits, less than appropriate working and safety conditions, low pay, and no labour standards protection.
How does the government respond to that unfairness? The government whitewashes it with the following on page 4:
The concept of non-standard work covers forms of employment that in some cases have existed for a long time.
As if that makes it all right.
This kind of employment has grown considerably over the past twenty-five years. This phenomenon likely reflects a combination of factors, such as new technologies, the desire of businesses to be more flexible to adapt and compete, and the needs of some workers, including women, to reconcile their work and family-related responsibilities.
That is ridiculous.
Consider the plight of one of my constituents, an immigrant woman who 10 years ago had little English but had to work. She went to an employment agency which found her a job in a factory at minimum wage as a contract employee and therefore, there were no benefits and only short term security. The agency received a portion of her salary every payday. She continued to work because she had been told that after a year or so with a good record she would get a raise and would be moved from contract to a regular employee with benefits.
For nine years she worked and waited. For nine years the agency received part of her wages. She was never moved to regular employment status.
The employer must have been happy with her work as she was not fired. The employer was even happier with the minimum wage and no benefits. This is exploitation and this is non-standard work.
The whitewashed explanation of the government is disgraceful. It omits even the possibility of a motive of greed on the part of the employer. It omits the collusion of the employment agency and it omits the lack of surveillance by the government.
Much needs to be done to ensure that all workers are treated with respect. The government's answer in its response to the committee seems to suggest that all the programs needed by women can be handled by the provinces.
The federal programs mentioned are mainly from the past. It seems that the government has no intention of helping Canadians through new federal social programs. The government's answer to the child care crisis which women face is a new baby bonus in an amount totally insufficient to pay for that service.
I do not think that the government believes in social programs. It seems from its economic budgets and economic statements that it is dedicated to tax cuts and military spending.
I believe most Canadians have been very proud of the unique nature of Canada. At an international meeting, former Prime Minister Chrétien was asked how Canada had achieved such a peaceful, tolerant and fair society. He answered that many countries in the world invest very heavily in military spending, but Canada invests heavily in its people because Canadians want to care for one another.
The committee on the status of women, made up of members from all parties, has shown the government the way to continue this honourable tradition, a tradition of caring and fairness, a tradition which has proved so successful. The government's response to the lead of the women on the status of women committee is very disappointing.