Irene Mathyssen

[Amabile Youth Singers, November 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the Amabile Youth Singers is a community choir from London and area comprised of 67 choristers from ages 13 to 22.

This accomplished choir has won the CBC national choral competition consistently since 1986. As well, it has won several international choral competitions in Europe, including winning two gold medals at the Choral Olympics in Bremen, Germany in 2004.

As a result of its international acclaim, the choir was invited guests of the Finnish government in September 2007 to participate in the prestigious Sympaatti Festival in Helsinki, Finland.

The choir's performances and workshops received standing ovations and high praise.

My sincere thanks to Lauren Toll, John Barron, Brenda Zadorski and the Amabile Youth Singers for representing our country and showing the world the talent that exists in Canada. Congratulations to all.

[Aeronautics Act, November 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleague that I am not the House leader. If he has a question for the House leader, I suggest he ask her.

In response to his question, I was in the House and listened very carefully to the debate on this bill and the arguments made by my colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster. It seems to me that during the debate there was a rush of frenetic need to get this pushed through very quickly. The hon. member opposite was part of that.

I suppose when one undermines the safety of Canadians, by not ensuring 100 inspectors are available, one would like to push things through rather quickly so the Canadian public, which he seems to be so concerned about, will not notice. I find that quite reprehensible.

In response to the other part of his question about air safety, I am sure Mr. Hunter Harrison was very clear in terms of his vociferous assurances that when it came to rail safety, he would maintain the safety of that system. Yet we see very clearly that when push comes to shove, when the bottom line is affected, the profits of a company seem to have far more interest for those in charge than the safety of the people depending on it.

[Aeronautics Act, November 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the best answer to my colleague's question is to look at what has happened in this country in the recent past. I would go back to those accidents regarding rail freight and the impact those accidents had on not just the environment and the economy, but on workers. It seems to me that fatigue was an element in those accidents.

Within the past few months, we saw rail workers go out on strike trying desperately to get the attention of their government to say that working conditions were not right, that they were ripe for a series of accidents and that they were very concerned about themselves, their families, the travelling public and safety among rail workers.

The response of the government was to write back to work legislation. The response of the government was to dismiss the concerns of those very responsible workers and say that their concerns did not matter, that they should go back to work and that it has had complaints from people who matter far more to it than the travelling public and the workers who actually ensure that the freight and the economy continue to move.

When we start to apply this to airline workers, that theory is compounded. I know there have been in the past very clear rules in regard to the number of hours a crew could work. If they are tired and if they are excluded from the Canada Labour Code, then it behooves their bosses, I believe, to force more time upon them. We know that if there are fewer employees working more overtime, the overall cost to the employer is less. We simply cannot allow that. On our highways, truckers who are exhausted are creating a level of danger for the public.

I would say that this new regime, this fatigue risk management system, is simply unacceptable. We must have the Canada Labour Code in place to ensure that crews are safe, that passengers are safe and that our airways are safe.

[Aeronautics Act, November 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for talking about what is so important and so essential about this bill we are looking at today, Bill C-7.

I want to start by talking a little about my community of London—Fanshawe. There is a wonderful airport in London--Fanshawe, the London International Airport. It is certainly not as grand as Pearson or the airport in Vancouver, but it is a remarkable little airport inasmuch as it has an impeccable safety record. The people who work there take great pride in keeping the public safe and doing their job in an exemplary way. They have remarkable community relationships and have made it very clear that safety is first and foremost when it comes to London.

We have heard about the experiences of my colleague in regard to the tragedies that have ensued for the people of her community. We most certainly do not want these kinds of tragedies to proliferate across the country. That is why the New Democratic Party is opposing this bill. That is why our critic, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, has been so very clear and so very vociferous about the concerns here.

When we read through the flaws that he sees in Bill C-7, I am sure that all members of the House will agree that we need to take a careful look at this bill. We need to consider very carefully before we proceed.

According to my colleague from Vancouver, the bill is seriously flawed and still needs amendment. Among those flaws are those having to do with the new safety management systems, the immunity from prosecution for airlines that violate safety rules under certain conditions, the heightened secrecy and less access to information on the safety performance of airlines, and the fact that this information is out of the reach of the Access to Information Act.

That should send chills down the spines of everyone who has ever boarded an aircraft in this country or who is contemplating boarding an aircraft in this country. We cannot get the access we need to the information we need to know that we are indeed safe.

The irony of this, of course, is that we now have a government that is so determined to cuddle up to George Bush that it is willing to allow no fly lists. The government is willing to allow the Americans to have access to information about passengers who are boarding Canadian aircraft, but the government is not willing to look at the planes themselves. The government is not willing to say to the companies that they have to make sure the mechanics of the planes are absolutely safe, that the nuts and bolts and the things that truly reflect safety are in place.

As I have said, we oppose this bill. We have been remarkably fortunate in Canada, but the time is coming, if we allow this bill to go forward, when we will not feel nearly so safe and we will not be nearly so fortunate.

I want to give some sense of the background here. Bill C-7 constitutes what my colleague calls a revolution in how aviation safety will be addressed in Canada for years to come, not just right now and not just in the next few months, but for years to come. It enshrines aviation safety management systems, SMS, as part of Transport Canada's agenda to implement SMS in all modes of transportation, sometimes with disastrous effects, as is the case with rail safety management.

We know about the numerous derailments since the privatization of rail safety. We constantly hear about them in the news. We know that the effect is not only a human effect, but an environmental effect. We hear of trains going into rivers and trains derailing. The cost in terms of the environment and human life is simply not acceptable.

We have experience with the privatization of rail safety, but apparently that is not enough. We cannot seem to learn from that. We now need to take the next step and risk safety in the air. As frightening and as dangerous as a train wreck is, it is on the ground. It gets a whole lot scarier at 30,000 feet.

The SMS is also designed to help Transport Canada deal with declining resources and high levels of projected inspector retirements. I find it interesting that apparently we need at least 100 additional inspectors to ensure the safety of our airlines. I guess the Conservative government cannot be held solely responsible here. It is very clear that the Liberals had a whole lot to do with cutting the service sector of Canada and crippling those who provide services to Canadians, underscoring the fact that apparently the Liberals were not concerned about the kind of services that Canadians receive, including safety on our railways and safety on our airlines.

We need these inspectors and nobody seems to be prepared to ensure they are there. If they are there, then we do not need to rely on the industry itself being the arbiter in terms of what is safe and what is acceptable.

I would like to give the House a little history on the bill. Originally, it was a Liberal bill authorized by former transport minister Jean Lapierre. Apparently, after a 45-minute staff briefing, the Conservatives and the Liberals were initially willing to let Bill C-6 pass without further amendment. However, that raised a lot of alarm bells. There was growing concern and opposition to Bill C-6 from a wide range of witnesses who appeared before the standing committee over a series of many months. These critics, and this is significant, included Justice Virgil Mochansky of the Dryden crash inquiry; two Transport Canada inspectors; unions; the CSPA; the UCTE; the Canada Safety Council; some smaller air operators; Ken Rubin, an access to information expert; the teamsters and CUPE representing flight attendants; as well as the IMAW.

The criticisms from those witnesses focused on the unprecedented and unacceptable decline in regulatory oversight by Transport Canada and the greater ability for the industry to set and enforce its own safety standards out of public sight and scrutiny and away from the critical eyes of our community. That is at the centre of all of this.

The airlines get to determine what is safe and what is not safe. It is kind of like bean counting. A corporation assesses how much it will cost to meet certain safety regulations compared to the lawsuits that would ensue as a result of accidents. If the corporation deems that it would be less expensive to simply allow the accidents to happen and face the lawsuits compared to the maintenance and safety costs, it opts for the bean counting, it opts for allowing the suits to go forward.

I would suggest that in a country where we pride ourselves on the restrictions, the controls and the oversights that keep our people safe, this is simply not acceptable.

In the face of this widespread opposition, the government was forced to make some amendments. In other cases, the three opposition parties united to force these amendments on the government.

We saw a number of amendments in the detailed clause by clause. The new legislation required the minister to maintain a program for the oversight and surveillance of aviation safety in order to achieve the highest level of safety and a new legislative obligation for the minister to require that aeronautical activities be performed at all times in a manner that meets the highest safety and security standards.

There were many more amendments. An amendment was added to ensure that the Canada Labour Code would prevail over the Aeronautics Act in the event of a possible conflict. An amendment was added ensuring employees and their bargaining agents would be included in the development and implementation of SMS, something that is certainly not happening today.

After extended debate, the government was compelled to introduce those amendments, as well as a form of whistleblower protection for employees who report to Transport Canada that their employer is violating the law.

A new definition of the safety management system was put into the legislation, emphasizing a reduction of risk to the lowest possible level, rather than just accepting or tolerating these risks to ensure the industry does not accept other higher levels of risk in its day to day operations.

The government then tried to kill this bill in committee. It wanted none of it. If we look back at these amendments, they make perfect sense and yet the government was quite willing to kill the bill to get rid of these amendments, instead of having the concern it should have for the people of our community.

[Sitting Resumed, November 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is wonderful to have this chance to respond. I was looking at some figures, and I guess the old saying that figures do not lie or liars figure or something like that might pertain to this situation. The Conservatives talk about $1,200 for each child under six. That does not buy adequate child care. It does not create a single child care space.

Earlier the minister said they have created all kinds of spaces. I would like to know where and I would like to know how many. I am not hearing any strong numbers. What I do know about that $1,200 is that it is taxed back. The end result is that in the last fiscal year $340 million was taxed back from hard-working families on this child benefit. Annually, it is going to be $400 million. We could create a whole lot of national, affordable, decent child care for that kind of money.

The Conservatives did not do it. The Liberals did not do it. We are prepared to do it.

[Sitting Resumed, November 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, although I thank the hon. member for her question, unfortunately, there were some gaps in it. A little amnesia perhaps.

I would like to point out that the committee on the Status of Women Canada was re-established at the insistence of the NDP. On gender based budgeting, we heard from finance and other agencies that it still is not as effective as it needs to be.

I want to come back to two things, the first being child care and the so-called plan. The Liberals, who said that if they had three budget surpluses they would have a comprehensive child care program, had eight surpluses. The gobbledygook, the incredible concoction of what they said was a child care program, simply did not work.

I also want to point out that there is still no affordable housing. The Liberals cancelled it in 1996 and they brought in SCIPI which was a band-aid. Basically, those who depended on SCIPI had to come cap in hand year after year hoping that somehow they could get money for programming.

I want to tell members what SCIPI did in my riding. A place in my riding called My Sister's Place looks after homeless, abused women who are living on the edge. It came cap in hand year upon year to the Liberal government, and now to the Conservative government, asking that its programming be maintained because of the incredible need. At this point in time its funding has been cut in half. It has no idea how it will survive.

The legacy of the former government is that women do not know how they will survive. It is also now the legacy of the current government. When will it change?

[Sitting Resumed, November 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan.

I am rising in the House today in response to the Liberal opposition motion that restates the absolute need for pay equity and calls on the government to develop a strategy to improve the economic security of women in Canada.

I confess that I find this motion coming from the Liberal Party to be hypocritical. The Liberals had 13 years of majority government to promote stable economic security for women. They had 13 years of majority government to implement progressive pay equity legislation and what did they do? They cut spending to Status of Women and failed to implement any of the 113 recommendations from the pay equity task force.

I want to start with the report that the Liberals failed to implement in 2004. Last year, the Status of Women committee specifically asked the Conservative government for a comprehensive response to this pay equity task force report. All the committee received from the Conservative government in response to the 570 page pay equity report was a one and a half page letter. The government's comprehensive response was less than two pages.

The Conservatives made it clear that they would not address the need for new pay equity legislation and that they were somehow satisfied with the current complaints based model. The government has no intention of addressing inequality between the sexes in this country. This has been proven by its reaction to the pay equity report. It has no intention of addressing inequality any more than its Liberal predecessors.

In the estimates released earlier this week, the Conservatives have again cut $5 million from Status of Women Canada. It is clear that their cuts to the department, their changes to the mandate and the elimination of the court challenges program is an assault on equality for women.

The Conservatives want to take Canadians back 25 years instead of moving Canada ahead.

The recent Speech from the Throne left women and the issues of equality out entirely. The economic statement delivered earlier this week provided lots of tax breaks for big business, big oil and big banks but the tax breaks aimed at ordinary Canadians will do absolutely nothing to improve the economic security of women in Canada. The tax breaks will not increase pay equity nor will they create child care spaces, affordable housing, enhance health care or build schools. Women and their families are being ignored again.

Now it is not very clear to me why the Conservative government refused to draft new legislation. In 1998, the now Prime Minister described our current pay equity laws as follows:

For taxpayers, however, it's a rip-off. And it has nothing to do with gender. Both men and women taxpayers will pay additional money to both men and women in the civil service. That's why the federal government should scrap its ridiculous pay equity law

He also pointed to specific flaws in the current legislation. He said:

Now "pay equity" has everything to do with pay and nothing to do with equity. It's based on the vague notion of "equal pay for work of equal value", which is not the same as equal pay for the same job.

Just to be clear, in 1998, the member, who is now our Prime Minister, did not support the complaints based pay equity legislation now in place. Now that he is in government, his party refuses to draft new legislation to remove the complaints based model. I am wondering if the Prime Minister has reversed his position or does he not believe in pay equity at all. It is my fear that the truth is the latter.

It has become clear that Canadian women will need to fight the government as they had to fight the last government. The fact remains that while Liberals were in power, women's rights, economic security and pay equity were stalled. They failed to act as an effective government and now they are failing to act as an effective opposition.

In March 1997, then secretary of state for the Status of Women, the member for Vancouver Centre, announced the elimination of program funding for women's organizations starting in 1998-99. From that point on, moneys from Status of Women Canada were delivered on a project basis within the priority areas set out each year by Status of Women Canada. This eliminated any long term or core funding for women's groups.

Overall, program funding for women's organizations was cut by more than 25% over the 1990s. The Liberal government also disbanded the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, a semi-independent agency that conducted research on a wide range of issues as they affect women.

The previous government then merged the body that provides funding to women's organizations, the women's programs, into Status of Women Canada and then eliminated the Canadian Labour Force Development Board which had given organizations of women, people of colour and people with disabilities a small voice in training policy. Women's equality seeking groups were dealt blow after blow.

Economic security for women hinges on key things, such as access to child care, access to affordable housing and the ability to earn a decent living.

Both Liberal and Conservative governments have failed to address the need for affordable housing in Canada. The first step toward economic security for any person is a safe place to live. Despite this, the Liberals ended the federal role in social housing in 1996. The Conservative government has ignored calls for spending in affordable housing, without regard for the fact that strong investment in housing would go a long way toward economic security for all Canadians.

Both Liberal and Conservative governments have also failed to create affordable child care in this country. The Conservative touted taxable money for child care has failed to create a single child care space in Canada.

In 1993, the Liberals promised to create 150,000 new child care spaces. However, after 12 years and three majority governments, they created none.

Today a woman still earns only 72.5¢ for every dollar that a man earns. Because pay inequity contributes to poverty, it has devastating health and social consequences for children. Pay inequity is also related to economic dependence which can affect a woman's ability to leave an abusive relationship. The choice between abuse and poverty is one no person should be forced to make.

It is also true that women bringing home lower paycheques also receive lower retirement incomes. Too often, senior women live hand to mouth until the end of their lives.

I will not stand here and just point out how both the Liberals and Conservatives have failed women in Canada because I could take up several speaking spots doing that. I would prefer to show fellow members of this House that positive action for women can be achieved.

The NDP has released a fairness for women action plan. Part of that plan includes making equal pay the law. Canada needs proactive pay equity legislation that would compel all employers to ensure that all employees receive equal pay for work of equal value. The NDP's plan to make Canada a leader in gender equality has the implementation of the pay equity task force and the introduction of proactive federal pay equity legislation, in particular, at its core.

Our plan is to increase access to employment insurance. Only one in three unemployed women collect employment insurance benefits. The NDP plan would ensure access to EI includes an overhaul to the legislation governing employment benefits. In the 39th Parliament, the NDP introduced eight private members' bill to improve access to this vital income support.

Our plan is to establish a $10 minimum wage. Two-thirds of minimum wage workers over the age of 15 are women. Many minimum wage-earning women are living well below the poverty line. Clearly, the federal government has a role to play in setting fair pay to ensure welfare of all hard-working Canadians and their families. The NDP has tabled a bill to reinstate the federal minimum wage, scrapped by the Liberals, at $10 an hour.

Our plan is to create a national child care program that would include passing the NDP's national child care act and establishing a network for high quality, licensed, not for profit child care spaces. The creation of new, reliable child care spaces so that women are not forced to choose between work and family.

Our plan is to improve parental and maternity benefits. One in every three mothers lacks access to maternity and parental benefits under employment insurance. Women are paying an economic penalty for having children. Our plan calls for a dramatic overhaul of maternity and parental leave programs.

We can achieve equality for women in Canada but what we lack is political will. Past Liberal governments stalled and failed to act. Conservative governments have ignored the problems and chosen not to promote equality and instead have given tax cuts to corporations.

We need a real commitment from this House to act and create the legislation needed to achieve equality for Canada's women, equality now.

[Sitting Resumed, November 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the minister and I would like to ask her about the Conservatives' mini-budget.

By their own admission, the Conservatives' tax cut amounts to $190 billion over five years, that is, one-hundred ninety thousand million dollars, a lot of it a huge corporate tax cut. It is a fifth of the government's funding capacity. It is absolutely devastating that the mini-budget, supported by the Liberals, is effectively going to create huge deficits in terms of the programs that they say they want to protect for women.

We desperately need real child care, we need home care, we need affordable housing, all of the things that support women and their aspirations. There is none of it from the government and none of it in the future, by the Conservatives' own admission. Where on earth is the minister going to find the money to fund these programs when in fact it is very clear to us that programs will have to be cut?

[Economic Statement, October 31st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely disappointed with the economic statement released by the Conservative government yesterday. It failed to create more opportunities for women to increase their spending power.

If women are to participate fully in the Canadian economy, we need changes to maternity leave because too many women are not eligible to receive it. This leaves them with no choice but to be the parent who stays at home or to go on welfare to make ends meet. The economic statement included no money for child care, which again leaves women with no choice but to stay home as the cost of child care in most provinces remains prohibitive.

If women are unable to work, they are unable to participate fully in the economy, leaving 51% of the population at a disadvantage that they will carry forward to their retirement.

What the economic statement did include was a truckload of money for big banks, big oil and corporations. The tax cut aimed at ordinary Canadians will do little to help make ends meet. It will not increase affordable housing. It will not put a dent in the child care bills. It will not increase access to maternity leave.

[Business of Supply, October 25th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely astonished. I am breathless. A reduction in the GST by 1% is $5 billion, in terms of what the government can collect. Do members know that $5 billion would end poverty in this country?

The member is talking about nickels and dimes. He is talking about two cents on a cup of coffee. I defy him to find the Canadian who takes that two cents and plans his or her pension future. It is absolutely ludicrous. Those who benefit most are those who need it the least. The conduct of the Conservatives, and the Liberals before them, is unacceptable.