House of Commons photoLost her last election, in 2011, with 37% of the vote.
The Budget March 8th, 2010
Madam Speaker, I listened to the member talk about all the wonderful things that have gone into his riding, and I can only say that it would have been very nice if all ridings in the country had been able to benefit from those same opportunities had they not been targeted to certain ridings.
When the hon. member speaks about Kelowna--
The Budget March 8th, 2010
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to answer this question. I would ask the member opposite if he is aware that under the Kelowna accord, $400 million was indeed allocated to water infrastructure, and had the Kelowna accord been honoured, as it was passed, that would have been well on its way to happening?
I have met with the members of the Six Nations in the hon. member's area several times. In fact, I have visited it. I am well aware of the deficiencies at Six Nations. I am well aware of the lack of response to the educational requirements of Six Nations and the tepid response to some of the issues related to water.
I would say to the member opposite, if Kelowna had been agreed to, we would be well launched for men, women, children, everyone in this country, on education, health issues, infrastructure matters for first nations people and aboriginals in an urban setting.
The Budget March 8th, 2010
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity today to speak to the government's budget.
After months of recalibration, the government has come forward with what I would call a replay of budgets past. Not much is new since I stood in the House to speak to last year's budget. Like last year, a new session of Parliament has just begun after the Prime Minister prorogued Parliament to avoid a difficult time; but, apparently, this budget was the most difficult for him to bring forward, and I wonder why.
There is nothing new here. There is no real investment in job creation, no action on pensions, nothing on youth employment, nothing on culture, very little for post-secondary education, little on social programs and the list goes on.
I have chosen today, International Women's Day, to focus on the matters of concern to women in this country and, indeed, to their families.
Canada started the period 2006-10 with a $12 billion operating surplus and a new $5 billion child care plan that supported both children and their families, allowing mothers and fathers to go to work, to go school and contribute to the economy.
At budget time 2010, Canada has an estimated $40 billion net operating deficit for the period 2006-10 and no national child care plan. That $1.4 billion a year was spent on the universal child care benefit, which many tried to pass off as a child care program, which is far from the truth.
Before even asking what to watch for in budget 2010, we deserve an answer to the question, what did women get from the budget? Where did the $52 billion from the former surplus and the new deficit go? The budget certainly has not done much for women.
The only major announcement for women in the throne speech was to change the words of O Canada, but that needed recalibration because, two days later, the Prime Minister rescinded it.
I continue to wonder, where are the new ideas, where is the vision? Indeed, is there a vision for this country?
Only a few days ago, we celebrated the remarkable success of Canada's female athletes. We saw real national pride in Vancouver as our athletes gave their all for us. Medal after medal, gold after gold, they showed the true Olympic spirit. These women, and it was a disproportionate number of women, showed strength and courage in Vancouver and they truly represented this country with honour.
I would particularly like to acknowledge and thank Cindy Klassen and Clara Hughes, both of whom are Manitobans and are retiring, for their extraordinary ability to inspire young people. I particularly note Clara Hughes' ability to give back by giving forward through her financial contributions to the community around her.
The government boasts about its achievements for Canadian women, but it unfortunately comes up very sadly short. The statements of the government are selective. As Carol Goar pointed out in today's Toronto Star, in reflecting on the minister's speech to the UN in New York, “...it was selective to the point of misrepresentation”. As an aside, I commend to members here the real and substantive speech that inspires pride, delivered by the American representative at the UN, a remarkable document and remarkable commitment to American women.
As a group, women are poorer, have fewer savings, hold less secure jobs and own less property. Some 40% of working women in Canada do not even make enough money to pay income tax.
This is a government that talks about having more women in cabinet, but under its watch the proportion of women on the government benches has fallen to 11% from 25% under the government of Paul Martin, and 23% under that of Jean Chrétien.
Women's equality has suffered from the regressive policies of the government. It has bargained away women's rights to equal pay for work of equal value. There is little evidence of gender-based analysis in the budget and in the action plan, let alone in most pieces of legislation. The government has cut the operating budget of Status of Women Canada by 43%, while removing the word “equality” from the mandate of its women's program.
There are no dollars available for women to advocate on behalf of their concerns and issues. There is certainly nobody over there advocating for women.
They have removed the gender equality unit in the human rights division of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. They have eliminated the funding, as we all know, for the court challenges program. They axed the $1 billion annual early learning and child care program, as I referred to earlier.
They axed the Kelowna accord which would have provided much-needed health and education funding for aboriginal men and women. If the Kelowna accord had been implemented, funding in the area of $1 billion would have been spent on education for aboriginal children and their parents. It is a major travesty that that was not done. Housing would have been in place, infrastructure would have been in place, a capacity of organizations would have been in place.
The government has failed to produce the action plan announced in budget 2008 to advance the equality for women by improving their economic and social conditions, and their participation in democratic life.
The government has ignored a November 25, 2008, motion passed unanimously in the House of Commons to develop a violence against women prevention strategy. Violence against women is of epidemic proportions both in this country and beyond. It undermines gender equality, it negatively impacts women's health, and it negatively impacts their educational opportunities, their political and economic opportunities.
The minister speaks of building a network of shelters, and this work is not unimportant but it is not the symptoms that we should be dealing with, we should be dealing with the issues at their root problem and working hard on them.
Last week's budget offered little if anything to rectify all the cuts the government has made to women's rights. As the Canadian Federation of University Women pointed out, “The budget really left women behind on the issues that would lift women out of economic recession and poverty, this budget is shamefully silent”. And as stated in a seminal study, and I recommend it to all, by Kathleen Lahey of Queen's University, “--women have only received about 7 to 22 per cent of federal infrastructure spending--”.
Why were there no gender equity requirements in the dispersal and the planning for these infrastructure spending programs? Was there a real gender-based analysis done? I think not. Did the government look at setting up funding for social infrastructure? As the House may have heard me say earlier, the government managed to allocate $0.5 million or thereabouts to women's shelters while three times that amount went to animal shelters. That is a shame, an absolute shame.
We know that small numbers of women will benefit from the GST cuts. We know that for 40% of women, their incomes are so low that they receive no benefit from personal income taxes. They do not pay them. And the 36% who receive EI enhancements, that is certainly not enough.
We all know that access to child care is a growing concern for young parents. We know that in whatever forum we meet with individuals, whether it is talking about women in non-traditional trades, farm unions or businesswomen, the overriding issue is access for early learning and child care. It is more than a social program. It is an economic program that would very much help stimulate the economy of this country and provide opportunities for individuals to be the best that they can be.
It is 40 years since the Royal Commission on the Status of Women. Since then women have made some advancement while hoping for much more. I would say that in the last four years women in this country have gone backwards.
Status of Women March 8th, 2010
Mr. Speaker, Canadian women are saying: “The minister of state speaks about violence against women but supports the rollback of the gun-control laws”. “Many women find it difficult to access quality child care and when they do, it is a serious financial burden--”. “We get tinkering around the edges, not new benefits, not more benefits but administrivia”. “On the issues that would lift women, this budget is shamefully silent”.
Who in the government advocates for Canadian women?
Status of Women March 8th, 2010
Mr. Speaker, one year later, two months of recalibrating and what have women gained: an action plan that bypasses women, less than $600,000 for women's shelters compared to $1.5 million for animal shelters, few jobs for women, no funding for child care projects, no apparent gender-based analysis, a ludicrous tinker to the national anthem, and a sop to women.
When will the government stand up for the real needs of Canadian women?
Status of Women March 4th, 2010
Mr. Speaker, on February 19, at the Charlottetown Airport, the Minister of State for the Status of Women demonstrated behaviour that was unbecoming any Canadian, let alone a minister of the Crown.
Could the Prime Minister answer the question that his own backbenchers are asking? Why is that person still in cabinet?
The Economy March 4th, 2010
Madam Speaker, I thank the member opposite for his comments, particularly his remarks on the infrastructure funding. He is undoubtedly aware, having read the newspapers today, that a study out of Queens University gives an analysis of the infrastructure funding and spending. He talked about jobs, and jobs are important, but jobs are equally important for women as well as men.
The study has shown that out of the infrastructure funding, only 7% of construction, trade or transportation workers are women, only 21% or 22% of engineers and workers in the primary industries are women, and only 21% of manufacturing workers are women. Of the $9.4 billion spent to date, about half a million dollars went to women's shelters. That is 0.006% of total spending, compared to $1.5 million that went to upgrade animal shelters.
Was a gender-based analysis done on the infrastructure funding? Has a gender-based analysis been done on the budget, or will one be done?
Mr. Speaker, one does not normally comment on a member's absence or presence in the House.
What I am asking for is a national comprehensive investigation into the missing and murdered aboriginal women. Why have so many women gone missing? Why have so many cases not been solved? Initiatives have been undertaken, but I would submit that they have been done in a scattergun manner. There has been no comprehensive strategy. There has been no comprehensive look at the root causes of it.
We know that a disproportionate number of the missing and/or murdered aboriginal women are young women who have been in care. Why have they been in care? Was it the circumstances under which they lived? What is necessary is a national comprehensive investigation that would look at all of the factors in an integrated, holistic way and would come up with recommendations for the future.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be back here. I have spoken on this issue before in previous late shows and I am back again in response to questions I have asked before. I want to underline the importance of what I am saying, the importance to many groups in Canada and, I would submit, the importance to many Canadians.
I want to acknowledge the Sisters in Spirit initiative of the Native Women's Association of Canada. It was launched by a Liberal government in 2005 and supported ongoing by the current Conservative government. It is an initiative that has brought forth the issue of the more than 520 missing and murdered aboriginal women and girls in our country.
Before this initiative, Canadians did not have much knowledge of this issue. They did not know about the tragedy that had been mounting over the past 30 years. Because of the important work of Sisters in Spirit and so many other grassroots organizations, the national disgrace is now part of the public dialogue.
More than 223 of the 520 recorded cases have happened since the year 2000. That is 43% in the last nine years. These cases are all over the country. It is not a provincial problem. It is a national problem and it is one that needs to be addressed by the federal government.
To date, since we on this side of the House have raised the issue and called for a national, public and comprehensive investigation into the matter, it has been the provinces that have taken up leadership on the issue. Manitoba announced a joint task force with the RCMP and Winnipeg Police Service on this matter earlier this fall. Alberta has an initiative to look into the disappearances which have happened in that province. The province of British Columbia is launching its own inquiry.
These inquiries should not be left up to the provinces. These cases are national in scope. Many of the girls could have been trafficked, or have been trafficked, across borders and may be in other provinces and perhaps even in other countries, yet the federal government chooses not to take action on this critical problem.
Last year at the United Nations peer review, Canada was denounced for not taking any action on this matter. The council gave the government an opportunity to respond with a deadline of November this year. That deadline has come and gone and now we hear the government will reply some time later this year.
Why is it not taking this issue seriously? Why is it not giving it pre-eminent attention? What will it take and how many more women have to go missing?
I know the government's response will talk about the work of Sisters in Spirit. I applaud the initiative of Sisters in Spirit and I hope to hear it say that it will renew this initiative. The research is important, but it is now time to take action and it is time for the government to act. I am hopeful the government will finally hear the calls from aboriginal peoples across the country and the international community and launch a public investigation into this matter.
I have travelled the country, primarily in western Canada, meeting with individuals and organizations. I know this is what they are looking for and I know they are calling on the government to act, and I am as well.
National Holocaust Monument Act December 8th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, I had not anticipated speaking because I did not know the bill was up tonight, but I am very pleased to have an opportunity to speak to it.
As it happens, I have a bill on the order paper that is virtually the same as this one. Unfortunately, I am much further down on the list and do not have the opportunity to present it.
I want to speak to this bill because I think it is very important. As one of the proposers of the Holocaust memorial day here on the Hill, I think it is a natural conclusion that there be a permanent memorial.
As members are undoubtedly aware, there are hearings going on in this building that deal with anti-Semitism in Canada. An all-party coalition is looking at the issue of anti-Semitism. Just yesterday we heard a very important discussion on the importance of remembering the Holocaust, how important the Holocaust is, not only for defining the history of the Jewish people but also for speaking to the atrocities that man is capable of and, as we heard earlier tonight, to say never again.
This is an important initiative. It is important that all parties and all members in the House support it. However, I want to digress a little. We heard a member opposite speak of the Canadian Museum for Human Rights in Winnipeg, which is an important initiative in this country. The original capital funding of $100 million promised by the previous Liberal government is fully supported by the current government, which I applaud, as is the ongoing operating funding making it a national museum.
However, the important issue is that the genesis of the Canadian Museum for Human Rights in Winnipeg was that it would be a Holocaust museum. There was much discussion over it and much input from a whole host of communities as to whether it should be a Holocaust museum or indeed a museum of human rights, as it is now established.
It is equally important that there be a permanent Holocaust gallery in the Canadian Museum for Human Rights. It was the vision of the late Israel Asper in promoting this museum. It was the basis upon which many private sector donors made their contributions to it. I think that however we acknowledge and look at the Holocaust, whether through the Holocaust Memorial Day or through a permanent remembrance of the Holocaust on the grounds of this building, as we have on the grounds of the legislative buildings in Manitoba, or a permanent museum in the Canadian Museum for Human Rights, every one of them is equally important and must be sustained.
I am pleased to have had the opportunity to speak however briefly, and I am hopeful that all members of all parties will see fit to support this. It is something that it is important, not just to acknowledge what happened in the past, but, as we have heard elsewhere tonight, to ensure that our children know what happened and will determine that it will never happen again in the future.