Irene Mathyssen

[Petitions, November 1st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from citizens across many communities and from all walks of life who wish Parliament to know that they genuinely support and value the contributions of our veterans and that they regard a veteran as a veteran, regardless in which deployment or where an individual may have served.

The petitioners join the Veterans Ombudsman and General Walter Natynczyk in condemning the new veterans' charter and the Department of Veterans Affairs for creating barriers to serving Canada's veterans.

The petitioners also demand that existing services, such as veterans' hospitals, be mandated to serve modern-day veterans, including the more than 200,000 members of the armed forces who have served in peacekeeping missions since the Korean war.

The petitioners want there to be a full hearing in the House of Commons, in response to the issues of pensions, special care programs, services and the preservation of an independent Department of Veterans Affairs and that Parliament act to ensure veterans and their families receive the supports they have been promised and to which they are entitled as members of the armed forces, past, present and future.

[Sustaining Canada's Economic Recovery Act, November 1st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, it is very important to have a quick review of who receives and who does not.

As we approach Remembrance Week, I am struck by the fact that there is a great deal of lip service given to support for veterans, who are also seniors. I was struck by the member's comments in terms of the cost of prescription drugs. We know that seniors are, by and large, the greatest consumers of prescription drugs. What solution does she see for the high cost of that?

[An Act to Prevent Coercion of Pregnant Women to Abort (Roxanne’s Law), November 1st, 2010]

There are names.

In 1991, a committee report entitled “The War against Women” thoroughly studied the measures the federal government should take to reduce the violence faced by women. If the member for Winnipeg South really does care about reducing violence against women, I would urge him to read this report and work towards implementing the recommendations. The report explains that the vulnerability of women to violence is integrally linked to the social, economic and political inequities women experience as part of their daily lives, inequities exacerbated by the government of which the author of Bill C-510 is a member.

Tragically, violence against women has not been substantially reduced since that 1991 report. Women are far more likely than men to be killed by an intimate partner. In 2009, 43% of female deaths were women killed by a male intimate or ex-intimate partner, whereas 4% of male deaths were at the hands of a female intimate or ex-intimate partner.

While all deaths are tragic, we must be determined to advance women's equality because that is the only way to reduce violence against women. Canada does not have a comprehensive long-term plan to address women's equality. The Conservative government offers only band-aid solutions to systemic problems. In truth, the government is part of the systemic problem.

Aboriginal women in Canada are five times more likely to die from violence than other women in the country. Nearly 600 aboriginal women have gone missing or have been murdered in the last 30 years, yet the Government of Canada is only now indicating it will dispense the $10 million of funding to address this violence. Even at that, the plan is inadequate. There is no mention of important healing programs for families and individuals. Most of the funding is for policing. That is not what first nations requested. They wish a comprehensive plan that includes support for the aboriginal victims of violence and their families.

When it comes to the women of this nation, we have the statistics, the studies and the reports from expert panels, but what we do not have is the political will to implement the long-term solutions that will reduce the inequity between men and women. The government could introduce a national child care program, make needed changes to maternity and paternal leave, provide adequate funding for legal aid, restore the court challenges program, help women with disabilities, implement real proactive pay equity, create a national housing program and invest in programs that would address violence against women. It could do all of these things, but that would require a real commitment to women, children and families.

Bill C-510 will do nothing to reduce violence against women. Like the other anti-choice private members' bills introduced by government backbenchers, it is a Trojan Horse. When we examine Bill C-510 carefully, we see it defines abortion as causing the death of a child. Currently under the law a fetus does not become a person until born.

This bill recognizes the fetus as a child and therefore a person with legal status. Such an initiative could have significant ramifications in a number of different areas of law and opens a Pandora's box in the abortion debate.

In Canada women have been guaranteed rights and equality under our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Persons do not gain legal status and rights in our society until after a live birth, as per the Criminal Code. Also, the supreme court has ruled that a woman and her fetus are considered physically one under the law, Dobson v. Dobson.

If we give legal rights to a fetus, we must automatically remove some rights from women, because it is impossible for two beings occupying the same body to enjoy full rights. If we try to balance rights, it means rights of one or both parties must be compromised, resulting in loss of rights. Legally speaking, it would be very difficult to justify compromising women's established rights in favour of the theoretical rights of a fetus.

It is also of concern that Bill C-510 essentially contradicts the election promises of the Conservative Party. During the past elections, their platform stated, “A Conservative Government will not...support any legislation to regulate abortion”.

Bill C-510 does just that. It initiates legislation that will effectively regulate abortion in Canada by changing the definition of the legal status of a fetus. It opens the door to making abortion illegal. Canadian women fought long and hard for the right to safe, legal abortions in Canada. Women have been forced to put their private lives under scrutiny in the courts in the fight for the right to choose.

I would like to take a moment to thank all the brave women, organizations and abortion providers who fought for our right to choose.

I urge all members of the House to recognize this bill for what it is, an underhanded attack on women's choice. I urge all members to vote against it.

If we are to sincerely, sincerely, honour Roxanne's memory, we will end violence against women. We will not tolerate the sham that has been perpetrated against the women of this country.

[An Act to Prevent Coercion of Pregnant Women to Abort (Roxanne’s Law), November 1st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-510 is no more than a thinly veiled attempt to criminalize abortion providers and promote an anti-choice agenda. This is the fourth time in four years that a Conservative backbench member of Parliament has introduced an anti-choice private member's bill that masquerades as legislation that will protect women. In this case the member belongs to the secretive parliamentary anti-choice caucus.

Coercion is already illegal under the Criminal Code, section 264.1, and abortion counsellors are already screened for possible coercion in women seeking an abortion.

I must also point out that though the member for Winnipeg South claims that Roxanne Fernando was murdered because she refused to have an abortion, the murderer himself, his lawyer and the crown prosecutor all agreed that this was not the motive. The judge who presided over the criminal trial wrote this in his decision. Please read it:

The murder was apparently motivated by...[the defendant's] irritation and panic that Ms. Fernando, who was carrying his baby, was insistent on having a relationship with him.

I am extremely disappointed that the member would use the tragic murder of a young woman to push an anti-abortion agenda because what is quite clear is that this law would most likely be used against abortion providers and would have a chilling effect on women's access to abortion services.

Women in Canada already face challenges when trying to access abortion services. Canadians for Choice released a report in 2007, which noted that abortion services are only available in one out of six hospitals in Canada and that these services are poorly dispersed across the country, being concentrated mostly in urban areas. Some provinces refuse to fund abortion services, leaving many women with no choice.

If the bill is passed, it may restrict women's access to abortion even more, by criminalizing abortion providers.

The member for Winnipeg South is right on one point. Women do suffer abuse at the hands of their partners. Last week Statistics Canada reported that women continue to be about three times more likely to victims of spousal homicide than men. If the member for Winnipeg South were actually concerned about violence against women, he would urge his caucus and the Prime Minister to stop dismantling frameworks that address the systemic discrimination that women face.

Since 2006 the Conservative government has denied women access to justice by cancelling the Court Challenges Program, shut down 12 of 16 regional offices of Status of Women Canada, cut 40% of Status of Women Canada's operating budget, removed question number 33 from the census, the question that dealt with unpaid labour, denied funding for research and advocacy on women's equality issues, removed the term “gender equality” from policy language at DFAIT, removed abortion from maternal health policies abroad and excluded federally regulated workers from chapter 11 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, the pay equity provision.

It has been four long years of nothing but contempt for women by the government. Little by little the Harper Conservatives are dismantling frameworks set up to advance women's equality—

[Petitions, October 27th, 2010]

Mr. speaker, I have a petition from citizens across many communities and from all walks of life who wish Parliament to know that they genuinely support and value the contributions of our veterans and that they regard a veteran as a veteran, regardless of which deployment or where an individual may have served.

The petitioners join the Veterans Ombudsman and General Walter Natynczyk in condemning the new veterans charter and the Department of Veterans Affairs for creating barriers to serving Canada's veterans.

The petitioners also demand that existing services, such as veterans' hospitals, be mandated to serve modern-day veterans, including the more than 200,000 members of the armed forces who have served in peacekeeping missions since the Korean war.

The petitioners want a full hearing in the House of Commons in response to the issue of pensions, special care program services and the preservation of an independent Department of Veterans Affairs, and they want Parliament to act to ensure veterans and their families receive the supports they have been promised and to which they are entitled as members of the armed forces, past, present and future.

[Pay Equity, October 27th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, federally regulated women employees have been waiting too long for proactive pay equity legislation.

The previous government stalled on introducing pay equity legislation and the current government, with the support of the official opposition, introduced regressive legislation that has turned back the clock on women's equality.

Human rights do not belong on the bargaining table. Collective bargaining is a process of negotiating and compromising. Human rights are non-negotiable and there must never be a compromise. Women's rights are not a bargaining chip.

The Bilson report unanimously recommended that the best process to achieve pay equity is to separate it from collective bargaining. The report states that using the collective bargaining process to achieve pay equity will not only reinforce the gendered nature of the report, it will undermine pay equity, which is at the heart of our purpose.

New Democrats are furious that the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act will be implemented in the new year and that women in Canada will once again be denied equality in the workplace.

[October 26th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, again we hear the word “soon”. I would remind the member opposite that the budget is far from recent. It was months ago.

Aboriginal women in Canada have been waiting long enough. The government needs to announce its plan now. Funding needed to be rolled out yesterday.

The issue of violence against aboriginal women is multifaceted and complex, and it will not go away overnight. Experts have advocated for investment in direct service providers to help address this issue.

The Standing Committee on the Status of Women heard that funding in communities is piecemeal. There is limited ability to intervene with prevention programs, because the financial supports are not present. Access to educational opportunities with an emphasis on new life skills and healthier life choices is unavailable. We have been told repeatedly that funding needs to be available to grassroots organizations that provide the services necessary.

When will the government finally take this issue seriously? It has announced the $10 million. When will it flow?

[October 26th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary for taking time to respond to questions on the very important matter of funding decisions regarding the $10 million promised in budget 2010 to address the issue of violence against aboriginal women.

On June 8, 2010, I asked the Minister of Justice to tell the House when we could expect to see a plan put in place for the investment of the $10 million promised in the budget. Again, not surprisingly, I was told the government would reveal its plan in due time.

It has been seven months since this funding was announced and still no plan has been revealed. Since budget 2010 announced this $10 million in funding, I have asked the government to reveal its plan no fewer than four times. Every time I stand in the House and ask this question, the government has the same answer, “Soon”.

Soon is not good enough. Recent research from the Sisters in Spirit initiative shows that 582 aboriginal women have gone missing or have been murdered, 582 women. It is unspeakable that this tragedy has occurred and inexplicable that the government is doing nothing to address this and prevent such injustice from continuing.

Per capita, 582 missing and murdered aboriginal women is the equivalent of more than 19,000 non-aboriginal women going missing or being murdered. Would the government continue to procrastinate and refuse to set out a plan in that situation?

What is worse is that organizations on the ground have the solutions necessary to start to address the issue of violence committed against aboriginal women, and all that is missing is the funding and the political will to stop the overwhelming violence being experienced.

I must say with genuine regret and some exasperation that this is all too typical of the current government. The experts on the ground have the answers, but the party in power seems determined to remain idle until it is too late to get the funding in place so that it can be used for programming before the money disappears in March 2012.

Groups across the country are afraid that this is exactly what will happen with the funding promised. We all know this funding must be spent by the end of fiscal year 2011-12. That leaves only 17 months to make the announcement, roll out the funding and allow organizations to create the infrastructure to support the funds. It is just not enough time.

The Standing Committee on the Status of Women has begun a study on the issue of violence against aboriginal women. We began last spring, and what we are hearing time and time again is that funding to address this issue is inadequate. Certainly, funding is needed to help women flee violence and to catch perpetrators, but there is also a need to invest in prevention.

We need to fund groups on the ground that will help combat the systemic causes of violence against aboriginal women. Many of these groups are small and they need more than 17 months to prepare their projects and spend the investment promised in budget 2010. They are desperate to know now where this money is going and how the government intends to proceed.

I ask my question again. What is the government's plan of action regarding the $10 million promised in budget 2010 to address violence against aboriginal women, and when will this plan be announced and the funding rolled out?

Aboriginal women in Canada cannot afford to wait any longer.

[Hazardous Products Act, October 25th, 2010]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-584, An Act to amend the Hazardous Products Act (plastic bags).

Mr. Speaker, today it is my privilege to table a bill that is the product of a contest, “Create Your Canada”, that I sponsored to engage our young people in the political process. I want to thank all those who entered. I also want to thank the five judges from across our community and to VIA Rail for providing transportation to Ottawa for the students.

This bill would ban single use, non-biodegradable plastic bags in Canada. The authors of this private member's bill, students Hannah DeBoer and Miranda Van Rooyen, have joined me today in the House of Commons.

Research done by these students revealed that single use plastic bags harm or kill 100 million sea animals annually, use up non-renewable petroleum resources and clog our landfill sites. Less than 1% of the 55 million single use bags distributed in Canada every week are recycled.

These students believe that Canada needs a law to prevent the harm caused by single use plastic bags. I would sincerely hope that the members of this House and the community will listen and make the effort to hear and respectfully consider ideas from young Canadians.

I am very proud of Hannah and Miranda. They have decided to be active participants in our political process. They are not only the leaders of tomorrow but the leaders of today.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Canada-Panama Free Trade Act, October 20th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I wonder if my colleague could comment on this: I remember a time when the argument for NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, was that it would lift people in the developing country out of poverty. Contrary to that, what we saw was an exploitation of these same people. Young men and women worked in factories, manufacturing clothing or car parts, and they were paid so little that they could not afford to buy the very clothing they were making. They were compelled to send their own children to work at an age that would make most of us very concerned.

What occurred was child labour and taking advantage of young people: many of the people subject to this kind of exploitation were young women. These free trade agreements did not help the people who were struggling. I wonder if my colleague would comment on the young people, the workers of Panama.