Irene Mathyssen

[Eliminating Entitlements for Prisoners Act, September 23rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her remarks and for drawing the House's attention to these unintended consequences. There are two that I hope she has time to comment upon.

First, a number of inmates will be caught up in this far more than just the Clifford Olsons of the world. As a result, for their families and spouses, who may be under 60, there will be no OAS and GIS. The results in terms of their poverty and innocence with regard to all of this is of concern.

Second, restitution payments to victims of crimes may not be possible—

[Petitions, September 22nd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, finally, I have a petition signed by our postal workers and people in the community who are concerned that the federal government is allowing Canada Post to close public post offices in spite of the moratorium on these closures. They are concerned that they are compelled to inform people of these closures and do not have adequate time to do this.

The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to instruct Canada Post to maintain and improve its network of post offices, to consult with the public, and to develop a uniform and democratic process for making changes to the network.

[Petitions, September 22nd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the next petition calls upon the Parliament of Canada to amend the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act and the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to protect the rights of all Canadian employees and to ensure that employees laid off by a company, who are receiving a pension or long-term disability benefits during bankruptcy proceedings, obtain preferred creditor status over other unsecured creditors, and to amend the Investment Canada Act to ensure employee-related claims are paid from proceeds of Canadian asset sales before funds are permitted to leave the country.

[Petitions, September 22nd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, second, the Native Women's Association of Canada, as part of its Sisters in Spirit campaign, has identified 582 missing and murdered aboriginal women whose cases go back as far as 1970. Its research has convinced NWAC that violence against aboriginal women must be investigated and must certainly stop.

The petitioners call upon the Parliament of Canada to ensure that NWAC receives sufficient funding to continue its important work, protecting women through its Sisters in Spirit initiative, and to invest in initiatives recommended by NWAC to help prevent more women from disappearing.

[Petitions, September 22nd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I, too, have several petitions.

The first petition is signed by thousands of London residents who are still very concerned by the May 31 raid by Israeli forces on six humanitarian aid ships, part of the freedom flotilla to Gaza, in which nine of the volunteers onboard one of the ships were killed. These petitioners are very concerned that Canada has been virtually silent in regard to this attack.

The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to condemn Israel's lethal assault on the freedom flotilla in international waters, insist on thorough and independent international investigations into the tragedy, and call upon the Government of Canada to put pressure on Israel to lift the blockade of Gaza.

[September 20th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I wish I could believe those words, but I do not think this is about choosing at all. It is an example of the government's agenda to silence women in this country.

We have been witnessing this silencing since 2006, with cuts to Status of Women Canada's budget; the changes to Status of Women Canada's program funding mandate; the closure of 12 regional Status of Women Canada offices; the abandonment of the court challenges program; and most recently, the termination of the mandatory long form of the census.

Through the government's policies and actions, we are witnessing the systematic attempt to kill the women's movement and feminism in this country. It is an attempt to stifle some very important voices, especially those who speak for the poor and marginalized women in this country. This is the effect of what is happening. The government may insist that this is not the intention, but it is certainly the effect.

[September 20th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary for taking the time to respond to my question on the very important matter of funding decisions regarding Status of Women Canada's two programs: the women's community fund and the women's partnership fund.

On May 5, I asked the Minister for Status of Women to tell the House why, while the government claimed to be a champion of women's health, it continued to attempt to silence and neutralize women's organizations here in Canada, denying funding to any organization with the courage to speak out against the government's agenda.

This fiscal year we have seen more than 20 prominent women's organizations have their funding requests denied, many for the first time in their history. On May 26, the Standing Committee on the Status of Women began its study on the funding decisions of Status of Women Canada. At this meeting, we heard from four organizations whose projects met the program criteria, yet they were still denied funding by Status of Women Canada.

The groups that appeared at the meeting were CRIAW, the Canadian Research Institute for the Advancement of Women, the Conseil d'intervention pour l'accès des femmes au travail, the New Brunswick Coalition for Pay Equity and Womenspace Resource Centre. These are all credible organizations and I do not think that anyone would question the work they do for women in our country.

Some of these groups spoke of the impact of Status of Women Canada on their creation and their development as women's organizations. For example, in a special publication on the 20th anniversary of CRIAW, the president at that time noted that had it not been for the financial support of Status of Women Canada over the years, CRIAW undoubtedly would not exist. Status of Women Canada had been providing these organizations with some funding for an extensive period of time. It had provided CRIAW with funding since its creation in 1977.

Over the years, these organizations have proven to be extremely valuable and have demonstrated their expertise in the field. Their programs are highly reputable and have proven results. The research they provided was potentially invaluable in terms of government policy decisions. These organizations are truly bettering the lives of women.

Yet this year the government decided to deny funding. For most, this was a death blow. Because of these government decisions, most of these organizations either have or will shut their doors and cease servicing the women who have come to rely on their services.

The Minister for Status of Women has said that her department is choosing to fund new organizations over old. Absolutely, fund new organizations; it is incredibly important, but not at the expense of older organizations with proven track records. If there is a greater need for funding from Status of Women Canada, then maybe the budget of the program should be reviewed, or maybe the amount of funding allotted to each organization should be reconsidered in order to accommodate both new and existing organizations.

Unfortunately, I do not believe that money is the sole reason that these organizations were refused funding. The significance of these decisions runs much deeper than a choice between new and old; it is part of the mounting evidence that the government does not seem interested in funding programs for women's equality or in funding women's organization with a track record of advocacy.

Therefore, I will ask my question again. Could the parliamentary secretary tell us why the government is continuing to attack women in Canada? When will it end its ideological tirade and start supporting women in our country?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, September 20th, 2010]

With regard to all federal funding in the riding of London—Fanshawe for fiscal years 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010: (a) how many projects received funding from a department or agency over this period; (b) what projects received funding from a department or agency over this period; and (c) what was the value of the projects which received funding from a department or agency over this period?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, September 20th, 2010]

With respect to Canada's Economic Action Plan: (a) under the Infrastructure Stimulus Fund in the riding of London—Fanshawe, (i) what applications for projects have been approved for funding to date, (ii) who are the partners involved, (iii) what is the federal contribution, (iv) what is each partner's contribution, (v) how much of the funding has flowed and to whom, (vi) what were the criteria used to determine which projects were approved; (b) under the Building Canada Fund - Communities Component in the riding of London—Fanshawe, (i) what applications for projects have been approved for funding to date, (ii) who are the partners involved, (iii) what is the federal contribution, (iv) what is each partner's contribution, (v) how much of the funding has flowed and to whom, (vi) what were the criteria used to determine which projects were approved; (c) under the Building Canada Fund - Communities Component top-up in the riding of London—Fanshawe, (i) what applications for projects have been approved for funding to date, (ii) who are the partners involved, (iii) what is the federal contribution, (iv) what is each partner's contribution, (v) how much of the funding has flowed and to whom, (vi) what were the criteria used to determine which projects were approved; (d) under the Building Canada Fund - Major Infrastructure Component in the riding of London—Fanshawe, (i) what applications for projects have been approved for funding to date, (ii) who are the partners involved, (iii) what is the federal contribution, (iv) what is each partner's contribution, (v) how much of the funding has flowed and to whom, (vi) what were the criteria used to determine which projects were approved; (e) under the Recreational Infrastructure program in the riding of London—Fanshawe, (i) what applications for projects have been approved for funding to date, (ii) who are the partners involved, (iii) what is the federal contribution, (iv) what is each partner's contribution, (v) how much of the funding has flowed and to whom, (vi) what were the criteria used to determine which projects were approved; and (f) under the Green Infrastructure Fund in the riding of London—Fanshawe, (i) what applications for projects have been approved for funding to date, (ii) who are the partners involved, (iii) what is the federal contribution, (iv) what is each partner's contribution, (v) how much of the funding has flowed and to whom, (vi) what were the criteria used to determine which projects were approved?

[Questions on the Order Paper, September 20th, 2010]

With respect to the development of an Action Plan to advance the equality of women across Canada mentioned in the Budget Plan 2008: (a) what is the Action Plan; (b) what organizations were consulted on the Action Plan; (c) when did consultations on the Action Plan take place; (d) where did consultations on the Action Plan take place; (e) what is the timeline for the Action Plan; (f) when was the Action Plan announced; (g) where was the Action Plan announced; (h) what fiscal resources will be allocated to the Action Plan; and (i) was a gender-based analysis conducted on the Action Plan?