Catherine Bell

[Canada Elections Act, November 15th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to speak to Bill C-18 recently introduced into the House of Commons in an effort to fix a hastily adopted bill, Bill C-31, from the last session of Parliament.

I say hastily because I know the committee heard from many witnesses. They heard from Elections Canada, first nations, students, homeless advocates and the members of the committee, including the NDP member for Ottawa Centre, who was the critic at the time.

I know a lot of issues were raised on Bill C-31. Unfortunately, some of the flaws that were pointed out were not addressed. They were overruled by the members of the committee.

Today we are trying to fix a problem created by the Conservative government. The problem is the new stringent regulations, as set out in Bill C-31, on the cards to prove one's identity ultimately will lead to the disenfranchisement of over a million voters, as we have heard. This was pointed out by Elections Canada after the fact. Basically that has forced the government to come up with this new bill to try to undo the damage.

Under the new regulations of Bill C-18 being considered today, voting will still be more difficult for many cross-sections of Canadians, including people with rural addresses.

That is why I am here today to speak to the bill. I represent a riding that is probably 50% rural. We have a lot of small towns and a couple of large centres that get home delivery, but most of our communities get rural mail delivery. It is for them that I am worried.

I also have to include myself in that group of people because I live in a small town. I have a box number. Fortunately for me, my residential address is also on my driver's licence, as well as my box number. If that were not the case, I might find myself on election day unable to vote, or having to prove who I am.

In areas of Courtenay, where there is rural mail delivery, many people living on small farms and on lots outside of the city limits. They do not have home delivery. These people get their mail at the side of the road in a box, and it is an RR number. It has been like that for many years and a lot of the people have lived there for many years. This includes the area of Royston, which is just south of Courtenay where my aunt lives.

She has been in that place for over 50 years. She just turned 80 years old. She has always lived in the same place. She may find herself at the polling station unable to vote because she does not drive. She does not have a driver's licence with a picture ID on it and probably could not prove who she was. All her neighbours and the people who she knows would be unable to vouch for her because they might find themselves in the same predicament without the ability to verify who they are.

Also areas of Comox and outer areas of that town do not get home delivery. Up in the Lazo area, many people living in the little communities of Merville, Black Creek and Oyster River may be disenfranchised from their vote. Again, these people do not get their mail delivered to a box in a central post office. Because of what happened with Canada Post over a number of years, we have found that our mail is delivered to small community grocery stores, gas stations or other places where people have to pick up their mail. The mail does not come to their residences, so they usually have a rural mail delivery address or a box number in those places. Many people are going to find they have a problem.

I spoke a little about box numbers. Most of the communities in my riding, for example, Cumberland, Gold River, Sayward, Tahsis, Port McNeil, Port Hardy and Port Alice, Zeballos, have very small post offices. They are a long way from Ottawa and the larger geographical centres of British Columbia. People in these small towns rely on the post offices as the place to get their mail. Pretty well everyone's mail is delivered to a post office box. Many people live on roads that may not even have a name or a sign and their residence address would not be listed.

The other interesting thing is that there are a lot of little islands, Hornby, Denman, Quadra, Cortes, Alert Bay and Sointula, all those little islands we travel to and from. The people who live on those islands also get their mail delivered to a box at the local post office which in many instances is in the local community grocery store. These people may also find themselves disenfranchised.

That is a lot of communities, in fact most of the communities in my riding. There are only two main communities where people would get their mail delivered to their home and their home address would be on their card. We are concerned about what might happen with the people in the small communities.

The other thing I have to highlight is all the first nations communities in my riding and there are a lot of them, including places like Owikeno, Kingcome Inlet and up in Simoom Sound. These places are very remote. People do not get their mail delivered to a post office box or to their home. Their addresses are bag number such and such in the closest town and the mail is flown in on small airplanes or taken in by boat whenever the weather is good. That is how they get their mail. If they were issued a card that said bag number such and such, or whatever, obviously they do not live in a bag, they live in a beautiful community up the coast, but they could find themselves disenfranchised.

It is already hard enough for some people in our smaller communities and especially first nations because until recently they did not even have polling places on reserve, so they were feeling disenfranchised that way as well.

We are trying to find more opportunities to increase the vote among first nations people in our communities. I know in the last election we worked very hard with Elections Canada to make sure that there were polls on reserves so that people would have an opportunity to vote where they live. That is so important.

Some people in our rural communities have to travel quite a distance to exercise their franchise. We take it for granted when we live in a larger centre, in that we can just take a few minutes to go to our polling station and vote. We need to make sure there are more opportunities to do that, not less.

Also, I talked about homeless people and transient populations. My colleague, the member for Vancouver East, spoke passionately about how we would be disenfranchising many of those people in the inner cities who live in shelters or who are homeless. There were some provisions made to identify them and to make sure that they were not left out.

In my community we do not have big shelters. We have a couple of small ones, but we also have many homeless people in my riding. Many of these people are couch surfing. They are living in cars. There are families who are living at campsites. There are people who are double bunking, a couple of different families living together trying to make ends meet, trying to find suitable housing.

I do not know what will happen to those people if they have no address at all and they cannot prove where they are living. It is going to be really difficult for them at voting time. It is something that we should have addressed before.

At committee we also heard from students who were living away from home. Aboriginal representatives who came to committee brought up some of the flaws that were ignored at the time. As I said, here we are debating a bill that fixes another bill that was rushed through the House.

The NDP critic at the time who worked on the committee made presentations to our caucus. We understood the problems. We were the only party to vote against Bill C-31 at the time.

It is very unfair that all the groups that I just mentioned, aboriginals, students, rural residents, people who live in small towns, will have to jump through hoops in order to carry out their democratic right and civic duty to cast a ballot.

Constituents have called me to ask what is going on with respect to paragraph 3, proof of identity, in Bill C-18. They will have to provide proof of identity and residence. If a person cannot prove his or her residence, then the person may lose his or her franchise to vote. That is a problem. That is basically what brings us here today.

The provisions were introduced in order to combat voter fraud that allegedly was taking place in Canada. However, no meaningful evidence has been put forth to prove that fraud was occurring in any systematic or widespread way.

My colleague from Ottawa Centre mentioned that candidate fraud is a bigger problem than voter fraud, with the floor crossing that goes on. A candidate representing a certain party will get elected. People commit to a certain candidate. They work hard for that candidate to make sure that the candidate is elected and when that person gets to the House of Commons, that person might cross the floor to another party. That act in itself is what turns off a lot of voters. It is a shame that these things are allowed to happen in this House.

I also believe that the objective of stamping out voter fraud is an honourable one, but unfortunately, it is being pursued at too high a price under these bills. It basically alienates many honest Canadians and disenfranchises them from their opportunity to vote. It is too high a price to pay for something that really is not a huge problem in the first place. The most important thing is for Canadians to have easy and open access to the ballot.

I put forward a motion on electoral reform because I wanted to hear from more Canadians. More Canadians deserve an opportunity to vote and their vote should count. I wanted to hear from Canadians to find out how we could change and enhance our electoral system with proportional representation, but unfortunately that motion was hijacked by the procedure and House affairs committee. It basically turned into a process where the government could hear about Senate reform. I heard from people who attended the focus groups that came out of that procedure. The whole agenda was pretty much taken up with talk about Senate reform. There was very little talk about electoral reform.

That is sad because I know that in the province of British Columbia where I come from, electoral reform is something that a lot of people wanted. When we had our referendum in 2005, it did not pass, but it did not lose by much either. We had over 50%. Unfortunately, the way it was set out it had to have 60%, but 57% is more than 50% plus one. That is what we need to have a majority in this House. I think a majority of British Columbians did want some sort of change in our electoral process.

Back to the bill at hand, the NDP critic for democratic reform, the member for Timmins—James Bay, is taking an active role at the committee. Other NDP MPs are rising in this House to ensure that the rights of all Canadians are protected at the ballot box.

My colleague from Timmins—James Bay also is in jeopardy of losing his vote. There was an article a number of weeks ago in the paper about that. His driver's licence has a very strange address. That is how things are done in his riding. It does not list his residence, but only lists the number of a road. He is willing, as I and others are, to jump through the procedural hoops that the government has placed before us to make sure that we get to vote on election day.

I do not have to ask how many of my constituents would be willing to find someone to go to the polling station with them to declare that they are who they say they are. Seniors, people with disabilities, young people who are voting for the first time, are they going to show up at the ballot box with the people necessary to prove who they are, or will they walk away? I think most people would say, “Forget it. This is too much trouble. Why bother”. Such a procedure is going to turn people away from the voting process. This is something that we ought not to do. We should be encouraging people to get out and vote, not making it more difficult for them. We should not be setting up roadblocks.

Already voter turnout is too low. I think that voter turnout hovers at around 65%. That is quite shameful. It means that members were elected to the House with the support of 65% of the population, and the percentage of the vote that we received makes it even smaller. That is something we need to address in this country. Again, that could be addressed through changing our electoral system.

I am proud to say that only the NDP caucus stood up in opposition to the original bill when it was being expedited through the House last spring. The Conservative Party introduced this troubling legislation and both the Bloc and the Liberals got on board on the condition that all voters' birthdates would be included in the voters list that is provided to the political parties. My colleague from Ottawa Centre fought hard against these provisions, but he was ultimately outnumbered at the committee where these amendments were made.

It is unfortunate that we are here speaking to Bill C-18. Both it and Bill C-31 threaten the very foundation of democracy and the rights of citizens that Canadians hold so dear.

I know that the NDP democratic reform critic will do all he can to ensure that fair amendments to this bill are adopted so that the right of all Canadians on election day will be protected.

I thank the House for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-18 and to put my party's point of view forward.

[Women's Resource Centres, November 14th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government cut funding to Status of Women Canada. This negatively impacted the work done by women's resource centres across the country.

In the Comox Valley, women rely on their centre to provide life skills programs and support groups for single parents and women with disabilities, but reduced hours due to the cuts have left some women with no place to turn.

The Campbell River Women's Resource Society just received $49,000 in specific program funding. While they are happy about that, what they really need is core funding to provide continuity of service and keep the centre open more hours.

The Campbell River Women's Resource Society would like to offer in-house programs that are relevant to the needs of women in our communities. Shelters should not be the only place that women can go to for support.

Funding requirements under Status of Women Canada force women's centres to fund raise and fill out grant applications just to keep their doors open.

I am calling on the Conservative government to implement core funding for women's centres so that they can provide the kind of services that are so necessary in all our North Island communities.

[Business of Supply, November 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened carefully to my hon. colleague's comments on the motion put before us today. I come from resource based and resource dependent communities in my riding of Vancouver Island North. We are surrounded by trees. Our mills are having a really hard time competing. They were having a really hard time before the Canadian dollar became equivalent to the U.S. dollar. Now that the dollar has passed the U.S. dollar, I know the mills are in dire straits.

Unfortunately, the Bloc supported the softwood lumber deal. Basically, what the Bloc is doing is closing the door after the horse has left the barn by supporting this deal. By supporting this deal we are seeing more and more raw log exports from our communities. I said that we are surrounded by trees and yet we see truckload after truckload leaving our communities for mills in the U.S. and abroad.

This is really hurting our communities. I appreciate that a motion has come forward to put something on the table. I put forward a motion to curtail raw log exports and increase value added manufacturing here in Canada. I think we should be protecting Canadian jobs.

Does the member not think that it is a little bit hypocritical that this motion is coming forward after the Bloc supported the softwood lumber agreement?

[Aeronautics Act, November 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, that question from my colleague from Western Arctic is very well put. He raises a lot of points.

He talks about mechanics and technicians. Something that we are also losing in this country is the opportunity for trades training. In my province of British Columbia, of course, we had a program called the Industry Training and Apprenticeship Commission, cut several years ago, that helped people get certified as mechanics, as technicians and in all kinds of trades. These people are now disappearing and we are seeing a shortage of skilled workers in this country.

The NDP has called many times for the input of dollars into trades training. We also want to make sure there are standard practices across the country, so that people working in one province or another have the level of training that allows them to use those skills in every province.

Some of the people who work on the small airplanes, the owner-operators, as I have said, may not be able to afford mechanics. They are doing a lot of the work themselves. I am trusting that they are well trained and have the ability to fix what is necessary, but I would hate to think that there are people out there putting things together with baling wire and chewing gum.

It is imperative that we have qualified technicians, mechanics and other tradespeople working on aircraft so we can be assured they are safe.

[Aeronautics Act, November 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge the work done by my colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster on this file. His work and advocacy in opposing this bill is something that needs to be considered because of the people who have come to him and have approached our NDP caucus to tell us their stories about why it is important to make sure that the airline industry is safe, that the workers are kept safe, and that the travelling public can travel with certainty about their safety.

I want to tell a story this morning about my riding of Vancouver Island North where we do not have the ability to get from one town to another without the use of airplanes or water taxis. We have remote areas, a lot of places where our first nations live, up and down the coast, that are only accessible by air or water. There are no roads into these communities, so we rely heavily on small airlines to transport us.

I have had the opportunity on many occasions to travel in the riding. Even before I was an elected member I would travel on small airlines. My family lived in one of those remote communities for a time and I appreciated very much the fact that the pilots got us there safely. But sometimes it was not a fun experience. There has been nasty weather and one has to travel in the winter. As I have tried to let people know in the past, it is not all glorious out there.

Just this past year, in the spring, I was travelling to one of our small communities in one of our small airlines and the plane had to stop at many little places and pick up passengers coming in and out of the small logging camps. We had our earphones on so we could hear each other talk and I heard the pilot say: “Can you guys keep your eyes open, there's heli-logging in this area and if one of those helicopters comes out of the clouds with a log, we need to get out of the way quick”, because we were flying fairly low.

It was a little disconcerting to think that we had to be the eyes and ears for the pilot in his small plane while he was wiping his window off with a cloth because the air system was not working properly and we could see little cracks through the doors on the plane because they did not close properly. There are little things that make us concerned for our safety, but we get in those planes and we travel, and we trust those pilots. They do a great job for us. I really want to acknowledge that they are the ones responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of their aircraft because most of them are owner/operators.

It is disconcerting that this bill would take away government oversight and put the responsibility into the hands of a corporation where profit is the bottom line, and where shareholders expect to see a return on their investment by the corporation. So quite often we see these companies cut corners to make ends meet or to make sure that they get a return on their investment. That does not help the travelling public. It makes us a little more uncomfortable when we have to get into these airplanes.

I hope that the story I am going to tell about an incident that happened in my riding a few years ago will help people understand the importance of safety for the travelling public.

Before I get to that, I also want to acknowledge that at least half, maybe more, of the members of the House do not even live in Ontario where they are able to drive to Ottawa. Instead, we have to take airplanes weekly or sometimes daily in the cases of some members who have to travel back and forth, such as ministers who are always travelling. We want to make sure we are safe. We also want to make sure that the workers, whose jobs are to make sure we are safe, are safe as well. It is for them that we are speaking about this issue and raising concerns as well.

As my colleague, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, also mentioned, we have seen what has happened with rail safety in this country. We have seen more derailments and the industry is basically inspecting and regulating itself, and it has not done our environment any good. We have seen spills of huge proportions.

The devastation of the Cheakamus River in British Columbia on the coast will have repercussions for years to come on the ability to fish in that river. First nations are very concerned about their ability to harvest any of the fish that they would have had from that river. The communities that are along that river have to worry about their water supply. So many things have happened because of a train wreck and yet the industry seems to get away with it, basically. The trains are still travelling. It is still happening and nothing has been done.

To go back to my riding, the story that I want to tell is about Kirsten Stevens who is a young woman from Campbell River. Her husband worked in the forest industry. That is another reason that we use these small planes as I mentioned earlier. Loggers and people who work in the bush take these planes to get out to their camps.

The plane filled up with the workers one morning, took off and crashed into the ocean just off one of our small islands. It took a couple of years for Ms. Stevens to have the plane recovered from the ocean. She has been working diligently trying to get answers as to why this plane went down. There were questions of pilot error or malfunction of the engine. The authorities could not do an inspection because they did not have the wreckage. It took a long time for the wreckage to be brought up and it was only brought up because of the families of the people who were killed in that terrible accident. The accident left a woman without her husband and children without their father. I also knew one family fairly well who lost their son. It was a devastating accident and it touched a lot of families, and a lot of lives.

However, there was stalling and finger pointing from all sides of the government and from the Transportation Safety Board. It took several years for them to bring up that wreckage to carry out an investigation into what really happened. I find that quite sad because those families needed some closure into the death of their loved ones and also because they had to work so hard. Here they were in the grieving process and they were out there trying to get answers and nothing was forthcoming.

It just points to, I hate to say, a lack of caring but that is how these people felt when they were ignored or they were let down. There was a lot of back and forth. It was just sad. I really have to commend Ms. Stevens for her diligence and for not letting this go when she was under so much stress. So, in a lot of ways, it is for her that we also want to make sure this bill is opposed.

She has written to me on several occasions and one of the things that she has stated with regard to getting some answers is:

The standards, regulations and oversight are very different between these classifications, [meaning air taxi and airline], and when you add to that the lack of union, professional association, lobby group or any form of real OH&S protection for the air taxi worker, then the situation is quite frightening.

When she says it is frightening, I know exactly what she means. At least once a year small planes go down in the various areas of my riding. Quite often, those planes are recovered and the people may be injured but not seriously hurt and can go back to work, but every once in a while we have the devastation that happened with Ms. Stevens' husband and the others in that crash.

My colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster and others who have spoken on Bill C-7 are quite right to be concerned and to raise those concerns. We went through this back in the spring and here we are again in November raising the same concerns, so I hope the government is listening and will do the right thing and make sure the industry is kept safe.

The travelling public needs to know that and we all need to know that as we use airplanes more and more. Smaller airlines are popping up all over the place. We need to make sure that those airlines are strictly regulated, that there is oversight and that there are investigations when there are any signs of something going wrong. We do not want to see another Jetsgo fiasco in this country, with an airline that had a multitude of problems over several years and yet was deemed to be safe. We all know what happened with that.

We want to make sure the travelling public is safe and can travel with the certainty that they do not have to worry every time they get on an airplane. We also do not want to have another instance of what Ms. Stevens had to endure.

I thank my colleague again for raising these concerns so that we have an opportunity to speak to this legislation. I could go on for another half an hour and talk about the small airplanes and the commuters in my riding, but suffice it to say that the workers who travel on them and the communities that rely on them need to know that they are reliable and safe for the future.

[Business of Supply, November 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, let me repeat myself. Hypocrisy knows no bounds with the Liberal Party these days. That party is best friends with the Conservatives in the House. Those members just supported the government on a throne speech and a mini budget. How much more support does the government need? It seems like we have a de facto majority in the House. It is unheard of. It is a shame.

For all the years that the Liberals had a majority government, they did nothing for women. They could not get it done for women's equality. Here we are today in 2007 having the same argument that we had over three years ago.

[Business of Supply, November 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, a few years ago in New Zealand a member of Parliament named Marilyn Waring did a study on the value of work. The book was called If Women Counted: A New Feminist Economics. She followed that up with a documentary where she placed a value on home care, child care, doing the dishes, doing the laundry, and all kinds of things that were undervalued and not paid work in society. The documentary found that if those jobs that women do, or anyone does, that are unpaid in the home or outside, were added to the GDP, it would make a significant increase.

She also compared that to some of the things that create wealth in our society such as oil spills and accidents. For example, when an ambulance is called out to an accident, people are paid to clean up and things like that. These things are talked about as value for our economy because they create work. It was quite an interesting documentary. I just want to let the member know about it.

What we are suggesting here is that women who are working should be adequately compensated. We are talking about pay equity for already paid work. I hope the member and I can have a conversation about this at some other point.

[Business of Supply, November 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time today with the member for Vancouver East.

When I saw this Liberal motion yesterday, I almost laughed. In fact, I thought it was a Halloween joke. But, really, it is no laughing matter. It is a cruel joke, one that the Liberals have been playing on women for far too long. Their actions speak louder than words.

The Liberal track record on pay equity and other supports for women is dismal, at best. While it may appear that they supported women in our fight for pay equity, they were busy over the past 13 years that they were in government, of which 12 years I might add were in a majority position, dismantling programs for women.

Some credit needs to go to former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau for creating Status of Women Canada. Many gains were made by women in the years following the implementation of that agency, but unfortunately, they did not go far enough.

For years, women called on the Liberal government to make Status of Women Canada its own department. Because of women's inequality in this country, we still need this, but it has not happened.

The former finance minister, the member for LaSalle—Émard, made drastic cuts to the budget of Status of Women Canada in 1997. These cuts were announced by the member for Vancouver Centre, who was then the secretary of state for Status of Women Canada. This action slashed programs and supports for women across this country.

Now, the Conservatives have cut it even further, forcing the closure of 12 of the 16 status offices, as well as cutting the funding for much needed advocacy programs for vulnerable women in our communities. As a result of those Liberal and Conservative cuts, the Campbell River Women's Resource Centre in my riding has to constantly apply for grants for its programs on a project basis that is dictated by the minister responsible for Status of Women Canada, instead of receiving the ongoing funding and support that would provide appropriate programs, stability and support for the women in the north island community.

The New Democrats have always stood side by side with women's groups to support equality. Whether speaking out on issues like choice on abortion, breaking the silence on violence against women, pushing for proactive legislation on pay and employment equity, actively encouraging the increased participation of women in politics, or making sure that every piece of legislation is examined for its impact on women, the NDP is the party that has walked the talk when it comes to fighting for women's equality.

However, the Liberals did not stop with cuts to women's programs. In fact, they never even got started on other programs that they promised and never delivered on them, such as a national child care program.

In 1993, the Chrétien government promised 150,000 new child care spaces, but the Liberals never delivered. After much pressure from child care advocates, they finally introduced a patchwork of agreements with the provinces, but no legislative framework that would guarantee the creation of spaces for children and the accessibility, affordability and stability that parents, especially women, still the primary caregivers, are looking for.

The Conservative attitude toward a universal child care system is simply wrong-headed. Twelve hundred taxable dollars a year does not create one space. Because of inaction on the part of both Liberals and Conservatives, parents in Vancouver Island North are paying exorbitant fees and enduring wait lists of up to two years for spaces for their children.

The NDP believes that women's equality is fundamental to this country and is committed to achieving it in every walk of life, from pay equity to child care. In our document “Fairness for Women”, the NDP lays out a plan to put the priorities of women first by making Canada a world leader for women's equality.

However, I digress. We are talking today about pay equity and economic equality for women. The Liberal motion before us today cites the need for pay equity and calls on the government to “develop a strategy to improve the economic security of all women in Canada and present this strategy to the House by February 1, 2008”.

In 2004, the pay equity task force was set up and did a comprehensive review of federal pay equity legislation since it received royal assent in 1977.

Its news release of May 5, 2004 stated:

--the Task Force commissioned independent research on a wide range of relevant issues and conducted a cross-Canada consultation process seeking the views of a diverse population of individuals, stakeholder groups, and government departments and agencies.

During those consultations the task force had agreement from all sides that “--pay equity is a human right...[and that the] current federal pay equity regime lacks clarity and has resulted in uncertainty, tension and frustration”.

The report noted the wage gap for women at that time was about 68¢. Today women earn 72¢ for every dollar a man earns, so we see we really have not come very far on this score. It also noted that women of visible minority groups, women with disabilities, and aboriginal women face even more discrimination in the labour market. Sadly, very little has changed on this front as well.

The pay equity task force called on the Liberal government in 2004 to implement proactive legislation, so that women would not have to make a human rights complaint when they were discriminated against on the basis of pay. The Liberals accepted that report and agreed that pay equity is a fundamental right. Three and a half years ago a majority Liberal government failed the women of Canada. It had an opportunity to raise the economic security of women, but it did nothing.

The pay equity task force was confident in 2004 that its recommendations in its report “Pay Equity: A New Approach to a Fundamental Right” would be taken seriously. It provided a clear framework to ensure the goal of pay equity would be achieved and urged the federal government to implement those recommendations quickly.

I find this motion hypocritical. The hypocrisy is that the Liberals would choose an opposition day to put forward a motion to call on the Conservative government to do something they should have done when they were in government over three and a half years ago.

However, since it is here and we are given an opportunity to speak to it, I would like to say that I will be supporting it. I guess the phrase “better late than never” is appropriate here. Having said that and given the Conservatives' lack of understanding and commitment to supports for women, I would like to tell them why pay equity and economic security is important for women, their families and for all their communities. I am going to do even better.

First, and because there are maybe some members here in the House who have never heard of it, I will explain what pay equity is. It is the right to equal pay for work of equal value. A woman has the right to be paid just as much as a man for work that requires a similar level of skill, effort and responsibility, and is performed in similar working conditions.

Second, I would like to tell members why this is necessary. On average, women still earn less than men regardless of their occupation, age or education. Today a woman earns 72.5¢ for every dollar that a man earns. For aboriginal women, women of colour and racialized or new immigrant women, the wage gap between their earnings and the earnings of white men is even greater than the wage gap between white men and women.

Historically, work that women have traditionally done has not been considered as valuable as men's work. Caring for children and elders, performing clerical tasks, cleaning houses and offices and teaching, for example, are traditionally considered undervalued and underpaid.

This devaluing of women's work can be explained by many factors including systemic discrimination, racism, the lack of women in political positions and occupational segregation. Pay inequity hurts women and their families. It makes women and children more vulnerable to poverty.

In Canada, more women than men live in poverty and the majority of single parent households are headed by a woman living on a low income. Since pay inequity contributes to poverty, it can have devastating health and social consequences, poor nutrition, inadequate housing, poor concentration and performance at school, and social isolation.

Pay inequity is also related to economic dependence which affects a woman's ability to leave an abusive relationship. Women bringing home lower paycheques also receive lower retirement incomes. Too often, senior women are living hand to mouth until the end of their lives.

Pay equity legislation helps to compensate women for this historic and systemic discrimination. Effective pay equity laws are a critical tool in advancing equality rights for all women and other historically disadvantaged groups.

The NDPs “Fairness for Women” document developed by our NDP caucus is available on our website. This will be a very helpful tool for the government. It must use it as a framework in developing a strategy to improve the--

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the softwood lumber agreement has devastated the industry in Vancouver Island North and like I said, the irony is not lost on people in my riding. We see truckload after truckload of raw logs leaving our forest dependent communities to be milled elsewhere. That is all a direct result of the deal that was made with the U.S. It has basically sold out our industry and communities.

It is tragic. Thousands and thousands of jobs have been lost and now we are seeing the effects across the country. In Atlantic Canada there are mills closing. My colleague from Acadie—Bathurst was showing me pictures of trains of logs that are leaving his communities and that is costing thousands and thousands of jobs there.

I have to ask once again, why is the government not standing up for our communities and jobs for Canadians? We should be protecting jobs for Canadians.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his questions, but I think he missed the point on a whole lot of areas.

I said that ordinary Canadians are doing their part. They are trying really hard because they understand how critical it is to save the environment and they are looking for leadership from their government and they are not finding it.

The ecoenergy program that the government put forward is a disaster. People are writing to me to tell me they have tried to get funding but that they cannot get it, so many things are not covered, things that would actually work such as solar panels. It is one thing that is not covered.

The government needs to take action on large final emitters. We can do everything such as change light bulbs, cars and all kinds of things, but if the government does not introduce hard caps on large emitters, it is all for not. It will not make any difference.