Anita Neville

[February 11th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I too was part of the discussions that saw Bill C-21 pass, which resulted in the rescinding of section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. It was a long journey that required many discussions and many amendments, and I was pleased to be part of it.

I appreciate the parliamentary secretary's comments. However, it is vitally important that the government address these responses on the international stage and respond to the CEDAW criticisms that it has one year to respond to. I urge the parliamentary secretary to urge his minister and those he works with to ratify the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Nothing would give aboriginal people more hope than to see the government ratify that agreement.

The government is one of four countries that has chosen not to ratify it, and it has taken the attitude that because it did not ratify it, it does not have to honour it. I urge him to urge his minister to ratify that agreement.

[February 11th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, last Thursday I rose in the House during question period and I asked a question which focused on the substance and on the seriousness of implementing key recommendations from the United Nations periodic peer review which was conducted last week in Geneva. This review included recommendations from some of our very close friends and allies, including the United Kingdom, Norway, Denmark and Switzerland.

Criticisms from the peer review included: Canada's failure to address violence against aboriginal women; the failure to uphold CEDAW obligations; the lack of effective remedies for particular rights violations, such as those in the area of economic and social rights of the most vulnerable; Canada's failure to support the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, especially in light of an opposition motion supporting its full implementation; and the fact that Canada has no strategy to eliminate poverty and homelessness, just to name a few.

My question focused on a number of these serious criticisms and asked about the government's plan to address them. In his answer, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development did not address the substance of my question and provided the House with information and quoted a reputable international rights lawyer from Winnipeg, David Matas, I think out of context.

In an email Mr. Matas sent to me on Friday, the day following the question, he points out that the minister “plays on an ambiguity. He takes something I said, about Canada's presentation, out of context. I was talking about form not substance. The drift of his answer suggests I was talking about substance and not form”.

In his comments, Mr. Matas continues in saying that the best one can say of the minister is that “he uttered a non sequitur, reacting to a question about how bad Canada is in substance by answering that Canada is in good form. It is illogical to respond to a charge of weaknesses in the Canadian human rights record by saying that Canada has presented a good report on those weaknesses...it looks to me that he has fallen into verbal game playing, undercutting at home what Canada is doing abroad. In Geneva, Canada is taking the UPR seriously, setting an example in the hope that other countries will also take the UPR seriously. This effort is undermined when Canada at home does not also take the UPR seriously but instead plays the kind of verbal games in which the minister has indulged”.

The government has still failed to adequately respond and give the House and indeed Canadians the answer they were looking for. Will the government finally stand and address the seriousness of this matter and let us know how it will address these recommendations, or will it continue to ignore the recommendations from international bodies and continue to embarrass Canada on the world stage?

[Points of Order, February 10th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, upon reading the blues yesterday, I realized I may have used some unparliamentary language in my point of order addressing an answer I received from the hon. Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development during question period last week.

I would like to retract the language that may have come into question. However, it must be noted that the minister still quoted Mr. Matas out of context and he failed to address the seriousness of my question in the House.

[Points of Order, February 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a point of order. Last Thursday, February 5, in his answer to my question, the hon. Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development apparently knowingly misled the House and Canadians on what I view to be a very important matter. He quoted an international human rights lawyer from Winnipeg, Mr. David Matas, very much out of context.

In quoting Mr. Matas, the minister confused process with substance. My question focused on the substance and the seriousness of implementing key recommendations from the United Nations periodic peer review, which was concluded last week in Geneva. This review included comments from Canada's close friends and allies.

Criticisms from the peer review included Canada's failure to address violence against aboriginal women, failure to uphold the CEDAW obligations and the fact that Canada had no strategy to eliminate poverty and homelessness. These criticisms raise serious issues that should be taken seriously.

The minister clearly avoided the question and turned to verbal gymnastics intended to deliberately mislead the House.

In an email Mr. Matas sent to me on Friday, the day following the question, Mr. Matas points out that the minister:

—plays on an ambiguity. He takes something I said, about Canada's presentation, out of context. I was talking about form not substance. The drift of his answer suggests I was talking about substance and not form.

In his comments, Mr. Matas continues in saying:

The best one can said of [the minister] is that he uttered a non-sequitur, reacting to a question about how bad Canada is in substance by answering that Canada is in good form. It is illogical to respond to a charge of weakness in the Canadian human rights record by saying that Canada has presented a good report on those weaknesses....

It looks to me that he has fallen into a verbal game playing, undercutting at home what Canada is doing abroad. In Geneva, Canada is taking the UPR seriously, setting an example in the hope that other countries will also take the UPR seriously. This effort is undermined when Canada at home does not also take the UPR seriously but instead plays the kind of verbal games in which [the minister] has indulged.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, it is evident the minister pointedly did not answer the question, deliberately took an experts word out of context and thereby misled the House and all Canadians.

[Status of Women, February 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the government's betrayal of women's equality is now an international issue. In November, the UN was scathing in its condemnation of Canada's record. Now it is the UN periodic peer review which cited serious concerns about Canada: failure to address violence against aboriginal women; failure to uphold the CEDAW obligations; and no strategy to eliminate poverty and homelessness.

When will the government take action on these recommendations or will it again choose to ignore them?

[The Budget, February 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if one can give a short answer to that question.

It shows a tremendous disrespect for Canadians to assume that they would rather sit at home and collect EI than go to work. I would invite the minister to come to my office and the offices of many of my colleagues on this side as we deal with some heart-wrenching stories from people who are trying to access EI because they are unemployed, who do not meet the criteria and are really challenged in terms of how they are going to feed their families.

[The Budget, February 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the member that it is not the province of Prince Edward Island; indeed it is members from the province of Newfoundland. Members from Newfoundland are tired of the Prime Minister's games of petty politics and holding a province hostage, and are therefore expressing their displeasure, with the concurrence and active support of our leader, to show that this kind of divisiveness and petty politics is not welcome in this House. I think that is very important.

I am not going to project three or six months out on what my party will or will not do. We will be holding the government to account. We will be looking at what measures are put in place or not put in place and what programs are being cut because of ideological bent, and we will be responding accordingly.

[The Budget, February 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite says “careful” and he knows that I know of what I speak.

The Kelowna accord offered promise and hope for first nations people. The government has moved a baby step forward, and I am not being critical of it, but what we need is a holistic, integrated response to first nations people that understands the needs, the local conditions and is geared to individual communities and jurisdictions.

To answer the member's question, yes, I speak regularly with first nations communities.

[The Budget, February 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I want to advise the member that I speak regularly with members of first nations communities, as well as with the leadership of aboriginal organizations across this country.

The government is beginning very slowly to address some of the needs of first nations, and this is after three years of overt directed neglect by the government.

[The Budget, February 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to a budget that is indeed long overdue.

Finally, after months of playing divisive politics during an unprecedented time of economic uncertainty, the government decided that it would govern, instead of playing politics with the lives of Canadians.

Canadians deserve real action. That is why our leader has said that he is putting the government on probation. That is why we put forth an amendment forcing the government to make mandatory progress reports and to show some accountability on its budget.

We believe it is in the best interests of Canadians for us to get to work in the House and indeed address the economy.

The Prime Minister said only a few months ago that our economy was strong enough to avoid the global recession and that he would never plunge our country back into deficit. We now face one of the largest deficits in our country's history. I say that we face the recession and deficit because of the government's blatant mismanagement. We know the cupboard is officially bare; as I said, we have to move now to take action to fix it.

The budget is flawed, but the government has taken some steps to move forward with measures for housing, for skills development, for expansion of the working income tax and child tax benefits, and for making credit available to business. As well, it has indeed made investments in colleges and universities, which is important for our country's future.

We only now see these important steps taken because the official opposition stood its ground and stood up for the interests of Canadians.

Time and again we in Manitoba have been shortchanged by the government. We have watched the government stand up and announce and reannounce and reannounce yet again millions of dollars for our province. It has made many announcements on funding for Lake Winnipeg totalling $18 million. Little of that money has flowed. Water samples drawn two and a half years ago remain untested. Will Manitoba ever see the full amount of the committed money?

The government announced new funding for the floodway and then, months later, reannounced it under a different program, shortchanging the province by $170 million. The money was not drawn out of a national strategic fund but out of designated provincial funds, as was not the case with the previous government.

Manitobans have been continually shortchanged by the government. If the government chooses to follow through, though--and I underline “chooses” to follow through--the province stands to benefit. We stand to receive roughly $140 million for infrastructure. However, the imperative of matching funding has the potential of either putting a heavy burden on people who pay property tax in Winnipeg, and indeed all of Manitoba, or of requiring governments to make quite unpalatable decisions.

Investment in CentrePort Canada is important for the future of the economic well-being of Manitoba, and we welcome it. Because of community collaboration, a legislative framework and strategic infrastructure investments, Manitoba will indeed have a competitive advantage and is ready to move forward on this initiative.

We welcome the upgrades to the Health Canada regional lab and the projected renovations to the Winnipeg Technical College in my riding, which are important projects for Manitoba, and we welcome the funding for aboriginal railways.

However, the potential shortfall in expected funding for health care is a serious concern, as is the one-year protection under the equalization program.

There is some affordable housing in the budget. However, I ask again whether this funding will reach Manitoba. As many know, there is a severe housing shortage in my province. I have spoken frequently in the House about the hundreds of homes that remain vacant at the decommissioned Kapyong Barracks in my own riding, at a significant cost to the treasury. It is such an injustice to pass by the homes knowing they all sit empty while people remain homeless or are barely hanging on.

These homes must be made available to the residents of Winnipeg pending the transfer to Canada Lands Company. There must be a way of working around the bureaucracy and the regulations.

The money in the budget will benefit first nations people. The budget has pledged $1.4 billion to first nations for housing, drinking water and education. However, this does not live up to the promise of the Kelowna accord. If Kelowna had been implemented by now, we would be well ahead on education, health, water, and the list goes on, but it is a baby step forward.

One particular concern when looking at the budget's investment in aboriginal people is the lack of action taken for aboriginal women. As NWAC president Bev Jacobs said:

[W]e needed to hear Aboriginal women specifically mentioned as part of the stimulus plan. Instead, we heard only general comment about Aboriginal issues such as social housing on reserves, Aboriginal skills and training, child and family services.

There were early indications the budget was going to reflect society and offer protection for the most vulnerable, but I’m not so sure this budget passes the litmus test!

Not only were aboriginal women ignored in this budget, but most women were ignored in it. This seems to be a growing trend with the government's ideological attacks on women. If the government had done a gender based analysis on this budget, it obviously ignored it because once again women were left out in the cold. The day after the budget The Globe and Mail wrote:

Stimulus falls short for many women. Recessions hit mothers hard, but they benefit less from income-tax cuts and infrastructure spending.

The article went on to say that some Canadian women may be measuring for a new kitchen today, but that is Ottawa chipping in for the cupboards with a tax break and that does not go for each and every woman in this country. The government has totally ignored the single mom, the low income family and the senior woman on her own.

As Kathleen Lahey, a law professor at Queen's University, said that the government is still giving bigger savings to richer families who need them less.

As my colleague for Mount Royal has said many times, human rights are women's rights, and women's rights are human rights for one and all. This government just does not get it. So many of the vulnerable have been bypassed. Where is the investment in a national child care program?

As Martha Friendly, a well-known child care advocate said, “An economic stimulus budget without child care will mean that women and children are last in the lineup for the lifeboats”.

The government put forth income tax cuts and increased the national child tax benefit, but that does not go far enough. A single mother earning $40,000 a year will only save 50 cents a day in this budget. A two income family with two children earning $70,000 a year will gain $275 a year. That does not even pay for a month of child care in Toronto.

The lack of child care spaces becomes a barrier as it becomes harder for women to hold jobs or full-time positions that would allow them to qualify for EI benefits. The $8 billion in infrastructure spending does not really cut it for creating jobs for women in this country. Yes, shovels are going into the ground across the country, but the majority of those shovels will be held by men. Only 7% of construction workers are women. Only 7% of those in trades and transportation are women. Only 22% of engineers are women. Only 21% of those in primary industries are women. Only 31% of manufacturing workers are women.

It does not appear that these infrastructure projects will be allocated to child care facilities or any projects that have a direct benefit to women. The changes to EI will not assist the average woman. Five extra weeks are welcome but the real need is for a change in the eligibility criteria.

Seventy per cent of part-time workers are women and almost two-thirds of minimum wage earners in Canada are women. With wages below the poverty line already, many women cannot survive on 55% of their salary.

The president to the south, in signing the pay equity bill, understands the reality women face today. What we have here is a proposal that deprives women of their right to go to court and to ensure their rights. Rights are non-negotiable. The government believes that it can bargain them away. In the language of the President of the United States, this government is on the wrong side of history as it relates to women's rights.