Debates of March 6th, 2008

Opposition Motion—Status of Women

[Dawn Black, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps it is important, then, to look at the timeline of the defeat of the Liberal government in 2005. In April of that year, the member for LaSalle—Émard said to Canadians on television that he planned to call an election in nine months.

The New Democratic Party agreed in the House to support the Liberals for the three months it took to rewrite the 2005 budget. We took $4.6 billion in Liberal corporate tax cuts and redirected that money into transit, housing and post-secondary education.

In 2005, my leader went to the leader of the government and asked for a working agreement on health care funding. The Liberal prime minister of the day refused.

On November 28, the Liberals lost a vote in the House of Commons. The so-called early election occurred only six weeks before the Liberal prime minister said he was going to call an election.

Now the Liberals say they were going to secure child care in 46 days. That is where--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Vancouver Centre.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

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

It is rather sad that we need to deal with ideology on one side and ideology on the other. The Liberal Party feels like a party that is caught in the middle of a sandwich. The thing about ideology is that it leads to a great deal of rhetoric on either side and very little action.

Ideology is at the root of why the Liberal Party had to bring forward this motion today. I think the ideology of the Conservative government is that women are a special interest group. That ideology has been repeated many times in the House in the past. Those of us who have been here a while know what has been said.

This ideology says that people who advocate should never be funded. That is ideology, because anyone who has watched and followed the rise of human rights will know that it is advocacy that brings forward the issues which show that a particular group is in fact discriminated against or is vulnerable in our society. Advocacy is key to moving forward good public policy and good public legislation that will in fact bring about equality for these groups.

Women in this country are still facing enormous barriers to equality: equality of access to justice, equality of access to housing and equality of access to equal pay for work of equal value. There are still many challenges that women face. To disallow and stop funding groups that bring forward this kind of advocacy is a disservice to women in Canada.

As well, the ideology of dumbing down any kind of fact or research is another ideology that we are forced to deal with in regard to the government today. It has cut the research funding for Status of Women Canada. As the minister who brought in that research funding in 1997, I have to tell members that many important pieces of research in this country came out of that program.

It was the first time that a government brought together academic research and what we call in vivo research, which is community research, and put them together to create answers, not only about how the law deals with things on a piece of paper, but with people on the ground and the reality of their lives, people who know how to make public policy that will actually work, have effect and bring about the changes they want.

This resulted in research that told us about the trafficking of women within this country. It brought out research that told us about the barriers that women face when they are being trafficked and what we could actually do, based on evidence, that would allow this to change.

This research brought forward the issue, which most people did not realize, about the inequality of women who are farmers in this country. For starters, because they live on farms and the farms are their homes, they are not seen as actually being in the paid workforce. Therefore, access to child care was denied them. Even the ability to deduct from taxes any child care they paid for was not allowed, because they were not considered to be “working women”.

There was huge disparity, discrimination and lack of understanding of the reality of women who farm in this country. The research project, working with the University of Saskatchewan, brought forward an extraordinary amount of information and knowledge about this and decisions on what we could do to create public policy that would help farm women in this country.

Because of research and advocacy, women were able to bring forward the issues that affected them in the hope of good government, government that realizes it has a role to play in improving the lives of its citizens. That is now gone. The ability to do that is gone. That is very disappointing for women in this country.

I think that at the heart of this ideology is a lack of understanding of the role of women in society and the reality of women's lives in society. A good example is the cancelling of the court challenges program. Ideologically, Conservatives do not like the court challenges program. Mr. Mulroney cancelled the court challenges program.

When the Liberals became government in 1993, one of the first things we did was to bring back the court challenges program, because access to justice is fundamental to equality in this or any country. It is key to have the ability to have access to the courts and bring forward the legal arguments when people are discriminated against for various reasons.

The court challenges program allowed women in this country who were poor, who were visible minorities, who were immigrants and who were voiceless, vulnerable people with no money, to have access to courts. It allowed them that ability to have access to courts to bring about equality for them. I am going to give two examples of how the court challenges program helped women.

One example is that of Baker v. Canada, which involved a challenge by Ms. Baker, a Jamaican-born woman who worked illegally in Canada as a domestic worker for a number of years. After the birth of her fourth Canadian-born child, she suffered postpartum psychosis and was diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic. After undergoing treatment at a mental health facility for one year, she applied for landed immigrant status on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. Her application was denied and she was ordered deported.

Here was a woman with no money to be able to access justice. As a result of the court challenges program, she was able to go to the Supreme Court of Canada, which found at the outset in reviewing the fairness of the decision-making process that the immigration official showed an “impermissible bias” against single mothers and women with a psychiatric history. In Ms. Baker's case, this meant that when deciding whether she, as a mother, might remain in Canada on humanitarian grounds, the immigration officer should have given very serious consideration to the impact of that decision on her existing children in Canada, who were all young children. That is a good example.

Another example is that of a woman, 61 years old, who had to take time off work to look after her terminally ill stepson and then her chronically ill mother. During seven years, she was unable to work. We know that the CPP seven year dropout provision, which recognizes that the ability for women to bear and have children does constitute a barrier to pensionable earnings at the end of a lifetime, does allow a dropout for up to seven years, which does not count in the calculation of pensionable earnings for women if they do so to take care of a child under the age of seven. In this instance, the child was not under the age of seven, but he was terminally ill, and obviously the mother was not under the age of seven, but looking after her mother was key to this woman's family functioning and because that was what she could do.

With the assistance of the court challenges program, this woman appealed to the CPP review tribunal and went on to appeal to the Pension Appeals Board. She got no for an answer. She was just about to utilize the court challenges program to go to the courts of this land when the program was terminated. This woman now has no access to justice because she is too poor to afford a lawyer and take her case to court.

When we talk about people with no voice and no money, the court challenges program gave access to those people. Let us look at the fact that by cancelling the court challenges program the Conservative government actually slammed the door shut on women and minority groups in this country. It then decided to bar and nail down the windows by denying funding for advocacy, because, as a result of this, the National Association of Women and the Law, a group that has taken on cases for women who were discriminated against and needed access, had to close its doors. Therefore, women have no court challenges program and no access to associations to help them.

The very nature of women, the very nature of the fact that women are anatomically and physiologically different, creates very specific barriers for women in having access not only to justice but to work. We know today that not only what we used to call poor families but also middle income families are two paycheques away from bankruptcy. Therefore, the women and both parents have to work.

With the cutting of the national child care program that the Liberal government negotiated with the provinces, these women who must work to make ends meet are therefore denied access to good, quality developmental care for their children. This is hitting people when they are down. Nothing has been done by the government to understand even that simple basic issue.

I still continue to say that the NDP was very irresponsible when it brought in the current government, knowing for sure that it would cut all of those policies.

Gender-based analysis is an important issue. It tells us that men and women are different and that they face different barriers. Therefore, in standing and speaking to this motion, I want to say that it is time for the Conservative government to recognize the uniqueness of women's lives and to do something to help them.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening very intently to the comments of my hon. colleague from Vancouver.

At one point she talked about the opposition parties putting the government into power. There is a remarkable delusion going on within the Liberal Party, and frankly the logic escapes me when looking at today's opposition day motion.

In the course of events, the prime minister of the day, the member for LaSalle—Émard, announced publicly, in a tearful plea on television to Canadians, that he would call an election if Canadians gave him a little more time, and in the course of events, Canadians had their opportunity of an election some weeks before the former prime minister's chosen date. However, he did not have the actual power in this case to call the election.

We all went to the polls. The Liberals went to an election and appealed to the voters. It is how a democracy actually functions. At the ballot boxes across the country the Canadian electorate sent the Liberal Party of Canada a clear message, which many Liberals admitted was just and we have the quotations here. The Liberals had lost the confidence of the Canadian people.

What escapes me is the delusion being perpetrated through the debate today that somehow the New Democrats were out there rigging the ballots or somehow influencing each and every voter to tell the Liberals that they would not get to govern again.

There is a break in the logic and reality, so I would ask the member if she could please try to connect those dots.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it does not surprise me that the logic escapes the hon. member, because many times I have sat in this House and listened to the most illogical suggestions coming out of that party.

However, it is simply that timing is everything. We hear in this House people saying to bring down the government, et cetera. We were on the cusp. We had just signed the Kelowna accord. A new national housing strategy had just been put through to cabinet. There had just been an agreement with the provinces for child care. Timing was everything.

The point is, if those members were responsible, they would have said, “Let us get these things finished, signed, sealed and delivered, and then bring down the government”.

Nobody is arguing that one should not have taken down the Liberal government. That is not the point. The point is the timing. The timing was absolutely irresponsible. There were many things in the balance.

When members of that party speak about how disappointed they are that all these things are gone, what we do know is that they really did not stop to think before they acted, and that is what I mean by being illogical.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member had a lot of things to say about the previous government's commitment to women. I wonder if she could explain why it was that her government in fact made systematic reductions to funding for Status of Women, and it was this government that actually increased it.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, actually that statement is made repeatedly, and I always think that when people repeat things over and over, they think that even if it is not a fact, people will believe it, and they are absolutely right. One can repeat misinformation and the more it is repeated, the more people believe it.

This is not so. I was the minister at the time when we put in an extra $11 million toward assisting in issues such as gender based analysis across every department. We brought this forward because we knew that the lens through which we looked at the disparity that gender brings to equality was key. That was an extra $11 million put into the programs. We brought in the research project, which took an extra amount of money as well.

There was new money put into those issues so that overall, there was an increase in funding. We certainly did not close down regional offices, which not only denies women access to funding but denies them access to support in every single region of this country.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in support of the motion.

Fifteen years ago at the United Nations World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna, the clarion call was that women's rights are human rights and there are no human rights which do not include the rights of women. Indeed, the women's movement energized the conference, not only with their advocacy of women's rights, but with their compelling concern for human rights as a whole.

Fifteen years later, on the eve of International Women's Day, it is regrettable to note that not only are women's rights not seen as human rights, not only is the promotion and protection of women's rights not a priority on the national and international agenda, but discrimination against women remains, as UNESCO characterized it then, as a form of gender apartheid, while violence against women is a pervasive and persistent evil.

Accordingly, what I would like to do in support of the motion is to identify the indices of this gender inequality which, taken together, constitute this gender apartheid, so that we can thereby monitor, combat and redress the gender equality at both the domestic and international levels.

The first index or measure of gender inequality is the absence of an equal voice in our parliaments, governments and public decision making. For example, women make up 50.4% of the Canadian population, but occupy only one-fifth of the seats in this House of Commons. Indeed, as the UN demonstrated, Canada ranks 30th in the world in terms of the representation of women in parliament.

Indeed, the current governing party fielded the fewest women candidates in the last election. Only 10% of its candidates were women. This is a policy choice, for while in the 1970s 15% of Norway's parliament was made up of women, Norway then undertook active measures to increase women's active participation and it is now 40%. Simply put, women's political participation is a policy determinant that countries and parties can make and influence. Moreover, empirical studies have also demonstrated that increased female participation results in greater parliamentary attention to gender equality, family policy and an enhanced social policy, such as a national child care strategy.

The second index is the mainstreaming of gender analysis in public decision making, a case study of which is the mainstreaming of gender analysis in the budgetary process. Yet a gender analysis of the budget is utterly absent. The budget, along with the fall economic and fiscal update of the government, simply ignores the needs of Canadian women. Even in notional terms, the word “women” is mentioned only six times compared with 119 times for corporations.

Moreover, while the centrepiece of the budget is the tax-free savings account, this emerges more as a gift to the wealthy rather than securing the needs of women, most of whom will not be able to take advantage of this program. Simply put, of the 11 million women who filed taxes in 2005, 41% paid no taxes, while women working full time earned only 70% of what men working full time earned, a datum that the budget ignores, and a figure that is even worse for women of colour and aboriginal women.

In a word, the Conservative government's budgetary choices to use the surplus for huge tax cuts, debt reduction, a guaranteed annual increase for military security spending, which we are not necessarily opposed to in that regard, but with no budgetary gender analysis of the wage disparity between men and women, with no analysis of the prejudicial impact, particularly on vulnerable women, means there is less money for the government to provide the necessary government services that women need and demand. Indeed, $1 billion was cut with respect to the provision of social services.

This leads me to a third index, the gender disparity in income security, or insecurity, including the feminization of poverty. Over one-third of single women over the age of 65 live in poverty. Women not only earn less than men for work of equal value, but almost 50% of households are headed by single parents who are poor, mainly women, while child care remains beyond the financial reach of many.

Indeed, in terms of the ratio of male to female earned income, the wage gap, Canada ranks 38th in the world. Even in female dominated professions such as teaching, nursing and clerical work, men still earn more on average. Yet the government responded no to the recommendations of a multi-year federal task force on pay equity, and no to the endorsement of pay equity recommendations by the all party Standing Committee on the Status of Women.

The fourth index is the intersectional dimension of the disadvantaged situation of women. As the Canadian Research Institute for the Advancement of Women put it, “Proactive poverty elimination must be based on recognizing the interconnected barrier that makes certain groups of women more vulnerable than others”. For example, Statistics Canada reported that 37% of women of colour are low income, compared to 19% of all women.

Therefore, all policy initiatives to combat gender inequality in general and the incidence of poverty in particular must factor into consideration the phenomenon of intersectionality, the unique circumstances, and systemic inequality of ethnocultural, racialized and immigrant women.

In particular, the reality of aboriginal women often includes acts of racism and sexual violence, extreme poverty, lack of access to adequate housing, chronic health problems and the like. Simply put, aboriginal women are the highest at risk population in Canada. The systemic discrimination that they endure is based on both their aboriginal status and their gender.

The fifth index is the lack of provision for early learning and child care and its corresponding prejudicial fallout for social and economic gender inequality. As the 1984 Royal Commission on Equality and Employment put it, “Child care is the ramp that provides equal access to the workforce for mothers”. Twenty-four years later, that ramp is yet to be built.

What is needed is a reaffirmation of the Liberal government's commitment to provide a comprehensive system of early learning and child care across the country, including: honouring the bilateral agreements that the previous government signed with the provinces and territories; increasing federal funding for child care to 1% of gross domestic product; reinvesting the $1,200 per year in the universal child care benefit to the Canadian child care tax benefit; and directing the value of the spousal credit to the spouse who remains at home.

The sixth index is the need for a comprehensive, coherent and coordinated housing policy. Canada is the only country without a national housing strategy. Over four million Canadians are in need of affordable and adequate housing, a disproportionate number of whom are aboriginal women, single older women, single mothers and recent immigrants. Accordingly, any housing policy must address the needs of the most disadvantaged and poorest women in Canada, while advancing women's equality.

The seventh index is the persistent and pervasive phenomenon of violence against women, a multi-dimensional assault on women's equality and security. It can be physical, sexual, verbal, psychological, financial, including stalking as well, in that regard. I might add that women in a word cannot achieve equality if they are subjected to violence in their daily lives. The opposite is also true; women's inequality increases their vulnerability to violence and limits their options for leaving abusive relationships.

Accordingly, a sustained and coordinated effort involving all levels of government is necessary to successfully combat violence against women and the resultant inequality. Volume two of the Liberal women's caucus “Pink Book” sets forth measures that can be taken for an immediate and significant impact.

The eighth index is international violence against women. Indeed as women's rights leader Charlotte Bunch put it a decade ago, and the situation has only worsened since, vast numbers of people around the world suffer from starvation and terrorism, and are humiliated, tortured, mutilated and even murdered every year just because they are women.

In particular, we need to make the combating of the trafficking of women and girls, the new global slave trade and the fastest growing criminal industry in the world, a priority for us both domestically and internationally. We need to combat this pernicious, persistent and pervasive assault on the most vulnerable of the vulnerable, this commodification of human beings, where human beings are regarded as cattle to be bonded and bartered, and which only a comprehensive strategy of prevention and protection of the victim and prosecution of the perpetrators can combat.

We also need to protect against the growing violence against women in conflict situations, as dramatized by the targeting of women and girls in the genocide by attrition in Darfur, or the dramatic incidence of sexual violence in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

A ninth index is the differential access to justice, in particular, the protection of the rights of the most vulnerable of women. Regrettably, the government has either dismantled the very initiatives which helped secure equal access and gender equality, or has absented itself from the initiation of programs that would promote and protect access to justice.

The government, for example, dismantled the court challenges program which constituted an attack on the charter of rights itself, thereby silencing the voice of women, for equality rights have no meaning if women cannot access and exercise them.

As the Canadian Bar Association president, J. Parker MacCarthy, put it:

For those who are too vulnerable and disenfranchised to obtain fair treatment from the system on their own, it's often the only access they have.

Regrettably, the government has not only dismantled a program to promote universal access to the exercise of charter rights in general, and equality rights in particular, but it has been silent on the need for a comprehensive and sustainable legal aid system for Canada, the absence of which prejudicially impacts the rights of women and those vulnerable among them.

Indeed for women the results of legal aid cuts have been devastating. A woman's need for legal services is overwhelmingly in the area of family and civil law, precisely where most of the cuts were made. Accordingly, in the absence of adequate legal representation, women are losing the right to custody of their children, giving up legal rights to support and assistance, and are victimized through litigation harassment.

Astonishingly, the government did not use its $13.5 billion surplus in order to alleviate the whole question of the absence of sustainable legal aid.

Number ten, and the final one, the government has compounded existing regional disparities with gender disparities. Since access to government services is essential in rural areas, the government's closure of--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

Order. The member's time has expired.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my hon. colleague. I have known him for several years, and having seen him when he was a university professor emeritus, I am little surprised.

The Bloc could have supported the motion as introduced by the Liberal Party, because the Liberals are standing up for exactly the same things as the Bloc Québécois when it comes to the status of women.

But why does the motion we are going to vote on end by saying that Canada is in this situation because the NDP and the Bloc defeated the member's own government, in which he was a minister in November 2005? Is it not the Liberal Party's own fault that it is no longer in power today?

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not just a member of Parliament. I am also a citizen. As a citizen, I respect the voters' decision. It was their decision.

Nevertheless, something else contributed to the government falling at that time. Some of the other opposition parties helped make it happen.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my hon. colleague across the aisle in respect to some concerns he had with respect to gender-based analysis being conducted on a number of measures.

I know that the member, being a former minister of the Crown himself, will know that the work that is done in the public service or the Treasury Board for the PCO, in respect to the kind of gender-based considerations that are carried out on programs, that these are issues and considerations that are continuing to be advanced as we heard even recently in testimony before our own Standing Committee on the Status of Women.

So I am confused by his assertions in that regard. I wonder if he could clarify because in fact these considerations are becoming increasingly integrated into the decision making of the government.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to give some examples of what I mean by the absence of gender equality mainstreaming and gender analysis in the budget. For example, when the minority Conservative government announced an unprecedented $1 billion cut in federal social spending on September 2006, women and other vulnerable groups disproportionately bore the burden. A kind of mainstreaming of gender analysis might have prevented this outcome.

As well, in the fall of 2006, the Conservative government, in a series of decisions, removed equality as a main goal of the women's program at Status of Women Canada. It cut $5 million from the operating budget of Status of Women Canada.

It changed the rules of the women's program to eliminate equality-seeking organizations from qualifying for funding. It changed the rules of the women's program to prevent groups from advocating on behalf of women. It changed the rules of the women's program to allow for profit groups to apply for funding.

It gutted the research and policy capacity of Status of Women Canada, etc. and, as I mentioned, closed 12 of 16 regional Status of Women Canada offices that in fact impacted prejudicially on the equitable distribution of social services to rural areas in this country. Any mainstreaming of gender analysis would have avoided all those outcomes.

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard the government member say that these were all incorporated and so on. In the budget, it is my understanding that at last count corporations were mentioned 109 times and women were mentioned 7 times. I am puzzled by how that would in any way suggest to women that there had been a gender analysis and that they had been considered equally as it relates to the budget. I wonder if the member would like to comment on that.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I heartily concur with the remarks as made. I thought I included that in my initial presentation, that notionally there was limited reference to women in the budget in comparison to the number of times corporations were mentioned.

There was the absence of any reference to the wage disparity between men and women, the absence of any remedial approach as in the form of pay equity, and the absence of reference to the consensus among members of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women regarding the compelling need for pay equity.

All that suggests that no gender analysis was done and that in fact women, frankly, were marginalized in the budget, and vulnerable women in particular suffered from that marginalization.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton.

I am pleased to rise in the House today to highlight the significant accomplishments of the Government of Canada toward increasing women's participation in the life of our country. We are justifiably proud of these accomplishments.

The women's program of Status of Women Canada is important in achieving results for women. We have created two new components: the women's community fund and the women's partnership fund. Through these funds we can better support the work of women and other Canadian organizations.

We have also renewed and updated the terms and conditions of the women's program, tailoring the program to be more responsive to the needs of Canadians and more effective in achieving results. The mandate of the women's program now is to advance the equality of women across Canada through the improvement of their economic and social conditions, and their participation in democratic life.

The objective of the women's program now is to achieve the full participation of women in the economic, social and democratic life of Canada. The government has increased the women's program budget to $20 million, an increase of 76% over its highest level ever.

The response from women's groups has been overwhelming. Last year a second call for proposals resulted in an increase in the number of projects put forward of nearly 30% of the first call. These projects promote women's economic security and prosperity, health and safety, and aim at ending all forms of discrimination and violence against women.

The government is deeply concerned about the challenges facing first nations, Inuit and Métis women. We have taken concrete action to increase aboriginal women's participation in the economic, social and democratic life of Canada and to eliminate systematic violence to which they are particularly vulnerable.

Last June the government partnered with the first national aboriginal women's summit which brought aboriginal women together with federal, provincial and territorial partners to discuss the issues, identify solutions and plan for future action.

The government is achieving results for aboriginal Canadians, including the resolution of the issue of matrimonial real property on reserve, the repeal of section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act and addressing family violence.

We are now working with the Native Women's Association of Canada and federal partners to target specific issues for reporting at the second summit in July 2008 in Yellowknife, Northwest Territories. These include: adapting police training to target the treatment of aboriginal women and girls, and adapting youth training for girls in violence prevention.

Status of Women Canada also maintains its ongoing commitment to the sisters in spirit initiative, administering the funds to the Native Women's Association of Canada through to 2010. Sisters in spirit is a research, education and policy initiative to increase public knowledge and understanding at a national level of the impact of racialized and sexualized violence against aboriginal women.

The Government of Canada has taken other steps to address the concerns of aboriginal people, including the collaboration with the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation on the selection process. It announced on March 4 that new shelters will be located in British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec, a commitment of a total of $2.2 million.

Second, included with the June 2007 announcement there was funding of almost $56 million over five years for family violence prevention programs and services on reserve. These funds are in addition to the $6 million announced in October 2006 as a one time allocation to the family violence prevent program of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada.

Third, there was the creation of legislation to enable first nations people to assume meaningful control over on-reserve elementary and secondary schools in British Columbia, and finally ongoing work to improve living conditions in the north for first nations and Inuit people through better housing.

Since taking office our government has taken action to make our streets and communities safer through legislation to restrict conditional sentences such as house arrest for serious crimes. We have also increased mandatory penalties for serious gun related crimes, yet members opposite worked to weaken this legislation.

We have raised the age of consent from 14 to 16 years to protect our youth, including girls and young women from adult sexual predators. This applies to sexual activity involving prostitution, pornography, or where there is a relationship of trust, authority, dependency, or any other situation that exploits a young person.

The issue of trafficking in persons remains a serious and growing concern for women and girls, both in Canada and throughout the world. Budget 2007 allocated $6 million to combat child exploitation and trafficking.

The Vancouver Olympics in 2010 are on the horizon. We recognize that international sporting events can create opportunities for trafficking, particularly in the sex trade. As a result, our government is examining measures to avert traffickers from the Vancouver event.

In May 2006 the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration released guidelines for immigration officers that addressed the unique needs of victims of trafficking. The guidelines are designed to help victims of trafficking escape the influence of their traffickers and recover from their ordeal.

In June 2007 the guidelines were updated to further strengthen the ability of the government to protect and assist victims of human trafficking while ensuring the integrity of the country's immigration system. This initiative is yet another reflection of the Government of Canada's ongoing commitment to strengthening overall efforts to combat human trafficking through prevention, prosecution and protection.

Today more women are in the workforce than ever before, which contributes not only to their full participation but also to their economic security. The increased participation of women in the paid workforce has been a significant social trend in Canada in the past quarter century.

Our government's “Advantage Canada” plan to better secure better paying jobs and solid growth for Canadians is good news for working women and their families. Furthermore, tax relief and a further 1% cut to the GST will put more money into the pockets of women.

Many rural women will welcome the government's support for Canada's supply managed system, which will deliver stable, predictable and bankable support for farm families.

A busy and vibrant organization, Status of Women Canada is on the cutting edge of advancing the participation of women, and is a vital part of many of the ways the Government of Canada works for the women of Canada, their families and their communities.

In budget 2008 we committed to the development of an action plan for women, an opportunity to provide focus and strength to an already robust organization.

Unlike the parties opposite that have voted against our budgets to increase funding to help women across this country and have worked to weaken important, tough on crime legislation to protect women and their families, or have just worked to stall these important pieces of legislation, our government is achieving real results for women.

In the end, this will make a difference for all Canadians as we strive to improve the lives of women aiming for real results, and creating lasting and positive change.

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question about aboriginal women.

The Liberal opposition had 4,478 days to ensure safe drinking water, safe housing, affordable food, and good living conditions for aboriginal people, particularly pregnant moms, nursing moms, and moms who were trying to provide some kind of healthy environment for their children. After those 4,478 days there was virtually no difference in any of that. These moms, of this matriarchal society, hold families together.

The Conservative government is now telling us about all these wonderful things that have happened. I would like to know from the hon. member, why many aboriginal people, particularly those vital women who hold families together in communities across the country, still do not have safe drinking water, still do not have safe housing, still do not have proper heating except some heater that will set their house on fire, and still do not have proper schooling?

The Conservative government has been in power for two and a half years. Why did these conditions not change during the 4,478 days that the Liberals were in government? If aboriginal women are of such concern to the Conservative government, why, over the last two years, have the conditions not changed either?

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in my remarks I certainly indicated some of the key initiatives where the Government of Canada continued to work with aboriginal groups, in a cooperative fashion, to address all the concerns.

The government dedicated and committed record amounts of dollars in support of housing, not only on reserve, but off reserve, working together with leaders in the aboriginal communities to have these things come about.

What I find is curious, and I know the member pointed out some of the deficiencies and I share her curiosity, is why the previous government did not get on with some of this work.

The fact is the member had the opportunity to support the government in its commitment to women by increasing the amount of funding for Status of Women Canada to its highest level ever. Why did she not support us on the budget?

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talked about the fact that there were now more women working in the labour force. Previously one of his colleagues talked about the fact that one of the priorities was economic prosperity for women.

I do not understand how, in saying that, the hon. member can justify the government cutting back or eliminating the national child care program. The early learning and child care program facilitates women to get into the labour force and stay in it.

As I said earlier, in my riding women have come to me. They have lost jobs because they do not have child care spaces. The $1,200 does not work. It is not a child care program. It does not absolutely nothing to create spaces.

Also, the pro-active pay equity legislation was supposed to be tabled in the fall of 2005. The government has said no to it entirely. Again, women only earn 71.1¢ to the dollar. When we talk about women's prosperity, that is a major issue.

I fail to see how the government intends to help women with prosperity in the workplace.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada made a commitment to child care across the country, which would put choice in the hands of parents. I point out that the amount is some $10 billion, virtually double what the former Liberal government committed to this same end.

In addition to that, we are working together with provincial and territorial governments to create new child care spaces. In the coming year alone, some 37,000 new day care spaces will be created, thanks to the cooperation by the ministers of our government.

On the pay equity question, the Minister of Labour has been very clear. More resources have been put in play and are directed toward those federally regulated and public service type positions, the only area of jurisdiction that our pay equity legislation can provide. He is addressing that. More inspections are being done. We are putting more work into pay equity as well.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to address the opposition day motion.

At the outset, I must reiterate the deep and demonstrated commitment of our government in promoting the full participation of women in the life of our country. We have demonstrated this through our commitment in budget 2008. While details will be worked out in due course, what is key is the government's emphasis on equality of women and its commitment to the development of the action plan, a commitment that the members opposite voted against.

Yesterday morning, our Prime Minister welcomed several Afghan women parliamentarians to a caucus meeting, where one of the visiting women spoke about her experiences in government in Afghanistan. These women are an inspiration to all Canadians, true role models of courage and determination, as they work in their home country to build democracy and advance the full participation of women.

It is particularly fitting that we can be inspired by such esteemed visitors during International Women's Week, March 2-8, which culminates in the highlight, March 8, of International Women's Day.

This year's theme “Strong Women, Strong World” refers not only to the empowerment of women to bring about positive changes, but also to the importance of women as caregivers, educators, policy makers, leaders, international peacemakers and stewards of this world. The contributions of grassroots, community based women's organizations, working with and for women, their families and their communities, embody the very heart of this theme.

Our government is justifiably proud of the many concrete ways in which we support the important and valuable work of these organizations.

Through the work of the women's program of Status of Women Canada, we are delivering real results. Through the government's careful and strategic streamlining and refocusing of the program, we have repositioned Status of Women Canada as an instrument for promoting the full participation of women.

How have we done this?

We have done this through the delivery of programs that have direct benefits for women across Canada, women in all communities, women of diverse backgrounds, all women. We have also done this through leadership and partnership with others across the federal government and in other levels of government responsible for social and economic policies and programs.

Women's program is now more effective, more focused and more results driven. This is in large part due to the government's decision to restructure the program into two new components.

First, the women's community fund is focused on projects at local, regional and national levels that support women directly in their communities, for example, the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada that works to empower aboriginal women to increase their leadership skills and become key agents in violence prevention in their own communities, both on and off reserve.

Second, the women's partnership fund is a new element of the women's program, supporting collaborative projects involving partners, such as public institutions and non-governmental recipients, to build partnerships that improve the economic social and cultural situation of women. The partnership fund provides an ideal opportunity to increase engagement by other federal departments and levels of government through projects that directly impact the situation of women. For example, in February, YWCA Canada received funding for its northern extension initiative, benefiting women and children in Nunavut, the Northwest Territories and the Yukon.

In October 2007 the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Status of Women and Official Languages announced $8 million over three years in funding for 60 projects across the country, through the women's community fund for the first call for proposals, issued last June. These projects will positively impact over 260,000 women and girls by addressing barriers, educating them about violence prevention, helping them increase their financial literacy and encouraging cooperative peer support networks.

In November the minister announced a second call for proposals for the women's community fund, with the focus on projects that promote women's economic security and prosperity, health and safety and those aimed at ending all forms of discrimination and violence against women. All projects, without exception, must support the advancement of all women in Canada.

With the newly added convenience of online application forms, the women's program can reach more organizations than ever. With the funding of the women's program now being at its highest level ever, the number of proposals receiving funding and the number of new organizations accessing funds is growing. The best news is that the number of women expected to benefit directly increases also.

I must underscore that our government does not fund a who is who of Canadian women's organizations. We care what the organization does, not what it is or who its members are. Funding through the women's program is available to organizations that work to bring women together, to work together for positive and lasting change, to improve the economic and social condition of women and to facilitate their participation in the democratic life of Canada.

Our government keeps our commitments to Canadians. Our track record on this speaks for itself. For example, we have taken action on the issues facing aboriginal women, including addressing poverty, protecting and advancing human rights and addressing violence against aboriginal women. A number of these issues contribute to our government's agenda for aboriginal Canadians, including the resolving of the issue of matrimonial real property on reserve, repealing section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act and addressing family violence.

As announced in last week's budget, over the next year we will develop an action plan that will advance the equality of women across Canada, through the improvement of their economic and social conditions and their participation in democratic life.

These are but a few of the many ways which our government has shown its enduring commitment to the women of Canada.

Unlike the members opposite, who claim to stand up for the best interests of Canadian women but voted to take away choice in child care, who for 13 years in government promised new child care spaces and delivered none and who worked to weaken or stall important tough on crime legislation to protect Canadian families, we are getting things done.

The government has increased the budget of the women's program to $20 million, an increase of 76%, its highest level ever. I am pleased to say that budget 2008 states that our government will build on this achievement through the development of an action plan that will advance equality of women across Canada through the improvement of their economic and social conditions and their participation in democratic life.

Our government is concerned with problems that directly affect vulnerable women, economic security and prosperity, health and the elimination of every form of violence. Since January 2006, our government has helped aboriginal women with property after divorce and has reinvested $5 million for initiatives that go directly to help women in their communities.

Through our government's visionary action, Status of Women Canada is stronger and more effective, working better for the people of Canada, women and men alike.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is really sad to hear the hon. member say that Liberals have never given women choice and that her government across has. In all of its budgets, it has done exactly the opposite.

When we look at early learning and child care, $1,200 a year does absolutely nothing. It creates no spaces. In fact, it is not $1,200. It is tax in the hands of the receiver. Most women, especially low income women, receive probably half that. The hon. member knows it does absolutely nothing to create child care spaces or give women choice. If there are no spaces, there is no choice, and I see in my riding of Beaches—East York all the time.

The other tax measure, pension splitting, does not support women. A ton of money is spent, but it benefits only 12% of seniors. Most women who have lower incomes and/or are single do not benefit from that one bit. There are 1.7 million seniors who do not benefit from that program at all.

As for advocacy, the member says that the United Nations' motto this year is “Strong Women, Strong World”. When it comes to empowering women, the United Nations has taken the voice away. It will not fund organizations that work with the country and the government to change policy that would impact and help all women. This is a real—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

The hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not really sure that I heard a question, but I will respond to some of the comments of the member opposite. I have worked for a couple of years on the Status of Women committee with the member. We have had these conversations many times.

Certainly the child care issue is one that we definitely disagree on. This government did give Canadians choice in child care. That is exactly what is happening. We are delivering choice and support to parents with the universal child care benefit of $1,200 per year in direct support for every child under six years of age. That was over $3.7 billion in 2006-07 to help parents with the cost of child care.

Certainly the $1,200 is not meant to create a child care space, and anyone who jumps to that conclusion definitely is not listening to the program, but as well as the $1,200 per year for children under age six, we have invested $250 million per year to assist provinces and territories in creating new child care spaces. We are giving choice to parents and families for child care.

[Dawn Black, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we can recall the 1993 election campaign, in which the official opposition campaigned on creating 150,000 child care spaces and made a solemn commitment in its first red book to do that. All these years later, we still have no national child care program in Canada. The Liberals did not do it. The Conservatives refuse to do it.

The member who just spoke talked about choice in child care and about how her government is reinstituting the old family allowance plan, essentially, in providing some funding directly to families who have young children. However, how does that create choice in child care if we do not have the spaces? It is well documented there is a dramatic shortage of child care spaces. Working families are panicking when parents need to get back to work and cannot find an adequate child care space for their children.

Specifically, can the member tell me how a pre-tax income of $100 a month helps families find an affordable, accessible child care space for their kids?