Carolyn Bennett

[Petitions, October 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition from hundreds of citizens, mostly from St. Paul's, my riding, who find the current government's universal child care plan neither universal nor about child care.

The petitioners call upon the government to honour the early learning and child care agreement as negotiated by the former minister.

[Business of Supply, September 28th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his support in the ongoing and very complex problem of violence against women. We know that legal remedies are only a small part of this problem. We need to deal with the root causes of violence against women.

I urge the member opposite to talk to his government about taking the counsel of organizations like REAL Women who continue to denigrate the facts. They still think that half of domestic violence is instigated by women. They are absolutely wrong. All kinds of research has proven this. That kind of lack of policy development is what is driving the government.

[Business of Supply, September 28th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I too am very concerned, particularly internationally, about the way we will help not only ourselves fulfill the convention around all forms of discrimination but also how we will use CIDA to do the same.

I hope that the minister responsible for CIDA will account to us as to why gender equality seems to have been removed from the website, why groups applying for CIDA funding seem to no longer have to meet this imperative requirement. As Stephen Lewis and others have said in respect of gender equality, if ideology takes over from the reality, research shows that only with programs that deal with gender equality in the way that CIDA insisted will we actually be able to have equality of life and a fair and equitable world.

I also would like to point out to the member that I understand the status of women committee is still waiting for the minister to show up, after eight months of refusing to show up. This is appalling. I hope that the House will insist that the minister show up at committee in order to account for these cuts.

[Business of Supply, September 28th, 2006]

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, the members for Brampton—Springdale and Bramalea—Gore—Malton. We deal with the greater Toronto area. I am a very proud member of that caucus. However, I am completely fed up with the kind of distraction that occurs.

This is a debate about women. The government has no interest in protecting the women of Canada. Therefore, we have to put up with that kind of rhetoric, which completely runs around the fact that the government is about to gut the programs for women. We can show the women of Canada how they must vote in the next election.

[Business of Supply, September 28th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of my colleagues, Ruby Dhalla and Gurbax Malhi--

[Business of Supply, September 28th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to speak in favour of the Liberal Party motion. The House objects to the government's partisan and discriminatory cuts in federal support for women's programs and services, for one very clear reason: we are not there yet. The real attitude of the very new Conservative government comes through in this week's budget cuts.

Currently, while the rest of the world recognizes the importance of equality for women and young girls in achieving health and quality of life objectives, Canada is going to regress.

We are not there yet, not here in Canada, not anywhere in the world.

It is somewhat ironic to see that the very new Canadian government, which is so proud of the work of the Canadian Forces in Afghanistan to promote and protect the rights of women and young girls, wants at the same time to destroy our programs that are essential for doing the same here in Canada.

We are not there yet.

The year 2006 is particularly significant for women in Canada as it marks 25 years since Canada ratified the most comprehensive treaty on women's human rights, the UN convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women, CEDAW. By ratifying CEDAW, the federal government has agreed to play a lead role in upholding women's equality rights. Unfortunately, however, without a more concerted effort by the federal government to fulfill its obligations under this UN convention and the Charter of Rights and Freedom, full equality will elude many women in Canada, particularly those of us confronting multiple oppressions.

There were six times as many female victims of sexual assault as male victims in 2004. More than a million women reported that they had been stalked in the past five years in a way that caused them to fear for their lives, safety or the safety of someone known to them. Male violence against women continues as a terrifying daily reality in Canada, preventing the equality of all girls and women. Feminist centres reveal that one in four women endures sexual assault in her lifetime and one in 10 women is beaten. Statistics Canada confirms that 51% of women have been criminally assaulted.

The UN has recommended that Canada ensure that all provinces provide necessary government and non-government services to those who suffer violence. Instead federal dollars have been withdrawn from women's equality driven advocacy groups. Further welfare cuts, disqualifications and workfare force women into dangerous dependencies on abusive men. Cuts to legal aid and legal services leave women without lawyers or advocates in custody and access fights after leaving dangerous men. Cuts to immigration settlement services, education and health services limit women's access to help.

Canadian women have built and developed networks of women's organizations and have worked tirelessly to ensure that women's issues remain on the public agenda at the local level and nationally. Further, women's groups have offered critical direct services to women and children and have sensitized all sectors among the public and the government to women's concerns.

The fact that violence against women and children has become an item on the public policy agenda is just one noteworthy example that shows the extent to which women's opinions and experience have shaped laws, policies and programs. Recognizing that women's participation is essential to the socio-economic and cultural health of Canada, the federal government has supported these groups with core funding.

Cutting funding severely weakens the ability to organize, to lobby, to do research, to offer services to women, in short, all things women need to achieve full participation in society. Given this situation, women's political participation will stagnate and there will be fewer opportunities for women to consult with governments on the many issues that affect their lives.

Since its inception in 1985, the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund has intervened in over 140 cases, which have helped establish landmark legal victories for women on a wide range of issues. LEAF has been funded by the court challenges program, which is also being cut by the government.

It is also a bit ironic, as the member for Newmarket—Aurora has said, that the government seems to be listening to special interest groups and have capitulated to their campaign of REAL Women, an organization based on ideology, when Liberals are asking for real research from real women, the single women, the victims of violence, those in the shelters. The motto of REAL Women is “women's rights not at the expense of human rights”. We have a small secret for them. Women's rights are, indeed, human rights or “les droits des femmes sont les droits de la personne”, as the member for Mount Royal has so eloquently said, one of our favourite members of women's caucus.

The Prime Minister refused to come to the 2006 conference on AIDS. Perhaps it was because he would have heard the eloquent words of Stephen Lewis when he said:

Finally, in my view, as delegates doubtless know, the most vexing and intolerable dimension of the pandemic is what is happening to women. It's the one area of HIV/AIDS which leaves me feeling most helpless and most enraged. Gender inequality is driving the pandemic, and we will never subdue the gruesome force of AIDS until the rights of women become paramount in the struggle....

I challenge you, my fellow delegates, to enter the fray against gender inequality. There is no more honourable and productive calling. There is nothing of greater import in this world. All roads lead from women to social change, and that includes subduing the pandemic.

Two weeks ago in La Presse, Nathalie Collard wrote:

The fears of feminist groups are fuelled, among other things, by the REAL Women association lobby (an anti-feminist group with deep roots in western Canada that promotes the traditional role of the woman). This association has received subsidies from the very women's program it is denouncing today. It is hard to say whether this group, which could not be more vicious toward feminists, has a real influence in Ottawa.

In fact, the parliamentary committee on the status of women has asked for these groups to have their funds increased by 25%. Again, the government refuses to understand that the government reports to Parliament and we hope it will understand that next week when this motion passes.

I was once on the member for Mount Royal's cable show. When he asked me what the most important thing was facing the women of Canada, I said gridlock. Everything we care about rests in two or three different government departments, in two or three different jurisdictions, and we have been unable to account for the results. They are not measured in the silos of each government or across jurisdictions.

It is, therefore, extraordinarily important in the issue of the rights of women is that there be organizations that do the real research. As we say in management: if it is measured, it gets noticed; if it gets noticed, it gets done.

The critic for the Conservatives does not understand that gender based equality is not going directly to programs. She keeps asking the same question and she does not understand. The failure to have gender based equality is what the government does, as well as funding programs. She keeps insisting and mixing that up.

In fact, the justice minister has said, “I don't care what the research shows, this is what we are doing”. The government continues to use research like it is a swear word. Even having an understanding of people like Florence Nightingale, surely real women would understand the basic premise that she was a statistician who kept good records and understood the clusters of disease. This is exactly what the Status of Women Canada and all such organizations across Canada do.

It is so important to us, as Liberals, when we look at all the organizations that now compare themselves to the world. Monica Lysack from Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada has said:

When you look at women in Canada and their human rights compared to international standards, we have a long way to go.

We are not there yet.

We have to get going on all of the things that matter in terms of practice based evidence, and that is the role of government.

In closing, I would like to quote from my friend Nellie McClung. I think some of the members opposite should sit at her little table on the parliamentary precinct. She said:

Disturbers are never popular--nobody ever really loved an alarm clock in action-no matter how grateful they may have been afterwards for its kind services.

She also said:

I am a firm believer in women—in their ability to do things and in their influence and power. Women set the standards for the world, and it is for us, women of Canada, to set the standards high.

Next week, when the motion passes, I hope the government will do the right thing by funding the alarm clocks and those that set for the standards for Canada and for the world, in honour of those great Albertan women, the famous five.

[Afghanistan, May 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, Wednesday's rush debate on Canada's mission in Afghanistan highlighted once again the disdain and disrespect the Prime Minister has for the institution of Parliament. Even before the debate was concluded, he was announcing that he would only respect the results of that vote if we agreed with him.

Why would Canadians believe that their members of Parliament can protect their interests if the Prime Minister keeps implying that MPs do not count?

If we want our citizens to be fully engaged in the political process, we must create a culture that respects and encourages that engagement, and that culture is determined by the attitude from the very top. If the Prime Minister cannot demonstrate respect for this institution, why should Canadians?

I call upon the Prime Minister to apologize for his behaviour and to make a commitment that starting today he will work to create a culture of respect toward and within the institution of Parliament.

[Petitions, May 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of presenting petitions from residents in Ontario. The petitioners call upon the Prime Minister to honour the early learning and child care agreements.

[Business of Supply, May 4th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member how the efforts of the NDP in a minority government influenced the commitment in the 2004 Liberal platform for $5 billion in early learning and child care.

[Business of Supply, May 4th, 2006]

No.