Anita Neville

[Questions on the Order Paper, March 12th, 2009]

With regard to the Indian Residential Schools Settlement: (a) what steps have been taken by the government to ensure that survivors of the Île-à-la-Crosse Residential School in Saskatchewan receive compensation that is set out in the Indian Residential Schools Settlement; (b) does the government have records of survivors from the Île-à-la-Crosse Residential School and, if so, how many does the department have record of; and (c) what are the unresolved issues of which the Prime Minister spoke about in the House of Commons on June 12, 2008 that are preventing the government from compensating the survivors of the Île-à-la-Crosse Residential School in Saskatchewan?

[Questions on the Order Paper, March 12th, 2009]

With regard to decommissioned military bases: (a) how many homes are vacant at the Kapyong Barracks; (b) how many homes are presently vacant across the country at decommissioned military bases; (c) what is the cost to maintain the vacant homes at the Kapyong Barracks; (d) what is the cost to maintain all vacant homes across the country at decommissioned military bases; (e) what decommissioned bases across the country have been transferred to Canada Lands; (f) which decommissioned military bases are waiting to be transferred to Canada Lands; (g) what regulations are in place for decommissioned military bases with vacant housing that determines the use and occupancy of these houses; (h) when was the last time the regulations were changed with regard to the use of the houses on decommissioned military bases; and (i) is there any flexibility in the application of these regulations or the use of them?

[Petitions, March 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased to stand today to present a number of petitions to the House of Commons from the Canadian Grandmothers for Africa. As the House has already heard, the grandmothers have obtained over 32,000 signatures from Canadians all over the country to raise attention to HIV and AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, the extreme poverty and drug shortages in sub-Saharan Africa.

The situation there is dire. The government must take note and must take action, as thousands of Canadians have indicated their concern. This is a worthwhile initiative and I feel privileged to have been able to work with Grands 'n' More in Winnipeg and to present part of this petition here today.

[Aboriginal Affairs, March 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, approximately 27,000 first nations children are in first nations and provincial agency care. That is three times the number of children who were in residential schools at their peak.

The matter has been brought before the Canadian Human Rights Commission and now the government has attempted to dismiss the case through the Federal Court because the Conservatives just do not seem to care. Are they afraid of what might be found?

Reconciliation is about much more than just saying sorry.

[The Environment, March 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, nearly four years have passed since the previous Liberal government came to an agreement with the United States on the matter of Devils Lake. At the time, the U.S. agreed to put a high-quality permanent filter in place and build an advanced biota treatment facility for the outlet.

To date the American government has failed to honour its part of the agreement. Every spring the State of North Dakota opens the gate. Last year the outlet continued to operate with a grossly inadequate gravel filter, causing the flow of foreign species into Canadian waters, compromising Manitoba's fresh water supply and threatening Lake Winnipeg's ecosystem.

Despite this, the government does little. The regional minister denies the existence of the agreement and sees little problem with the current situation.

Spring runoff is around the corner. Once water levels start to rise, the gates will open with a faulty filter. The government must request the new Obama administration to take urgent action. The Conservative government must move rapidly to resolve this very important transborder issue.

[Status of Women, February 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday I asked the Minister of State for the Status of Women what files of importance to women she was the lead minister on. She responded with how much money her department had.

Yesterday I asked the minister what gender-based analysis was done on the budget, and the reply was personal invective.

Today I am trying again. Can the minister tell Canadian women what she and her department did to ensure a gender-based analysis was done on the budget? What did she and her department do, in concrete terms, to ensure gender equity in the budget?

[February 25th, 2009]

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--

[February 25th, 2009]

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.

[Status of Women, February 25th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State for the Status of Women failed to tell the House what files she has the lead on that currently concern women in this country. In committee she could not or would not provide details on what gender-based analysis was done on the budget or what role her department played.

Can the minister advise the House and the women of Canada as to any leadership her department provided in ensuring that gender equity was considered in preparation of all aspects of the budget?

[Status of Women, February 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of State for the Status of Women appeared before the committee, she was unable to answer the urgent questions of concern to women today. On employment insurance, she indicated she was not the lead minister; on pay equity, again she was not the lead minister; on child care, once again she was not the lead minister.

Other than carrying what she calls “a little big stick”, can she tell the women of Canada and the House if she is indeed the lead on any issue of concern to the women of this country?