Anita Neville

[Health, April 20th, 2010]

There were different words at committee yesterday, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of Public Safety issued a statement about science in February, “Science is about neutral fact-finding, and in this case, the critical health and safety of Canadians”.

Could the Minister of Health therefore explain why a minister contacted a board member of the ICID, suggesting that the Winnipeg application for the Canadian HIV vaccine initiative was indeed in jeopardy?

[Health, April 20th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, scientists, Winnipeggers and the HIV community want answers. The Canadian HIV vaccine initiative was jointly announced in 2007 with the Gates Foundation. The International Centre for Infectious Diseases in Winnipeg was a prime contender for the work.

It is reported that the Minister of Public Safety tried to plant the provincial Conservative campaign manager in Manitoba as the chair of ICID, but the scheme failed. Is that why the Conservatives just cancelled the HIV initiative altogether?

[Ethics, April 13th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, we know the government was happy with the reports it got from BMCI in the NAFTA-gate and Couillard affairs. After all, it was told what it wanted to hear.

Why would the government not investigate whether privileged and valuable information was shared with the men behind Green Power Generation Corporation?

Is the real reason the government did not hire BMCI this time is that one of the people on the payroll at BMCI is Patrick Glémaud who is also Rahim Jaffer's business partner?

[Ethics, April 13th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, normally when the government runs into ethical trouble, as it did with NAFTA-gate and the Julie Couillard affair, it does not go to the police.

When the government needed a whitewash to try to convince Canadians that no one got privileged access to insider information, it hired a small Ottawa firm called BMCI. Why was BMCI not called in this time?

[Ethics, April 12th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, let us get specific. The Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities is responsible for administering the $1 billion green infrastructure fund.

On September 3, 2009, the minister met with Rahim Jaffer in Ottawa. What did they discuss and were those discussions reported to the Commissioner of Lobbying, as required by law?

[Ethics, April 12th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are rightly outraged that well-connected Conservatives are apparently meeting with questionable businessmen and claiming they have the inside track on securing government funding. These claims are made more credible by the fact that these Conservatives appear to have had privileged access to federal cabinet.

Will the government come clean on all of the dates that its ministers have met with Rahim Jaffer or his business associates since they launched their company, Green Power Generation Corporation?

[Pay Equity Task Force Recommendations Act, April 12th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the debate on this private member's bill put forward by the leader of my party. This is a very important bill and one which I hope will be supported wholeheartedly by all members of this House.

As members may well be aware, women's equality in this country has been very much the casualty of the current government. We have been subjected to short-term political manoeuvring on women's issues for political gain. In light of some of the remarks that were made earlier, it is important to take a walk down memory lane to remind members in the House of some of the actions taken.

Members who were here in 2005 will remember that the House went down on a vote just on the cusp of a number of major initiatives that members talked about being implemented and taking root.

Members will remember that the national child care strategy had been signed by all of the provinces. My province of Manitoba was the first to sign this agreement. It was one of the most memorable moments in my career as a member of Parliament.

Members will also remember that the Kelowna accord had been signed and was about to take root. I listened to the disrespect shown to the Kelowna accord by some members of the House, that it was written on a napkin, that it was a last minute accord. I want them to say that face to face to those individuals who participated in the 18 month process of developing the Kelowna accord.

That accord would have improved the educational opportunities of countless numbers of young people in this country. It would have improved health care. It would have provided training in health care to a large number of young people. It would have dealt with the issues of maternal health in first nations communities. It would have dealt with the issues of governance.

More important, I want to remind members that the minister of justice at the time and the minister of labour at the time came to the Standing Committee on the Status of Women and made a firm, unequivocal commitment to bring forward legislation in March of the following year that would act on the recommendations of the task force on pay equity.

The commitment was made. The legislation was being drafted and it was going to come to the House for review. There was going to be a long consultation process with the appropriate stakeholders in the country on the legislation. It is important that members realize that this legislation was in development, there to be addressed with a strong, firm commitment.

It is important to remember that a national housing policy was about to be announced.

All of that was lost because of the political desire and political aspirations of members in the House.

Women's equality has very much taken a beating under the Conservative government. We have heard other members talk about the removal of equality from the status of women. We have heard about the removal of advocacy funding under Status of Women. We have heard about the fact that research dollars are no longer available under Status of Women.

We heard from the previous minister that she in fact had the final say on what organizations would or would not receive money under Status of Women funding programs, the partnership and the community program, and that she made the final decision as to who would receive money. We know from anecdotal evidence that the funding for hard-working, long-standing organizations in this country was denied on ideological grounds.

We know there has been little or no gender-based analysis done by the government. As I indicated before, we have lost the early learning and child care programs. Cuts have been made to literacy programs, which affects many women in this country.

As my colleague indicated, there has been little or no action on the missing and murdered aboriginal women. Just this weekend I had the opportunity to meet with a number of families of the missing and murdered aboriginal women to hear of the lack of supports that are available for the families of the women who have gone missing, the trauma in their lives and the inability to respond to it.

We know that the court challenges program has removed women's equality.

The previous minister indicated that she had the authority to influence policy across government and that she operated with “a little big stick”. I would say that as far as pay equity was concerned, the minister had no voice, no stick, not big, not little, and it did little for the women of this country.

It was unfortunate that the government surreptitiously, cynically may be the more appropriate word, chose to bring in the pay equity reforms under the budget implementation bill. The government really put the economic recovery of this country at risk by lumping it into that bill rather than having the courage of its convictions to introduce it as a separate bill standing on its own.

We have heard about the disparity of women's wages in this country. We have heard about the disparity of EI availability to women. We know that women are going to be greatly disadvantaged by the legislation the government has brought in, which is why the legislation we are debating today is so important.

Equal pay for work of equal value is a human right. It is not something to be bargained away through the bargaining process. It is not something where if one goes to one's union officials and chooses to ask for the support of one's union in accessing equal pay for work of equal value that a $50,000 fine be introduced. This is a very cynical approach. It is a very limited approach. It does little good for the women of this country.

I ask that members on both sides of this House read the legislation that we are debating this morning. I think that all reasonable right-thinking individuals would understand that this is a fundamental human right for women. It should be supported. It has support throughout the country. It does not disadvantage women. It is an important piece of legislation for the women of this country.

I would reiterate in closing that women in this country have not been well served in the last four years under the current government. It is time to begin a new chapter with a new minister and review what has not been done and what can be done.

This legislation would make a big difference in the lives of women. I urge all colleagues to support it.

[Status of Women, March 31st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the the status of women minister denies knowledge that her staff wrote a series of fawning letters to newspapers in her riding. However, the sheer volume of letters demonstrates a troubling pattern of deceit. Not only did her executive assistant, Jessica Craven, author at least four separate letters to the editor, but her constituency staffer, Valerie Knight, wrote at least three.

Does the minister not read her local papers? When will the minister step down for her serial abuses of public trust?

[Status of Women, March 17th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I invite the minister to read the Liberal pink book. It has a real action plan for all Canadian women developed after a consultation process. It is not three pillars unilaterally thought up over lunch.

The Minister of State for the Status of Women deflects questions on child care, pay equity, the court challenges program, maternal health, and housing. Is she responsible really for anything, or is her job to sit in the screen shot during question period?

[Status of Women, March 17th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the ineffectiveness of the Minister of State for the Status of Women is astounding. In 2008 she told us she was developing an action plan for Canadian women. Last May she said the plan would be completed soon. We have been waiting; we have been watching. Now we learn that her three identified priorities, or pillars as she calls them, are her action plan.

Those are just empty words. Where is her real action plan?