House of Commons Hansard #13 of the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was equality.
Vic Toews ConservativePresident of the Treasury Board
Mr. Speaker, as part of the comprehensive effort to inform parliamentarians and Canadians on the government's performance, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, on behalf of departments and agencies, their 90 performance reports for 2006-07.
Canada Elections ActRoutine Proceedings
York—Simcoe Ontario
Conservative
Peter Van Loan ConservativeLeader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-16, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (expanded voting opportunities) and to make a consequential amendment to the Referendum Act.
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the special order made previously, I would like to inform the House that this bill is in the same form as Bill C-55 was at the time of prorogation.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken
The Chair is satisfied that this bill is in the same form as Bill C-55 was at the time of prorogation of the 1st session of the 39th Parliament.
Accordingly, pursuant to order made on Thursday, October 25, 2007, the bill is deemed read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
Gary Lunn Conservative Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-17, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to a special order made previously, I would like to inform the House that this bill is in the same form as Bill C-57 was at the time of prorogation.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken
The Chair is satisfied that this bill is in the same form as Bill C-57 was at the time of prorogation of the 1st session of the 39th Parliament. Accordingly, pursuant to order made Thursday, October 25, the bill is deemed read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, and on behalf of the hundreds of seniors who visited Parliament Hill yesterday, I present this income trust broken promise petition. The petitioners remind the Prime Minister that he had promised never to tax income trusts but that he recklessly broke that promise by imposing a 31.5% punitive tax, which permanently wiped out over $25 billion of the hard-earned retirement savings of over two million Canadians, most of whom were seniors.
The petitioners therefore call upon the Conservative minority government, first, to admit that the decision to tax income trusts was based on flawed methodology and incorrect assumptions, second, to apologize to those who are unfairly harmed by this broken promise, and, finally, to repeal the punitive 31.5% tax on income trusts.
Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC
Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from residents of New Denver, British Columbia, with regard to the error that Statistics Canada made in its calculation of the consumer price index. The petitioners say that it has resulted in an error Canada's inflation numbers for whose benefits are tied into this, including recipients of the Canada pension plan, old age security and the guaranteed income supplement.
The petitioners ask the Parliament of Canada to take full responsibility for this error and take the required steps to repay every Canadian who was shortchanged by a government program because of the miscalculation of the CPI.
Mario Silva Liberal Davenport, ON
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to help highlight the continuing issues surrounding the refugee system in Canada and to join with petitioners from Citizens for Public Justice in calling for enhancements to Canada's refugee system. The Canadian Council for Refugees quite rightly notes that the Conservatives' failure to appoint or reappoint 46 of the 127 members to the Immigration and Refugee Board means that the refugee system is stretched way beyond its limits.
I table this petition that calls upon the government to take action on the refugee file or to at least do its job and ensure that IRB has the people to do the job.
Wayne Marston NDP Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to table a petition on behalf of Mary Mason and Donna Dixon, who have worked hard in Hamilton searching for their son and grandson, Billy Mason, who has been missing for two years. They hit a wall when they found that there was no DNA data bank for them to be able to compare some articles of clothing that have been found.
This has been under study since 2005. This petition of 6,600 names is demanding that the federal government get the job done on behalf of Canadians.
Tony Martin NDP Sault Ste. Marie, ON
Mr. Speaker, today I have a petition for the House that is signed by 4,000 people in Sault Ste. Marie and environs. It brings to the attention of the government the fact that there is no passport office anywhere in northeastern Ontario, which means that citizens of northeastern Ontario, who pay taxes like everybody else, only have access to a full passport office, particularly in instances of emergencies, if they drive some eight hours either to Toronto or Thunder Bay. This usually requires them to stay overnight, which brings added expense with it.
The Seniors Health Advisory Committee carried out a very extensive canvass of the community, spending literally months in many of the malls and public areas gathering these names and talking to people. The 4,000 people who signed this petition want the government to understand that they will not be treated like second class citizens. They need and want a full-fledged passport office in Sault Ste. Marie, which is a border community, to serve all of northeastern Ontario. Otherwise, they are not getting the service that everybody else in Canada, particularly in the larger centres, takes for granted.
Lynne Yelich ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
Maria Minna Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
moved:
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.
It is a pleasure for me today to support this motion and put it forward. The Status of Women committee has done a great deal of very hard work in this area in preparing the reports on economic security and pay equity.
I should like to say that I am splitting my time with the hon. member for Don Valley East.
Women have much to be concerned about with the direction in which the government is going, however, as women are not even mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, not at all, or in Tuesday's financial update.
No women's issues are being addressed by the Conservative government. It seems to be following an ideological path that is totally contrary to women's needs. For instance, it has shut down 12 out of 16 Status of Women regional offices in this country. There is no funding for equality-seeking organizations. In fact, the equality provisions have been eliminated from the mandate of the Status of Women Canada program.
There is no funding for groups that conduct research and advocacy work on behalf of women, but if people are lobbying the government on defence contracts they can get $500,000 from the Government of Canada to research and lobby. How sad is that? People can get money to lobby the government on defence contracts, but they cannot for research or lobbying the government to assist women in this country.
It is very sad indeed that the government is shutting out women who are fighting for the government to make changes in policies that affect them negatively, such as amendments to the employment insurance and pension system and structures, child care, et cetera.
The Conservative Party's Tom Flanagan has said that it is all part of the Prime Minister's long term plan to eradicate these so-called “Liberal outrider” groups. That may be true, but the reality is that organizations such as the National Association of Women and the Law, which have for decades worked hard to ensure women's equality in this country, are shutting their doors. Women's voices are being shut down in this country as we speak.
Meanwhile, we saw the government do a little bit of a trick in the last financial update. In the last budget, the Conservatives increased taxes from 15% to 15.5%. The other day they lowered taxes from 15.5% to 15%, to essentially where the Liberals were two years ago, so we are not moving ahead yet. They are playing a little game of “stay in your place”, which affects women very directly because of the disparity in income in this country.
The government is ignoring the vast poverty gap that exists in this country, especially for women, as well as infrastructure in our cities, lack of child care, and the list goes on. In fact, the GST cut will benefit no one and will not address the poverty gap in this country at all.
Countries with strong economies invest in research and innovation, human capital such as education, training and literacy, and physical infrastructure for our cities. These countries invest in health care and the environment. These countries realize the importance of social investments, something the government just does not seem to get.
We have significant challenges in addressing the gender differences in low income rates, particularly as they affect single senior women, single parent families headed by women, and women with disabilities. The committee paid close attention to women belonging to vulnerable groups in society, such as immigrant women, rural women, aboriginal women, women with disabilities, senior women and single mothers. One-fifth of immigrants who arrived in Canada in the 1990s faced chronic low income, a rate 2.5 times higher than that of persons born in Canada.
The financial economic update does not talk at all about any gender based analysis that was done in the mini-budget. It says nothing about it. In the Speech from the Throne, there was no gender based analysis that I am aware of, yet we as the Liberal government had set that kind of standard in the 2004 and 2005 budgets. The gender based analyses were done and we were hoping the current government would continue, because that is how we can see how policies affect women in this country.
For instance, on pay equity, the average income for all employed women is just under $25,000. That is only 64% of that of their male colleagues. The average income for full time employed women is $36,500, only 71% of that of male colleagues. In 2003, women accounted for 53% of all Canadians classified as low income.
The current system is broken. We need proactive pay equity legislation, but the government has said no to women. In its official response so far to the standing committee, the government has said no, yet Quebec and Ontario have legislation that is working very well. The Government of Canada should catch up and move on, but the Conservative government is following some sort of other agenda that I cannot understand.
Early learning and child care goes to the heart of women's economic security. The government's so-called child care program, which is the $1,200, is an income supplement. It is a joke as far as child care goes because it does not create one child care space, does not allow women to re-enter the workforce, does not give Canadians a choice and it sure does not promote women's economic security. In fact, not only does it not do any of those things, but the $1,200 is taxed in the hands of the recipients and, therefore, they do not receive the full amount. They may receive $500 a year but that does absolutely nothing to assist women in their situations and families in general.
According to Statistics Canada, in 2001 the poverty rate of single mothers was 42.4%. This is compared to single fathers at 19.3% and 9.5% for couples with children. This means that over one million women with children are living in poverty and that is not acceptable. These issues are magnified for women in rural areas who do not have access to child care, to training and education, to transportation or affordable housing. For new immigrant women, some of whom do not speak either of the official languages and whose credentials are not recognized in Canada, it is even more critical.
The government is not paying attention to women at all. All of the conditions and issues I mentioned need to be addressed but the organizations that would be speaking on behalf of women are being shut down.
Another example is affordable housing. According to Statistics Canada, in 2003, 72% of senior women who rented were considered to have housing affordability problems. Similarly, 42% of renters, families headed by female lone parents, and 38% of unattached female renters had housing affordability problems.
Instead of trying to help women with housing affordability problems, the Conservatives cut $700 million from affordable housing funding. They slashed $45 million from the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. This is so sad that it is actually pathetic. The housing crisis in this country is enormous. Homelessness is a major issue and yet the government has no plan whatsoever to address that issue, which again goes to the economic security of women.
The child tax benefit, which was established by the Liberal government, was cut by the current government. The young child supplement was cut in the government's previous budget and has not been replaced. It has not increased the child benefit at all throughout its term. That should go to $5,000 in order to assist families with children because the $1,200 just does not cut it. I challenge the government to do that because that goes to the heart of eradicating child poverty and it would also address women's economic security.
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development recommended that federal financial support for early learning and child care should be equivalent to 1% of the GDP. The government to date has not created one child care space. It is relying on the private sector. More recently, we saw a report from the businesses in the country that have said that they are not interested in child care because it is not their job and they do not want to get into it. The government has been relying on that kind of hope for the last two and a half years or so and I think it is time it got off that road and got onto addressing the real needs of women.
Time poverty is one thing that affects women's economic security very drastically. What do I mean by that? Women are in and out of the labour force because women are the ones who are looking after the children. In most cases, women are the ones who are looking after elderly parents or members of the family who are ill. They lose jobs and, in many cases, they lose income, they lose the ability to pay into pensions and they lose promotions. They lose a great deal.
Eighty per cent of caregiving is being done by women. The caregivers of today will be the poorer seniors of tomorrow because we have no national caregiver strategy program at all to deal with women's economic security and women's position in our society. I challenge the government to do that at least.
Those are only some of the things. I have not even addressed the issue of violence against women or seniors' poverty, most of whom are women. These are critical issues that the government needs to address. I would ask that it to at least look at developing a strategy and to look at the recommendations made by the standing committee on those issues and come back to the House with some good directions for the future of women because women in Canada deserve it and are waiting for answers from the government.
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the committee on the work it did in preparing the report, which I believe was completed in May. The hon. member was a member of that committee and it covered a wide range of important topics.
In her presentation, I do not think the member referred to the issue of maternity leave. The committee made a recommendation to expand maternity leave to two years. I would like her to comment on how the committee arrived at that issue.
In my riding, which includes mainly small communities and towns, a couple of towns have a population of about 130,000 but most of them are very small places, and a lot of small businesses engage women and men. For women or men to take maternity leave in those particular places, I am told that they need to train people. It is tough to get people to work on a contract basis for two years. When women, or men, come back after two years, they need to be retrained because a lot happens in two years.
There is no question that children need assistance in those early months and years, but the question I have for the member is whether the committee considered the balance that is required, particularly for small businesses, not the big governments of Canada and the provinces, the large municipalities and the large companies, but small businesses.
Maria Minna Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
Yes, Mr. Speaker, the committee did consider that. In fact, we had rural women presenting to the committee when we did this work. We did not just speak to representatives from large cities.
Two years is not that long. First, the time can be shared between the mother and the father of the child. It does not just have to be the mother, which is the example used in this case. Second, small businesses can train and create more jobs for other employees.
When we first introduced the one year, there was a great deal of hue and cry at the time too because people felt that small businesses and other businesses could not handle it. It seems to me that they have been able to deal with it.
At the very minimum, the government should be looking at enriching the income of parents on parental leave in order to make it possible for them to stay at home.
We are trying to create an environment where women in particular, who tend to be the majority of the caregivers, but men as well in this case, are given an opportunity to be with their children and, at the same time, maintain their jobs in their place of employment.
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague's speech because what she is articulating is the growing prosperity gap we are seeing in our country. Working families and particularly working women are falling through the cracks because the programs they need are not in place.
Whenever we raise these issues in the House, I am concerned because there is a credibility gap as much as a prosperity gap. The credibility gap is when politicians say one thing and do another. For example, 25% of the women's programs were cut by the Liberal government in the 1990s and $25 billion was cut in transfer payments to the provinces to help social assistance and health.
Now we are seeing a so-called mini-budget that will have a dramatic impact on the ability, over the next five to ten years, of the federal government to provide services.
At this point, what kind of country and what kind of vision does the member have for Canada? I do not think anybody would credit that people should be paid to sit on their hands when it comes time to stand up for the kind of vision she has for this country. Either the member has a vision like the Conservatives, who are sucking the fiscal capacity out of the federal government's ability to support the kind of programs that she said she supports, or she needs to have the courage of her convictions to stand up and say no, and to stand up to the government. However, sitting on her hands is not--
Maria Minna Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I think the hon. member likes to talk out of both sides of his mouth. With respect, it was the hon. member's party that put the Conservatives where they are today. It was with that party's motion that killed the Kelowna accord, which hurt a lot of native communities; that killed the early education and child care program; that killed the affordable housing program; and the list goes on.
Frankly, I do not need any lessons from the member over there because it was his party that put the government where it is.
The parental leave program was put in by the Liberal government. The charter challenge program was reinstated by the Liberal government after it was cancelled by the previous Conservative government. The 10-year affordable--
The Deputy Speaker NDP Bill Blaikie
Order, please. I am sorry but this debate will have to resume in some other context. The hon. member for Don Valley East.
Yasmin Ratansi Liberal Don Valley East, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to stand in support of the motion calling upon the government to improve the economic security of women.
This week the Conservatives released a mini-budget in their economic statement that was not only short on substance, but also lacked any mention of women whatsoever.
As chair of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, the committee spent a great deal of time and effort trying to get the federal government to pay more attention to the economic security of women.
As a matter of fact, the committee published an extensive report that covered detailed studies on the status of vulnerable groups that included rural women, aboriginal women, women with disabilities, senior women and single mothers.
The committee held 18 meetings with departmental officials, individuals, professional organizations, researchers and groups representing the interests of women from across Canada. Regardless of their background or point of view, all the witnesses told the committee that a comprehensive strategy was required to address the economic security of women.
One might ask why we would focus on the economic security of women in Canada. It is simply because that is what equality is all about.
While there have been significant improvements for low income women in Canada in recent years, a witness representing Social Development Canada indicated:
...we still have significant challenges in addressing the gender differences in low income rates, particularly as they affect single senior women, single-parent families headed by women, and women with disabilities.
For example, in 2001, close to two million women or 13% of all women in Canada had a disability.
Furthermore, the likelihood of women having a disability increases with age. Seventy-two percent of the women aged 85 and over had a disability, compared to 50% of women aged 75 to 84, and just 32% of women aged 65 to 74.
In addition, just over 800,000, or close to 7% of women aged 15 and over, had a severe or very severe disability. Furthermore, senior women over the age of 65 are still more likely than men to have low incomes. There are a multitude of reasons for this. Prime among them is the fact that far more women than men are likely to change their work arrangements to care for others. This will naturally have an impact on their present and future economic circumstances.
In Canada, the majority of single parent families are headed by women and, according to Statistics Canada, the poverty rate among single mothers under 65 years of age was a staggering 42.4%. That is nearly half. In addition, the majority of women who find themselves in these circumstances tend to be aboriginal, immigrant and disabled women.
The committee also heard that women are far more likely than men to take time off work to care for children and they are economically vulnerable following unexpected life events, such as the death of a spouse, disability or breakdown of a relationship. The committee heard that it is very difficult for a women who suddenly finds herself as the lone breadwinner to re-enter the job market.
For newcomers to Canada, these difficulties can be bewildering. AWIC Community & Social Services suggested that the inability to function in either official language can represent a major barrier to breaking out of the cycle of poverty.
AWIC suggests that language programs could greatly resolve problems of exploitation, long term dependency on social welfare, lack of participation in the labour market and even social isolation.
The Standing Committee on the Status of Women listened to Canadians but I am afraid the Conservatives have shut their ears.
Women need basic programs such as child care, but one of the first acts of the government was to axe the national child care and early learning strategy after many long years of negotiations with the provinces and territories.
The previous Liberal government made great strides by doubling the length of paid maternity leave from six months to a year under the employment insurance program.
The Liberals also brought in the compassionate care program that allows Canadians the opportunity to take time off from work to care for sick loved ones, something which the committee recommends should be extended further.
Yet, what has been the response of the Conservative government? It brought in $1 billion worth of cuts to social programs at a time when it was hauling in billions in federal surpluses. The government has deceived Canadians by implementing drastic cuts to the Status of Women, closing regional offices, laying off staff, and changing the mandate of that organization so that advocacy is no longer permitted.
To be precise, in September 2006 the Conservatives announced that the budget of the Status of Women would be decreased by $5 million. In October 2006 the Minister of Canadian Heritage would be implementing $5 million in savings through “greater efficiencies in the administrative operations of the Status of Women”. On November 29, 2006 the minister announced that 12 of the 16 regional offices would be shut down, in effect denying women access to critical resources across the entire country.
In response, the Conservative government has attempted to play a shell game with the budget numbers and claims that it has somehow increased funding, that is, after implementing drastic budget cuts that eliminate the ability of Status of Women to play an advocacy role and fund independent policy research, it somehow reinvests the money in terms of administrative efficiencies.
In Canada today women still earn only 70% of what their male counterparts do, and yet the Conservatives have yet to mention pay equity once in either a Speech from the Throne, the budget, or the fiscal update.
It is time for the Conservative government to abandon its fascination with calling an election and begin to focus on what Canadians sent parliamentarians to Ottawa to do in the first place. They want this Parliament to work toward a better Canada and a brighter future for women in society. For women's economic security to be enhanced, for a strategy to be implemented, women need advocacy, women need equality.
What is the government afraid of? Why is it afraid of giving equality to 52% of the population who turn out to be voters as well?
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
Mr. Speaker, I would like to make the hon. member aware of a couple of items.
This week we unveiled the government's fiscal update. There were a number of measures in that update which significantly reduce the federal tax burden on Canadians, especially low income Canadians. I would ask the member to consider that a single mother with two children and an income of around $40,000 is now paying $1,000 less tax than she did when the Liberal government was in power. That is a very significant amount of tax dollars.
On top of that, this government has done something that the Liberal government did not do in its first 11 years in power, which is to invest substantially in affordable housing. In fact, there were no Liberal programs, as noted by the NDP member, for affordable housing whatsoever between the years 1993 and 2004.
The Liberals also significantly cut money for things like post-secondary education and health care, which we know is very important to women.
When we talk about equality, let us talk about people, let us not just talk about one group versus another group. Let us talk about equality for everyone in Canada because that is what Canadians want. When we look at people and only see people, not gender, not race, that is when we will have true equality.
I would like the member's thoughts.
Yasmin Ratansi Liberal Don Valley East, ON
Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct the misperception that the Conservatives normally have.
They increased the income tax in budget 2006 from 15% to 15.5%, and that is the biggest problem with the Conservatives. They do not know math. They have been the worst economic managers. They created billions of dollars in debt. They made us a third world country.
If we go from 15.5% to 15%, and come back to the Liberal rate, which was the rate for low income families, the Conservatives have done nothing. In fact, they decreased the personal exemption and they have now increased it back to what the budget was in 2005.
It is critically important to eliminate this shell game because that is what women are watching. They are not stupid. They know exactly what the Conservatives are doing.
In terms of social housing, they eliminated the social housing program. They eliminated funding to any social programs. They cut $1 billion.
I do not know which book the member is reading, but he should really reread the budget and do a comparison on budgets before making statements like that.
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Mr. Speaker, just the other night, I was reading my favourite piece of environmentally sustainable newsprint, the Liberal red book, because this is the only government document I have ever known that never had to be reprinted a whole bunch of times. The Liberals just changed the cover.
In the 1993 red book, the Liberals promised 150,000 new child care spaces and they never delivered. When those government members were on their death bed and more worried about their own jobs than actually delivering for people, they put all the failed promises into the famous Liberal death bed pinata and smashed the promises of the Liberal red book across Canada. Then they think people are silly and stupid enough to believe they actually delivered when they did not deliver.
However, I am not asking about the past. I am asking about the present. The fact is that the government has announced major changes to the fiscal capacity of the government that will be laid out in the mini-budget over the next five years which will drastically impact the ability to deliver anything like a national child care service, yet the member sat on her hands yesterday. She does not have the courage of her convictions. She did nothing. She sat still.
How is it, first of all, that she can stand in this House and talk about all these wonderful programs that the Liberals would bring in, when they sat back and are allowing this vision of the country that they know will strip the capacity of the federal government?
Second, how can she accept a cheque for not doing any work when Canadians are asking someone to stand up to the Harper government?
The Deputy Speaker NDP Bill Blaikie
I would like to remind the hon. member for Timmins--James Bay that he is not supposed to refer to anyone by name, or for that matter the government by the name of the Prime Minister.
The hon. member for Don Valley East.