Irene Mathyssen

[Business of Supply, October 25th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, yes, it is very clear that when it comes to this government and previous governments, women did not count. Not only was funding cut to women's organizations in the Conservative budget but over the years women's organizations have suffered incremental and very devastating cuts under the Liberals.

These cuts were so devastating that now we see important organizations, such as the National Association of Women and the Law and CRIAW being driven out of their role as advocates, as researchers to support the women's groups that make a difference in women's lives.

[Business of Supply, October 25th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, what I am talking about is national leadership. I am talking about the federal government's ability to set the benchmark, to make it very clear that $10 is an absolute minimum. We can do that.

We can say that and that will then compel the provinces to come in line. The excuse seems to be that the federal government does not seem to see it as important, despite the fact that we have an incredible amount of money and we are awash with money in this country.

The federal government is not taking a leadership role and not showing that this is important. The government pays a lot of lip service to what it is doing for those who are disadvantaged, but nothing is concrete. A $10 federal minimum wage would be something concrete, something that we could all hold on to, that we could look to as leadership.

[Business of Supply, October 25th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking my colleague from Parkdale--High Park for splitting her time with me.

The Liberal motion pretends to be a proposal to drive greater productivity in the Canadian economy, but it does not go anywhere near far enough. Like the Conservatives' recent throne speech, the motion actually misses the mark entirely. There are far too many Canadians being left behind. Nothing in the motion is going to address the seriousness of the prosperity gap, the deep divide between those who have and those who have not.

The reality is that if the poorest and the most disadvantaged are supported, the whole community benefits. Everyone thrives. So does the economy. We need to close the prosperity gap. Only then will we be able to grow as a country and a community, neighbourhood by neighbourhood.

I would like to point out that the first step to increasing productivity would be to raise the minimum wage. The federal minimum wage was eliminated in 1996 under the Liberal government. This created real affordability problems for Canadians. Research conducted by the Canadian Labour Congress has revealed that a single person working full time in Canada needs an hourly rate of at least $10 an hour to reach the poverty line.

Initially, a minimum wage was introduced to ensure that anyone working would not be subjected to a life of poverty. Sadly and unacceptably, in most provinces the minimum wage is so low that even someone working full time for the entire year falls far short of this poverty line--far short.

The low level of the minimum wage is a key factor in the high rates of poverty in Canada and the persistently high levels of economic inequality. According to the latest data from the National Council of Welfare, almost 5 million Canadians, including 1.2 million children, were living in poverty in 2003.

The NDP has proposed raising the federal minimum wage to $10 an hour to help alleviate some of the stress on today's working families. Let us imagine the inequity of a $13.5 billion surplus and 1.2 million children living in poverty.

I would like to focus on those children. Greater prosperity for our nation should include greater prosperity for our children. It is well known that good health and a good education when children are young give them an advantage in life when they are older. The research clearly shows that they will more likely be productive members of the community.

Today's motion does not include helping children who are living in poverty now. We need to invest in our children. We need access to quality, affordable child care. We need to invest in our schools. If the Liberals are serious about improving productivity, I hope they will vote in favour of the NDP child care bill when it comes up for a vote in the next few weeks.

While the motion does mention post-secondary education, and I agree that increased access to post-secondary education is key to increasing productivity, I am astounded to see that the Liberals are proposing this. It was while they had successive majority governments and successive surpluses that the cost of post-secondary education increased substantially. They had 13 years to keep the costs to students under control and to increase access to education. Instead, they let the costs skyrocket and left many young people unable to afford schooling that would give them the advantage in our highly competitive economy and allow them to make the contribution to our communities that they wish to make.

This Liberal motion to improve productivity, as with the Conservative throne speech, also leaves out any mention of affordable housing. If one does not have a home it is almost impossible to find a job, organize one's life or receive social assistance. An address is absolutely essential to survival in this country. More than 1.7 million households live on less than $20,000 a year and most of these Canadians are precariously housed. They do not own their homes and spend far more than 30% of their income on rent. This is money that is unavailable for food, prescriptions, school supplies, kids' clothes, transportation and senior care.

Guaranteed access to safe and affordable housing will go a long way to making many Canadians more productive. Affordable housing will also help families with children who struggle just to make ends meet, who struggle every day with the choice between rent or food. If we dedicate just 1% of Canada's gross domestic product to eradicating homelessness in this country, we will be able to provide the homes Canadians deserve.

I also need to point out that missing from this motion, and I might add glaringly missing from the throne speech, is 51% of the Canadian population. The poverty rate of single women is a staggering 42% and it is worse for single mothers at 48%. The average yearly wage for a full time worker living in poverty is $9,522. One person cannot live on $9,522 a year. That is less than $800 a month. That will barely cover rent in most cities never mind food. How can anyone raise a family on that? Many single mothers are forced to make ends meet with a shoestring budget such as this. They are told that this kind of desperation is as good as it gets, as good as it gets in a country with a $13.5 billion surplus.

In 2004, 394,800 women were working for minimum wage. That is 64% of minimum wage earners. The tragic thing is that women who are first nations or visible minorities have it even worse.

From the Statistics Canada report “Women in Canada” published in 2005, the poverty rates are staggering. Of visible minority women under the age of 15, 33% of them live in poverty and it is even higher for aboriginal women compared to women in general at 15.9%. That is unconscionable. If we look at the age group 25 to 44, the number of visible minority women living in poverty is at 29% compared to the general population at 14%. That is double the general rate. In total, 28.8% of visible minority women are living in poverty in this country. That is unbelievable.

This motion to increase productivity will do nothing to help our women. It is short-sighted and it is unacceptable. This motion, and again the throne speech, fall far short. They fail to address the needs of everyone, and that includes seniors.

One-third of Canadians between the ages of 45 and 59 feel that they are not prepared financially for retirement. These concerns are most prevalent among women, those widowed, separated or divorced, recent immigrants, tenants, those without private pension coverage, and not surprisingly, those with low wages.

Of particular note are senior women who often end their lives living in poverty for many reasons. Women's unpaid work makes their risk of poverty higher and results in less access to private pensions. Older women tend to have lower incomes because they live longer, which leaves them at greater risk of using up their savings as time goes by. Immigrant women are particularly vulnerable. Many over the age of 65 who lived in Canada for less than 10 years are without any income at all.

Senior women receive smaller pension incomes because of the wage difference between men and women. Most divorced women do not claim a portion of their former spouse's pension even though they are entitled to it. Many retirement plans do not compensate for absences to raise children or look after sick relatives, absences which are generally taken by women.

It is very important to emphasize here that senior women living in poverty did not end up there the day they retired. It is the poverty in their youth or the near poverty that prevented them from setting aside money for retirement. That is the real source of the problem. This motion will not come anywhere near addressing this problem. In fact, it ignores it outright, leaving the poverty cycle to continue for another generation.

If we continue to ignore the growing prosperity gap, we will never increase our national productivity. As long as people are left behind in poverty or near poverty, our whole country will suffer. By making sure that we look after those who are most in need, we can ensure that they will be productive and active members of our society. We can ensure a stronger community, stronger children and better conditions. We must allow people to live in the dignity they deserve.

This is truly what we want for Canada. It is what people deserve. It is what the people of London--Fanshawe deserve. We will all benefit. Our country and our communities will all benefit.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I noted that the minister talked about reducing the deficit by $24 billion. What he did not talk about was the social deficit that he has increased in this country.

I want to know about the deficit of 200,000 homeless Canadians. I want to know about the deficit where there are no additional child care spaces. I want to know about the deficit where 1.6 million children live in poverty in this country. I would also like to know about the $100 billion municipal infrastructure deficit, the loss of 300,000 jobs, and the additional 33,000 jobs that we are going to lose because of this Korean free trade deal.

I want to know what the minister is going to do about the social deficit the government has created?

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, October 18th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I noted the member's statements about the general decline in homicides against the increase in other crimes. Despite the fact that he made mention of this, there was absolutely nothing in the throne speech to address that very thing, that being crimes committed against women and the violence women are experiencing, with young women fleeing abusive partners, 500 aboriginal women missing from the streets of Canada and murdered, and immigrant and migrant workers.

All of these women face real violence and the reality of violence in their lives, yet there is nothing in this throne speech to address that violence. There is nothing about affordable housing. There is nothing about child care with an educational component. There is nothing about changes to employment insurance and maternity and paternal leave. These are the very things that would address the needs of women and would prevent the very crime that members of the government give lip service to.

I would like to ask the member why there was nothing to change the direction of Status of Women Canada, nothing to address the issues of women and nothing to prevent the violence the government seems to be so particularly concerned about.

[Persons Case Awards, October 17th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by offering my congratulations and gratitude to the six magnificent women who today were honoured by the Governor General with the persons award.

Tomorrow is an important landmark for women in Canadian politics. It does indeed mark the date in 1918 that women were finally recognized as persons under the law. This meant that Canada had turned a corner and women could finally begin to take their rightful place in the political life of our nation.

The new law laid the groundwork for the 1921 election when a woman was finally elected to this House and it eventually led to the 1930 appointment of a woman to the Senate.

Women have come a long way since 1918, but we have not come far enough. Sadly, in this Parliament only 21.4% of the elected representatives are women. That is not enough representation for 51% of our population.

Public policy impacts men and women differently. Equality therefore demands equal representation in decision making and public affairs. We need to ensure that women's voices are heard more consistently in this--

[Address in Reply, October 16th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is a 60% reduction, despite the fact that international experts have been very clear that there must be a reduction of 80% by 2050. Further, the government is talking about reductions by the year 2020. That is 13 years from now.

Does the government intend to wait 13 long years before it acts, despite the fact that we must act immediately? Is the government trying to rival the record that the Liberals set by doing nothing for 13 years?

[Address in Reply, October 16th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, my question for my hon. colleague also has to do with climate change and greenhouse gas emissions. I note that the government is suggesting that there would be a 60% or perhaps a 70% reduction in greenhouse gases by 2050, despite the fact that international experts--

[Aeronautics Act, June 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, very clearly the safety of airlines is compromised by the very weak whistleblower piece in Bill C-6. It is clear to me that the Americans understand that employees must be protected. When it comes to losing their jobs, being reprimanded, or finding themselves out in the cold, many employees think about the security of their families and feel obligated to consider the loss of a job and the consequences on the family first.

Unfortunately, it is very cold comfort for those of us who utilize airlines in this country. It is absolutely essential that whistleblowers, airline employees, be able to report with impunity the problems they see. The risks are incredible.

I am sure members have found themselves on airplanes in the last little while. That feeling of vulnerability is profound in terms of travelling by that mode of transportation. No matter what the record may say, we are talking about the past in terms of airline security. We are not talking about a new regime which would occur under Bill C-6.

There has to be security for workers, pilots and those who would do their duty to the travelling public. There has to be stronger whistleblower protection. That is a given. We do not see that in Bill C-6.

[Aeronautics Act, June 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, like my NDP colleague, I find the bill seriously flawed.

I want to be clear: we know that from the outset this was basically a Liberal government bill. It is roughly the same bill that was placed before the House in 2005 by the Liberals. Back then it was known as Bill S-33. It was slated to go through the Senate before the House of Commons. It was introduced in the Senate by a Liberal senator but subsequently was ruled out of order because it was a money bill. Interestingly enough, it was challenged in the Senate by Conservative senators.

The bill then reappeared magically as Bill C-62 in the fall of 2006 and of course died on the order paper because of an election. Apparently there were forces at work that made this very bad bill disappear.

However, we have it back again. This time it is Bill C-6 and not much has changed from the bad old days of Bills S-33 and C-62. It is still flawed. It is the same old bill with the same problems.

Needless to say, there have been numerous concerns about the way in which governments, both the Liberals and the Conservatives, are dealing with this area of aeronautics policy and safety management.

One of the biggest concerns that we and other Canadians have is about accountability, accountability to Parliament, accountability to the people of Canada, and open and transparent decision making, all the things that the Conservatives said were intrinsic to their mandate and inherent in their philosophy and would be fundamental to the work of the House, the work that they would do here.

Yet here we are again, as we have been on so many other occasions over the last little while, with another example of the Conservatives reneging on accountability and the interests of Canadians because of expediency. On a fundamental issue of accountability and safety and security of the people in the country, the government once again is going the route of expediency rather than route of what is in the best interests of Canadians.

While we have made substantial progress, Bill C-6 emphasizes cutting costs rather than improving safety standards. There can be no compromise on airline safety. Let me repeat: there can be no compromise on the safety of Canadians. These are major policy issues that will have a direct impact on Canadians who travel by air. The financial bottom lines of Air Canada and WestJet unfortunately will be a factor in setting safety levels in this country.

Transport Canada will be relegated to a more distant role as general overseer of safety management systems, or SMS, as we have heard it called. Adequate safety costs money, but SMS will foster a tendency to cut corners in a very competitive aviation market racked by high fuel prices.

That of course will lead to concerns about the profit margin, with a lot of money for fuel and less money for profit. We know that in business profit is paramount. It is called bean-counting. That is where corporations analyze the degree of risk they are willing to take in order to make money. But when it comes to airline security I say that any risk is unacceptable, and I say not in Canada, no bean-counting when it comes to airline security.

In collaboration with stakeholders such as the Canadian Union of Public Employees, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, airline inspectors and other representatives from the trade union movement, the NDP transportation critic successfully fought for a number of amendments to Bill C-6 in the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

Unfortunately, serious flaws still remain in Bill C-6. The bill will enshrine SMS, which will allow industries to decide, as I said before, the level of risk they are willing to accept in operations rather than abide by the level of safety established by a minister acting in the public interest.

The SMS would let the government transfer increasing responsibility to the industry itself to set and enforce its own safety standards. It is designed in part to help Transport Canada deal with declining resources and high projected levels of inspector retirements. This just cannot happen. The Government of Canada has to be responsible. It cannot relegate and slough off its responsibility to the industry.

While the NDP passed an amendment in transport committee that emphasizes a reduction of risk to the lowest possible level rather than just accepting or tolerating these risks, we are still concerned about the delegation of safety to corporations.

The NDP did manage to improve this legislation somewhat in committee. A new legislative requirement for the minister to maintain a program for oversight and surveillance of aviation safety in order to achieve the highest level of safety was passed. A new legislative obligation for the minister to require the aeronautical activities be performed at all times in a manner that meets the highest safety and security standards was passed. A new legislative requirement for the minister to carry out inspections of operators who use SMS was passed.

The NDP supported a government amendment to give the transport committee the unprecedented ability to review Transport Canada regulations that may have a reported safety concern.

Under pressure from the NDP, the government was compelled to introduce extensive amendments to limit the scope of designated organizations, the bodies that would assume the role of Transport Canada in setting and enforcing rules on airline safety.

An amendment was successfully pushed through to ensure that the Canada Labour Code would prevail over the Aeronautics Act in the event of a possible conflict.

An amendment was added that would ensure employees and their bargaining agents were included in the development and implementation of SMS.

The government was again compelled, after extended debate, to introduce a form of whistleblower protection for employees who report to Transport Canada that their employer is violating the law.

A new definition of safety management system was put into the legislation, emphasizing a reduction of risks to the lowest possible level rather than just accepting or tolerating risks.

We still have a number of concerns with Bill C-6 and the fact that it compromises the safety of Canadians. We believe that the travelling public and aviation workers deserve better.

We are also concerned with issues involving SMS secrecy, weak whistleblower protection and a lack of airline accountability. These compromises are unacceptable. They are unacceptable to the NDP, and I believe they are unacceptable to Canadians.

The airline industry would be permitted to increasingly define the safety levels of its operations. While the scope of designated organizations has been restricted, significant loopholes still remain. Unfortunately, an amendment ensuring these designated organizations respect key laws in their rule making was defeated.

There is no three year review clause for SMS, as is the case for designated organizations.

There is still no real accountability because this legislation seeks to heighten secrecy. It restricts access to information on the safety performance of airlines. Canadians will be left in the dark when it comes to important safety information. Public access under the Access to Information Act, the ATIA, to safety information reports provided to Transport Canada by air operators will be totally unavailable. We have heard about this.

The NDP amendments sought to preserve operations like ATIA in key areas. Unfortunately, these were defeated.

This new hands off enforcement policy by Transport Canada under SMS would mean that there would be no action taken against corporate offenders if there were problems. The government contends that companies will no longer divulge safety problems without this provision. We find this very unconvincing.

We believe there has to be protection. We believe this bill does not afford that protection. We demand that the government and this House consider the safety of Canadians first.