Debates of June 18th, 2008

Status of Women

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Jeanne-Le Ber, Immigration; the hon. member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, Access to Information.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for their enthusiasm.

I am obviously very pleased to speak about this topic raised by the member about the appointment of an independent commissioner to conduct a gender-based analysis of the government's measures and policies in order to ensure that women are properly treated.

We know that this is nothing new. When the Standing Committee on Status of Women decided that this measure should be put forward, it was not without considerable thought. The committee members made this decision after carrying out an extensive and serious study and after consulting international experts. We learned about other countries where commissioners had already been appointed, and where they had had some success after these appointments were made.

It is also nothing new that the government is supposed to be doing something to promote gender equality. In 1981, the government undertook to promote gender equality in a CEDAW document, because we thought that the United Nations was the best place to ensure that men and women would one day be equals in law and in fact.

Furthermore, in 1995, at the conference in Beijing, the government at the time reiterated that commitment. It increased the budgets of Status of Women Canada to promote the 1995 Beijing Platform for Action. It was a comprehensive action plan if there ever was one, and should have been fully implemented. Unfortunately, as with many other things in the government, things get lost and very few things happen.

We will also not forget the current Prime Minister's commitment. When I say “commitment”, I am choosing my words carefully. During the election campaign in January, he did not say he would ensure equality among men and women. He did not say he was promising that men and women would be equal under his government. He said he was committed to it. Commitment is a strong word. It is a word that the Prime Minister should have had the wisdom to respect. If there is one thing that he has not done over the past two and a half years, it is to honour the promise he made to the women of Quebec and Canada.

In the various policies and measures put forward by this government, this commitment has been completely ignored. The government began by cutting Status of Women Canada funding. It continued by eliminating grants to women's advocacy groups and telling women that they could no longer defend their rights. It then eliminated the court challenges program, which had allowed women to take their demands and their struggles to the highest authorities.

It also slashed funding for women who wanted to do research to ensure they were always on the leading edge in the defence of women's rights. It cut grants to women lobbyists and women's lobby groups. If women cannot lobby to assert their rights, how can they possibly do so? As we all know, there are only so many ways of going about this. Yet the oil companies that lobby here are very successful. The companies and big businesses that lobby here have a great deal of success. The reason they do not receive funding for their lobbying activities is because they are quite capable of using their own money to lobby.

Respecting commitments should be a prime minister's first priority. In the budget and the throne speech, the government indicated that it would produce a plan to ensure equality for women.

It is now June, the end of the session, and we have not heard or seen anything. There has been no talk of a plan. In fact, it is just a virtual plan that has been put on paper, but so far there is just a title, “A plan for women's equality”. There is no need to reinvent the wheel to come up with such a plan. Just take what is already being done quite well and has been validated by women's groups here and throughout the world. These groups have said that this plan would ensure that all women, throughout the world, are equal to men, can combat violence, have a roof over their head and achieve equality.

We asked the Standing Committee on the Status of Women to appoint a commissioner because we realized that despite the efforts by Status of Women Canada to educate, inform and train the various departments on gender based issues and gender specific budgets, these departments did not really understand what that meant. That was our impression.

The only analysis done was done after the fact. It was not done before the policy and measure were in put in place, but well afterward and it was wrong. Since the analysis was wrong even though it was done after the measure was implemented, we are entitled to wonder about the quality of the information received or interpreted. I believe that the problem stems not from the quality of information provided, but from how the information was interpreted by the people who received it.

Equity advocate positions were established in various departments, but the women who occupied those positions were replaced one after the other over a period of a few months by others who had fresh experience and expertise. They had to start over from what the others had done without getting any extra support. And when those women started to master the job, they disappeared and were transferred elsewhere. Some departments did not even replace the equity champions after they left.

This makes us wonder whether the government truly wants this equality to become a reality because we are not seeing that in any of its actions, policies or measures.

If the government had really wanted its policies to advance women's equality, we would not be debating Bill C-484. If the government had really wanted women to be equal, it would not have given them a child care allowance of $100 a month. Instead, it would have created a program that allowed women to choose to send their children to a specialized day care centre with specialized teachers and caregivers. Quebec is fortunate enough to have such a system. If the government had really wanted women to be equal, it would not have chosen to leave pay equity measures and programs at the point where they are now, unfortunately.

We know that pay equity measures are not worth it. In fact, some companies and their employees have been in court for more than 20 years over pay equity for women. These women come under the aegis of the federal government. It is terrible.

The government says it wants equality for women, but it is not doing anything to make that happen. All we are getting from this government is fine words and empty promises.

Different tax measures have also been mentioned.

For example, the government has introduced the tax-free savings account or TFSA. This is great for people who have money, but women, who still today earn only 70% of what men do, do not fall into that category.

When the government says that these measures were put in place for women and will benefit women as much as men, I wonder who thought about that. Was it men? Because if it was women, I am sure they would have seen the problem with that sort of thinking and I am sure they would have realized that it did not make sense.

A tax-free savings account is an attractive idea, but it will not benefit 80-year-old women. If the government had really wanted to introduce measures that would benefit 80-year-old women, it would have increased the guaranteed income supplement and made sure people who were entitled to it received full retroactivity.

For years the Bloc Québécois has been fighting for real people, real equity measures and real policies, whether in connection with employment insurance, seniors, women or children. No matter what anyone says, the Bloc Québécois is fighting real battles for real people. That is what we have always done and what we will continue to do.

When we talk about equality, we must also talk about social housing. There is no equality for single mothers if there are no special social housing measures for them.

Miloon Kothari, the United Nations special rapporteur, came to Canada to study what is being done in terms of social housing here in a supposedly civilized and advanced country. He learned of the existence of a tent city in Edmonton where people who work 40 hours a week do not have enough money to pay rent. Women, families and children live in tents in the middle of downtown Edmonton. He realized that many people did not have comfortable and adequate social housing in which to raise their children responsibly and decently.

He also realized that Canada had taken a step backward. He found out that the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation has astronomical surpluses in excess of $12 billion. It is shameful that this government has not given a portion of that money to provinces that have social housing programs to ensure adequate housing everywhere for people who need it.

The concept of equality and equity encompasses all of these programs. Unfortunately, I believe that unless an independent commissioner is appointed—as my colleague from Terrebonne—Blainville was saying—that will never happen. We will never see the day when women can finally breathe easy and say that they have the same working conditions, living conditions and benefits as their male colleagues, and that they can finally look forward to and work together toward a better future.

Only then will we be able to say that we have succeeded. I do not think that a government like this one, which is always trying to crush low income earners, such as those in the manufacturing and forestry sectors, will give us the measures we need to ensure equality between men and women.

I can guarantee that we will study the action plan that the government says it will put forward very thoroughly. We will take a very serious look at it. But I do not think we will have a chance to do that before next year. It seems to me that the plan is all in the minister's head and is not about to come out anytime soon. She has too many things on her mind.

It is true that nowadays, Conservative Party members are having a hard time remembering their responsibilities to the voters. We see evidence of that every day. We have been hearing all kinds of nonsense about all kinds of issues here in the house, despite the fact that we have serious questions about issues that are important to all Quebeckers and Canadians. The only thing the Conservative Party ever does is get one or two people to give utterly vague answers that are completely unrelated to the questions we ask.

Given this party's track record, we do not imagine that it has time to think about action plans for women's equality. It does not have time for that; it thinks about the strategy of the moment to try to confuse people a little more. And that is what we are seeing.

Unfortunately, the only way to achieve equality between men and women is to ensure that the government appoints an independent commissioner for gender budgeting analysis and that these recommendations are carried out.

In recommendation No. 20 of the report of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, we are asking that when the Department of Finance brings down its budget, and with all subsequent budgets, it publish its gender-based analysis of the measures included therein. Mr. Speaker, do you think I believe this will be done? It is a very good report. It is not a rosy report as they said it was at last week's press conference. It is an excellent report. Unfortunately, I do not believe that this government has the will to implement it.

In coming here to the House of Commons to represent the citizens of Laval, I thought I would be surrounded by people who all wanted the same thing: to represent those who elected them in a responsible and respectful manner. Women live in the ridings where Conservatives were elected. We know that most women do not want to elect Conservatives—we can understand why—but they do live in those ridings. In my opinion, once elected, we represent everyone, not just those who voted for us.

The government should think twice about shelving this report. This report was prepared with a great deal of conviction, hard work and cooperation. All the hon. members who worked on preparing this report have spoken to one another. It deserves to be studied by the government and for the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Status of Women and Official Languages to take into account and carry out our recommendations. There are a number of them, but if she carried them all out, we would finally achieve equality between men and women.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development]

Mr. Speaker, I have to go back to the fuel poverty strategy that was mentioned yesterday during the poverty study in the human resources committee because it would play a huge role if any taxes are implemented.

The member has a colleague who was at the poverty study who said that he did not understand Professor David Gordon, who spoke. He said that they were not talking about carbon taxes going one way or the other. The professor did note that there would be bad distributional effects. He is studying carbon limits. He said it would have more of an impact on the poor than on the rich and that one must look carefully at who would be the winners and losers before pursuing such policies.

One of the Quebec members even asked whether fuel poverty should be part of the poverty study. The response of one of the academics, Mr. Peter Kenway, was that certainly it should be part of it. Professor David Gordon said it should be an integral part of the anti-poverty study, that it would be amiss if it was not part of the study.

Yesterday I understand the committee passed a motion to study the carbon tax and what difficulties it would impose especially upon the poor. I am wondering if the member would have considered that being that she speaks so passionately about helping the poor, specifically women in single parent homes. This was said in committee because part of the poverty strategy talks about what other countries can inform us about how we can implement different strategies and examine other poverty strategies. It was a huge issue yesterday.

Would the member support a motion to examine how a carbon tax could impact the poor, especially women? The Liberals would probably push very hard for that motion because they believe in a carbon tax.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The member for Laval may be interested to know that the comments made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development took two-and-a-half minutes.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will respond to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development by simply saying that if there really was a strategy to decrease poverty in Quebec and Canada, the Conservative government would have voted in favour of Bill C-207 to keep young people in the regions. The Conservative government would have voted in favour of Bill C-269 to give women and youth access to employment insurance. The Conservative government would have voted in favour of Bill C-490 to give seniors the right to an increased and retroactive guaranteed income supplement. And the Conservative government would have voted against Bill C-484 to ensure that women will always have access to legal and free abortion.

Mr. Speaker, as you can see, I do not need two-and-a-half minutes to respond to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development because I think I have summarized the situation.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's presentation was very effective and very well done. She is a very strong advocate of women's issues.

When we talk about the need the equality commissioner, we have to look at what the government has actually done. The very first thing the Conservative government did was to eliminate the court challenges program, a program which helped women. The government eliminated advocacy and research. In fact the equality provision which it put in really is hollow because it does not have any real advocacy or research money behind it. The Conservatives eliminated the national child care program which had been negotiated with every province in this country. They cut the literacy program which affects women and the poorest people tremendously. They have cut housing. I could go down the list of cuts. They are going to be developing an action plan for women, but the action plan quite frankly is what we have seen in the House. That is the action plan. Action plans should have action, not just talk.

At committee we talked a great deal about this. We met with the Auditor General who said very clearly that her role is not conducive to the work of a commissioner. She can only look at value for money, not at policy and she cannot do any advocacy. Again, the equality commissioner is extremely important.

I want to ask the hon. member who has given us a very passionate presentation this afternoon how she reacts to the comments from the government that the commissioner is actually a waste of money because it establishes another bureaucracy which in effect will do nothing; money is being wasted by establishing a bureaucracy when that money could be spent directly on women when in fact, by the way, that has not been done.

There is a much broader issue here that is being ignored. The hon. member probably would enlighten us on her reaction to that particular commitment.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with my hon. colleague.

It is true that a great deal of money is spent on and invested in various programs, but I would remind the House that, unfortunately, the biggest investments are in weapons and military programs. While I agree that some money must be invested in those programs, since our soldiers need all the necessary support, money could also be allocated to women's programs, which are also very important.

This government also promised to improve services for veterans and their widows, but it has not kept that promise.

What angers me even more about this government is the attitude of its members from Quebec. They know that Quebec has social programs that are much more advanced than in the rest of Canada. We will not talk about employment insurance, but Quebec has a child care network, parental leave and support programs. The Government of Quebec has even introduced a support program for older workers, something that this government has failed to do adequately. Yet when the time comes to grant other Canadians access to quality social programs like the programs we have in Quebec because we care about creating a fairer, more equitable society, these Conservative members from Quebec rise and vote against measures that could help others. That is what angers me the most.

Additionally, Quebec has pay equity. It is a done deal. All women in Quebec enjoy pay equity, except those who work for the federal government. Those poor women do not yet have that benefit. It is up to this government to make it happen.

I therefore completely agree with my colleague. She is quite right. We must invest money in appointing an independent commissioner to look into gender-based issues. That is what is needed to see some progress, whether under this government or any other future governments. Yesterday, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Status of Women and Official Languages was looking ahead to the next government. Well, the next government will also have to comply.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am most pleased to participate in the debate.

I would like to thank my colleague from Laval for her passion. She very clearly is a member who feels very strongly about how important it is to look out for the reality of women in this country, because in taking care of women, women can take care of their families, our communities are strengthened, and our nation is strengthened.

Canada's 1995 federal action plan for gender equality and the subsequent 2000 agenda for gender based equality in regard to the Beijing Declaration have had very little effect on advancing women's equality in Canada. In fact, the advancement of women's equality has been stalled for almost three decades.

I taught in the public school system for a number of years. I would make the point every year with my senior students to ask whether or not women and men had achieved equality in Canada. The answer invariably, strangely enough from female students, was yes, women have done very well; they can go to school and they have opportunities.

The reality is that the struggle for equality is most certainly not over. No matter what the government may say, women are still behind. The wage gap between men and women has remained at 30% for over 30 years. In 2008 women still earn only 70% of what men earn.

Our current tax policy as it is structured over and over again by government after government is basically to raise money. Very little analysis has ever been done in regard to the impact that tax policy has on women.

Women are still underrepresented in politics and in the life of this nation. They comprise only 6.7% of the corporate elite. Even though women outnumber their male counterparts in our universities--we have recently seen an increase in terms of the number of women participating--when they graduate, these educated young women still earn 20% less than men, and as they age, the gap grows.

There are some interesting statistics from Statistics Canada--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

I would like to have the attention of the House for a moment. The hon. member for London—Fanshawe is at the end of the House rather far from the Speaker's chair. I am trying to listen to what she is saying, but that is difficult when I hear a lot of noise in another corner of the House. If members wish to speak to each other, they should move to the lobbies.

The hon. member for London—Fanshawe has the floor and also my full attention.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker, because I have what I think are some important things to say.

As I was indicating, more young women are participating at the post-secondary level and are graduating, but still they are earning 20% less than their male counterparts. As they age, that gap grows.

Statistics Canada provided us with some interesting information. It showed that up to about age 25, after they graduated, women were doing reasonably well in terms of their male counterparts. However, as they grew older, the gap increased exponentially after 25.

Of course, there is an answer for this, which is that this is the point in time when many young women marry and assume the responsibilities of child care and, in some cases, elder care. For these women, the gap was horrific in terms of their ability to have economic security.

Another piece of what we heard in committee had to do with violence against women, which continues at an alarming rate, especially against first nations, Inuit and Métis women.

Quite frankly, Canada is underperforming when compared to other countries. The 2007 gender gap report by the World Economic Forum ranks Canada 18th, behind countries such as Sri Lanka, the Philippines, and of course most European countries. We tend to think of ourselves as advanced, modern and well ahead of a lot of developing countries, but that is not the case.

Policy makers in Canada simply are not asking the right questions when they look at policy, especially when formulating tax cuts, tax expenditures and social spending. That is the reason I believe it is essential for Canada to change its approach. That is the reason for this report.

Countries all over the world are engaging in gender responsive budgeting initiatives, enabling policy makers to identify who is and who is not benefiting from social spending, tax expenditures, tax cuts and the social policy in place.

Our committee heard many times that tax cuts are not beneficial to women. Tax cuts simply do not benefit women, primarily because women's incomes on average are lower than the incomes of men. A woman in Canada earns about $26,900 a year while the average man earns $43,700. Almost 40% of women in Canada do not even earn enough money to pay taxes.

The 60% of women working outside the home and in a financial position to pay taxes contribute $42 billion to our tax revenues. These women, and in fact all women, deserve to take their rightful place in the life of this nation. Sadly, most do not benefit from the tax cuts that we have seen in budgets that go back ad nauseam, and certainly not in the most recent budgets.

Women benefit from investments in child care, affordable housing, health care and post-secondary education. Unfortunately for these women, federal social spending as a share of gross domestic product is currently at the lowest level in 50 years. That is despite the fact that governments have enjoyed incredible surpluses over the last 10 years. Tragically, these are surpluses that have gone to the oil and gas sector, to big banks and to profitable corporations for the exploitation of our resources. These are tax cuts that have not benefited women at all.

The tax cut agenda of the current and previous governments is causing money that should be available to invest in our communities to dwindle. We have seen tax policies that have stripped the cupboard bare. This money should be invested in programs to help women. That is part of the policy that we need to talk about when we talk about gender based analysis.

That is the reason for our report. It is the reason why it makes immediate, positive action on our report all the more imperative. We need action today. Now that we have had a chance to debate this report in the House, it is time for immediate action to be taken to implement the report in all its parts.

Gender responsive budgeting will help to create a more effective, efficient, transparent and accountable budget process and it will advance women's equality. However, gender responsive budgets are not the entire solution.

We need leadership. As I said before, this Parliament must act. We need leadership from the highest level. The Prime Minister and the cabinet ministers need to ensure that women's equality is part of their agenda.

Any implementation of policy needs to be backed up with political will from the governing party and others in the House. It is essential that the Prime Minister include in his next Speech from the Throne his commitment to gender equality.

The report we are discussing today is in fact the culmination of eight months of hard work by my colleagues and the committee staff and lengthy consultations with national and international experts. I am hopeful that the government will take into consideration the recommendations of this groundbreaking report.

I am also pleased that the committee did indeed work cooperatively on these important issues, as has been noted, and that we were able to produce a unanimous report. I think that speaks to the dedication of our committee to the cause of women, their children and our communities, and to the need that we recognized when we heard from witnesses in terms of building this nation, community by community, family by family.

In light of the historic apology offered last week to first nations, Métis and Inuit people of Canada, I also feel that it is essential to talk about the absolute need to address the reality of the inequities faced by aboriginal women in Canada.

Our sisters have endured discrimination. They have been trafficked into sexual slavery, under-housed and cut off from educational opportunities. They have endured violence of an unspeakable nature and are five times more likely to be murdered than women in the general population. These are our sisters, our mothers, our daughters and ourselves.

We have learned that we must never forget our obligation to seek truth and reconciliation. We must never abandon that which is essential to any hope that we have to secure the future for the people of our nation.

In terms of gender budgeting, there has been a great deal of work done on it, not just by our committee but by others. The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives has worked very hard on gender budgeting initiatives and has expressed over and over again to government after government why they matter and what impact they will have in Canada.

As has already been stated, Canada has been a signatory to a number of UN commitments to gender equality and more inclusive economic development over the last few decades, such as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, or CEDAW, the Beijing “Platform for Action” that I alluded to, and, more recently, the millennium development goals. Despite all of these stated commitments, both here at home and abroad, there remain significant gender inequalities in life experiences and in distribution of opportunities among women and men in Canada.

Government budgets, which are policy statements and policy instruments that reflect the social and economic priorities of government, are one area of public action that has been identified as an important tool for redressing underlying inequalities and tackling these through the allocation of public resources.

In particular, gender budget analysis is increasingly recognized as an important way to hold governments accountable for their commitments to human rights and gender equality, as it connects these commitments to the distribution, use and generation of public resources.

Indeed, the current Minister of Finance has made a public commitment to undertaking gender budget analysis in Canada. Unfortunately, to date, very little has happened with regard to gender budget analysis and policy making that would make a difference for women. Despite the fact that Canadian funding agencies are expected to undertake gender impact assessments of all projects in developing countries, we have not seen this at home.

It is time to bring home a new way of thinking about government finances that examines the real situation of women's and men's lives and includes a majority of citizens, especially women, who are often at the periphery of the economic debate. In decisions that shape policies, set priorities and meet the social and economic needs of all Canadians, these debates must happen.

Pressure on public spending, as I have already said and as the House well knows, has depleted Canada's ability for the fiscal manoeuvrability with which we ultimately will make policies that comply with social needs. We have seen the cupboard. We have seen the available resources dwindle.

As for a key goal of gender equality and alternative budget initiatives over the last two decades, it has been shown that in this fiscal context, the impacts of public expenditures, revenues and deficit reduction strategies are seldom, if ever, gender or class neutral. Indeed and instead, fiscal, monetary, trade and financial sector policies all impact on women's economic situation in very direct ways.

In the status of women committee meetings, we heard from the finance department that budgets 2006, 2007 and 2008 all underwent gender budget analysis. Yet when we asked groups such as FAFIA and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, with analysts Armine Yalnizyan and Professor Kathleen Lahey, to look at these same budgets and undertake their own analysis of the GBA, they showed very clearly that a real GBA had not been done and that the explanation from the government was skewed and unreliable, all at the expense of women.

This is not new. Women have suffered quite significantly in terms of policies and the economic and social impacts of those policies for quite a number of years. As far back as 1995, the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, which conducted research on a wide range of issues that affect women, had its funds cut and was closed by the government.

The Canadian Labour Force Development Board, which had given organizations of women, people of colour and people with disabilities a small voice in training policy, was eliminated.

In 1997 we saw the announcement of the elimination of program funding for women's organizations, starting in the 1998-99 fiscal year. Money from Status of Women Canada was from that point onward delivered on a project by project basis, which is hardly a positive way to enforce that women had a voice and a future.

Other program cuts included $25 billion from transfers for health, education and social assistance, beginning in 1996.

The 1995 budget eliminated the Canada assistance plan and changed employment insurance to base eligibility on hours worked rather than weeks worked. The impact of this was disproportionately felt by women. It hurt women.

Of course, in 1996 we saw the end of social housing.

All of this impacted very much on women in terms of social policy and economic policy, yet no gender budget analysis was done, and certainly no one in government at that time acted to avert the disaster that has culminated in the reality we face now.

We have heard over and over again from our witnesses that tax cuts were of no benefit to women. I would like to turn briefly to a couple of the recommendations in the report that we are discussing today.

Recommendation 3 states:

The Committee recommends that Status of Women Canada establish, by January 2009, an advisory panel of experts from civil society organizations and academia; that this panel provide advice to Status of Women Canada on the implementation of gender-based analysis and gender responsive budgeting in the federal government; and, that the Government of Canada provide adequate resources for this initiative.

That was augmented by recommendation 4 from the committee:

--that Status of Women Canada, as the lead on the working group on gender indicators, immediately involve civil society organizations and academics in the development of the Gender Equality Indicators Project.

This is in sharp contrast to the reality of what has actually happened to Status of Women Canada.

The current Conservative government changed the mandate of SWC, cancelled the court challenges program, closed 12 regional offices and removed lobbying, advocacy and research from the initiatives that Status of Women Canada was able to fund and undertake.

Contrary to what the experts were telling us, women's organizations were cutoff from providing the advice that we need. We know that Status of Women Canada does not have sufficient resources to produce the research that is needed on women's issues.

The committee therefore recommended that these resources be made available, that we could bring in civil society and ensure that women would have a voice in terms of gender budget analysis.

I have a number of solutions that I was going to offer, but clearly I have run out of time. I want to simply conclude with the words of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. It says:

—the full and complete development of a country, the welfare of the world and the cause of peace require the maximum participation of women on equal terms with men in all fields...

That will not happen, that cannot happen in our country until we have the kind of equality that women need to take their place.

The recommendations of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women that we move toward gender responsive budgeting underscores that absolute need for the equality of women and their participation. I hope this Parliament will support and adopt these recommendations.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to make a comment and then ask the hon. member a question.

The hon. member talked a great deal, and rightly so, about the standing committee's work and it report. Many of the witnesses to whom the standing committee listened, which then led to many of the recommendations, were from abroad. They told the committee that without an independent body to hold Parliament accountable, it would not happen.

In fact, some of the recommendations in our report go as far as to say that all members of the House and those standing committees of the House should be trained in gender budget analysis prior to a new session of the House beginning. This is important to sensitize and help people understand the importance of gender budget analysis. It goes right to the core of women being able to have a decent life, to have the ability to pay rent, to get out of living in poverty and to feed, clothe and look after their children.

By having a commissioner, this would restore the research capability. The research could be done by the commissioner as well as advocacy on behalf of women. It would then be able to monitor the government and hold it accountable. The commission would be enshrined in legislation that would enable this to be done. The legislation would then have to be lived up to and respected by Parliament and any government that came to power.

One of the things stated by the current government in opposing this recommendation, both in committee and in the House today, was the fact that this plan would cause more bureaucracy. Could the member comment on the importance of that?

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member raises a very important issue that we heard about, at length, from both domestic and international experts. It is based on the reality that we have had this gender budget analysis initiative around for a very long time.

In fact, Status of Women Canada has produced quite a good guide for policy-making in regard to that. It provided a reference guide that illustrated how departments were supposed to go through the process and was kind enough to provide gender budget analysis training. We discovered there was a great deal in place in terms of what I will call the platform, the ability to move ahead on this.

Unfortunately, it felt at times like departments were going through these guidelines as if they were a checklist, without really giving it thought or thinking about impact and how it had to be implemented. It was just a checklist. The end result is that we have not seen the kinds of advancements with GBA that one would have hoped after all this time.

I quite agree that we need a commissioner. It was recommended by a number of people who came before the committee. Having the accountability mechanism to assess how governments have made progress is going to take us the next step in terms of achieving the goals at which we are looking.

I quite agree with setting that in legislation. I believe all the important policies that we treasure as Canadians and would like to see in place as Canadians should be secured in legislation. Our health care system is protected by the Canada Health Act. I would like to see environmental protection, a national child care act and a national housing policy enshrined in legislation, so there is indeed accountability, the kind a commissioner would provide.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member a question about tax cuts. We know the Council of Chief Executives, chambers of commerce and many other organizations have been calling for tax cuts over many years. It is not surprising, given that corporate tax cuts save profitable corporations millions of dollars in taxes. The oil and gas sector is profiting a great deal from that, as are banks and others. We know wealthy people benefit substantially from tax cuts.

If I heard the hon. member correctly in her excellent presentation earlier, she said that not only did women disproportionately not benefit from tax cuts because their incomes were so much lower and many lived in poverty, but there was a reduced fiscal capacity, less money, in the country to invest in needed programs, such as housing, education, child care, health care, and that often women ended up picking up the slack by caring for seniors and children trying to make ends meet.

Would the hon. member comment on the issue of fiscal capacity and the impact of tax cuts made by the current government, and, I dare say, the previous government, that have been a gift to those who already have so much and have taken from those who already have far too little?

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member is quite right. I did speak generally about the impact of tax cuts and the fact that they did not benefit women. In fact, 68% of women will not benefit at all from the 2008 budget. We have heard that over and over again. It is largely because they do not make enough income to pay income taxes and cannot collect on those non-refundable tax credits.

Also, in so many cases the tax regime is based on the family unit as opposed to the individual. The $5,000 tax-free savings account is a good example of that. It does very few women any good at all. First, they cannot scrape up $5,000. Second, the non-taxable benefits tend to accrue to those who can, and those tend to be men. Other examples of these family tax cuts that do not advantage women are income splitting. It is an absolutely disaster. Even pension splitting does not help women who are single and alone.

In terms of the revenue, if we are giving away $14.5 billion to oil and gas, there is nothing left for the women and the kids.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, briefly, this is about gender equality, so presumably it is about both genders, men and women.

Would the hon. member and her party support the implementation of the solutions in the Cools-Galloway report, which would go a long way to implementing fairness in the way that non-custodial parents are treated by our courts, which is in an appalling way?

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am a little lost to understand exactly the full connection here. Basically, I understand that when a divorce happens, when families are split apart, there is pain and suffering on both sides of the equation. However, over and over again we found in our committee that, by and large, women had not benefited from the court systems, or tax policy or social expenditures.

In the 2006 budget, once again, women were denied access to the courts. We saw support for women, in terms of their access to the courts, reduced by the loss of the court challenges program. We also saw reductions in spending for support for women who needed—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by quoting from Barbara Yaffe, who is a journalist for the Vancouver Sun, who commented on the policy, which the leader of the opposition is encouraging. The StarPhoenix referred to it as “Gender czar idea deserves a pink slip”. The article written by Barbara Yaffe specifically cites the Liberal leader, the opposition leader. It says:

[The opposition leader] put forward a clunker of an idea this week in a bid to further enhance his party's appeal among the fairer set. He announced that, should Liberals form government, he'd create a commissioner of gender equality to scrutinize and publicly report on “gender equality practices in all government departments”.

It further states, “The post would create a—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The Bloc Québécois whip on a point of order.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize for interrupting my colleague, but it seems as though the whole house did not hear “resuming debate”, which would explain why my colleague did not rise. Here, we really did not hear “resuming debate”. I would ask you to please call it again.

I think the Liberal member had the floor.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I apologize to the House.

My list shows that it is now the turn of a Conservative Party member. However, my list is incorrect. Resuming debate, the member for London North Centre.

I apologize to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources, but we will go first to the hon. member for London North Centre and then we will go back to her to maintain the integrity of the lists that have been agreed upon

The hon. member for London North Centre.

[Glen Pearson, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize for any confusion.

I am part of the Status of Women committee. I asked to be on it when I first became a member of Parliament a year and a half ago and it has been a tremendous experience for me to work with the committee and its members who sought to unanimously produce this report. It is a highly significant report and I appreciate it very much.

I am also hoping to share my time with the member for Québec, so I will make a few comments first.

As many people know, I have worked a lot overseas in various aspects and I have always found it incredible that through our CIDA programing and development funding we spent so much time in emphasizing that there has to be gender equality in those things we are attempting to do in expressing our image overseas. I am surprised that so far in Canada we have not been able to develop that kind of program here. That is why I really believe that the creation of a gender commissioner would help to lead us in that direction.

Successive governments have tried to move us in this direction and we have been trying, but it has been very difficult. It is a bit ironic if we maintain a position in which we ask people overseas who are seeking Canadian funding to implement programs in places like Africa and other places to consider gender equality in what they are doing and gender assessments and then we do not properly do that here.

It is wonderful that this committee has brought this forward unanimously. I congratulate all members of that committee.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is an important debate about a real strategy for the advancement of women in Quebec and Canada.

The question I would like to ask my Liberal friend is this: is there anyone in the Conservative government who is in charge when it comes to the status of women? Where are the Conservatives going with their visionless, piecemeal strategies that do not even have specific goals?

I was the status of women critic in Beijing, and I remember that the women unanimously called for real government policies and measures and for continuous monitoring of government policies and all the measures governments take over the years to determine whether they promoted women's advancement.

Since this new government came to power, there has been no one at the controls. There is no minister responsible for the status of women. The government has cut numerous measures that benefited women and has taken away their right to challenge the government in court.

I would like to know what my friend has to say about this. I would like to know whether he sees things the same way I do. He sits on the Standing Committee on the Status of Women.

[Glen Pearson, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard from so many witnesses over the course of months on this committee about how we have been failing women in Canada at various levels. As far as anyone being asleep at the switch on the government side, that was not the purpose of our committee.

The purpose of our committee was to ensure we put something in place that would guarantee that this could not be done without somebody giving a proper audit of it. The thing that matters is that the committee has sought to put in place someone would audit this kind of thing properly to ensure that what happens among women and especially with gender equality does not take place in a vacuum but is being watched, monitored and enhanced.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to know if the opposition has ever done an analysis on the importance of our tackling crime bill.

Many people were happy with the government for taking impaired drivers off the road. Canadians have long complained about drunk driving laws that had too many loopholes.

We improved the legislation on identity theft. Many vulnerable Canadians, including seniors, have been victimized by credit card theft. We improved the legislation on car theft operations and youth crimes.

I wonder if members opposite did a gender analysis when they voted against our tackling crime bill. If they do not like us that much, why do they keep us in power.