Anne-Marie Day

[Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act, June 14th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I want to make sure my vote was counted.

[Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity Act, June 11th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, we wonder whether this is about natural resources or Bill C-38. That said, tonight we have heard some rather alarming things. I heard two Conservative members go after both the Liberal and NDP opposition leaders. We were called communists and leftists and were accused of being a left-wing party. I just heard a speech that had more to do with natural resources than with Bill C-38. What is going on here?

I have a question for the member about Bill C-38, a bill that destroys everything in its path.

If the government is going after seasonal workers, as well as fisheries, agriculture, the forestry industry and tourism, what can provinces that make a living off these industries do to survive in the Canada of the future?

[Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity Act, June 11th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, we are not completely opposed to everything in this budget. For example, we are not opposed to the elimination of the penny nor to the funding for employers to hire new employees. That was in our NDP program, actually.

But we are opposed to the government interfering with old age security and employment insurance, when we know that the government has not contributed one penny to the EI fund since 1990. The workers, the employees and the employers contribute to it.

But we are also opposed to the government interfering with the environment, especially—and I would like to have the hon. member's opinion on this—when it introduces a bill in which it hides about 70 pieces of legislation—legislation that should not be there because this is not an omnibus bill—of which 30% deal with the environment and are all very well concealed. People may say that we are opposed to the budget. But we are not opposed to everything in the budget; we are against this way of doing things and we are against the fact that the government is hiding all these things in it.

Could the hon. member comment on that?

[Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity Act, June 11th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to quote the hon. minister of state and hon. member for Madawaska—Restigouche, who said:

We need to make sure that employment insurance is not a cushion for people to sit on for months, all year round, year after year... Those people, though they are not many, would often rather take their pink slip and go hunting than go to work.

Those remarks obviously show an incredible lack of respect. Could the hon. member tell me what he thinks?

[Status of Women, June 7th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, this government can shout all it wants about providing the highest level of funding for women in the history of Canada, but it is very difficult to believe in light of all the cuts I just mentioned.

What we need to see are the results. As far as I know, discrimination and gender gaps remain prevalent. Let us just talk about wages. Women earn 73% of men's wages. Great strides have been made, but there is still work to be done. Without awareness initiatives and research, Canadian women will never achieve full equality.

Under the Conservatives, instead of making intelligent investments we have taken a step backwards in pay equity, and there is no affordable national child care strategy for women who want to work. There are even backbenchers who want to criminalize abortion.

What does the minister plan to do to reassure all the Canadian women who are seeing their rights and status being eroded and who, in addition, are more and more likely to face a life of poverty?

[Status of Women, June 7th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for being willing to listen to this adjournment debate and for allowing me to express myself.

Over the past five years, the Conservatives have reduced funding for organizations that do research about and for women, organizations striving to eliminate the inequality that women face every day. Without awareness activities and research, Canadian women will never achieve full equality.

On March 8, International Women's Day, I asked the government if it would restore funding for research and awareness with respect to the status of women.

I would like to share two examples that show how deep these cuts have gone. The first, from May 23, 2012, is about an aboriginal group. Next year, in 2013, funding for research, capacity-building, networking and partnerships for aboriginal women in Quebec will be cut.

Here is the second example: the women's health contribution program. The program was in place for 16 years. It supplied essential information and evidence about women's health and examined the negative impact of cuts to programs and services for women.

There were six federally funded organizations devoted to research and communication in women’s health; they learned in April 2012 that their funding will end on March 31, 2013. This program is critical to funding innovative social policy research, building community partnerships and providing important mentorship opportunities for students in women’s health. Within a year, the affected organizations will be forced to either close their doors permanently or attempt to find funding elsewhere.

I will tell you about them. The Women’s Health Contribution Program supports the Réseau québécois d’action pour la santé des femmes, the Canadian Women’s Health Network, the Atlantic Centre of Excellence for Women’s Health, the British Columbia Centre of Excellence for Women’s Health, the Prairie Women’s Health Centre of Excellence and the National Network on Environments and Women’s Health, located across the country from Vancouver to Halifax. We are talking about the entire country, from sea to sea.

The effect of this decision by Health Canada is yet another strong sign that the federal government is pulling away from its responsibility to gender equality. The centres and networks funded by the Women's Health Contribution Program provided policy input to federal government departments on a broad range of women's health issues, including: the women's health implications of the federal government's regulation of toxic chemicals; the hypersexualization of girls; the intergenerational legacy of residential schools for aboriginal women and their families; the need for trauma-informed counselling for women with addictions; and a working guide for conducting sex- and gender-based analysis in health research. Those are just a few examples.

Through its actions, the government is proving that equity and the status of women are at the bottom of its political agenda.

The Conservatives' Trojan Horse budget is also hiding the abolition of the Employment Equity Act, which will no longer apply to federal contracts. Roughly 925 employers who do business with the government and more than 1 million workers are affected by this measure. These employers will no longer be bound by legislation to avoid discrimination in hiring.

Will the minister admit that her party is stalling any progress made on the status of women and even setting us back a few decades in some areas? If this government truly wants to narrow the gender gap in Canada, then can the minister explain to Canadians where the investments are for research and awareness? What is the plan of action? What are the stated objectives? Why are there so many unjustified cuts? Why is there so much contempt for women?

[Employment Insurance, June 7th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the minister did not and will not consult anyone because she is afraid to face workers.

When the Conservatives are proud of their policies, they hold press conferences across the country, but when they make changes they are not proud of, they announce them in Davos, hide them in a Trojan Horse and limit debate.

If the minister were truly confident about her changes, she would go talk about them with seasonal workers and Atlantic fishers. Why is she not doing that?

[Employment Insurance, June 7th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives keep making decisions behind closed doors, where they do not have to face public opinion or the unemployed they are attacking so unscrupulously. The minister has decided to throw together a change to employment insurance that penalizes certain regions and certain sectors of the economy. She could at least have the decency to go talk to the stakeholders.

Will she promise to tour the country and consult the public before making this change?

[Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act, June 7th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his speech.

We know that the tax-free savings account is one way of saving available to Canadians and that it is often the wealthiest people who can take advantage of these accounts. In general, it is rich people who can take advantage of these accounts or people who are at a point in their lives where they are transferring their pension funds into tax-free savings accounts to save on taxes and ensure that they have more money for their retirement.

I would like to ask a question about pension funds because we have spoken about them a number of times since this morning. Since when is a pension fund considered to be a withholding tax for employers? Why are we requiring workers, but not employers, to contribute to this pension fund?

[Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act, June 7th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Brossard—La Prairie for his speech. We know that, of the 75 or so members who could speak, he is one of the few who will be allowed to do so because the government has just imposed a gag order.

The cat is finally out of the bag. We heard it recently from the Conservative member for Nepean—Carleton. The plan is to make entrepreneurs, companies and business leaders pay less while workers pay more. This is a disguised tax. Employers will not be required to contribute to the pension fund and all of the responsibility will fall on workers' shoulders.

I would like the hon. member to explain this aspect in greater detail. Why is the government not asking employers to pay their fair share of their workers' pension funds?