Debates of Dec. 9th, 2009

Pay Equity Task Force Recommendations Act

[Luc Desnoyers, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that the Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-471.

I am pleased to speak today to this bill, which requires the Government of Canada to take the measures necessary to implement the recommendations of the pay equity task force and repeals Part 11 of the Budget Implementation Act, 2009.

In 2001, the Liberal justice minister set up the pay equity task force to examine the effectiveness of the pay equity provisions in the Canadian Human Rights Act. The task force spent three years examining this legislative framework in depth and concluded that it was deeply flawed. The task force held consultations, round tables and a national symposium on pay equity to determine what would be the best ways to respect women's right to pay equity. Employers, unions, women's organizations, lawyers, researchers and federal employees spent a great deal of time and significant resources on the task force's consultations.

During the consultations, the stakeholders agreed on a number of key issues.

For example, they agreed that they were committed to the principle of pay equity; that pay equity was a human rights issue; that employers had a positive duty to take steps to eliminate wage discrimination; that any system must be accessible to unionized as well as non-unionized workers; that the new system must provide additional guidelines on how to comply with pay equity standards; that a neutral body with responsibility for providing information and support and ensuring compliance with pay equity standards should be set up; and that an independent agency with the power to settle pay equity disputes should be set up.

On May 4, 2004, the pay equity task force released a more than 500-page report entitled “Pay Equity: A New Approach to a Fundamental Right”. The report recommended that the federal government pass proactive pay equity legislation, and it set out a detailed plan on how best to do so.

Part 11 of the Conservatives' Budget Implementation Act pertains to equitable compensation and enacts the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act. The bill makes no mention of “pay equity”, referring instead to “equitable compensation”, which is never defined.

The legislation applies strictly to employers in the public sector: Treasury Board, the RCMP and certain agencies and crown corporations. Companies under federal jurisdiction are not covered, nor are certain other crown corporations, for example Canada Post and the CBC. This creates two classes of workers: those who are entitled to pay equity and those who are not.

It was at the bargaining table that considerable wage gaps were created. Yet the Conservative government keeps sending us back to the bargaining table, which means, as I said, that it is turning back the clock by the decade. This is a huge step backwards for women.

The assessment criteria for pay equity are also changing. This is suppressing women and prevents them from bringing grievances against their pay equity program. They are being left with no way to defend themselves. People do not want their unions to defend them, for there could be significant fines. This is a major change that does not reflect a real pay equity program.

The legislation allows the government to issue a series of regulations, such as in subsection 4(5), which are not clearly defined.

So, that is Bill C-471. It would enact what was agreed to in 2004 and repeal the existing provisions.

In the meantime, I think it is important to point out the Conservative government's record on status of women. In April 2008, the House of Commons Standing Committee on the Status of Women recommended that the Auditor General examine the implementation of gender-based analysis in the federal government.

This analysis can be used to assess how the impact of policies and programs on women might differ from their impact on men. It aims to allow for gender differences to be integrated in the policy analysis process. Following the United Nations fourth world conference on women in 1995, the federal government committed to implement gender-based analysis in every department.

Yet in a news release on May 12, 2009, the Auditor General, Sheila Fraser, stated: “The government has not met its commitment to take gender differences into account”.

Furthermore, as we have already heard, the government eliminated the court challenges program and the pay equity program.

Pay equity is the right to equal pay for work of equal value. All women are entitled to the same wage as men when they do work requiring similar skills, effort and responsibility, in similar working conditions.

I would like to remind the House that, in 1997, the Pay Equity Act came into force in Quebec. This law has been effective to date and significant steps have been made towards equity. This law was adopted unanimously by the National Assembly on November 21, 1996. Under this law, affected employers must achieve pay equity in their companies and prove that there are no pay inequities for jobs occupied predominantly by women.

The Bloc Québécois is, of course, in favour of pay equity and considers it a non-negotiable right.

In order to ensure that pay equity exists for all Quebec and Canadian working women, proactive federal legislation is necessary that will cover all women in areas under federal jurisdiction, whether in the public service or the private sector.

While this government stubbornly refuses to recognize pay equity, Quebec is taking action. The unanimous passage in Quebec's National Assembly of Bill 25, which updates the Pay Equity Act, constitutes a historic gain for women working in Quebec.

Gone are the days when traditionally female jobs were avoided because they were less well paid. With all of the new provisions, the right to pay equity can now be deemed a vested right. As of today, it can be said that, in the area of employment, Quebec women have the same rights, privileges and opportunities as men.

The only exception in Quebec is women who work in federally regulated undertakings. For them, pay equity will be an impossible dream as long as this government is in power.

Bill C-471 was introduced by the Leader of the Official Opposition. It should be noted that, when they were in power, the Liberals had five years to introduce such legislation in prosperous times. They had the opportunity but they never did. Once again, that party only seems to have good ideas when in opposition.

Because the Bloc Québécois considers pay equity to be a non-negotiable right, it will support Bill C-471. This proactive bill responds to Bloc Québécois demands.

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

Madam Speaker, on March 4, the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore instructed his party to vote to end pay equity in our country. He and his party handed a death sentence to pay equity in Canada. The day before the vote, he stood outside these chambers and he said to the press, in reference to pay equity, “We have made it clear that we are not pursing an amendment strategy...Sometimes we have to hold our nose”. The member abandoned women, abandoned equality and he voted to dismantle pay equity in Canada.

Now just a few scant months later, he has introduced a private member's bill in support of something he and his party voted to eliminate.

The member across knows very well that this bill, even if supported by all opposition members and passed in the House, will never see royal assent and become law. The member knows full well that he had his opportunity to save pay equity last spring and he failed.

Women have fought long and hard for the right to equal pay for work of equal value. By he and his party standing up in the House and voting in favour of Bill C-10, they betrayed women all across the country and made it clear that women's equality meant absolutely nothing to the Liberal members of this place.

I confess, I find the bill coming from the Liberal Party to be hypocritical. The Liberals had 13 years of majority government to promote stable economic security for women. They had 13 years of majority government to implement progressive pay equity legislation. What did they do? They cut spending to Status of Women Canada and failed to implement any of the 113 recommendations from the pay equity task force.

The Conservative members of the House have no intention of addressing inequality between the sexes in our country. This has been proven by their reaction to pay equity, changes made to Status of Women, the elimination of the court challenges program, the dismantling of the gun registry and more. They have no intention of addressing inequality any more than their Liberal predecessors.

The Conservatives, with support from the Liberals, are taking Canadians back 25 years instead of moving Canada forward.

Now it is clear to me why the Conservative Party eliminated pay equity last spring. In 1998 the now Prime Minister described our current pay equity laws in the following words:

For taxpayers, however, it's a rip-off. And it has nothing to do with gender. Both men and women taxpayers will pay additional money to both men and women in the civil service.

That's why the federal government should scrap its ridiculous pay equity law.

He also pointed to specific flaws in the current legislation:

Now “pay equity” has everything to do with pay and nothing to do with equity. It's based on the vague notion of “equal pay for work of equal value,” which is not the same as equal pay for the same job.

Just to be clear. In 1998 the member who is now our Prime Minister did not and still does not believe in pay equity at all.

What is not clear to me is why the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore and his party, all of whom voted to eliminate pay equity, are suddenly so interested in introducing a pay equity bill for consideration in this Parliament.

I want to reiterate. The fact remains that while Liberals were in power, women's rights, economic security and pay equity were stalled. They failed to act as an effective government, and now they are failing to act as an effective opposition.

In March 1997 the Liberal then secretary of state for status of women announced the elimination of program funding for women's organizations starting in the 1998-99 fiscal year. From that point on, moneys from Status of Women Canada were delivered on a project by project basis within the priority areas set out each year by SWC. This eliminated any long term or core funding for women's groups. Overall, program funding for women's organizations was cut by more than 25% over the 1990s.

The Liberal government also disbanded the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, a semi-independent agency, which conducted research on a wide range of issues as they affect women.

The previous government then merged the body that provided funding to women's organizations, the women's programs, into Status of Women Canada and then eliminated 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. Women's equality-seeking groups were dealt blow after blow.

Economic security for women hinges on key things, such as access to child care and access to affordable housing and the ability to earn a decent living. Both Liberal and Conservative governments have failed to address the need for affordable housing in Canada. The first step toward economic security for any person is a safe place to live.

Despite this, the Liberals ended the federal role in social housing in 1996. Both Liberal and Conservative governments have also failed to create affordable child care in this country. The Conservatives touted taxable money for child care and have failed to create a single child care space in Canada.

In 1993, the Liberals promised to create 150,000 new child care spaces, but after 12 years and three majority governments, they created none.

Today a woman still earns only 72.5¢ for every dollar a man earns. Because pay inequity contributes to poverty it has devastating health and social consequences for children. Pay inequity is also related to economic dependence, which can affect the ability of a woman to leave an abusive relationship. The choice between abuse and poverty is one that no person should ever have to make.

It is also true that the women bringing home lower paycheques also receive lower retirement incomes. Too often senior women live hand-to-mouth until the end of their lives.

I am not going to stand here and just point out how both the Liberals and Conservatives have failed women in Canada; it could take up several speaking spots to do that. I would prefer to show fellow members of the House that positive action for women can be achieved.

New Democrats have released a fairness for women action plan. Part of that plan includes making equal pay for work of equal value the law. Canada needs proactive pay equity legislation that would compel all employers to ensure that all employees are getting equal pay for work of equal value. The NDP plan to make Canada a leader in gender equality has at its core the implementation of the pay equity task force and the introduction of proactive federal pay equity legislation in particular.

New Democrats would increase access to employment insurance. Only one in three unemployed women collects employment insurance benefits. The NDP plan to ensure access to EI includes an overhaul of the legislation governing employment benefits. In the 40th Parliament, the NDP introduced 12 private members' bills to improve access to this vital income support.

Establishing a $12 minimum wage is crucial. Two-thirds of minimum wage workers over the age of 15 are women. Many minimum wage earning women are living well below the poverty line. Clearly the federal government has a role to play in setting fair pay to ensure the welfare of all hard-working Canadians and their families.

The NDP has tabled a bill to reinstate the federal minimum wage at $12 an hour. The minimum wage was scrapped by the Liberals.

Creating a national child care program is also at the centre of family security. The House should pass the NDP national child care act and establish a network of high quality, licensed, not-for-profit child care spaces. The creation of new and reliable child care spaces would mean that women were no longer forced to choose between work and family.

Improving parental and maternity benefits is another part of the NDP plan. One in every three mothers lacks access to maternity and parental benefits under the Employment Insurance Act. Women are paying an economic penalty for having children. Our plan calls for a dramatic overhaul of maternity and parental leave programs.

We can achieve equality for women in Canada; what we lack is political will. Past Liberal governments stalled and failed to act. Conservative governments have ignored problems and chosen not to promote equality. Women come last and profitable corporations are first for the members across the aisle. They have chosen tax cuts instead of equity for women.

We need a real commitment from this House to act and create the legislation needed to achieve equality for women in Canada.

We cannot trust the words of the leader of the Liberal Party any more than we can support the activities of the Conservatives.

In 2006, a former Liberal staffer told the nation that the last minute Kelowna accord and child care provisions were a Liberal government deathbed repentance. Canadians turfed them out because they did not keep their promises then. Why on earth would we believe them now? Canadians certainly do not believe them now.

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

Madam Speaker, I do get rather tired of the constant self-righteous talk of the NDP. The Kelowna accord was negotiated for two solid years. It is not something that was taped together in two minutes.

Number one, the minister brought every single provincial and territorial government and first nations to the table and negotiated it, and finally negotiated something that was acceptable to everybody.

Number two, let us get back to some of the self-righteous comments with respect to what we did or did not do on child care. In 2004 the Liberals put forward a $2.2 billion program for child care. We could not get the provinces on side. For example, in Ontario, Harris would not talk about child care. He would not have it. In fact, he used the money for something else which is now called the early years program and eliminated the child care program. That was a struggle we had constantly.

We continuously added to the child care program. In 2005 we finally negotiated an agreement with every province and territory to establish a national early childhood education and child care program. I know because I was very involved with that whole process for a very long time.

For someone who wants to set the record straight and is so self-righteous about things, it was the NDP who chose to abandon child care in this country by voting for the Conservatives and putting them in power. It was the NDP who chose to abandon a national housing strategy in this country, and at the same time pay equity because at that time we were ready to table legislation.

We could point fingers in this House forever. I see my colleague, the former minister of justice, who was going to table that bill. It was ready to come to the House. It was a Liberal government that brought in parental leave, compassionate leave, and other programs. They were on the table, progressive programs for women in this country. There were programs for housing, early education and child care, but members of the NDP chose to take us out. That is fine. That is a choice they can make. That is their choice. Nobody can say anything about it. This is a democracy. But let us not stand in this House and rewrite history every time we speak, because it is a waste of everybody's time, not to mention the misinformation.

More recently the NDP was quite prepared to allow $50 billion in corporate tax cuts when we were talking about a coalition in which the NDP would have some cabinet seats. There are times when there are compromises, and there are times when decisions are made and people do things they normally would not have done.

This brings me to the minister's earlier comments, and also to the comments of my colleague who just spoke with respect to the budget and how we voted for it and now we are trying to change it. It was made clear from the very beginning that we did not support the pay equity bill which the government unnecessarily and disingenuously attached to the budget bill.

It was not part of the budget. It was never part of the budget when it was tabled. The Conservatives did that in order to ram it down the throats of the House. They knew the rest of us on this side of the House did not support their pay equity bill. However, the other choice was to have an election in the middle of a recession. I guess the NDP was quite prepared to do that, although now I see that those members are singing a different tune.

We had to make a choice. Would we have an election, or vote for a bill that was being shoved down our throats whether we liked or not, when we did not like the bill? We chose to not have an election. However, we decided that at the earliest opportunity, we would address the issue that was very close to our hearts and we are doing so here today.

Let us set the record straight here, and let us talk to each other a little more frankly than we normally do in this place. I am tired of the rhetoric. Quite frankly, I am also tired of the government constantly shoving things down the throat of the House and holding the House hostage on bills that the government knows the House does not support, namely the pay equity bill which was attached to the budget, and others before it.

Earlier the minister was talking about how this was much better because we did not have to wait for 25 years, that women had been waiting too long. But what was his option? Instead of waiting 25 years, the Conservatives are taking away the right altogether. That solves the problem. We no longer have to worry about that because now it is off the table. Women no longer have rights. We have taken away the right for them to appeal to the human rights commission because it takes too long. That has been taken away instead of being replaced with something that would be helpful for them and that would actually make a difference. That is something I have never seen.

We talk about the economy. It has been raised by the Conservatives that women are earning 72¢ on the dollar compared to what men earn, and they worry about the economy. Does this mean that women do not have to put food on the table, pay rent for their children and put clothes on their backs? Why should they, their families and their children have to carry the rest of us on their backs? Why should they be the only ones to pay for our economic situation?

This is about real food, real rent, real survival and real stuff for people. It is not something that is esoteric that people do because they have nothing else to do. This very real for women out there who are earning 70¢ on the dollar and go home in this economy, like everyone else, and try to pay their rent, buy food and put clothes on the backs of their children. That is what we are talking about and that is what this is about. It is real.

Yes, by all means, let us fix the economy, but let us not do it on the backs of the children and women who are affected very directly.

The government has decided that this should be put on the bargaining table. Since when do we bargain human rights away at the bargaining table? When collective bargaining takes place, there is usually a series of things on the table. There are pensions, sick leave, income, pay raises and all kinds of other things on the table. The government has said that women's rights should also be on the table to be bargained away one way or the other.

Now women and their colleagues in the companies they work for are being asked to choose a little more money and equity for women, or their pension, or health services or something else. We do not know what will fall off. It will probably be the pay equity issue again. This should not be put on the table in that manner.

That does not happen in Ontario and Quebec. Ontario has a commission that deals with pay equity in the private sector. It is the same in Quebec as well. In those two provinces it is working very well in the private sector. In fact, Quebec has done an evaluation of its program. I read that about a year ago.

Not only has Quebec found that it works extremely well, but private sector companies told the government in their assessment that their employee relations and productivity had actually improved as a result of a better environment as a result of recognizing the value of the work being done by all the employees in the companies. At first the private sector companies had problems and difficulties with this issue. They now have said that it works very well for them, that it in fact has made a difference in the positive.

We should learn from that. Why do we not look at best practices? During the debate on the government's bill, it insisted that this was the same as the Ontario legislation. It is far from it. There is absolutely no comparison at all.

This is what the legislation of the Conservatives does.

First, it restricts pay equity to a smaller group of women. It will limit the number of female-predominant groups that can claim pay equity by requiring evidence of 70% of women in a group. In other words, if there is fewer than 70% of women in a company, then it does not apply. Therefore, a whole group of women are not even covered.

Then the government has made it part of the bargaining process. To make matters worse, if a union tries to help the woman who is being discriminated against, she is charged $50,000. Women are now no longer able to even have representation to help them. They are being denied that.

They cannot go to the Human Rights Commission at all. They cannot go to the Human Rights Commission, they cannot use their union representatives to help them because they will be charged and most of them will not even be represented in the legislation. The government calls this pay equity and progressive. This is anything but progressive.

It is about real survival on the part of a lot of women. It is about equality. It is about respect. It is about human rights. We do not bargain them away at the bargaining table. As Ontario and Quebec have done, they are not part of the bargaining process. They have established a pay equity commission. This is proactive and companies work with the government to identify whether they have met the requirements. They have deadlines and so on, but they have to meet the legislation.

The legislation corrects a horrible action on the part of the government.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women]

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to have this opportunity today to speak to my hon. colleagues on the subject of pay equity.

Contrary to the statements of the Liberal Party leader, who sponsored the bill we are debating today, our government respects the principle of equal pay for work of equal value. Our commitment to this fundamental right is why we decided to take a much more proactive and timely approach to ensuring equitable compensation for federal public servants.

It was high time we reformed the complaint-based pay equity regime, which proved to be a lengthy, costly and adversarial process that did not serve employees or employers well. However, let us look at the approach to this issue advocated by the Liberal Party leader. On issue after issue after issue, he has tied himself into a pretzel in a blatant attempt to please all of the people all of the time, while managing to disappoint most of the people most of the time.

We heard from the Liberal leader tonight about his supposed commitment to pay equity and about how, supposedly, this government has taken all sorts of negative actions toward Canadian women. But just look at his voting record on this issue. And look at the voting record of the Liberal chair of the House of Commons status of women committee.

When it came time to vote and to put their money where their mouths were, what did they do? They voted in favour of the Conservative government's Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act three times: once on February 12, once on March 3 and again on March 4.

He and the member for Vancouver Centre will no doubt try to spin the facts, but that will not change a thing. He might not like the facts, but the facts are the facts.

Here is another fact. Since he became leader, the Liberal Party has tried to politicize virtually every issue it can, especially issues dealing with the status of women in Canada.

For example, the Liberal leader had the gall to stand in the foyer of the House of Commons and tell millions of Canadian women that under our Conservative government, women are at increased risk of domestic abuse and violence. That is on page 24. Even worse, he suggested that levels of violence for aboriginal women are even worse since our government took power. That is on page 25.

Shame on the Liberal Party leader. Shame on him for trying to play politics with an issue as serious as the domestic abuse of women, especially aboriginal women.

We all must work to end violence against women in our society. It is not a partisan issue. It is an issue we must all work together on each and every day. It is an issue that society must work on; not a single political party.

There are millions of women in this country who support the Conservative Party and are downright insulted by such nonsense. The Liberal leader should apologize for supporting that position.

And what was the response of the Liberal party?

The Liberal Party leader gave the thumbs up by his silence and refusal to rein in the member for Winnipeg South Centre. This unfortunately is what we have come to expect from him. When the going gets tough, the Liberal leader disappears.

Let me return to the action our government took, supported by the sponsor of this bill tonight. The legislation this government introduced gives us a more modern and collaborative approach. It rids us of the previous system which was archaic, onerous and unfair to employees and particularly women in the public service.

Most importantly, it protects the principle of equal pay for work of equal value. It ensures that women and men continue to benefit from quality working conditions in Canada’s public service.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member will have three minutes left when debate resumes.

The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, following on the question I asked the Minister of International Cooperation in the House on October 1, I would like to take a bit more time today to discuss Canada's development assistance for African countries, especially members of la Francophonie.

In February 2009, the Conservative government decided to reorganize its international aid according to effectiveness criteria, focusing 80% of the aid provided by CIDA on 20 countries around the world. The big losers were francophone African countries. Five of these countries were dropped off the priority assistance list: Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Niger and Rwanda.

As the critic for la Francophonie, I held meetings with representatives of these countries in Ottawa to look at the effectiveness criteria the Conservative government used in selecting the 20 countries that remain on the government's list and will receive 80% of the Canadian aid.

CIDA's criteria are still unclear. To listen to the Minister of International Cooperation, who stated on October 1 that the Government of Canada is helping all those in need, it would appear that the fight against poverty is the main criterion on which the choice of countries was based.

According to the 2008 Human Development Report, we see that the five francophone countries dropped from CIDA's priority list are at the bottom of the list when it comes to human development.

Two of them, Burkina Faso and Niger, are in the bottom 10, out of a total of 179 countries. Burkina Faso still has a 40% illiteracy rate. Niger is one of the countries most affected by drought, with 2.4 million Nigeriens affected by famine in 2005. Today, without international aid, that country could not meet the needs of its population.

We decided we needed to look elsewhere. The November 2009 Fraser Forum explains that the countries that have significant economic freedom are those that best achieve their economic and democratic objectives. The researchers devoted an entire article to African member countries of La Francophonie, pointing out that those countries have to increase their economic freedom and not wait for aid from other countries.

That may be the key criterion the government is using to establish CIDA's priority list. By focusing on getting the most out of its aid, the agency has eliminated from its priority list countries with a low index of economic freedom and chosen others that, although in need of aid, are in a better position.

But we were wrong again. Among the countries that were added to the list of those that will receive 80% of CIDA's assistance is Colombia, a country with a very low index of economic freedom, much lower than that of Rwanda, which has been removed from the priority list.

Furthermore, Colombia has made almost no progress in terms of increasing its economic freedom rating. According to the 2009 index of economic freedom, Colombia's index improved by only 0.26% between 1970 and 2007. Rwanda, on the other hand, has improved its index of economic freedom by 1.04% since 1970. For Burundi, which was also removed from CIDA's list, the index of economic freedom has increased by 1.08%. That country is in a better position than Colombia, according to the index.

After—

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I would ask the hon. member to give the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation a chance to respond.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for the opportunity to elaborate on the great work that CIDA and our government are doing in terms of food security and the Francophonie. Let me first tell the hon. member that CIDA's shift to concentrate its bilateral aid in 20 countries is by no means a move away from working closely with countries of the Francophonie.

The countries of focus only apply to our bilateral program funding. Through our multilateral and partnership programs we continue to assist any nation where a need exists. This means that well over half of CIDA's budget continues to be available to countries like Burkina Faso and the other country she has named.

CIDA and this government take seriously the responsibility we have when working with developing nations. We take pride in the exceptional work of our partners and those around the world when it comes to development.

The opposition members never miss an opportunity to tell the House about the countries of the Francophonie that did not make it to the countries of focus list, but they consistently fail to remind Canadians about the seven members of the Francophonie that are included in the countries of focus. That is seven out of twenty. Our government is doing its part and is a leader in the Francophonie.

This government has a long standing and deep relationship with the countries of the Francophonie. In fact, CIDA's support to the countries of the Francophonie has increased over the last several years. In 2007-8 our total bilateral aid to members of the Francophonie was approximately $430 million. In fact, at the 2008 meeting of the Francophonie the Prime Minister committed the government to continue support for cultural, security and environmental issues affecting the Francophonie and other countries.

The hon. member has mentioned Burkina Faso. This country is one of the African success stories. The government of Burkina Faso has introduced a series of policies, strategies and action plans in recent years to address the many challenges of sustainable development, economic growth and poverty reduction in Burkina Faso.

It has moved on several fronts: basic human needs, development of agriculture including the livestock industry, public service reform and policies on good governance, decentralization and competitiveness.

While CIDA is changing the criteria of bilateral funding, Burkina Faso continued to be eligible for multilateral and partnership branch funding. In terms of Burundi, Canadian official development assistance is focused mainly on humanitarian aid for famine relief, internally displaced persons and refugees. In fact, this type of assistance will continue.

As the member noted in the original question she asked in October, the minister did move quickly to help developing nations through the world food program. I am also proud as a member of this government to let the hon. member know that the minister announced an additional $30 million to the world food program just last week. CIDA's $30 million contribution is in addition to the $185 million provided to the world food program so far in 2009.

I am very pleased and very proud with the work that we are doing with Burkina Faso and the other members of the Francophonie.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, not surprisingly, the parliamentary secretary did not answer my questions. I have often asked questions about this issue, but have never received anything better than vague responses that sidestepped the real question.

In fact, the minister has been providing vague responses in an attempt to hide the government's new vision for international aid, a vision more economic than humanitarian.

Under Liberal governments, Africa was a priority for Canada. We made and kept commitments to provide humanitarian aid to African countries, including members of la Francophonie. The Conservative government made its decision 10 months ago, but we still do not know the selection criteria for priority recipients of Canadian international aid.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Madam Speaker, I must admit one of the frustrations in politics is when our opponents decide that they are going to continue to repeat falsehoods. Repeating falsehoods does not make them true. The fact is that the Government of Canada has doubled aid to Africa from the APEC conferences. We not only doubled aid to Africa but we did it a year earlier than we were required to do it.

This member and others regrettably continue to perpetrate the myth that we have abandoned Africa. Nothing could be further from the truth. The fact of the matter is that Canada has doubled its aid to Africa. We continue as a good world citizen and are recognized by many people in Africa as a nation that is their friend. I am very proud of that.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:19 p.m.)