Anne-Marie Day

[Intergovernmental Relations, June 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, with each passing day, we learn a bit more about how incompetent and inexperienced the Conservatives are when it comes to job training. Yesterday, the western premiers joined Quebec and Ontario in condemning problems with the Canada job grant, a program, I should point out, that does not even exist.

Can the minister tell us why she is ignoring the provinces and why she is wasting thousands of dollars promoting a program that does not exist?

[Financial Administration Act, June 17th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am truly pleased to speak for five minutes today to Bill C-473, which would amend the Financial Administration Act in order to improve the representation of women on boards of directors of crown corporations.

I would like to reiterate that gender equality must be a priority for Canadians. In its Constitution, Canada recognizes that men and women are equal under the laws of Canada. However, when it comes to economic independence, equality in decision-making, violence against women, pay equity and other issues, there remains a great deal of work to be done in order for men and women to be equal in economic, social and political terms in Canada.

In the last hour of debate, my colleague from York West raised a number of points that should be clarified for the benefit of all members of the House.

First, I would like to speak about the percentage mentioned in the bill's preamble. The data were provided by the Library of Parliament and indicate that women represent a mere 27% of directors on boards of Canada's crown corporations.

It is the responsibility of parliamentarians to enact legislation on this matter. This morning, the member for Calgary Centre-North spoke about private enterprises, whereas I am referring only to crown corporations. They are two completely different matters, and we must not mix them up.

She also spoke about aboriginal peoples. I would remind the House that when we are discussing women, fairness and representation on boards of directors, the appointment of aboriginal women will also be welcomed.

There were also questions about how to go about this. It is so simple that we could provide ministers with a basic guide on how to appoint women to boards of directors. I would humbly remind members that the minister has people from the crown corporations managed by his or her department make these appointments.

Competency must remain the basis for recruitment. As I explained earlier, it is merely a question of ensuring that male and female candidates are presented for each position. There are enough talented, competent and experienced women in the areas of management, finance, law and engineering to ensure that 50% of the positions are filled by women.

I would remind the House that many appointments are made based on the “old boys' club” model. We all know or have worked with someone who approached us to do some lobbying, for instance. Then, when the time comes to appoint representatives, we think of that individual.

People often go as far as relaxing the qualification criteria, in order to appoint a male candidate rather than a woman who has the required skills. I would also remind the House that, since the late 1980s, more women than men have been graduating with degrees in public administration.

I want to reiterate once again that Bill C-473 deals only with crown corporations. It imposes absolutely no restrictions on private corporations, which is why it is so important for the government, as an employer, to set an example and hold itself to higher standards of female representation among executive ranks.

There is absolutely no downside to this. In Quebec, women make up over 50% of boards of directors of crown corporations. This has no negative impact. Quebec crown corporations have not been altered because they have appointed women as leaders.

Lastly, Bill C-473 aims to achieve gender parity in six years. Why six years? Simply because Quebec managed to achieve it in five years. We therefore believe that the federal government can achieve it in six years.

The NDP has always been a strong advocate for women's rights and always will be. We have an opportunity here to make a significant gesture in support of Canadian women and to allow them to take their rightful place in the decision-making processes that govern our democracy.

In closing, let us not wait 150 years.

[First Nations Elections Act, June 14th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, according to the Grand Chief of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, Derek Nepinak, the proposal does not fulfill the recommendations of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs. It appears to be an attempt by the minister to expand governmental jurisdiction and control over first nations electoral processes that are created pursuant to the Indian Act or custom code.

Does the member for Churchill not agree that this bill sidesteps a true democratic process by imposing a statutory framework that will violate the rights of first nations?

[Canadian Museum of History Act, June 14th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, while I am proud, I would say that this museum has nothing to do with pride. The Conservatives want to reduce history to military history. We already have the Canada Aviation and Space Museum. It could be turned into a military museum, which would solve the problem.

The War of 1812 is not the be-all and end-all. It was one event in history. Yes, we should be proud of it. On a VIA Rail train, I was served a new kind of wine with a label commemorating the War of 1812. There is no need to get carried away.

The Canadian Museum of Civilization touches on sociology and civilizations, and the history of women in particular. Women make up 52% of this country's population. If the museum is forced to use a dated structure, and everything that comes along with that, the focus will be on the masculine.

When will women start to be part of our history? There is no focus on women, yet we make up 52% of the population. What does the member think about that?

[Employment Insurance, June 13th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, with a million new jobs and employment insurance deductions at source, the fund should be in the black.

I should point out that Canada's unemployment rate is still 7.1%, which is much higher than the unemployment rate prior to the 2008 recession. In addition, the proportion of individuals working is still 62%, which represents a gap of 400,000 jobs compared to the employment rate prior to the recession. That is a net loss.

We are far from back to normal, and this government's austerity policies, as the IMF pointed out, should be cut short in favour of measures that foster growth. The employment insurance reform, which is penalizing thousands of workers who are having an increasingly difficult time accessing benefits, should be completely overhauled.

Canadians deserve a fair and accessible system for all.

[Employment Insurance, June 13th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, a few short weeks ago, I had to ask the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development a question about a media release from the International Monetary Fund concerning the austerity measures implemented in Canada.

The International Monetary Fund, which is not exactly a left-leaning economic organization, is well known for its sometimes extreme rhetoric promoting fiscal austerity to get world economies back on track after a recession.

However, this same organization, which recently publicly admitted that its most renowned economists were wrong about their global budget forecasts and the impact of austerity policies, reversed its position on Canada's policies. Indeed, the IMF stated that it had called on governments to implement austerity plans with caution.

The IMF added that overly sharp budget-balancing could increase risks and also said that decreasing debt is a marathon, not a sprint, and that going too fast will kill growth and further derail the recovery.

The IMF also said that the decline in global growth would slow Canada's economic growth. It anticipates the Canadian economy to grow by 1.7% this year and 2% next year. These predictions reflect drops of two-tenths of a percentage point and one-half of a percentage point, respectively, based on predictions from September. This downward revision leads us to believe that the Canadian economy is and will be dragged down by various global economic problems, such as the weak economy recovery in Europe, decreased commodity prices and economic growth in emerging countries that is not meeting our expectations.

The IMF points out that Canada does not need to be overly zealous in getting its finances in order. The main short-term challenge is to sustain its weak growth and to reduce other economic vulnerabilities, such as decreased commodity prices and the fact that the Conservative government is putting all of its eggs in one basket by focusing almost exclusively on our natural resources instead of ensuring that our country maintain a strong and diversified economy.

Based on this information, I would like to ask the minister why her government is moving forward with EI reform, when this reform is being widely criticized even by her own provinces. If such draconian austerity measures are not unnecessary, why is the government going after middle-class families who expect to get the services they are entitled to, since they made their contributions?

All this proves is that the reform unnecessarily guts the system and does nothing to improve our economy. On the contrary, these new policies weaken our regional economies, which rely on seasonal industries.

Could the minister explain why she is moving forward with gutting the EI system without any changes or consultation, if it is not in the name of Conservative ideology?

[Combating Counterfeit Products Act, June 12th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciated the hon. member's speech. It was very clear.

That said, I would like to provide some more information. In Italy, when counterfeit goods are bought or sold, tourists can be arrested on the spot, even as they come out of a Prada store or any other outfit, and be detained on site. Fortunately that does not happen here.

However, our SMEs and manufacturers have suffered heavy job losses caused by counterfeiting. I am talking about companies particularly in the clothing sector, such as Louis Garneau, Chlorophylle, Canada Goose—in some other areas—and North Face. These companies are big names in Canada. Counterfeiting is simple and easy. Moreover, these goods are not necessarily manufactured here. Huge quantities of them cross our border, coming in by ship, by van and by truck.

The member mentioned whistleblowing and the reporting of information to try to catch fraudsters and those trucking in shipments of counterfeit goods.

However, will this be enough, considering the $143 million cuts to border services? How can that agency do more with less? I am having trouble understanding this approach.

[Combating Counterfeit Products Act, June 12th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member and ask him a question.

Counterfeiting is so commonplace that it has become a real drain. Major companies, such as aluminum producers, have protection systems, known as ISO systems, in place. For example, there are certain international safety standards for bicycle helmets. They come with compliance logos.

However, we know that many of our small businesses and our manufacturers have closed down because of counterfeiting. We have no idea just how widespread this is. People order products online and resell them on the Internet. These products arrive in large quantities. People take embroidered items, add their logo and away they go. What is more, it is all tax-free. These activities represent billions of dollars in lost tax revenue.

I would like the member to comment on that.

[Petitions, June 11th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present three petitions calling on the Canadian government to reverse the devastating changes to employment insurance introduced through omnibus Bill C-38 in spring 2012.

[Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 2013, June 10th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, we should all have counters on our social media screens to watch the numbers go up: 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43.

Every time there is an obstacle and we lose time in the House because of a time allocation motion, we should see the number go up. Perhaps if we all had that on our television screens, then this government might understand that we are entitled to speak in the House. This is the only way to inform our constituents about what is happening with bills if they do not attend the committee hearings.