Debates of Nov. 1st, 2007

Sitting Resumed

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the government member opposite did not say anything about child care. We know that access to regulated, affordable child care is pivotal to reducing poverty for women. Without good quality child care, thousands of women are kept from full time and well paying jobs.

Instead of building a national child care system, the Conservatives cancelled an agreement signed by the former Liberal government and the provinces and territories to increase access to early learning and child care. This means a loss of $3.5 billion in funding over the next three years.

Why is the member not addressing these issues of importance to Canadians across this country?

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will know that the ultimate jurisdiction and responsibility for child care spaces and the like lies in the hands of the provinces. That is why the Government of Canada is working closely with the provinces and territories, with some $250 million per year to help with the creation of those child care spaces.

We are working hand in hand. It is the kind of cooperation that the country needs in these important areas of shared responsibility. We are going to keep doing that as well. That is the kind of investment Canada is making for women right across the country.

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

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

We are here today to speak about a very important opposition day motion, a motion which speaks to the rights of women and women's equality. I want to take the opportunity to commend the member for Beaches—East York who put this motion forward, because I know she and the rest of the Liberal caucus believe in true equality for women across Canada.

We are here today to talk about women. We are here today to talk about the women from Brampton—Springdale and so many other women who feel that they have been ignored, who feel that the Conservative government has failed them, who feel that the Conservative government has turned its back on them.

The ideological right-wing approach to our country's social issues about which women are so passionate has really created a situation where the government continues to pretend that we have achieved true equality but its agenda actually speaks about another.

In 2006 during the election campaign, the Prime Minister stated that he supported the United Nations recommendation “to ensure that Canada fully upholds its commitment to women in Canada”. Now we learn from Conservative insiders like Tom Flanagan that his government's goal is actually to stop funding what he calls Liberal outrider organizations.

We have seen that the Prime Minister has already broken his promise to thousands and thousands of women across this country, to women who continue to advocate on behalf of others, to women who empower other women, to women who actually speak up.

The Prime Minister has actually broken his promise, because one of the first initiatives that he and the Conservative government undertook was to remove the word “equality” from the Status of Women Canada. This was an absolutely shameful act when we realize that as the Canadian dollar increases, women in this country still continue to make only seventy cents for every dollar that is earned by a man.

We all know from talking to these women that the wage gap is still alive and well. One has to ask, why did the Conservative caucus members allow the Prime Minister to remove the word “equality” from the Status of Women Canada, because we all realize that there is no economic security without equality.

The Conservative government continues to thwart equality at every turn. It continues to make an antagonistic relationship for all of those women who work to better the lives not only of their fellow Canadians, but of so many children.

What is interesting is that the government has absolutely no problem talking about equality issues when it comes to the lives of Afghan women, when it comes to ensuring that women and their rights are defended in Afghanistan. Why is it that they talk about the word “equality” and those issues for the women in Afghanistan, when the women right here at home in our country, in Canada, continue to feel neglected, continue to feel failed and continue to be isolated?

There are so many issues that continue to impact women right here at home. We only have to look at the issue of child care. I listened very intently when the government member opposite who spoke prior to me spoke about the fact that the Conservatives were working in cooperation and collaboration with the provinces. We only need to talk to those provinces and territories, to talk to the women who are disappointed and feel isolated because the government has failed to produce a single child care space. Not one child care space has been created since the Conservative government came to power.

The Conservatives talk about giving $1,200 to Canadian families. We do not need a government that acts as an ATM machine. We need a government that will come up with a national strategy to ensure that the women of this country, that families, that mothers and fathers have access to quality, affordable, universal and accessible child care spaces. They cannot do it alone. We need national leadership on this issue.

In talking to women from the west coast and out in Winnipeg, from the east coast and up in the Northwest Territories, I very quickly have realized that these women are disappointed. They were counting on the government for support. They were counting on the government to honour its word and actually maintain the early learning and child care agreements which were signed by the former Liberal government, agreements which were done in cooperation and in collaboration, agreements which would have resulted in quality, affordable, universal and accessible day care spaces.

We also have realized in talking to the Canadian Child Care Federation that it is actually living without its $750,000 a year federal grant. Why is an organization that has done such tremendous work on behalf of families, children and women having to live without a grant when our country has a surplus and we are living in one of its most prosperous times?

Why is it that there have been significant cuts made to Status of Women Canada? Twelve of 16 offices have been closed. Why has $18 million been cut from literacy programs? Why has $55 million been cut from the student summer jobs program? Why has $45 million been cut from affordable housing programs? Why has $10 million been cut from Canadian volunteer programs? Why have there been these cuts to programs that actually helped Canadian women?

Let us take a look at the issue of pay equity. As I mentioned earlier, women in Canada still continue to make 70¢ for every dollar that is made by a man, but the government continues to pretend there is true equality.

While I was writing this speech, I actually wanted to ask one of the Conservatives a very simple question. How many times has this government actually mentioned the words “women's equality”? How many times has it mentioned the words “pay equity” in its last two throne speeches or the last two speeches in regard to the budget? There has not been one word on women's equality or one word on pay equity in either the Speech from the Throne or the budget. That is a very sad statement.

Liberals on this side of the House actually understand that pay equity is a fundamental human right protected by the Canadian Human Rights Act. The previous Liberal government actually made a commitment to pay equity. The former ministers of justice and housing wrote to the Chair of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women in October 2005 and stated that the government would work toward introducing a bill on pay equity by 2006 or early 2007.

However, where is the government on the issue? Let us take a look at the Conservative national policy declaration, which states, “The Conservative Party supports gender equality through all policy and legislative considerations”.

Why are the Conservatives not practising what they preach in all the policies and programs they have been initiating since elected? Why are they not practising what they have preached in the Conservative national policy declaration? We fail to see any attempt by the Conservatives to address the issue of pay equity for women.

I stand here before the House today on behalf of the very many women across this country who feel disenfranchised and ignored by the Conservative government. As I was writing my speech, I came across this interesting quote:

For taxpayers, however, [pay equity is] a rip-off. And it has nothing to do with gender. Both men and women taxpayers will pay additional money to both men and women in the civil service. That's why the federal government should scrap its ridiculous pay equity law.

Do members know who said that? The Prime Minister. When did the Prime Minister say that? The Prime Minister said that while he was president of the National Citizens Coalition.

I do not think these words are very comforting to the numbers of women and Canadians who are fighting for pay equity in Canada. It is comments like this one that come as no shock in regard to the actions the government clearly has taken to target women in Canada. It has chosen to ignore the tremendous number and complements of women's organizations. Whether we are talking to women from aboriginal communities or women from ethnic or demographic communities, we have realized that they are being ignored.

In the end, I would say that the women of this country and all Canadians deserve a government that is going to stand up and speak on behalf of the challenges faced by women. They need a government that is going to believe in true equality for both the men and the women of Canada.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I get upset when Liberals talk about rights. One would think they had a monopoly on rights in this country. Let us look at some facts

. In the second world war, Nazi refugees trying to flee Nazi Germany came to Canada. They were turned down by this country, sent back to Nazi Germany and ended up as Holocaust victims. Who was in government at that time? It was a Liberal government.

Who interned Japanese Canadian citizens and deprived them of their property and fundamental rights? It was the Liberals.

The only time in Canadian history that martial law has ever been imposed in this country, where our citizens had their rights suspended and people were rounded up and put into internment camps, was during the Trudeau regime. Every Liberal should know that.

I should not speak so fast because they have a tough time remembering a few of these things.

Who granted the women the right to vote in this country? Which government did that? It was a Conservative government.

Who granted aboriginal people the right to vote almost 100 years after the slaves were freed in the United States? It was a Conservative government.

Who appointed the first woman to a cabinet post in this country? It was a Conservative government.

We Conservatives need not take any lectures from that group about fundamental rights and freedoms in this country.

I think we need a charter of rights, a bill of rights, to protect Canadians against Liberals.

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I found it very interesting that the member opposite had to go back all those years to the days of Pierre Trudeau in regard to talking about inaction on women. We only have to go back to yesterday or a week before and talk about the fiscal update or the Speech from the Throne to realize that the Conservatives have not stood up for the women of Canada.

If they truly cared about the women of this country, they would have mentioned the words “women's equality” and “pay equity” in the Speech from the Throne and the fiscal update. It is only the Liberal team that is standing up for the needs of women in Canada.

[Louise Thibault, Independent, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I could go back quite a few years as well.

But I would like to hear the hon. member who just delivered that highly eloquent speech say a few words about something that is happening across the entire country. I am talking about women who work on the family farm and do not receive pensionable earnings.

Recommendation 18 of the 21st report mentions this need in particular to develop options in order for women, as well as men, who work on the family farm to receive a decent income when they retire. That is what I call equity. I would like to know whether the hon. member agrees that this would provide pay equity for women who work in farming.

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for bringing up a very important issue in regard to achieving true economic security not only for women living in urban areas, but also for women living in rural areas, for women working on farms who perhaps do not have the opportunity to contribute to pension plans and EI.

I think it is extremely important that we work together to address some of these issues, but let me tell the House that closing 12 of 16 Status of Women offices is not going to get the job done. The issues of pay equity and the advancement of women are only going to happen if we collectively work in cooperation and collaboration and, most importantly, if we have some leadership from the federal government.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened all morning to my colleagues from the Liberal Party blowing rhetorical spin bubbles. I have not agreed with very much of it, but I did agree with the hon. member on one point that I thought was actually very profound.

After her attack on the Conservative ideology, with which I completely agree, she said that Canadians deserve a government that will stand up. I think that is a fairly simple statement.

Yesterday we saw a plan that was put forward to dramatically alter the economic capacity of the federal government to provide the kinds of programs that most progressive Canadians would believe in, yet what did we see? We saw a party that took a dive, a party that refused to stand up, a party that sat on its hands and is sending a message to Canadians that its one fundamental interest is saving the political skin of its leader over taking on the wrong-headed, right wing ideology of the Conservatives.

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear a member of the NDP say that. We would not be in this mess of women not having true equality and not having a child care program if the NDP were not in bed with the Conservatives.

Let me remind the NDP member that in 2005 the Conservatives actually sat on their hands and did nothing on the budget. In 2006, let me ask the NDP member, why did his party not stand up and fight for the softwood lumber deal? I do not recollect those members standing up in the House and fighting on behalf of Canadians. The Liberal caucus, the Liberal team and our leader are committed to ensuring that we achieve true equality for all women in Canada.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join this very spirited debate today. I want to read for the benefit of Canadians watching at home and the constituents of York West the motion that we are dealing with today. It reads:

That, taking into account the reports produced by the Standing Committee on Status of Women on the need for pay equity and the lack of economic security for women, the House call upon the government to develop a strategy to improve the economic security of all women in Canada and present this strategy to the House by February 1, 2008.

That does not sound like a huge job for the government to do.

Last year I had the opportunity to chair the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. We heard from Canadians all across the country who reminded us time and time again that the issue of pay equity is crucial for the economic security of women in Canada. Unfortunately, women are still earning only 71¢ for every dollar that men earn.

Regardless of their educational achievements, women continue to have earnings well below those of men, for many reasons. This means a heightened risk of poverty for children and for women in their retirement years. In recent statistics, 47% of single parent families were poor and more than one-third of single women over 65 continue to live in poverty. This last is an issue that I continue to hear about in my constituency, as I am sure many members do. I continue to hear from women who are really struggling to live on a very minimal pension.

The current Prime Minister once said, as my colleague alluded to, that pay equity is a “rip-off”. Clearly, the Conservative government is not providing the leadership to help women improve their economic status. The Prime Minister clearly does not understand and does not respect pay equity when he can say it is a rip-off.

Sadly, that is clearly all we are going to be able to expect from the Conservatives. The Conservative minority government has yet to explain to the women of this country how Status of Women Canada will be able to continue to fulfill its mandate in light of its $5 million cut, almost half of its operating budget.

Liberal governments are known for their commitment to women's equality and to defending women's rights. Our former Liberal government did exactly that and took action in various areas, such as, in the year 2000, extending parental benefits for a full year, something many people are thoroughly enjoying. This is a legacy for Canadian families that we on this side of the House are very proud of.

In 2004 the Liberal government also established the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, which was an important move forward for women in Canada.

In October 2005 we created an expert panel to provide advice and options to strengthen accountability mechanisms to advance gender based analysis and gender equality issues.

Other Liberal achievements that I am very proud to have been part of include creating the Centres of Excellence for Women's Health and the Institute of Gender and Health to work on health policies and issues that are unique to women.

We also committed $32 million every year to national crime prevention initiatives. We know that women continue to be the victims of a lot of the crime in our country and that $32 million in crime prevention initiatives is helping many women to feel safer.

The Liberals provided another $7 million to the family violence initiative to try to deal with issues of domestic violence.

Also, to help make post-secondary education more affordable for lower income and middle income Canadians, we committed over $2 billion over five years to improve student financial assistance.

For our valued seniors, Liberal budget 2005 ensured that senior women would benefit from a $2.7 billion increase over two years to the guaranteed income supplement. Seniors are and want to remain active members of our society. Our budget increased support for the hugely successful new horizons program, which promotes voluntary sector activities and supports seniors. Annual funding would have increased to $25 million by 2007-08.

But the Conservatives care very little about seniors. We just need to look at what they did a year ago. Yesterday marked the first anniversary of the Conservative government's decision to levy a 31% tax on income trusts.

Many of those Canadian investors included huge numbers of retired seniors who actually invested their savings in the income trust market as a result of the fact that the Prime Minister himself explicitly promised over and over not to tax them. He even wrote it directly into his election platform, which turned out to be completely false.

Ten months after being elected, the Prime Minister broke his promise, resulting in the loss of $25 billion of investors' money in a single day. The majority of these people were not slick, savvy investors, but ordinary citizens who relied on their income trust dividends for their day to day necessities and to supplement their retirement income.

I had the opportunity to meet some of these Canadians yesterday at a rally on Parliament Hill. My Liberal colleagues and I heard how these people felt betrayed by the Prime Minister and the Conservative government. It was tragic to hear their stories of such dramatic losses of their savings and what they were counting on for their futures.

Speaking of dramatic losses, another loss that we have clearly experienced is the loss of early learning and child care agreements that the Liberal government had negotiated. It was a disastrous loss for Canadians, for women and for our country. These early learning and child care opportunities would have been of huge benefit to working families and in helping to prepare our children for the future.

What happened to those agreements that took so many years to put together? The NDP, led by the member for Toronto—Danforth, plunged the country into an unnecessary election, which resulted in child care through the mailbox, a system of a taxable allowance to parents.

The NDP's crackerjack of a leader then stood by while the Conservatives proceeded to undo all the good work, other than a few Liberal programs that they have re-announced. I am sure the fourth party leader, when he goes to bed at night, cannot be very proud of that.

I will go back to the excellent motion that my colleague has tabled today. Pay inequity is a critical issue for women in this country. Pay inequity clearly hurts women and our children. It makes women and children more vulnerable to struggling on very low incomes. In Canada, more women than men live in such difficult situations and the majority of single parent households are headed by a woman living on a low income. We have over one million children who continue to be poor.

Almost half of single, widowed or divorced women over 65 live below appropriate income levels, and 51% of lone parent families headed by women are living on very low incomes. Economic security is at the heart of women's equality. Women continue to be economically disadvantaged and it is time for action.

We call on the government to develop a strategy to improve the economic security of all women in Canada and to present the strategy to the House by February 1, 2008. We must all work together to ensure a brighter future for our children and grandchildren.

[Bev Oda, Conservative, Minister of International Cooperation]

Mr. Speaker, I find this ironic. If members of the party opposite felt that their actions would be better for Canadian women, why did they allow this government to survive and continue governing? When they talk about standing up for women, they certainly did not take advantage of that opportunity.

What does the hon. member have against women benefiting from the paydown on the federal tax debt? She just ended her presentation by saying that we should look out for future generations. That is an important step that we are taking and it will benefit future generations of Canadian women.

What does she have against women who own small businesses? Why does she not want to take action to ensure they have the advantage of the tax breaks that we are giving to small businesses? Why did she not stand and support all the benefits that Canadian women will get as taxpayers, employers, employees and members of families, et cetera. I find it very ironic that she has not taken advantage of that opportunity.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me first address the issue of what I consider to be important for an opposition party.

One thing I have noticed in the eight years I have been here is how often people simply vote against something because it is the opposition or the government. The fact that we chose to take the road we did yesterday was, to me, acting in a responsible way as a responsible opposition.

Sure, there are issues that we agree with but there were issues in the mini-budget yesterday that we did not agree with. However, bringing the government down and spending $500 million for another election would likely bring us right back to the situation we are in today, except we would probably be on that side of the House and the Conservatives would be on this side.

Over and above that, I would rather invest that $500 million in seniors, in medicare and in housing programs that we do not have. There was nothing in the mini-budget that talked about the issues that really matter to Canadians.

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member. Conservative ideology has the government investing in law and order, in prisons and harsher sentences for sex offenders.

What does the hon. member think about this government that abolished the national firearms program and slashed spending on transition houses for battered women?

What does she think about all the brouhaha over law and order?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in the throne speech and in the mini-budget yesterday there was no investment specifically for women. What is most important to the government is its law and order agenda.

Let me add that the law and order agenda is important for all of us. I can say that we have done a lot of things on this side of the House to ensure that women in our communities are safe.

However, with all of that money, why did the government not invest more into the health and safety of Canadians and into our economy by investing some of that money into jobs, rather than just giving everybody tax cuts? We appreciate that as well, but I believe there should be a balance in how we spend taxpayer money. We want a little bit of both.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in her blaming the NDP, all 19 of us at that time, for the last election, would the member not agree with me that it was in fact the people of Canada who wanted that election and that they in fact turfed the Liberals out in that election not the NDP? However, we did quite well in that election. We increased our membership on this side of the House by another 10 members.

The other thing I would like to clarify has to do with some misinformation that the Liberals have been putting out here all morning, which is that somehow we sat on our hands or did not vote for the softwood lumber agreement.

We have admitted very openly that yes, a mistake was made on that day, as do many members around this House from time to time when it comes to a recorded vote. We asked for the unanimous consent of the House to correct that mistake but on that day the Liberals chose, in a pique of self-centredness, not to allow us to clarify that.

The Liberals probably have single-handedly done more to damage support for women by doing away with the Canada assistance plan and reducing the social transfer by some $7 billion in the early nineties. Was she there and why did she allow that to happen?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in 1993 we inherited a $42 billion deficit from the Conservatives. We had to make a lot of changes. They were clearly not doing their job.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say right away that I will share my time with the member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert.

I am pleased to have the privilege to discuss the motion put forward this morning.

If elected, I will take concrete and immediate measures, as recommended by the United Nations, to ensure that Canada fully upholds its commitments to women—

This was the promise our Prime Minister made to women during the January 2006 election campaign. It is now November 2007. He was referring to Canada's commitments under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.

I must point out that in 2003, the United Nations committee overseeing the implementation by member states of the measures referred to in the quote, put pressure on Canada to do more for women. The committee was highly critical of a number of Canadian policies and called on the government to seriously address a number of issues such as poverty among women, wage inequity, discrimination against aboriginal women, and child care.

When the United Nations made those comments following the promise by our Prime Minister, one might have expected tangible and satisfactory results for all the women of Quebec and Canada. The sad reality is that did not happen. It turns out that the new government, as it likes to call itself, has done nothing tangible or positive for women.

It is absolutely true that they have taken tangible actions. However, because they concern social services, those actions should be under the jurisdiction of the provinces, not the federal government. While this government claims to have an open mind in terms of provincial jurisdictions, it increasingly interferes by assuming a role in social services which has nothing to do with its mandate.

Instead of becoming involved in those programs, it would be better to concern itself with its own areas of jurisdiction; for example, first nations women or older women who receive the guaranteed income supplement. People should know that 18.9% of older women in Canada who receive the supplement are living below the poverty line. To be living below the poverty line means they have so little money that they must choose between groceries and prescription drugs.

If that is what they call equality for Canadians, if that is what the minister calls equality achieved, I would like her to come back down to earth because she needs to see reality.

This government slashed the women’s program and women’s advocacy funding, saying there was no need to defend women’s rights because women had achieved equality. At the same time, they offer grants of $500,000 to a coalition of associations that promotes the rights of people who own firearms. They have a right to advocate if they want to own a firearm but women have no right to advocate that they should be respected. What planet are we living on?

I really wish my Conservative colleagues—since it is always Conservative colleagues who adopt this arrogant air and who will not listen to the truth—would, at least, have the decency to listen to what they are being told. These comments are not coming from the member for Laval, but from groups of women that my colleague for Laurentides—Labelle and I met with over a full year.

And I especially wish those from Quebec would listen. Unlike our Conservative colleagues, we took the time to tour the whole province to meet with women’s groups as well as representatives of homes and shelters for women and women’s advocacy centres. We met with all the groups who work on behalf of women in whatever way. It was those very women who asked us to represent them in this House, to make known their dissatisfaction to the different parties.

The member for Laval did not simply decide to do this one morning. Indeed, some of the people that we met live in ridings represented by our Conservative colleagues and they, unfortunately, were unable to gain the ear of their elected representative.

A great number of the women we met also told us they wished that the federal government would resume its work in various programs that existed previously, especially those programs to help residents of Canada’s north to obtain food and products that they need to properly feed their families.

In northern Canada, a litre of orange juice costs $22. I do not know who could feed their children properly if they are paying $22 for a litre of orange juice. There used to be programs so that people could get less expensive food, at a price that we might consider normal. But those programs, which made it possible for women to meet their needs and for other women on reserves to apply for assistance, have been eliminated.

We pride ourselves on wanting to have programs so that women can have financial and economic security. But we cannot even pay $100 a month more, through the guaranteed income supplement, so that our older women, who helped to build this country, can live decently. We are told that the guaranteed income supplement has been raised, but it was an increase of $17 a month over the last two years. Is that a real increase? Did my colleagues get a pay raise of $17 a month? I think not; neither did I.

I may seem to be angry and over the top. But I am not ordinarily angry. I am normally even-tempered, and people who really know me can attest to that.

I have spent my entire life, since I was very young, standing up for the rights of women, children and seniors, who have been poorly represented and poorly served by their government. The reason that I decided to be a candidate for the Bloc Québécois was that I believed it was the only party that was genuinely advocating on behalf of people’s interests and rights. It was the only party that was not somehow connected with Bay Street. It was the only party that owed nothing to any corporation and that could not be bought by any corporation.

The reason I chose to join the Bloc Québécois was that I sincerely believed that we could make this government understand that an opposition is a healthy thing in a democracy. When the Conservative government was in opposition, it believed the same thing. I would therefore like the government to open its ears and listen, today, to the women who are calling on it to revisit its position and its policies, because what is at stake today is the quality of life of thousands of women.

When we are talking about economic security, we absolutely have to ensure that women have access to that security, and that requires policies. We have to invest in social housing and provide a decent income through the guaranteed income supplement, and a decent income for older women who lose their jobs.

I see that my speaking time has run out. That is unfortunate. I would have had many things to say, to get my Conservative colleagues to understand that what we want is our rights, and that we have a right to what we want.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is disappointing to hear opposition parties repeatedly say day after day and mislead the House by suggesting that our government has put women in a bad position by making cuts. In the status of women committee we hear over and over again that cuts were made to the Status of Women. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Members opposite know we moved money from administration and put it directly toward Canadian women's projects. Canadian women all across the country are setting up organizations and using that money at the grassroots to do things that people in their communities appreciate.

Led by Liliane Kohl and Peggy Sakow, an organization against human trafficking has been set up. I am sure at some point in time this organization will feel free also to make an application. There are all kinds of different projects like that.

How can the member across the way stand in the House of Commons and say that we have made those cuts from the Status of Women and from Canadian women across the country? How can she do that in all good conscience when this money goes directly to the projects on the ground for these women?

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Believe me, Mr. Speaker, we are in no way opposed to bills that are meaningful, that can help women. However, in a government with a $14 billion surplus, surely there is room to fund social programs as well as defend rights. Up until now, we have sent $37 billion to Afghanistan. I am very sorry, but I do not think this money was well spent. Our soldiers work very hard. But we could have used some of the $14 billion to at least defend the rights of women here.

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I find it odd that the party that is impotent, that the woman with the eternal smile, would be so partisan. Honestly, when I see that she is trying to protect a program in which 66% of the program costs—

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Earlier, I was accused of maybe not listening, but I could say the same to her.

How can the member defend a program in which 66% of the funds for the entire program went to administration costs? We decided to reduce that by 38%, so that all the money would go to women and so that local projects could be implemented.

Contrary to what the woman with the eternal smile said, yes, I met with all the women's groups in my riding, and they understood. We re-explained things, and not only were these women in agreement, but they were also happy with the results. In my riding, an organization called Nouveaux Espoirs was going to shut down simply because the grants were eliminated.

Also, how can the member defend a program in which administration costs account for 66% of the total costs? That makes me laugh.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot do anything about the member's impotence. He should see his doctor about that.

When we are talking about abolishing programs and about women's access to programs, I would remind the government that 12 of the 16 regional offices have been closed.

Eligibility criteria for these programs have been restricted. Now, groups that defend women's rights, lobby groups and research groups no longer meet these criteria. With the change in philosophy of the women's program and the elimination of promoting women's equality from its mandate, women's groups that work for egalitarian reform of legislation and policy are being muzzled. There has also been the abolition of the court challenges program, even though the government is the first institution that should support all organizations that defend women's rights.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. Resuming debate with the hon. member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, bearing in mind that at 2 o'clock we will proceed with statements by members.