Anita Neville

[March 31st, 2009]

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives do not have a monopoly on virtue when it comes to the issue of violence against women. I think that is a concern of all members of all parties and not solely that of Conservatives.

My colleague across references the minister's appearance at the UN. I would be ashamed to be a minister at an international meeting where the people and the women of my own country demonstrating against me. The Conservatives have co-opted the word “equality” and re-tooled it to fit their own needs as to what constitutes equality.

We must remember that the Prime Minister signed the CEDAW pledge. He understood what the CEDAW pledge meant in terms of the elimination of discrimination against women.

When the minister and the Prime Minister represent Canada abroad, they should remember the words of Gandhi, “We must be the change we want to see in the world”.

[March 31st, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity this evening to follow up on a question that I asked in the House regarding the CEDAW declaration that the Prime Minister signed during the election campaign of 2006. As most will know, CEDAW is the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, a UN document that all leaders in the election campaign signed.

The response I received at the time did not even begin to address the obligations under CEDAW. Therefore, I am pleased to have the opportunity to ask the question again tonight.

As many in the House know, since the Conservative government has come into power, Canada has been somewhat of an international embarrassment. It failed to ratify the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, it obstructed climate change at the UN, it failed to take the recommendations from the universal peer review of Canada seriously and, most certainly, it has failed to uphold the UN Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women in spite of the fact that the Prime Minister, in an election campaign, signed a pledge card, which many of us as candidates saw, and has woefully neglected to address.

The government has cut funding to women's advocacy. It took the word “equality” from the mandate of the Status of Women. It eliminated funding for research under the Status of Women, research, ironically, that it has been referring to and trumpeting.

Earlier this month, women across the country voiced their displeasure with the government's lack of action for Canadian women and protested the Minister of State for the Status of Women when she took the stage at the UN Commission on the Status of Women last month, another embarrassment.

Representatives of Canadian women's organizations, labour unions, and not-for-profits gathered at the front gates of the United Nations to protest the government's regressive policies towards women. At the protest the women announced their intent to file a complaint against the government with the UN.

It has been nearly six months since CEDAW issued its observations on Canada's record. It has asked for Canada to respond within a year, and to the best of my knowledge, little progress has been made on the response to date.

The committee's comments have been described by many as serious, disturbing and scathing. So far, there has been no action. Budget 2009 was the time to advance the equality of women and to address concretely some of the recommendations in the CEDAW document, or at least to reference them and acknowledge them.

The committee made about 20 recommendations to Canada that are detailed and reasonable. It spoke certainly to the closing of the Status of Women Canada offices across the country and the limited accessibility for women. It talked about the government's revision of status of women guidelines and its doing away with advocacy and research.

Because of the extraordinary circumstances, CEDAW asked for a report within one year on the social assistance levels across the country and action on the growing problem of violence against aboriginal women. More specifically, CEDAW spoke to the 500 missing and murdered aboriginal women. It spoke to the status of women under Bill C-31 of the first session of the 33rd Parliament and to many other issues.

Most particularly I want to emphasize the court challenges program and the elimination of that program.

[Public Safety, March 25th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Red River is rising rapidly in Manitoba and even more rapidly south of the border.

Flood preparations are under way in Manitoba. The river will reach its highest levels since the flood of 1997. At that time, the federal government provided a full-scale response.

Can the government advise the House and Manitobans what it is prepared to do in this potential emergency?

[Vincent Massey Collegiate, March 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, this past weekend, the Manitoba Association of School Trustees 2009 Premier Award for School Board Innovation was won by Vincent Massey Collegiate in Fort Garry, in Winnipeg, given for its alternative energy array project.

Guided by a student-led sustainable development committee, the school made alternative energy and sustainability a priority for learning and action. After establishing a weather station on the roof of the school and collecting data for nine months, student research determined what energy sources should be focused on and what type of equipment was required to meet those needs.

The goal was to establish a small-scale wind turbine, solar cells, a green roof and a greenhouse. The wind turbine was launched in the fall of 2008. The green roof and solar cells are to be launched in the spring of 2009 and 2010.

Their goal, as stated in their application for the award, is to create a learning environment where—

[Business of Supply, March 24th, 2009]

That is nonsense.

[Business of Supply, March 24th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I could not have said it better. Our primary responsibility as parliamentarians is not only to represent the interests of our constituents but also to hold the government to account in its spending and to ensure that there is transparency, accountability and open dialogue on all spending.

[Business of Supply, March 24th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, the issue is that we do not approve of the budget and what I call the slush fund. We must know where the moneys are going prior to their going out.

We recognize the importance of getting money out to Canadians. We recognize there are many important issues in the stimulus plan. We recognize there are many vulnerable Canadians. There is an expectation among Canadians that government will respond. That is the basis upon which we are taking action.

[Business of Supply, March 24th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, indeed, I do understand it, but I still have a difficulty with it. One does not write a blank cheque without knowing where the money is going. I say to the member opposite, there has been a great deal of money in the budget that has been ready to go out. It has been approved in previous governments. Why has that not gone out? Have the government and its officials been too busy, too hamstrung? What is it that has prevented the government from getting dollars out earlier, dollars that have been approved, committed and the government knows where those dollars are going?

My difficulty is in approving money without knowing where it is going. I do not dispute the importance of getting the stimulus out to Canadians, but I think it is incumbent upon us as parliamentarians to know where and how that money is going to be spent.

[Business of Supply, March 24th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Pickering—Scarborough East.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to stand and speak to this motion today. As we have heard in the House already, this is very much a motion about trust, trust in this House of Commons and trust that Canadians do or do not have for their government.

While the Liberals agree that extraordinary action is needed to address the economic crisis, we believe that there is no need to sacrifice accountability while taking action. We are not requesting any additional red tape. We are asking the government to disclose, which can be done on a website as one of the tools, as we have done to hold it accountable. It is simply not credible for the government to ask for approval for spending but be unwilling to provide any details for it.

As parliamentarians, we have been duly elected by our constituents and we have a responsibility to examine, to perform due diligence and to know beforehand where these dollars will be going.

I would like to tell members a little about my own province of Manitoba. We hear the words “trust me” coming from across the way. There are challenges that those of us who are not in government face in Manitoba and in fact challenges faced by those in Manitoba who do not support the government.

I come from a small province. We know each other. We work together. We make things happen and frequently things happen in the jurisdiction of Manitoba way ahead of other jurisdictions because we cooperate. We work together. We know each other. We discuss and we collaborate and we make accommodations. However, we find some very serious problems with the current federal government. The Conservatives come before us in this House and tells us to trust them, that if we give them the money they will do it.

I come from a province where public servants of a different party and public servants across the board are often overtly intimidated by government members. That is a reality. The public discourse in Manitoba often includes misleading the public on the positions of elected representatives from other parties. That is a reality. Most recently, we had a cabinet minister in Manitoba sit outside the door of an auditorium keeping track of those who came and went when hearing the leader of another party speak.

Funding is announced, reannounced and reannounced once again, and little of the money flows. A disproportionate amount of the funding that is announced and that does flow does not go into ridings of opposition members. It only goes into ridings of cabinet members.

There are many more items of this sort that I could list.

The Conservatives' behaviour is troublesome. They tell us to trust them but their behaviour in Manitoba creates a climate of fear, a lack of trust and a lack of respect for other public figures, whether elected or non-elected. The government that campaigned on accountability said that it could not be held to account if Parliament did not know the accurate state of public finances. That was in its 2006 Conservative Party election platform.

How can the Conservatives be trusted with $3 billion when they have shown time and again that they cannot get the money out the door? I am repeating myself but I believe Canadians have a right to know ahead of time where their tax dollars are going to be spent and they have the right to know if these funds are being used solely for the proper economic stimulus measures that Parliament believes should be in place and that all Canadians can track, or whether these moneys are being used for partisan purposes and buying votes.

The issue is trust. The issue is the record that we have had in my province and it is an issue of great concern for us.

On the infrastructure projects, much has been said. In 2007, of the $8.8 billion building Canada fund, we know that only a small amount of it has flowed. The figure that is most commonly used is 6%, only $1.5 billion. So far the government committed only to $1.5 billion and only $97 million has flowed. The money is not out the door. Yet the Conservatives are asking us to please give them free access with this $3 billion slush fund. How can they be trusted with $3 billion of unaccountable money when they have not put out the dollars for the projects that have been announced and committed to and that have gone through the due diligence of department and Treasury Board surveillance?

The Minister of State for the Status of Women continually boasts that her department has funded the highest levels ever, but that money is not going out the door. In 2007-08, of the $30.1 million in total authorities, her department spent $25.3 million.

We know that there has been no proposal call since July 2008. Just this morning there was a group in my office asking when it will happen. We do not know. Why is this money not going out? Why is this money not flowing?

The $5 million that was slipped could have gone to women in need. It could have gone to projects denied by the government that we know met program criteria. Women's groups are being denied funding or being told where their funding must go. They are being told that they can have funding if it goes to a certain geographic area or program. Groups have received cuts and we know that women are being hardest hit by this recession.

We are also encountering a real discrepancy in status of women funding. We have heard members of the government in the status of women committee speak to the fact that we do not have the responsibility to fund areas that are within provincial jurisdiction, but there is a real ambivalence, because if a person can gain access to those programs that are funded by the status of women, and gaining access to them has become a bit of a challenge, we know that they are indeed crossing over into provincial jurisdiction. That is a challenge for us.

We also know that the criteria for program funding in status of women has changed with every subsequent minister. We have been asking for an opportunity to see the changing criteria. It has been weeks since we have asked for this both of the minister and of her senior bureaucrats and for some reason we cannot get it.

We talk about accountability and transparency, but there is virtually nothing on the website. Parliamentarians, the public and women's groups want to know, but there is nothing there.

Another issue I have with this $3 billion slush fund, for lack of a better comment as it relates to trust and transparency is that we have no indication to whom this money will go. That is a given. Do we know that it will go to the most vulnerable? Do we know that it will address poverty? Do we know that it will benefit Canadian women?

When we look at an analysis of the budget, we know that there was certainly no consideration of priority to the vulnerable. There was no consideration of priority to women. Again, transparency, trust, how can we count on the government to do it? It clearly wants a $3 billion blank cheque. I, for one, have a great deal of difficulty signing that blank cheque without the accountabilities that my colleague has proposed for the government.

As I mentioned earlier, the government has committed to funding time and time again in Manitoba, but the real challenge in Manitoba is that the money, when it is committed, trickles out, if it gets out. Continually there are announcements and reannouncements for major projects and press conferences are staged, but nothing is happening.

The Red River floodway expansion has been announced a few times. Of the $141.5 million committed to it, not all of it has gone forward to the floodway authority. We are waiting.

There is $18 million for Lake Winnipeg, the heart of the province of Manitoba. This funding has been announced and reannounced. There have been press opportunities and photo opportunities. People are waiting. The funding is not coming. There are small amounts coming out. This funding was announced in 2007 and 2008. If this money is not moving, why is a $3 billion slush fund needed?

Municipalities in my province need funding. Madam Speaker, as you are indicating that my time is up, let me just make the point that the Association of Manitoba Municipalities has been totally cut out of the infrastructure process. How can we trust a government that eliminates those who know best?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, March 12th, 2009]

With regard to the National Parole Board and the Department of Public Safety: (a) what mechanisms are put in place to ensure a fair and culturally responsive approach to the parole board's administration; (b) are there specific considerations taken into account when Aboriginals appear before the parole board; (c) what mechanisms are put in place to ensure that there is suitable Aboriginal representation on the parole board; and (d) currently, what percentage of parole board members are Aboriginal?