Debates of Sept. 28th, 2006

Opposition Motion--Status of Women

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my honourable colleague for her question and I congratulate her on the contribution she has made to furthering the cause of women in our society. Recognizing the rights of women is one of the things that makes this a great country.

I would like to make it clear that my comments should be interpreted in the context of today's motion, which touches on the administrative cuts to the program in question.

Taxpayers and women expect cuts. Women are good managers. We await the day that a woman is minister of finance. We already have good management, but perhaps it could be even better.

Thus, my comments were made in the context of the motion being debated today. Yes, I believe that cutting administrative expenses will enable us to provide better service to Canadian communities.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Yukon.

I am indeed pleased to speak on the motion that the opposition has put forward today on equality and opportunity for women in this country. While there are many different aspects to speak to on this motion, I am choosing to speak on the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, the concerns expressed by women there and what it meant to them, on advocacy, and, because I know the program well and because it is located in Winnipeg, the court challenges program.

Many in this House will know that the Standing Committee on the Status of Women was struck in the fall of 2004. It came about on the initiative of three of the parties in the House and the concurrence of four parties. As an aside, I think it is important to note in the discussion that there was a request by members opposite to eliminate this committee this year, which gives me great cause for concern.

I was pleased to serve as the first chair of this committee. In order to establish its work plan, the committee heard from women from across Canada as to their priorities. Many appeared before the committee. We heard from 38 witnesses representing a wide spectrum of views and priorities. They included the YWCA, the Quebec Native Women, the Canadian Nurses Association, the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies, REAL Women, and the list goes on.

The committee heard that there was a concern over the lack of attention given by the government to women's issues and to substantive equality. We were urged to look at systemic barriers to women, most particularly those for women of colour, immigrant women and aboriginal women. We heard about racial discrimination. We were challenged to address a number of ways of improving the well-being of women.

Some organizations felt that the interests of women were best served by addressing women in the family unit. Other groups focused on a rights based approach to equality.

We heard much about the concerns of aboriginal women. We heard about the legal and jurisdictional mazes they had to wend their way through. We heard about the issues of particular concern to Métis women.

Four major themes arose from the six weeks of public consultation.

The first overriding theme was the matter of federal funding to women's organizations and the equality-seeking organizations, and their ability to provide service and advocate for equality.

The second theme dealt with poverty, with the incidence of poverty, the lack of access to pension benefits, social assistance, the wage gap, and affordable housing, and the list again goes on.

The third theme was the critical need to increase the capacity of the federal government to deal with the whole issue of gender based analysis, the analysis of policies, programs and budgets put out through federal programs.

Finally, the overriding theme was the issue that we heard about, violence against women, a significant factor in the lives of women from coast to coast to coast.

These women came to the committee in good faith. They spoke in good faith. They commented on the importance of being heard by government. They commented on the fact that all four parties were at the table listening. They spoke of being treated respectfully by government. They spoke of the value of having access to government.

As a consequence, the committee responded and put out several reports recommending an increase in funding to the department for the Status of Women, recommending an increase in funding and core funding. The committee did a report on pay equity. It spoke about parental benefits. Most important, the committee did a major report on gender based analysis, which women's organizations across the country called a landmark document.

Now what do these women have? The budget of the branch of government that responded to them has been slashed by 39% of the operating dollars. Now they have name-calling and are described as marginal by those groups that have access to government.

We hear from members opposite that only the operating dollars have been cut. How do programs come about if there are no operating dollars to make them come about?

Two days ago on a television panel I heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board say that the government had no interest in supporting , “lobbyists, lawyers, interest groups and advocates”.

My understanding of advocacy includes actively supporting an ideal or a cause, speaking out on an issue of concern and arguing in favour of an idea or a policy. It also includes meeting with one's member of Parliament to change a law or policy, or simply telling a neighbour or friend about the impact of a law. It is often a clear expression of support for the rights of the individual, whether it is a person with disabilities and their families, an aboriginal woman or a child denied education. Those are the characteristics of the Canada I know.

However, I heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board say that his government was out to get those people.

With the cuts proposed to the Status of Women program, we will see an inability to articulate for a whole host of people and a whole host of groups, including women with disabilities, women dealing with spousal violence, Métis and Inuit women, first nations women, immigrant women, migrant sex workers and the list goes on.

Who will speak for those who cannot speak for themselves, either because of lack of means, lack of knowledge, lack of power and often because of a fear of the system, which, in my mind, this week's decision gives them greater fear of the system?

I want to speak to the court challenges program because I know it well. It is located in Winnipeg and it is very much part of the landscape of human rights activity and discussion in my community. Many have and many more will speak to the court challenges program. With an operating budget of less than $1 million, it was designed to provide the opportunity for groups, members of language minorities, disabled Canadian women and aboriginal peoples, to challenge federal laws, programs or policies that were discriminatory under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Is this program being slashed again because the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, or perhaps the president himself, said that we do not fund programs that we do not believe in?

Is it because REAL Women, who have the ear of the government, point to this program as being made up of “radical leftists, homosexual and feminist groups funding their own activities”, or is it because the court challenges program supported Democracy Watch, which intervened when the Prime Minister was head of the National Citizens Coalition when a challenge was made to the constitutionality of third party spending limits?

Let me tell the House about Mary. Some members may have read about Mary in the newspaper. Mary is a severely disabled young woman for whom the court challenges program made a huge difference in her life and the life of her family. Mary, her sister, Sarah, and her parents live in my riding. I have met with them often and I see them in the community at a whole host of various events.

Mary was born with multiple disabilities and was hospitalized for over a year. When it was time for one of Mary's parents to access the employment insurance program, the parent was denied employment insurance on the basis that the parent could not access it because of time limits. The court challenges program provided the opportunity for Mary and her family to benefit by this program.

For many, the court challenges program has been critical. The case of Lesiuk v. Canada and the EI system; R v. Darrach, the rape shield system; and the case of Doreen Demas, aboriginal women and their concerns.

The court challenges program is important. It provides opportunity for those who cannot otherwise speak out and it is being chastised by the government and being cut off. It is one of the tools of government that allows people to seek redress to the real challenges of equality.

I submit that the decisions of the government are draconian, mean-spirited and deliberately directed at the 60% to 65% of Canadians who do not endorse its agenda.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member opposite has put many years into women's issues but I was rather appalled or surprised to hear two things.

First, I would like the member opposite to clarify something. We on this side of the House are very proud of being a part of the Status of Women. We want to see real money put into action to support all the initiatives that we need to support and around the table we have a vote on what we will be doing. We are very happy with the Status of Women and the direction it has taken.

However, I believe I heard the inference that members on the other side of the House wanted to do away with Status of Women. I find that very strange because when I was standing in line at the airport ready to get on a plane someone came to me and said that they were told by the Liberals that there would be no Status of Women this year, that it was gone. By virtue of the fact that I just heard that comment in the House today, I find it disquieting because it is misleading and untruthful.

Second, I keep hearing members opposite slam the organization called REAL Women. In a democratic society I feel that organizations can say or do what they want, which is separate from the MPs and the House of Commons. Our job is to listen to all the variety.

Could l please find out, first, who, apparently on our committee, said that he or she wanted to do away with the Status of Women committee; second, when the person said it, because I will look up the documentation; and third, why are members picking on the REAL Women organization?

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I missed the first question, so I would appreciate if the member opposite would repeat it, but I will address the other questions.

I would suggest that the member speak with her House leadership because I am advised that the House leadership on her side proposed folding the Status of Women committee into the heritage committee. It was only the objections of the other parties that sustained the Standing Order for the Status of Women committee to remain in place. This is a committee that women across the country fought hard to maintain and no one was prepared to allow that committee to be subsumed into another committee.

As for the question of REAL Women, I have no problem with REAL Women doing what it wants and saying what it wants. It has every right and opportunity to advocate for what it wishes, as do other organizations. What I do have difficulty with is the fact that this organization has the ear of government in a way that no other organization has. It also resorts to name calling, to putting down other groups, to not acknowledging the diversity of other groups and it sees no importance in allowing a whole continuum of voices to be heard.

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, while I agree with some of the things in the statement put forward by the Liberal government today, I am interested in the fact that earlier today someone from the Liberal side said that if it had not been for the NDP taking down the government we would have had pay equity. Why did we not have pay equity the year before that or the year before that or the year before that? Mr. Speaker, let me know when I get to the number 12. The Liberals had a significant number of years to bring in pay equity but chose instead to wave it in front of the public as we neared an election. Therefore, I think that is a facile argument to make.

The Liberal opposition says that it wants to help all women and particularly women who are vulnerable. The United Nations report criticized Canada in 2003, which, as I recall, was under a Liberal government, for failing in areas such as providing support to single mothers and first nations women. I cannot think of groups of people who would be more vulnerable than many single mothers and first nations women.

I was very interested in a comment made earlier by a Conservative member saying that the Conservatives wanted to do things that did not cost money. I would suggest to them that one of the things might be to recruit more candidates since they only ran 38 women candidates with 12% being elected, compared to the NDP running 108 women candidates with 35% being elected. That is something that would cost no money, would increase women's representation in the House and would be a significant--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I apologize to the member but I must allow enough time for a response from the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member's question on pay equity is a very important question. She is right when she says that it took a long time coming about. It took a long time getting a response from government but it underlined the importance of the Status of Women committee and the enthusiasm and the research done by the committee in promoting pay equity. The minister of labour and the minister of justice had made a firm commitment to bring forward draft legislation on pay equity which was going to come in February or March of 2006.

I say to the member opposite that the legislation in draft form would have been there if the government had not been defeated.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, that party has been obviously characterized and demonstrated to be a party that leaves people behind more and more.

We were shocked when we heard the throne speech, with five priorities, leaving the other 95% leaving Canadians out. People were aghast, wondering where the rest of the throne speech was.

Then it came to the budget, when women, aboriginal people, single parents, senior, northerners and students were left out. We were offering $6,000 to students. What did they get? They got $40, not even enough for a textbook.

The Conservatives increased income tax to 12% for the poorest in society. They cut historical Canadian programs to help people: the Kelowna accord, $5 billion; a national day care program, $10 billion; and climate change that would help people reduce smog, reduce greenhouse gases by hundreds of millions of tonnes. They were criticized constantly for these, so we thought that would have been the end.

It was absolutely astonishing to me and many Canadians that the Conservatives went ahead and made these dramatic and drastic cuts to groups. One would almost think the party has a death wish.

In the throne speech and the budget, they did not fund them. Now they are aggressively cutting funding for the tourism industry, youth, museums, housing, aboriginal people, volunteers and for the people in B.C. and Alberta who are fighting the pine beetle, all with no warning. Members do not have to take from me. I will be spending the rest of my speech giving the voices of Canadians and of people in my riding in Yukon. They have expressed shock and surprise at the cuts along with dismay and anger.

I will start out with our grand chief in the area. When the anti-smoking programs were cut for aboriginal people but no one else, it is very upsetting. He was very dismayed too with the cuts to initiatives to help women, who have been making great progress lately and taking their place in society.

Our volunteer organizations have been cut drastically. As one of the founders of our Yukon Volunteer Bureau, I am very saddened by these cuts. We heard from Volunteer Canada that. It says:

Notwithstanding our efforts to facilitate program renewal, at approximately 4 p.m. today, the Government of Canada announced that its support of the Canada Volunteerism Initiative would be cut as part of its most recent program reviews efforts.

While shocked by the announcement, it goes on to say that hopefully the decision will be reviewed.

It further says:

Support of volunteerism is essential as we work at keeping our communities safe. Volunteers are the driving force behind many community based initiatives such as community policing, addictions treatment, and training and rehabilitation for those in trouble with the law.

How shocking it is that a government, in theory, says that it is fighting crime, but then it cuts all these crime fighting programs. Almost every Yukoner in my riding is a volunteer for something. It is part of the heart of our caring society in Yukon. To cut that is just unconscionable, especially at a time when we are about to host the Canada Winter Games, the first time ever that they have been north of the 60th parallel. We need the biggest percentage of our community as volunteers.

Let me go on to literacy, as a former president of literacy organization. People across Canada are dismayed that the government does not think that literacy is important. Let me quote:

As you can imagine, the Yukon Literacy Coalition is very concerned about the budget cuts announced by the federal government yesterday.

It did projects like literacy community development projects, family literacy initiatives, first nation workplace initiatives. That is the second time that the first nations have been cut, and there will more in my speech. It goes on to say:

Without this federal contribution literacy programs and organizations in the Yukon will suffer tremendously. I hope you will support us in lobbying the government for the reinstatement of these funds.

Identifying literacy as--

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Could you find some time to review the objective of the motion today? It is about women's issues, but we seem to be discussing budget cuts. If we could have some relevance on this, I would appreciate your ruling.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I would urge all hon. members speaking to the motion to try to stick as closely as possible to the subject matter of the motion being debated.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, if the member opposite thinks that no women are illiterate in the country, I would be happy to receive that information.

It goes on to say:

Identifying literacy as of little value is interesting considering that research has shown that improving the literacy rates by 1% would increase the GDP by 1.5 billion dollars; ironically slightly more than the Conservatives' budget cuts...

Ask a learner if the money used to help them read was wasteful. Take a moment and think about how much of your ability to read is worth. Apparently, according to the government it isn't much.

The member just asked to hear about the women's groups. Let me quote from the women's groups:

We are saddened, dismayed and angered that the Conservative government has cut funding to the Status of Women Canada and the Court Challenges Program. These funding cuts will adversely affect the lives of Yukon women.... We are saddened that the Conservative Government has ignored the wishes of northern women and the Expert panel's recommendations that the Status of Women Canada needed to be strengthened in order to provide internal expertise and gender based analysis for government policies. The lives of Yukon women will be adversely affected through policies and programs which are not responsive to their needs and issues here in the north. We are saddened that Mr. Harper has chosen to make dramatic cuts to one of the smallest budgets at the federal government level. We are dismayed that Mr. Harper--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I remind the hon. member for Yukon, even when we quote letters or articles, we do not refer to hon. members by name but by their riding or title.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

My apologies, Mr. Speaker.

We are dismayed that [the Prime Minister] has gone back on his election promise to “take concrete and immediate measures to ensure Canada fully upholds its commitments to women.” Canada is a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women and Children....

We are angry that...[the] Minister of Finance, said that “We won't apologize for our capacity to say no to bad ideas”. Does this mean that gender equality is a bad idea? Yukon women do not think that gender equality and economic security is a bad idea....

The Court Challenges Program was set up in 1994 to provide financial assistance for important court cases that advance language and equality rights guaranteed under Canada's Constitution. The Court Challenges Program has made some of Canada's most important Charter cases possible. It has been praised by United Nation bodies.

Treasury Board president...said “I just don't think it made sense for the government to subsidize lawyers to challenge the government's own laws in court” and he cancelled it. The Yukon Status of Women Council thinks it makes sense if you value human rights and fairness. Without the Court Challenges Program, it will be much easier for governments to violate the Constitution. We also do not think that a woman's ability to challenge discrimination is a bad idea.

Let us go on to the museums where there have been cuts. A lot of women either work or volunteer in museums. Just last week, the museums had a meeting with the minister, who announced that the government was going to come out with a new policy. All of a sudden, what is the new policy?

[An hon. member]

Cut them.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

It is to cut them dramatically. No wonder the executive director of the CMA was shocked, puzzled and felt betrayed by these cuts.

There are three projects in Yukon, and I have a list of hundreds of projects. Three projects were approved in my riding last year, two of them are for aboriginal museum cultural sites, another cut for aboriginal people.

A letter from Yukon's largest museum states:

MAP is [the] only federal program dedicated exclusively to museums. [It is] one of the few places we can go to get money to do collection work. Collection work is the backbone of museum work--without we cannot do the exhibition, programming, education roles...

Ed in the Yukon writes:

--it is hard to see how the Federal Museums' Assistance program is a “wasteful” program. This is an insult to all hard working museum workers who have worked for years for very little money in the preservation of our heritage....

--cuts to the Youth Employment programs is the very back bone of summer operations for small and large museums, especially during the summer season...GST rebates for tourists to Canada will help dampen visitations (especially conventions) at a time when other pressure on tourism, a strong Canadian dollar, the passport issue and terrorism...[have] already made this the worst tourism year...

Brent writes:

As you can appreciate, the museums folk here are very unhappy...that MAP is being cut....

I think the cuts to adult literacy, youth international programs, museums and other social programs indicate a government that will alienate Canadians sooner rather than later. To call these initiatives wasteful and not priorities of Canadians is particularly offensive.

It is not just all these groups that are writing. There are individuals.

Alejandro writes:

According to Treasury Board president...the $50-million program will not receive its last $10.8 million under the excuse that it is not effective enough and that you are saving Canadians money.

This is the--

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have listened to these continuous quotes by the member for Yukon. These are unattributed quotes that do not appear in any publication.

We are having a debate, but he is trotting out these unattributed quotes that we cannot follow up to find out if they are genuine or otherwise. If he has a problem with the issue or if he is supporting the motion on the floor, let him speak to it rather than come out with this stuff that we cannot understand and have no idea whether it is factual or otherwise.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Yukon has about 45 seconds left.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, it shows that we listen to our constituents and the government does not really care what the constituents have to say, nor the groups across Canada.

I wanted to comment on the law commission, tourism and cutting affordable housing, but in conclusion, as the representatives who provide services to millions of Canadians have indicated, these are heartless cuts. By targeting the most vulnerable in our society, it is striking a blow to the very essence of our very caring, inclusive nation.

We will not forget and the minorities, the women, the youth, the aboriginal people and the vulnerable of the greatest nation on earth will not forget. We will stand by them all the way.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I had trouble sifting through the comments of the member. The motion on the floor today has to do with the Status of Women and with the budget around it. We were talking also a little earlier about other issues around that.

Is the member aware that the program funding for women will not be cut? I heard him list different organizations. The administrative savings for the Status of Women, the $5 million costs savings, were necessary. Those savings can be used in different areas to directly impact on women's issues, like combating violence against women and girls and contributing to the economic well-being of women across our nation.

Would the member please answer the question and tell me whether he is aware that this program funding for women will not be cut?

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member would love us to talk about the things that are not being cut, which are very few things. I will not be speaking on behalf of Yukon women, so let me just read what they had to say:

The lives of Yukon women will be adversely affected through policies and programs which are not responsive to their needs and issues here in the north. We are saddened that [the Prime Minister] has chosen to make dramatic cuts...

I would like at this time to pay tribute to Nellie McClung, Irene Parlby, Emily Murphy, Henrietta Muir Edwards and Louise McKinny, the famous five who fought for women's rights. They would roll over in their graves if they heard what the Conservative government did this week in cutting back the advancement of those rights through the law commission, through the charter challenge program and through cuts to the status of women.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, as we know, women provide most of the caregiving. A situation of which the member is aware is families with children with autism and the stress that puts on families. In some of cases, with which I have been dealing, the pressure has been so great that the marriage breaks up and the child is usually left with the woman.

There is no national health care plan for children with autism. It is up to the provinces to devise their own plans in this regard. Alberta has cared for children with autism up till age 18. In Ontario it is age six. New Brunswick and Nova Scotia have pilot programs. It is simply not good enough that families and women with children with autism have to suffer such great financial and emotional burdens brought about by this neurological disorder.

Will the hon. member, the good Yukoner that he is, support a national autism plan that would fall under medicare, where the federal government would work with the provinces and territories to develop a national plan that would benefit all families with children with autism? We then would have a uniform strategy across the country so people would not have to move to other areas to get it. It would help stabilize the families and provide those children, and especially the caregivers, the women who provide the care, some immediate help and respite in the future.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, that is a wonderful question because just a few hours ago I replied to a letter from some children at a school in New Brunswick asking for a national autism strategy. I told them I was totally supportive of this and I congratulated them for their efforts at such young ages. I also sent them all Yukon pins.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Laurentides—Labelle.

The Bloc Québécois will support the Liberal motion, because we believe that the cuts to Status of Women Canada that have been announced are symptomatic and provide disturbing evidence of how important women are in the mind of this government.

The Bloc Québécois calls on the government to take a step back, because we believe that this cut is being made not in the spirit of budget rationalization—because we know that this government has surpluses—but rather from an ideological perspective, one that is contrary to the values of Quebeckers. We think that women in Quebec are being judged based on how Status of Women Canada’s programs are being managed.

The Conservative government has announced cuts of $5 million over two years to the secretariat of Status of Women Canada, whose budget is only just over $24 million. That means a cut of 20% of its budget, a budget that it was allocated after heated battle.

I would like to remind this House of the tough battles that were fought, with the Bloc Québécois among those leading the charge, to have the Standing Committee on the Status of Women created. For more than 10 years, we had to call for this committee and demand that it be created, and it finally happened in October 2004. I was among the first group of members who took part in that committee’s work. At those parliamentary committee meetings, where we heard ordinary people, experts and ministers, but most importantly many representatives of groups and organizations, we saw that the needs and the problems are enormous.

That is why I find it absolutely incomprehensible that today the organization that manages those programs is having its budget cut, when women are barely starting to get access to services and the needs are growing.

That committee was given the authority to review all issues arising from the mandate, management, organization and operation of Status of Women Canada, and also to hold an inquiry. If we make cuts to the management of Status of Women Canada, however, who will deal with that committee’s reports? The Standing Committee on the Status of Women is important.

Let us recall that five reports have been submitted. There was a report on maternity benefits, employment insurance parental benefits, that talked about the exclusion of self-employed women—and that is still the case.

A very important report on pay equity was submitted. We know that the pay equity problem is a grave injustice, and that it is very difficult to deal with it. In Quebec, we have made significant progress, but here in Canada women’s wages are still much lower than men’s.

A third report about funding by the women’s program was also submitted. The question was what the women of Canada thought about it.

Of course a report on increased funding for equality-seeking organizations was also submitted. The organizations are underfunded. We have identified a lot of flaws, particularly recently, when Women and the Law had to close down because the minister dragged her feet on providing the funding it needed.

Another report dealt with gender analysis. When we are dealing with discrimination against women, it is important to understand that we have to have an analysis, department by department, to be able to prove what is being argued and prove what women need.

We are concerned that if Status of Women Canada's budget is cut, the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, an essential committee, will have few respondents and few responses.

Yet the Conservative government may well need the expertise of Status of Women Canada—this was abundantly clear in the child care agreement. The Conservative government's decision to cancel the child care agreement, which was signed by the governments of Canada and Quebec on October 28, 2005, was anything but unremarkable.

That legally binding contract, which took months to prepare and was announced with great fanfare, was cancelled the following year by the Conservatives. It is this failure to follow through on promises that women in Canada and Quebec find so discouraging. I would like to remind the House that this cancelled contract represents a loss of over $800 million for child care centres in Quebec.

In its place, the government is offering a $1,200 annual, taxable allowance. This shows just how out of touch this government is with women's needs. It would have been wiser to listen to the Bloc Québécois' suggestion and grant a refundable tax credit, but the government refused to do so.

As further evidence of their obsession with making sure everyone knows about their ideas, it seems that for the first two months, the minister sent parents their $100 cheques through the mail rather than electronically. The cost to taxpayers: $2 million. This is a great injustice.

So when the government comes back to tell us about accountable financial management, that raises more than a few eyebrows.

What about attempts to get preventive withdrawal for female federal employees who work under conditions that could pose a risk to their children's safety, whether at border crossings or elsewhere? Preventive withdrawal for pregnant women is still not the norm.

As for work-life balance, it is clear that the government has no vision about this. We should have a vision about child care, in order to develop a solid network of child care centres for the future so that we can have a safe place for our children and avoid health and dropout problems later on.

Yet, the minister responsible posted this on the Status of Women Canada website. Yesterday, September 27, 2006, we could read this:

As a member of the Canadian Heritage Portfolio, Status of Women Canada plays an important role in the life of Canadians.

Status of Women Canada is responsible for promoting gender equality, and over the next year it will work to achieve the objective of supporting the full participation of Canadian women in all aspects of society. I am pleased that particular attention will be given to those challenges that are currently faced by Canadian women. I look forward to working with them on such issues as the economic stability of women and the situation of Aboriginal women.

Given the circumstances and given the quote from the minister, how could she have written and approved that after announcing a 20% cut in the organization's funding?

Often, when we talk about the economic stability of women, what we are really mean is poverty. Children are living in poverty in Canada because families are poor, and we know that the poorest families in our society are single-parent families, most of which are mother-led families.

Although the Canadian economy grew by 62% between 1994 and 2004, which produced nearly $480 billion more each year in market value during those ten years, more and more women saw their salaries stagnate or barely change, while hard costs such as housing, tuition fees, child care and public transit have increased, which has had an impact on family economies.

In conclusion, it is important that we continue to fight to stop the cutbacks that have been announced. We demand that the government reverse its decision and cancel the cutbacks.

It is important to understand that these cuts are not the result of rational thinking, rather they result from an ideological approach that completely opposes the values of Quebeckers and everything defended by the Bloc Québécois.

We can only conclude that this government is reactionary and, unfortunately, misogynous. We in the Bloc Québécois will continue to rise and defend the women of Quebec and ensure equality in all areas for Quebec's women.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I do not wish to proceed immediately to the question and comment period that would normally follow the speech given by the hon. member for Trois-Rivières. This would take too long and statements by members must take place at 2 p.m.

We will therefore proceed immediately to statements by members.

The hon. member for Winnipeg South.

Municipal Infrastructure

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, after 13 years of waiting and broken promises, the residents of Winnipeg South were finally able to drive through Kenaston Boulevard without suffering at the mercy of train schedules.

This past Friday afternoon I, along with the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, cut the ribbon on the Kenaston Boulevard underpass. The federal government contributed $13 million toward the cost of construction and was on hand to celebrate the completion of this project.

The immediate benefit of the Kenaston underpass includes less traffic and reduced idling, thus giving cleaner air. For the fastest growing area in Winnipeg this underpass will ease traffic congestion and reduce travel time.

The government is committed to achieving results. With a population boom of 40,000 new residents in Waverly West expected in my riding, more investment infrastructure will be needed for the new roads and underpasses.

I am committed to working tirelessly to ensure that these needs and all the needs of Winnipeg South are met in the future.