Debates of Feb. 25th, 2009

Youth Voluntary Service

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Papineau speaks with eloquence and passion in that which he believes.

In my view, volunteerism transcends gender and age and we need to look at it from a wider perspective than only youth. However, we do know that youth play a very important part.

As my colleagues will no doubt agree, volunteering increases skills and knowledge. It helps us to network. It strengthens our ties with neighbours and our communities.

Almost without exception, volunteers will tell us that giving and helping others is more satisfying and gives a sense of satisfaction that is greater, many times, than receiving.

As any MP knows from experience, there is a vast number of good causes in need of good people to help out within any community, regardless of where it may be.

Volunteers are on the front lines in our constituencies, whether they live in rural areas, small towns or major urban centres. Volunteers run food banks and homeless shelters. They work at the fire hall, at the hospitals, they coach and mentor young people in countless sports and activities and they spend time with those in nursing homes.

For example, in my riding of Souris—Moose Mountain, Bob Burns of Estevan, Saskatchewan, who just turned 79 years of age, has put in countless hours in community service, including coaching and mentoring youth people. He received the commemorative medal for the Centennial of Saskatchewan from the Lieutenant Governor of Saskatchewan, a medal awarded to individuals who have made significant contribution to our province. Bob has completed 58 seasons of umping baseball. He has promoted umpire classes. He was inducted to the Saskatchewan Baseball Hall of Fame in 2003.

Another person who comes to mind is Bill Baryluk who has committed hours to fundraising and other tasks for the Knights of Columbus as well as Albert Petrash, many Legionnaires and a host of others.

In the community of Estevan and Weyburn, scores of volunteers are involved in the Estevan United Way Telethon and the Weyburn and District Communithon. Estevan has been the first in Canada to top its goal 31 times in the telethon's 32 year history. Volunteers came from across the community. Volunteers worked cameras, answered phones and provided a host of other services. John Deadlock, one of Estevan's founding members, who is instrumental in the setup, has since retired. Other names come to mind, such as Brian Senchuck, Larry Elash, Duane Chipley, à Weyburn, Nick Corolnick, Allin et C.J. Mainel.

Weyburn and district utilizes over a thousand volunteers in their annual campaign. Volunteers are very important to what happens in our communities. My constituents are making a real difference in our communities. I want to thank and commend them for their time and efforts.

The collective impact of these individuals' efforts is enormous. A 2004 survey conducted by Statistics Canada found that close to 12 million Canadians generously gave their time, talents and energy to improve the lives of their fellow citizens.

Volunteers each contribute an average of 168 hours annually. That adds up to almost two billion hours. That is the equivalent to one million full-time jobs. Volunteerism is a huge area that needs attention.

The numbers are equally impressive when we put a price on the contribution of the not-for-profit sector to the economy. In 2005 the value added of the not-for-profit sector, not including hospitals, universities and colleges, amounted to $31 billion. This represents 2.4% of the total Canadian economy. Clearly, volunteers and the not-for-profit sector are a significant, positive, economic and social force in Canada.

There can be no question of the value, nor of the necessity, of volunteering to our country. Nor is there any doubt about the need to bring new people, young people, into the ranks of Canada's volunteers.

As my earlier example has shown, many of Canada's long-standing volunteers are now in their seventies. They have given more than their fair share to the betterment of our communities and our country. Other, younger Canadians need to step up and help with this crucial work. It is very important for us to encourage the younger generation to take up the torch and continue the tremendous contribution and efforts made by today's seniors in our voluntary sector.

Indeed, that is why our government funds numerous youth programs and encourages young Canadians to use their talents in their communities.

For example, Human Resources and Skills Development Canada runs the Canada summer jobs program that provides young people with summer work experience in organizations such as not-for-profits. My constituency of Souris—Moose Mountain has certainly endorsed this program and benefited from it.

Thanks to our economic action plan, this program will receive an additional two year targeted funding of $10 million per year to enable more employers to hire summer students.

I am pleased to note that the value of this program is appreciated on both sides of the House, especially by my colleague from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, who indicated in committee the other week that he thought it is an outstanding program and one of his favourite projects. We are glad to have the support of the lead critic.

Other federal departments also have programs for youth service, including the junior rangers and cadet programs of the Department of National Defence and young Canada works of Parks Canada.

Our economic action plan announced a one-time grant of $15 million to the YMCA and the YWCA to place youth in internships in not-for-profit organizations with a focus on environmental projects. I am sure my colleagues can get behind that one as well.

Creating a strong, resilient society through voluntary efforts requires the efforts of Canadians across the country and across all age groups.

Recent research indicates that volunteer behaviour in our country has been changing. While older volunteers remain consistent in their volunteer commitments, volunteering by baby boomers and young people is generally more short-term and sporadic.

Young people have the energy and passion that we want and they need to be encouraged to volunteer. Building habits of volunteerism while younger will encourage volunteerism for years to come. As more and more of our existing group of hardworking volunteers are no longer able to contribute, younger Canadians need to step up and continue that work.

People of the baby boomer generation particularly have a wealth of experience and expertise to offer and many of these people are entering their retirement years. This huge segment of the population offers a tremendous source of new volunteers.

We believe that expanding the scope of the proposed review to look at volunteerism across a range of demographic groups is something worth considering, given these realities.

The review could consider the value of volunteering to Canadian society. Charities, service clubs, foundations and aid agencies across the country are always on the lookout for new volunteers and more resources.

The not-for-profit sector acts as a hub for volunteering, but often lacks the required infrastructure to recruit and train volunteers. We know that tens of thousands of our charitable community and not-for-profit organizations rely solely on the contributions of volunteers to keep going. Without this generosity from their volunteers and contributors, tens of thousands of these service and not-for-profit organizations would find themselves mere paper entities unable to help anyone.

This review could consider what sort of conditions best encourage the giving of time and money to charitable, volunteer and not-for-profit organizations and how we could provide more of that encouragement.

Given the importance of volunteering to many community programs and services across Canada, the standing committee's study of current and new means of raising the profile of volunteer efforts among younger Canadians may be a worthwhile effort.

While we are not opposed to the motion per se as proposed by the member for Papineau, the member will know that should the motion be adopted, it in no way binds the committee to undertake this study, let alone report back to the House in any prescribed timeframe. That is simply reality of the way our rules are set up to work in this place.

Parliamentary tradition respects the convention that committees are masters of their own agendas and affairs. As such, government support for the motion should in no way, if it is given, be interpreted as the government wishing to usurp the HUMA committee's right to undertake studies on its own volition and on its own timeframe. The committee will do what it deems best.

Should the member's motion pass, I look forward to considering it in concert with my colleagues on committee, alongside the business that we have already decided to pursue and any other business the House sees fit to send to committee.

I am thankful for the opportunity to rise in the House to recognize the tremendous efforts made by literally millions of Canadians. Their voluntary and charitable work and contributions help untold numbers of their fellow Canadians and help build and maintain the bonds of community and Canadian society.

I am looking forward to where this will go. I believe it will be more expansive than the member envisions, although our youth are a critical and important part of the process.

As I said at the beginning, volunteerism extends and goes beyond boundaries of gender, of age and is something that is important to all of us.

[Nicolas Dufour, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me today to take the floor and present my position and that of the Bloc Québécois on motion No. 299 tabled by the member for Papineau. This motion proposes the creation of a national voluntary service policy for young people, although this is clearly Quebec's jurisdiction.

Should I also remind the member for Papineau that Quebec has already developed its own youth action strategy by consulting 1,200 young people and groups from all sectors. In addition, several programs make it possible for Quebec's youth to be open to the world. The motion to put in place a national voluntary service for young people is a duplication of what is already being done in Quebec and clearly infringes on Quebec's and the provinces' jurisdiction.

What the motion under discussion today is proposing is that we set aside Quebec's policies and its area of jurisdiction and that we put forward a national policy as called for by the Katimavik organization in the document Engaging Youth in the National Civic Service.

Katimavik appeals to the federal government to commit to a long-term funding strategy. This would enable us to better respond to the ever increasing demand for the program...This would confirm Canada's commitment to national youth service and the importance of the successful integration of our youth in the social and economic fabric of our society.

Although I agree with the principle of integrating young people into society and assisting non-profit organizations is laudable, the fact remains that a national policy is not within the federal jurisdiction. Quebec has its own policy. If it wishes to fund Katimavik it will choose to do so without the federal government dictating its priorities. In addition, Quebec's 2006-09 youth strategy already provides support to Katimavik for its Eco-Internship, a voluntary service program focused on the environment, through a $1.4 million subsidy for implementing an environmental project to be deployed in several Quebec regions.

So Quebec has made its own choices, using its own expertise, in its own areas of jurisdiction. The Bloc Québécois agrees that it is important to fund a youth policy to help our young people develop their full potential and acquire the necessary tools for the future of our societies, but that is a Quebec responsibility. The Quebec nation is acting on this and wants the federal government to transfer to it the funds required so that it may invest them as it chooses.

In “Canadian Views on Volunteer Service and a National Youth Service Policy”, a report on a survey carried out by Katimavik, several of the survey questions reveal other intrusions by this national policy. Example: “Do you think that having high school or university students do a certain amount of compulsory community service hours as a condition of graduating is a good or bad idea?” This question deals with imposing volunteer hours for students before they can get their diplomas. What makes the feds think they can decide about curricula in Quebec and the provinces?

Quebec has exclusive authority over education. The 1867 Constitution Act is clear on this in sections 93 and 93A. However, despite this clarity, the federal government has increasingly intruded into this field and is trying to impose its own priorities by any means possible.

The federal initiatives proposed by the federal government have never been disavowed by the Conservative government which not only is pursuing its initiatives but trying to add more.

The 1998 budget was a milestone year in the federal government's desire to trample over Quebec's jurisdiction over education, with its millennium scholarships program. Even today, this represents one of the worst intrusions by the federal government into areas of exclusive Quebec and provincial jurisdiction. It took two years for an agreement to be reached between the millennium foundation and Quebec in order to recognize the specific nature of Quebec, which has the most generous loan and scholarship system in all of North America. However, that agreement did limit Quebec's ability to be the true master of its education system, because the Canada millennium scholarship foundation could stop payments if it did not agree with legitimate changes in orientation by the Government of Quebec.

Finally, in the 2008-09 budget, the Conservative government is announcing the end of the millennium scholarships and the gradual disappearance of the foundation. The program is to be replaced by a new student grant program.

The government claims that it will fully respect Quebec's jurisdiction—forgive me if I sound skeptical—and that it will have the right to opt out with full compensation. We will see.

The motion also suggests using as its point of departure the work done by the Voluntary Sector Initiative in 2003, which sought to improve quality of life in Canada through the twin objectives of strengthening the relationship between the Government of Canada and the voluntary sector and the capacity of the voluntary sector to better serve Canadians.

More than 125 representatives of both sectors sat at joint tables that focused on the twin objectives. However, Quebec was under-represented for various reasons. In addition to the fact that negotiations to develop a policy that would accomplish the same goals as the initiative were taking place between organizations and Quebec, other elements excluded Quebec organizations, as indicated in the final evaluation report:

Quebec involvement was not aided by the perception that the VSI process was based on an “English Canadian model”: the language used in documents often did not resonate well in Quebec; many of the Quebec participants felt quite isolated; the working language was English; and the consultation processes did not make effective use of the provincial networks in Quebec. Moreover, at the same time negotiations with the provincial government were ongoing with the hopes of developing a policy of recognition and support for the community sector which would serve the same purpose as the accord. Many organizations in Quebec felt their time was better invested in these negotiations and hence the VSI was not able to draw in or engage key players from Quebec.

In addition, looking to interfere in one of Quebec's jurisdictions, the federal government did not even invite the Government of Quebec to this consultation, which was being held to conduct the same sort of evaluation. Instead, the federal government, in its wisdom, left Quebec out and went ahead with a more “anglo” approach to managing community organizations.

The exchange mechanisms put in place by the federal government are at risk of getting bogged down in politics. For example, take the Society for Educational Visits and Exchanges in Canada or SEVEC. SEVEC is a charitable organization focused on education that offers three different types of programs for young people: exchanges, educational trips and forums.

SEVEC's mission is to create, promote and facilitate enriching educational opportunities for youth within Canada for the development of mutual respect and understanding through programs of exploration in language, culture, and community.

So far, the principle of the program does not seem to irritate anyone too much, aside from the obvious interference in Quebec's areas of jurisdiction. But the principle of educational enrichment and mutual understanding hides the propagandist aspect of the program funded by Youth Exchanges Canada.

The template letter young people can use to thank their member of Parliament reads in part as follows:

I am writing to let you know that it was an unforgettable experience for my group, and that we are even more proud to be Canadian because of it.

Once again, behind a noble cause, we see the government's true intentions in funding national programs. Would a national voluntary service policy for youth also fall victim to the desire to spread federalist propaganda using a self-development program? Once again, the Liberals are trying to use worthy causes to interfere in Quebec's jurisdictions.

Given that the motion sets out a series of intrusions into Quebec's jurisdictions; given that Quebec already has its own 2006-2009 Youth Action Strategy, which includes enhancing young people's participation in society; and given that Quebec also has programs that promote exchanges with students around the world, the Bloc Québécois and I are opposed to the motion put forward by the member for Papineau.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity tonight to speak on this important piece of business and would like to indicate how pleased I am that it seems to be getting such an encouraging reception in the House, except perhaps from the Bloc. I am sure once it gets to committee, since it sounds like the Conservatives are going to support it with some caveats attached, we will have a very good discussion and debate. It is an important piece of public business for us to lend ourselves to at this particular point in time in our history and as we look at what is coming at us economically.

I want to first congratulate the member for Papineau for being elected to this place and also for having the good fortune to be the first one in this Parliament to bring a private member's motion before the House. It is in keeping with his past experience and work in this country that has been admired by many. It is only right that he should lend us his knowledge and experience as we try to order the business of the country in support of our young people as they become the leaders of the future.

It is a good piece of business and in keeping with the spirit with which his father gave great leadership to the country many years ago. Certainly, I was an admirer of his father's quest for a just society and his focus on social justice, things like the Canada assistance plan which is in keeping with the values of my party and caucus.

I am happy to be able to say that the New Democratic caucus in the House will be supporting this motion but with a friendly amendment which I will move at the end of my 10 minutes this evening, which the member for Papineau has already agreed to. It will hopefully be the beginning of some further debate around the timing of how this will work its way through the committee and when it will actually get done.

I heard from the member for Souris—Moose Mountain that there is some concern about the timing, but I think we can work that out. We have already had some discussion about that and, in the spirit of co-operation that seems to be prevalent in the committee at this time, we will find a way to get this done in a timely fashion. To begin that, I will be moving a friendly amendment.

We already have before the standing committee on human resources, skills and social development a bill that I have been working on for the past two Parliaments to study poverty. Particularly at this time in our economic history, it is important to bring forward to the House something that could be considered and might be helpful in that sense. That is why I have some concern about the timing, but I think we can work that out and I will be tabling an amendment.

For us to be focusing some time both in the House and in committee on this issue of youth and volunteerism is very helpful. It is a very positive and constructive thing to be doing. I know there are groups out there trying to do what they can with some very limited resources and it is time that we at the senior level of government look at it and respond to their experiences and requests for more support.

I was sharing with the member for Papineau that just the other night I had dinner with the Katimavik group in my own city of Sault Ste. Marie. There were young people from across the country sharing culture, language, experience and learning from each other and the communities in which they are now engaged in volunteer activities. It was very positive and it impressed me. As a matter of fact, it was not the first time that I have had dinner with that group. In my memory, as a federal member it is the third year that I have done that.

I also remember growing up in northern Ontario, living in Wawa and working with the ministry of natural resources in parks, in the junior ranger program at that time. We used to bring literally hundreds of young people from the big cities into the wilderness to provide them with the experience of working in that wonderful part of our province and country, an experience that I am sure many of them never forgot and took with them. I am sure some of them actually went on to study natural resources and everything attached to it. It lent to them becoming professionals and volunteers in their own right by looking after our environment.

I also looked at some research that has been done going back to 2004, the Canada Survey of Giving, Volunteering and Participating. There is some wisdom in that, remembering and noting the amount of time that youth in volunteering give to working in communities and building communities. Youth, age 15 to 19, tend to volunteer with different types of organizations than other volunteers, for example, education, research and social services organizations.

They engage in different types of volunteer activities, for example, coaching, refereeing, officiating or fundraising. Their motivations also differ from others. They are more likely to volunteer to improve their job opportunities, to explore their own strengths, and because their friends volunteer as well.

There is some potential, and I think the member has spoken about this, to use the Internet for this program and this may become part of the study as well.

This same study of 2004 speaks of the Internet playing an important role of volunteering of any individuals. About 20% of volunteers said that they used the Internet in some way during their volunteer activities, while about 8% said they used the Internet to seek volunteer opportunities. That I am sure will be far greater for our volunteer program serving youth because they are so adept with that.

Obviously, in giving our support we hope we can agree that participation in any volunteer program for youth will reflect the racial, regional, economic and gender diversity of Canada. We, at the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, are currently engaged in examining the federal role for a national poverty reduction strategy. I see how this idea of volunteer service may also fit within a poverty plan. It might be a good recipe in this time of recession. It could mobilize an entire generation of people, who may find themselves out of work and with little to do, to participate to make their communities better and to learn new skills.

It can give young people the experience to appreciate the value of community service and capacity building; that there is more to life than making more and more money or consuming or buying things. Volunteer programs, like what is imagined here, can do the extraordinary work of twinning our seniors and young people in projects where we honour the seniors' wisdom, skills, and put these two generations together to learn from each other and grow our communities even more.

It is an opportunity, for example, for possible incentives for volunteers. In Australia, for example, as part of its 2020 summit there is a program where youth and student volunteers put in hours of community service to help the elderly and the homeless, and clean up environmental problems. In return they get some assistance and discounts on their student debt.

We see in the United States now some fledgling initiatives under President Obama where he is beginning to talk about volunteer neighbourhood and community organizations that will be the underpinning of what he sees as the new hope and new change that will come to that country and will be necessary in that country.

I want also, before I move my amendment, to give credit to the member from my own caucus, the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, who soon after he came here in 2004, being one of the youngest members of the House, took on an initiative to go across the country to speak to young people and their organizations to see what we could do as the federal government to assist and to help them grow and be even more effective.

I believe, in listening to the question he asked of the member for Papineau, that he spoke to the member for Papineau in his role as the head of Katimavik at that particular point in time. I think it is important that we give credit where it is due.

I know that the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour will probably speak later and he will have some important things to offer to this discussion as well.

At this time I would like to put my friendly amendment. I move:

That motion M-299 be amended by substituting the words “November 16, 2009” for “October 2009”.

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

It is my duty to inform hon. members that pursuant to Standing Order 93(3), no amendment may be proposed to a private member's motion or to the motion for second reading of a private member's bill unless the sponsor of the item indicates his or her consent.

Therefore, I ask the hon. member for Papineau if he consents to this amendment being moved.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do.

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The amendment is in order. It reads:

That motion M-299 be amended by substituting the words “October 2009” for “November 16, 2009”.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the amendment should substitute “November 16, 2009” for “October 2009”. I want it to read “November 16, 2009”, not “October 2009” so could that be reflected in the record?

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I will read again what I have on my page.

...substituting the words “October 2009” for “November 16, 2009”.

That was the wording of the amendment as delivered to me from the hon. member.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, could I get a ruling from the Table officers as to what that means to them?

I want to substitute “November 16, 2009” for “October 2009”. Is that possible?

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The wording as it currently appears is that the date is October 2009. It is the Chair's understanding that if the amendment is accepted, the new wording will read “November 16, 2009” instead of “October 2009”. Is that the intent of the amendment?

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Yes.

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I appreciate the hon. member for helping to ensure clarity on that.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Dartmouth--Cole Harbour.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have a chance to speak to the motion. I want to pay tribute to my colleague from Papineau who is new to the House but not new to many Canadians. The motion is entirely in keeping with the work that he has led in Canada, being very involved in Katimavik, and as a leader of young Canadians.

I also want to associate myself with the generous comments from the member for Sault Ste. Marie about the member's father, which is entirely in keeping with the way he does his business here. Pierre Trudeau was a great leader in Canada. One of his great friends was Jacques Hébert. Jacques Hébert was the person who really formed Katimavik and battled for its survival when it was in peril. He was very involved as well in Canada World Youth. These are very noble people who have done a great service to Canada. This motion is in keeping with the work they have done.

I want to congratulate my colleague for the motion. It is one that I am proud to second and support enthusiastically.

The member for Papineau is well known in Canada for his support of young people and their engagement in our country. He understands the incredible benefit to our communities and our country when young people participate and are engaged.

This is the overarching purpose of the motion, to begin the debate about young people and their role in making Canada stronger.

We often hear, as politicians in the public discourse, that young people are not engaged, that they are too busy or perhaps do not care. That is not my experience at all. I would argue that there is a wealth of interest in our young people to understand their communities, their country and the world.

As a member of Parliament, it has been one of my highest priorities to meet young people. I visit schools whenever I can, elementary, junior high and senior high. One of the things I hear most often is this interest in providing service to the country, both for their benefit and, more particular, for the benefit of the country and the world.

I have had the chance to hold youth forums within my responsibilities as critic for human resources, meeting students involved with universities and colleges. The young people I meet, almost without exception, care deeply about their communities, the world around them and understand the importance of solving some of the pressing issues of our time better, in a lot of cases, than the adults around them.

My sister has been very involved with Canada World Youth and Katimavik, but she spent many years for Canada World Youth, another great program that takes kids from Canada and pairs them up with kids from other countries, usually developing countries, to do projects. It is a great building experience for young Canadians. She is now working with WUSC, which is another great organization that does work internationally. She is in Sri Lanka, a country that is torn by all kinds of troubles right now, and doing wonderful work there as well.

I have had the opportunity as a member of Parliament to travel, as most of us have, and I have had the chance to see places where Canada can make a difference. I remember a trip to Kenya with my colleagues from Scarborough—Guildwood, Halifax and Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, where we saw among the poorest people in the world, but we saw Canadians working there, helping out, providing service both to that community, to the world and to themselves.

If people do not think we can make a difference through private members' business and private members' motions, I refer them to my colleague from Scarborough—Guildwood who produced Bill C-293, the overseas development act, in the last Parliament and steered it through all the challenges and got it adopted.

We can make a difference here through motions like the one the member for Papineau has proposed and the one the member for Scarborough—Guildwood had adopted in the House and proclaimed last year.

There is great work to be done and my colleague, the member for Papineau, spoke about some of the domestic work.

We can do more in the world, as well, and the overseas part of this is really important. I am a little too young to recall exactly, but I read a lot about the Peace Corps of John F. Kennedy in the 1960s, the AmeriCorps of Bill Clinton in the 1990s, the Gap year in the U.K. and in other European countries. It is so important that young people have a chance. They want to be involved. They want to have that opportunity. They want to know how they can help serve their country and serve the larger community.

The response from students is very important, and it is more than most of us would hope for. There is a sense of optimism and a sense that we can make the world better, and the motion before the House, which I encourage everybody to support, will go a long way in helping them to do that.

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I regret having to stop the hon. member. He will have five minutes left in his allotted time the next time the bill comes before the House.

It being 6:30 p.m., 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.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, on January 28, I rose in the House to address the fact that the government continues to flagrantly attack women's rights. In the budget bill it has done so once again by attempting to bargain away pay equity rights. I might add that it is an unnecessary measure in a budget implementation bill. Pay equity is a fundamental human right and distinct from other issues in collective bargaining.

The government's approach is simply wrong. It contends that it has presented before us a proactive piece of legislation, but it misses the mark. By eliminating CHRC recourse, it makes the proposal less palatable. Pay equity will simply be grouped with other issues at the bargaining table. As Tom Flanagan clearly said in a Globe and Mail article yesterday, the Conservatives clearly do not value equal pay for equal work.

The Conservatives' proposed changes for pay equity in the public service do three things. They restrict pay equity by limiting the number of “female-predominant groups that can claim pay equity”. They redefine the criteria of whether women's work is of equal value by introducing the market forces factor. They relegate pay equity to the bargaining table. Essentially, pay equity will now be negotiated along with all other issues during a collective bargaining process. The employer would not have to do a pay equity assessment or to share relevant information with the union. The employer will not have to remedy any pay equity gaps. As I said, this removes pay equity from the human rights framework. Workers in the public service would no longer be able to launch a human rights complaint and unions could be fined if they assist or encourage members to file a complaint through the Public Service Labour Relations Board.

This is shameful. These are steps backward and undermine women's rights. This is not a proactive piece of pay equity legislation.

Women are among the most vulnerable in society and they do not deserve to be attacked like this. The previous Liberal government, under the ministers of labour and justice, had committed to actual proactive pay equity legislation. We were moving forward. We were taking real action. There was real progress. However, in a bid to make a political gain, the NDP members sold themselves out to the Conservatives, jeopardizing so much progress, sacrificing child care, the Kelowna accord and pay equity, which is often forgotten on the altar of political expediency. Today we pay the price for it.

Once in government, the Liberal Party would not only restore what we have lost, we would improve women's rights and specifically pay equity rights. As members on this side of the House, we can stand up to say that we strongly believe in pay equity, that is, equal pay for work of equal value. The present bill does not respect the constitutional equality rights of women. It does not respect our international obligations and commitments made by CEDAW and others. As the President of the United States said, this bill and the government is on the wrong side of the future as it relates to women.

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

Mr. Speaker, thanks to the current government, the women's program will now work to bring about the advancement of all women in Canada, not just certain target groups.

The government is determined to achieve no less than the full participation of women, on a level playing field, in all aspects of Canadian society. We invite the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre and all members of this House to work with us in order to reach this goal. I am quite certain the President of the Treasury Board, who is responsible for pay equity, will agree that when women succeed, we all succeed.

I think it is important to emphasize that Status of Women Canada and the women´s program are receiving more funding than ever before in the history of Canada. This is thanks to the leadership and vision of our Prime Minister. I am sure the hon. member is aware that the increase of 42% in funding for the women's program constitutes a considerable increase.

The most recent budget is a long-term economic action plan that will benefit the entire Canadian population, including women, and I can assure the hon. member that many Canadian women have told us that this plan addresses many of their concerns.

It offers a balanced approach to stimulate economic growth, to rebuild confidence and to support Canadians, including women and their families.

The Minister of State (Status of Women) consulted women across the country. I can say that our government made sure that women would benefit, directly and indirectly, from all major federal investments. Furthermore, personal income tax cuts, social housing initiatives, and measures to protect the most vulnerable members of society will definitely benefit women and their families.

As for pay equity, the irony in all this, and the problem with the Liberals, is that, for 13 years, they never proposed any solutions for pay equity. They even ignored the recommendations of a task force created by their government on the matter, and they never lifted a finger to do anything about this situation.

We have only been in power for three years and we will continue to keep our promises. Canadian women deserve our attention, which is why our government is bringing forward proactive legislation. Finally we will have pay equity. Let us work together for a better future for all Canadian women, and we will all come out ahead.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want nothing more than to work together for a better future for Canadian women but we clearly have a different understanding of what equality means and what equality rights mean, which is a major impediment in working together.

I want to remind the member opposite that the former Liberal government did commit to bring in the pay equity legislation. Mr. Fontana, the minister of labour at the time, made a commitment to bring in draft legislation that would be brought forward with all of the appropriate stakeholders.

The dilemma we are facing right now is in supporting this budget. We understand that women are among the most vulnerable in Canada and, during this economic crisis, they are the most likely to suffer first and foremost on the economic hardships. We know they need this stimulus package but we also know they need pay equity and they need a government that will work for real pay equity, which is equal pay for work of equal value. Our promise, as a Liberal government, to the women of Canada is that as soon as we are in--

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, at the instigation of the Prime Minister, the government has developed an economic action plan. Since 2006, the government has enhanced Status of Women Canada and its mission, which is to promote equality for all Canadian women in society and their full participation in the economic, social and democratic life of our country.

We have made enormous strides. For 13 years, the Liberals did nothing about pay equity for women. We, however, are keeping our promises. All women in Canada and Quebec have the right to be equal to men, and we will work toward that.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, a man whose story touched thousands of Quebeckers died on Saturday in l'Enfant-Jésus hospital in Quebec City. He had become the symbol of the battle for recognition of the connection between the presence of TCE in the water in Shannon and the development of multiple cancers in residents of that small municipality.

I am raising this matter this evening in order to talk about a scandal. The Shannon scandal concerns water contaminated with TCE. It was known as long ago as 1978 that toxic wastes were going into a pond dug in the sand, that is now dubbed the blue lagoon. That lagoon contaminated the water table. Those toxic wastes have been present in Shannon since 1944. National Defence and the Department of the Environment are both involved in this scandal.

A report on Radio-Canada's program Enquête told us what happened in the small town of Shannon. Everyone was transfixed by this story as well as by the turmoil and worry caused to the citizens of Shannon because their groundwater was contaminated by solvents containing TCE. For 30 years, the citizens of Shannon have been fighting the complete indifference of governments to solving this problem. We will soon be told that they were given $13.3 million to make their water safe. Wells were located in the mountains and $13.3 million was needed.

If not for the Radio-Canada program, which caught the attention of all Quebeckers, this government would never have taken action. I asked questions in this House and was told that it could not be discussed because the case was before the courts. The only way for the citizens of Shannon to defend themselves was to create a citizens' committee and to go to court, even though the citizens' committee had asked this government to settle the matter by providing compensation and, most important, by decontaminating the soil that is completely saturated with TCE.

The response was to hide. The minister responsible for the Quebec City area hid behind the argument that the matter was before the courts. It is no longer before the courts, but there is an appeal. This government must take action. It must compensate the citizens of Shannon and assume responsibility for contaminating Shannon's water. We can see that once again they want to let the citizens go to court.

We know the energy that takes and the stress the citizens of Shannon must contend with. We know that brain, kidney and liver cancer is proliferating in Shannon. We would like to know the exact link between the contaminated water and the incidence of the cancers. In the United States, 1 in 25,000 are affected by the brain cancer that caused young Alexandre's death; in Shannon there are 8 cases in fewer than 5,000 citizens.

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

Mr. Speaker, our government, the Conservative government, is shouldering its responsibilities to Quebeckers. The health and safety of the people of Shannon, of Quebec and of all of Canada is vitally important to our government.

I would like to clarify some things. We have corrected the problem. We have worked hard to defend the interests of the people of Shannon, and we have put forward a viable solution. What is more, the Mayor of Shannon has publicly recognized the fine job we have done and thanked us for solving this problem. If he is satisfied, why isn't the Bloc Québécois member?

Today, the people of Shannon are benefiting from our government's efforts and the attention the Conservatives are giving Quebec. If the Bloc's goal is to protect Quebec's interests, then how can it question this measure? Does that mean the BQ has a hidden agenda? That it defends Quebeckers' interests only when it is convenient? That is a wonderful party philosophy.

The Bloc freely chose to vote against our economic action plan, a plan that would make it possible to build a new water system in Shannon. The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is working very closely with both the municipality of Shannon and the stakeholders in order to find an effective solution for completing this project. On February 13, the minister reaffirmed the Conservative government's promise to provide real, concrete results for the people of Shannon when she announced $13,345,000 from the federal treasury to get this crucial project started. We are working tirelessly with the Government of Quebec to speed up the distribution of those funds so that they can be handed over to the municipality as quickly as possible.

Why did the Bloc vote against this budget? Why did the Bloc also vote against this project? Is the Bloc opposed to infrastructure projects in Quebec? Does it believe that updating our infrastructure is a bad thing?

As usual, the Bloc Québécois is playing politics, instead of working with us to help Quebeckers and Canadians.

And why did the Bloc Québécois vote against the economic action plan, which is full of measures that would allow us to help not only the people of Shannon, but all Canadians and all Quebeckers?

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what the member just said is an insult to the people of Shannon and the citizens' committee. Such statements are pathetic. The people of Shannon want the ground decontaminated and they want compensation for the effects of the tainted water. The departments of National Defence and the Environment are jointly responsible for the contamination.

Suggesting that the $13.3 million should solve Shannon's problem is ridiculous. The only thing that has been solved is that the people of Shannon will have access to safe drinking water. As I said before, that is only because of the Radio-Canada broadcast that covered the situation and the distress it caused the residents.

Those who have heard the broadcast will agree that the government's arguments are pathetic. They are playing politics with this tragic situation.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the Bloc Québécois that the mayor of Shannon publicly acknowledged that we have done a fine job. He thanked us for solving the problem. If he is satisfied, then why is the Bloc Québécois not?

The government made a decision and found the funds for Shannon. The members opposite should be congratulating us, supporting us and voting in favour of the budget.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on February 9, 10 days before the visit by President Obama, I asked the federal government to repatriate Omar Khadr, because he is a child soldier. Since then, the government's position has not changed. Today, I would like to take the few minutes I have to try to make the minister and his representative understand that Omar Khadr does have the status of a child soldier. When he was 15, he was accused of a crime. That is exactly what the convention covers. A child soldier is someone who committed acts when he did not have full command of his own will and actions. He is someone who has been brainwashed and made to believe certain things. And today, we are saying that Canada signed the international convention and must honour that agreement, repatriate Mr. Khadr, treat him appropriately and, above all, not turn him loose just like that. Mr. Khadr's lawyers had offered to have him supervised and monitored, a little like young offenders who need to be reintegrated into society. They want to make sure he is rehabilitated, and that is the approach they were leaning toward.

How can the government decide not to keep the promise it has made to the international community? It signed the convention on child soldiers. This is a case of a child soldier. Canada is putting itself in a very bad position with regard to international public opinion. It wants a seat on the UN Security Council, yet the first thing it does is go back on its word in an obvious case.

President Obama has decided to close Guantanamo. The Minister of Foreign Affairs had the perfect opportunity yesterday to tell the American Secretary of State that we are prepared to repatriate Mr. Khadr, that this would free them of the last prisoner from a western country, that we would take him in, put him through the appropriate legal proceedings, as needed, and ensure follow up. Why did Canada not chose to take this approach, one that reflects the values of Canadians and Quebeckers, and is more in line with the practices it has followed in the past in matters of foreign affairs? Why did it not decide to give this individual a chance, instead of hiding behind the fact that he faces serious charges? We know that when the alleged act occurred, he was a child soldier. Amnesty International, the three opposition parties and the Canadian Bar Association all want Canada to ask that Mr. Khadr be repatriated.

How can Canada maintain this attitude, which, in my opinion, shows nothing more than a certain servitude to the Bush period in the United States? We are no longer in that period. Can the government not show the least bit of humanity and ask that Mr. Khadr be repatriated, thereby assuring full protection of his rights as a Canadian citizen?