Denise Savoie

[Status of Women, December 4th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the heritage minister should be ashamed of herself. She has ripped away funding from the most vulnerable women in our society: groups that support sexual assault victims and help refugee women build new lives. In the most real terms, these cuts mean that if a woman is beaten by her husband in Victoria she may have no one to call for support.

Women across this country know exactly who to blame. Why the brutal cuts? Why shut down the whole department? Why pick on the most vulnerable?

[Business of Supply, November 23rd, 2006]

I thank the hon. member for his question. I sense that it is a real question. Quebec is an inspiration to Canadians and French Canadians outside that province.

Many of my francophone friends spend summers and study in Quebec. This relation is very important to us, and we benefit a lot from it. As I said, some Canadians and francophone Canadians of French origin have chosen to settle in the west, or outside Quebec, for all sorts of reasons. This does not prevent them from appreciating Quebec and the fact that Quebec has fought over the years. I agree that it was not always easy. We have a lot of respect for these efforts, because they enabled all of us to thrive and to be who we are. Personally, it has enabled me to keep my language and to be the person that I am.

[Business of Supply, November 23rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I will not get lost in the maze of amendments, subamendments and political games for the time being. In fact, I am very proud to stand today and speak in favour of a strong Quebec nation within Canada. That is the reality. Quebec is part of Canada at present. The NDP and I will continue to fight to keep Quebec in Canada.

I myself am a francophone with Quebec and Acadian roots who was born in Saint-Boniface, in Manitoba. I lived in Ottawa for many years. I also lived in Montreal and Calgary. I became a city councillor in Victoria, British Columbia, where I now live. I know what a beautiful and diverse country Canada is. That diversity is an integral part of our identity as Canadians.

I believe strongly in the Canadian federation. I am a federalist through and through. I entered politics partly so that the federal government would hear and consider my community's priorities and voices and partly so that the federal government would not be a centralizing force, but a unifying force, protecting the social, cultural and environmental rights of all Canadians.

When I entered politics, it was also because I believe in the importance of a strong presence of both cultures in a united country. I greatly appreciate the contribution of the Quebec people to the social fabric of our country, both in the past and to date. I appreciate the Quebec culture and language, its sense of humour, music, literature and politics. These are part and parcel of what it means to be Canadian.

However, I cannot speak for Quebeckers. I believe that the Quebec nation will define itself as it wishes. The Quebec National Assembly unanimously proclaimed, as was stated this morning, that Quebeckers form a nation. That is why I wholeheartedly support the NDP acknowledgement that Quebec is a nation. I believe that we must recognize a simple fact, an obvious fact. My conversations with Quebec members of our party and my Quebec friends have convinced me that a good number of Quebeckers firmly believe that the Quebec nation can realize its tremendous potential, and its destiny, in a united Canada.

They believe that Quebeckers can be masters of their own destiny while being part of the Quebec nation. They do not approve of the Bloc Québécois option of a separate Quebec.

Similarly, I believe that the vast majority of Canadians outside Quebec want to see Quebec culture and language to be protected and thrive. We are not the same country without them. One need only think of how oversubscribed for example immersion schools are on the west coast in Vancouver and Victoria where parents have to camp outside in the fall at the time of registration to ensure that their kids can learn French. They even take part in lotteries, again to ensure that their children have the opportunity to become bilingual.

The cultural context of British Columbia is favourable to French to the extent that I was able to teach my own children to speak French and now I see my grandchildren learning French. There are many francophone associations. French music and shows are appreciated and that is also part of the contribution of Quebec to the rest of Canada.

The reaction of Canadians from coast to coast to coast in October 1995 was an extraordinary display of kinship. It reflected the overwhelming sentiment among Canadians that to lose Quebec would be to lose a part of ourselves, for Canada with Quebec is how we define Canada. I believe we are allowed, as federalists, to define our country as we see.

The evening of that famous referendum I was deeply saddened and I thought how rudderless I would feel without Quebec. Nor did I think that as a francophone my viable option was to leave western Canada to live in Quebec because I need both parts of Canada to feel truly Canadian. How can we be Canada without its intrinsic parts, without Quebec? Such a reality could not exist.

I am delighted that the Prime Minister has finally recognized Quebec as a nation. In the last election, he was urged again and again to recognize this fact. He had difficulty saying the words. It was only political gain and opportunism that led him to do so yesterday. But I congratulate him nevertheless. As is their custom, the Liberals also decided to jump on the bandwagon.

In this debate I believe it is important to denounce the lack of vision of the Liberal Party that led us straight to the sponsorship scandal. Just like the referendum, programs steeped in corruption placed our country at risk. They damaged federalism in Quebec.

However, other current trends are worrisome for the future of our country. As Roy Romanow aptly stated in an article published in The Walrus:

The Canadian Council of Chief Executives, an influential lobby group that represents Canada’s largest corporations, recently advanced the idea that Ottawa should grant more taxing powers to the provinces and cease making transfer payments historically used to ensure that national standards for social and economic programs are applied throughout the country. Apart from narrowly defined roles primarily in defence and foreign affairs, what is left for the federal government to do under such a scheme?

It is obvious to me there are many ways of destroying a country, whether it be by corruption but also policies and neo-conservative policies. I oppose the watering down of our Canadian social fabric by a government that substitutes tax cuts for social policy, downloads responsibilities to provinces, and sees the federal government as a mere skeleton dealing with military and foreign affairs.

We have to be very careful, as we make allowances for our differences, not to compromise what makes our country unique in the world. The NDP recognizes the importance of building the country, investing in what makes us unique, investing in post-secondary education, in certain social programs and in our public institutions. The NDP has long recognized Quebec's specificity, its national character and we even reiterated that during our convention, in the Sherbrooke Declaration:

The national character of Québec is based primarily, but not exclusively, on:

1. a primarily Francophone society in which French is recognized as the language of work and the common public language;

2. a specific culture, unique in America, that is expressed by a sense of identity with and belonging to Quebec;

3. a specific history;

4. a specific legal system;

5. its own economic, cultural and social institutions.

We have long proposed a vision that allows Quebec to stay proudly in Canada. What we foresee is a Canada that respects Quebec. We are proposing solutions and a vision that will make Quebeckers want to stay and build a progressive country with its allies in English Canada.

It is because we believe, first and foremost, that an egalitarian and cooperative society must accommodate and celebrate differences, and not level them, that we are supporting the concept of Quebec as a nation within Canada. Unity does not necessarily mean uniformity.

It follows that the federal Canadian state and Canadians outside Quebec recognize that Quebec has to have specific powers, some leeway in order to develop to the fullest its culture and language that are so fundamental not only to Quebec's identity, but also to Canada's identity. The NDP recognizes the historical fact that Quebeckers are a nation, a nation—and let me be clear—within Canada.

We are simply acknowledging a fact that is unchanged regardless of who proposes it. We know that the Bloc is playing games around this idea, but we are not. We will not play those games.

The people of Quebec know well, at least I hope they do, that this debate is about much more than just a word. It is about recognizing the Quebec people, with its unique culture and history and its institutions, as a truly unique society not only in Canada but worldwide, a society which is actually the envy of the world.

The NDP recognizes that Quebec forms a nation, but when it comes to the separation of Quebec from Canada, the NDP chooses Canada. It has always chosen Canada and so have Quebeckers. We are a proud federalist party. We are proud that our federation includes Quebec.

The Bloc's objective in Parliament is clear: it wants to see Quebec leave the great Canadian family fold. We oppose their blueprint.

In a world rife with sectarianism we must build bridges not rip them out.

We in the NDP believe that ordinary Quebeckers will be better served by remaining within Canada. This is why we think that, despite our differences as federalists, we must work together to really, actively create the winning conditions for Canada in Quebec. We are actively proposing a vision of cooperation, recognition, equality, respect, flexibility, transparence and honesty. We are asking the people of Quebec to join us.

[Business of Supply, November 23rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague had risen to ask a question. I do not think you saw him.

[Early Learning and Child Care Act, November 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by acknowledging the particular efforts of my colleague from Trinity—Spadina on this bill.

I will conclude the debate by saying that the early learning and child care act can be the cornerstone of social policy for Canadian families for generations.

In this debate we have established the value of quality early learning opportunities to give our children the best possible start. We have established the link between child care early learning and the welfare of Canada's social fabric and economy.

The debate then comes down to the question of how to create a truly universal, quality child care system that respects parents, the provinces and territories.

Everyone but the Conservatives knows that their claims of providing universal choice in child care are bogus. A single mom from Victoria wrote to me because she cannot afford to stay at home with her two little girls, nor can she afford both rent and child care on her salary. What choice does $100 give her?

The Conservatives, on the other hand, have spent $2 million to advertise this $100. They have spent $27 million delivering the cheques. Now they talk about $250 million for private child care spaces and they do not know how to spend that yet. Their proposal will leave many families behind.

In contrast, the early learning and child care act would ensure adequate, stable federal funding to guarantee truly universal access to public child care that would give every Canadian family the choice between quality child care or staying at home.

The Conservatives argue that Bill C-303 imposes one size fits all child care on the provinces. This is patently absurd. The bill actually expands the capacity of the provinces and territories to provide flexible child care options at the hours and locations parents need.

For those parents who choose to not participate in a public system, Bill C-303 does not remove the $100 baby bonus boost of the Conservatives. It would do what that money will not do. It would create child care spaces that every Canadian family could afford.

I am disappointed because the Conservative government has not yet agreed to make this bill subject to a royal recommendation. Tomorrow's vote will finally require it, I hope, to recognize that two thirds of Canadians rejected its child care plan in the last election.

We are open, of course, to proposals for changes that could be presented in committee. In fact, our objective at this stage is to draw attention to the need for Canada to have a public child care network and to have a practical discussion on how the federal government can best contribute to it.

Quebec's child care network is a model in Canada's otherwise bleak picture in this area, according to the OECD.

We are thrilled to see that the Bloc is able to help the rest of Canada get inspired.

I would like to close with a story. When I was in Halifax a couple of weeks ago for a committee study on the employability of Canadians, the Conservative member on the committee that day spoke of Alberta's negative unemployment, otherwise known as a skills shortage. The response from one of the witnesses struck me as appropriate to our debate today. This was not a child care advocate, but a senior policy analyst with the Canadian Federation of Independent Business no less. She said:

It's true that in Alberta there's a lot of negative unemployment....Recently, I was looking over Statistics Canada numbers, and surprisingly, Alberta has the lowest participation of women in the workforce...Quebec has the highest....The reason is very easy...the day care system.There are factors in the market that work differently than just a job offer. The day care system in Quebec...encourages women to go back to work much sooner after they have children. Alberta doesn't have that--

No wonder the province that has all those well-paying jobs is having trouble motivating women to enter into the labour market.

The bill before us is crucially important. It confronts the cynicism of an individualistic world of everyone for herself or himself. Bill C-303 represents Canadians working together to create a better life for Canadian families, to give the best possible life to our children. Let us make it a reality.

[Federal Accountability Act, November 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his comments and for pointing out some of the very positive aspects of this bill, particularly those concerning returning officers and electoral financing.

I do have a concern, however, that worries me. A Conservative government often tends to want to limit the government's ability to act in the public interest and acts instead for the benefit of large corporations in the private sector.

Does my colleague believe that this bill could have such an effect, for example, subjecting the Canadian Wheat Board to access to information under the pretext of eliminating a monopoly? This could weaken the commission and farmers' ability to defend themselves against companies such as Cargill, by simply opening their books to those companies.

[Post-Secondary Education, November 7th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, Canadian students and their families need a comprehensive needs based grant system in Canada. Liberal and Conservative policies have only facilitated the rise of student debt to an average of over $24,000 now.

Today the NDP proposed a cost-neutral program to shift funding from the Liberals' ineffective Canada education savings grant program and the Conservatives' token textbook tax credit. These two programs disproportionately benefit high income Canadians and do nothing for students when tuition is due.

Our proposal would double current federal grants and reduce the debt of Canada's low income and middle income students by 25%.

We are refocusing this funding because student debt is bad for students and their families. With mortgage-type loans, students must foreclose on career and life opportunities. We ask the government to borrow this idea, interest free, and tackle student debt now.

[Committees of the House, November 7th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am reminded of Tommy Douglas' analogy of an election in mouseland where mice who for white cats or black cats, but basically they are cats and they have no interest in the mice. We have had two governments that really fit that analogy.

The government certainly has many opportunities to make choices in where they apply funding. The government has chosen to put all the surplus on paying down the debt. On our side of the House, we support an orderly payback of the debt, but the government seems to have completely forgotten ordinary Canadians.

I just want to give a quick example of the data on the results of Ontario's proactive legislation where pay equity was implemented. Total cost to organizations are clearly lower than the cost of the complaint based process--

[Committees of the House, November 7th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I find it very appropriate.

We could ask ourselves what is the purpose of government if not to protect the interests of its people, given the events of recent weeks. The government has slashed literacy programs and, as mentioned, the ability of Status of Women Canada to help women and protect their interests, has abolished the court challenges program and made cuts to the social economy. The most vulnerable groups and individuals have been affected.

The conservatives have put all the savings into the debt.

For our part, we do believe that we should pay off our debt in an orderly fashion, but there is a great divide between that and forgetting the purpose of the economy and of government. That definitely shows a direction, an ideological approach, that is not in step with the reality of Canadians and Quebeckers. It is beyond comprehension.

[Committees of the House, November 7th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to take part in this debate on pay equity. I will share my time with the hon. member for New Westminster—Coquitlam.

I find it unbelievable that we are still debating and discussing this long-standing promise on pay equity. It is a question of human rights and justice. The fact that we are still stuck on the same point should cause us all, on both sides of the House, to ask ourselves some questions. We have the right to wonder why the Liberal government failed to act when it could have.

I doubt that the current government intends to do anything, given the cuts it made to the Status of Women and the court challenges program. I will discuss this further in a moment.

I would especially like to discuss some women I met during my travels with the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, which is conducting a study on employability. A number of women talked to us about the conditions they must face. I would like to talk about these women, whose situations are not only touching and moving, but also often tragic. First I want to go back to the task force, which, in its report, clearly favoured an alternative approach to the current, complaints-based system for enforcing the pay equity principle.

Contrary to what the Conservatives seem to indicate, women in Canada have not achieved equality. Statistics prove it.

I would like to talk about women at work. Clearly, women are concentrated in low wage and part time jobs and often jobs with little security. The average pre-tax income of women was $24,400, 62% less than men actually earn. This is something that should be of concern to us.

It is not only a question of salary. Many of the women who are employed in low paying jobs with little security speak of conditions that we should be ashamed of in Canada. In Montreal I met women from the Filipino community who are home care workers. They were almost indentured servants. This should concern us all, not just members on this side of the House. The Conservative government needs to pay attention to conditions of this kind in Canada.

I have also met women in Vancouver from different communities who have recently spoken out about abuse in their lives. This speaks to the government's and to preceding governments' and society's apparent indifference that this kind of abuse can be tolerated. Perhaps it is a reflection of the percentage of women in politics. Canada ranked 42nd in the world with only 20.8% of parliamentarians being women.

I would wager that if there were more women in this House the question of day care would have been resolved long ago. The question of poor housing would have been resolved a long time ago.

Women in greater numbers live in poverty. One in five Canadian women lives in poverty today, 2.8 million women. Forty-nine per cent of single, widowed and divorced women over 65 are poor. This should be a concern to us. It is even more so if we look at senior women and women's unpaid work during their lives. There are more women in this situation than men. Women's unpaid work makes their risk of poverty higher. When women retire, either because of unpaid work or because of lower incomes during their working lives, they receive smaller pensions because of the wage difference I referred to earlier. As a result, I have met many senior women in my community who are living in abject conditions of real poverty in an otherwise affluent society. This is unacceptable.

I reiterate the comments that have been made by some parliamentarians this morning that the government must take responsibility. The task force on equal pay for equal work was established in part because many observers, including the Canadian Human Rights Commission, favour an alternative to the current complaint based approach to implementing the principle of equal pay for work of equal value.

The objective of this proactive model is to provide coverage to as many women as possible who are presently victims of wage discrimination, whereas the complaint based model deals only with the cases of complaints. The Conservative government cut the court challenges program. That program provided access for women to challenge some of the unequal and unfair conditions they face. This program was cut recently by the current government, as was that part of the mandate of Status of Women Canada that would allow for advocacy when we see the conditions which, for example, Asian women in Vancouver have recently spoken about. Who will advocate for them?

I have heard members of the government recently say that they will not pass laws that are unfair. I believe the Prime Minister made that comment. Well, there are laws that are unfair. There are conditions that are unfair.

The government has tried to muzzle Status of Women Canada by cutting its funding and making a change in its mandate, demanding that it no longer advocate for women. This is unacceptable. I believe the women of Canada will not tolerate the government's arrogant attitude as it concerns them. I hope that the government will recognize its mistake in removing advocacy from its mandate and will redress that. It really is a question of justice and equality.

I would ask that the government act now and establish a law, not just regulations, and not just look at ways of redressing a little situation here and there, but really address it in a comprehensive way. After all, this is Canada. We should be leading in this area rather than trailing and attempting to muzzle organizations that attempt to speak out for women.

I will conclude by saying that Canadians, Canadian women and Canadian men, expect no less of this government. It is time for action and for legislation on equal pay for equal work.