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?