Irene Mathyssen

[Business of Supply, May 8th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, in fact, I recall the promise that after 85¢ per litre there would be no more GST. I just heard some members in the Conservative caucus say that they did not get elected on that promise. That is weaseling out. I am sorry, I cannot accept that.

We heard a lot of promises from the Conservatives. They promised to support women and communities. They promised to provide child care and a lot of other things. We have seen none of that and clearly consumers in Canada are paying the price for that.

[Business of Supply, May 8th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I find it quite astounding that we hear all of this bafflegab. The Conservatives know full well that they could lower gas prices right now by simply dropping the GST.

In terms of where the New Democrats stand, we stand with Canadians. We stand with Canadian families, hard-working consumers, and we want to narrow the affordability gap.

Just last week we heard that Canadians are being squeezed, that 600,000 families in Ontario cannot manage and are struggling. We have a government that is not listening to Canadian families. It is certainly listening to the oil companies and their friends in the oil patch, but not listening to Canadians who are trying to manage and raise families in light of these incredible and ridiculous gas prices.

I would like to remind the member what his leader said on May 12, 2004. It is so long ago and yet it is strange how it only feels like a couple of years. He said:

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister will know that across the country Canadians are struggling with record gas prices. Canadian businesses are being hurt. Canadian consumers are burdened with the difficulties this is causing, but the government itself is rolling in record gas tax revenue.

The member has talked about hurting the Canadian economy. Other than the absolute irreconcilable cost of energy, what could hurt Canadians and the economy more?

[Business of Supply, May 8th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Windsor West for sharing his time with me.

The rising price of gasoline is causing great concern to hard-working Canadians. New Democrats believe ordinary Canadians are being cheated at the gas pump every time they fill up their cars. It is unfair for working and middle-class families to be gouged at the pump while big oil companies continue to reap record profits. Many people have no choice but to drive to work. The record prices we are seeing today have become a significant pay cut to their families.

An independent watchdog needs to be set up to monitor prices and help protect against future gouging.

Today, Canadians find themselves trying to cope with uncontrolled rising gas prices because the Liberals and Conservatives consistently refused to act when gas prices spiked in the past.

For instance, a motion tabled in the House April 2005 would have created a petroleum monitoring agency. This motion was defeated when Conservatives and Liberals voted against the NDP and Bloc's efforts to implement the agency.

Federal legislation was also put forth by my colleague, the member for Windsor West, to create a petroleum monitoring agency. A similar bill was brought forward by NDP MLA John Horgan to regulate prices on a provincial level in B.C.

The Conservatives and Liberals have consistently supported the big corporations, whether they are banks, polluters or, in this case, oil companies. It is time to put fairness back into the way we behave so that there is money in the pocketbooks of consumers.

While consumers are paying sky-high prices, oil companies are making sky-high profits. As my colleague mentioned, the first quarter profits include the following: Imperial Oil/Esso, $774 million; Petro-Canada, $580 million; Encana, $497 million. All the while, gas prices continue to rise all across the country. They spiked earlier this week, with a high of $1.23 per litre in British Columbia.

Just like the phone and cable companies, oil companies and energy producers should have to justify and defend cost increases.

The Competition Bureau has already held hearings and nothing happened. In total, the Competition Bureau has held six major investigations into gas prices since 1990 and found that nothing that violated the Competition Act was present in any of those investigations.

This motion today calls for an inquiry which actually would help consumers and would limit what is happening.

The Competition Bureau has limited powers to investigate and compel evidence to be brought forward and in fact the bureau, by its own mandate, must keep major portions of the findings secret. We want Canadians to hear from the people who sell us gas and working families want to know why gas prices spike and what the industry thinks we can do about it.

On average, a public inquiry runs on a budget of about $10 million. But after six investigations by the Competition Bureau, we still have no solid answers to the very real problem of rising gasoline prices. Ordinary Canadians expect more. Every month or two prices spike, sometimes to totally unreasonable levels. Consumers are seeing patterns, and we need to get to the bottom of this.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology has already held hearings and recommended, in November 2003, that a petroleum gas price monitoring agency be established.

That is just what New Democrats are calling for today. We need a gas price monitoring agency. That is the reason the NDP proposed to amend the Bloc motion to include the creation of a petroleum monitoring agency.

The oil and gas sector in Canada is dominated by big business. Due to rising oil and gas prices, the industry has become one of the most profitable sectors in the economy, with record profits for each of the last four years. With those record profits, we see an increase in power and influence. Even with these record profits, the industry has one of the worst records with regard to investment in research and development, with among the lowest as a percentage of revenue or as a percentage of profits of any industry.

Still, the industry receives special tax breaks for capital cost allowances that the Conservatives would phase out over the next eight years. That would be eight years of more tax breaks at the expense of Canadians. The industry receives close to $2 billion a year in subsidies from the federal government.

The $2 billion could be used to fund an affordable housing program in this country. It could relieve poverty among Inuit communities across the north. The $2 billion could be used to create a department for Status of Women Canada. The $2 billion could create enough affordable child care spaces in Ontario. The $2 billion dollars could be used to create a better stand of living for our seniors by initiating a national home care plan which would allow seniors to stay in their homes and communities and out of long term care facilities.

I am sorry I have digressed, but the scope of this misspending is just breathtaking.

As many in the House know, the oil and gas industry grew as part of government policy. At a time of low oil prices, extremely low royalty rates were established for the highest cost production in the oil sands, the much higher oil prices that led to enormous investment and development in production on a scale unseen in this sector. It has also led to an enormous environmental degradation and the generation of pollution.

The oil sands sector is the largest greenhouse gas emission source in the country and it also consumes vast amounts of clean water.

The time has come to eliminate the absurd royalty regime and establish what is fair. It is time to eliminate subsidies for this profitable industry. It is time to create the incentives for the industry to reduce its emissions and invest in greener technology and fuels of the future.

Rising gas prices hurt hard-working Canadians and their pocketbooks. It is unfair for big oil companies to continue to make record profits while they squeeze consumers at the pumps.

Some people may ask: are not high gas prices an incentive to use public transit? Why would environmentalists want to make gas cheaper and increase consumption?

Transit is the key to reducing gas consumption. We are in favour of increased funding and infrastructure for public transit, but we will not take the approach that increased profits for big oil and gas companies are acceptable. It punishes working and rural families who sometimes do not have any other option but to use a car. These companies should be focusing on providing efficient fuels instead of gouging consumers.

The Conservatives and the Liberals are not protecting consumers. Rather they are letting the big oil companies reap a profit off the backs of hard-working Canadians. Big oil and gas get a billion dollar subsidy from government and all the time they are making record profits. It is simply not acceptable.

I would like to point out that when in opposition the Conservatives called on the federal government to cut taxes on gasoline. Yet, now they are in government and they flip-flop and refuse to implement their own suggestion.

It is very clear that what is necessary is an independent watchdog on gas prices to help protect against future gouging by the big gas and oil companies.

As I mentioned, the NDP proposed such legislation in 2004 and reintroduced it last spring. We could have had an independent watchdog already. This can work. Gas prices in P.E.I. are regulated by the provincial government and are generally lower than in the rest of Canada. Prices change only once a month.

In addition to introducing positive choices for Canadian consumers, the NDP wants to provide incentives for auto manufacturers to produce fuel efficient vehicles and for consumers to buy environmentally friendly cars.

Tax incentives should also be given to researchers to fund new fuel technologies and reduce our dependence on fossil fuels like gasoline. We need to do this as well as provide incentives for manufacturers to produce, and consumers to buy, more fuel efficient cars.

This is the approach that we should and can take. Someone should be on the side of the environment and someone should be on the side of hard-working Canadians.

[Government Programs, May 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is not effective. Ordinary people are struggling to afford food. One time funding and tax tinkering does not solve long term hunger or homelessness.

Why does the government continue to give tax breaks to the rich and leave the poor to struggle every day? We have no national housing program, not enough child care spaces and women in Canada still only make 71¢ for every dollar a man earns.

We can afford to change it. Will the minister stop the big industry tax breaks and start thinking of ordinary Canadians?

[Government Programs, May 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the richest Canadians have increasingly enjoyed very good fortune while, at the same time, 40% of Ontario families, more than 600,000 households, have seen little or no gains in their incomes in 30 years despite working longer hours.

Conservative and Liberal governments have failed working Canadians. Families struggle just to make ends meet. We need pay equity. We need a national child care program and we need an end to child poverty. When will the government take real action?

[Petitions, May 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions for the Government of Canada regarding seniors. The signatories wish to remind their government that the unification of seniors with their families through immigration is a core aspect of forming strong and vibrant families and communities. Newcomer seniors currently suffer discriminatory eligibility criteria within Canada's income security program. For example, there is a one year residency for some, while others have a 10 year requirement. Canada's old age security, guaranteed income supplement and social assistance programs are age, capacity and needs-based programs, not individual contribution-based income security plans.

The petitioners call upon the government to amend the Old Age Security Act, regulations and policies to eliminate the 10 year residency requirement for OAS and GIS; waive the enforcement of sponsorship obligations through government cost recovery schemes as a condition of financial support of genuine immigration breakdown involving a senior; establish a nominal public transit charge for all seniors in Canada, like the $45 per year charge for B.C. seniors; and provide government funding to support more ethno-specific affordable housing for seniors who need and desire it. I support this petition.

[April 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, that is the quality of nightmares. Canadians are much too cautious and much too intelligent to ever give the Conservative government that kind of power. There has been a great deal of discussion, but they have seen what happened in the United States with the entrenchment of a right-wing agenda and the kind of despair that we see there. We certainly do not want a repeat of that here.

I would predict that Canadians would be very sage in terms of their electoral choices next time.

[April 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about the direction the government is taking. My first response is it seems to be going in circles, but that is not really accurate. The government is going backward, and it is going backward in terms of women's rights.

What we see with the cancellation of the court challenges program and the end of funding for research and policy development for Status of Women Canada is quite symptomatic of what can only be described as an entrenching of Republican style values.

The member talked about the appointment of judges and administrators who were closely aligned with the Prime Minister's own thinking. I would like to remind the Prime Minister that he is one citizen of this country. There are 33 million more, and they too have a right to develop and participate in this country as full citizens, not by a narrow set of rules that is determined by one individual.

It is time for the Prime Minister to take his role seriously as a leader, as a leader who makes it possible for people to develop and to contribute, a leader who brings out the very best in this country, not one who would take it backward to a time we shudder to think of, because it was a time when women were undermined, when immigrants were undermined, and when minority groups and first nations were undermined. We cannot possibly return to those times. We need to go forward.

[April 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am splitting my time with the member for Acadie—Bathurst.

The truth is that changes to the mandate of Status of Women Canada and the termination of the court challenges program are a travesty.

The court challenges program of Canada provided access to justice in languages and equality rights. It provided a constitutional test. To be meaningful, rights have to be exercised. Without the court challenges program in place to provide this assistance, the interpretation and application of constitutional rights will only be available to those with deep pockets.

In a constitutional democracy like Canada, constitutional rights litigation is an essential part of democratic dialogue and the exercise of citizenship. Constitutional test cases examine the meaning of rights and their limits. As a society we suffer when constitutional wrongs go unchecked.

However, the government has no interest in these ideals nor in the needs of women, needs such as child care, economic security, affordable housing, fair immigration policy, the rights of aboriginal women and pensioners. There was nothing in the recent budget that specifically referred to the government's funding plans to address women's inequality and to address their needs.

The Conservative child care plan does not address the child care needs of working women. Twelve hundred dollars a year does not even come close to covering the cost of child care. Families in my riding of London--Fanshawe have made it very clear that what they need are child care spaces, not a taxable $100 a month.

The Conservative budget did not provide funds to create more child care spaces until 2007-08. Just last week we saw the results of such a travesty in the city of Toronto. A child, a baby just over a year of age, was injured because of inadequate child care. Now we see that the number of child care spaces are in decline. We need to invest in our children now. To invest in our children is to invest in our future.

The government shows very little support for women and their children and has made it very clear that they are simply not a priority. The priorities lie elsewhere. The minister responsible for the status of women claimed in the House that the government would stand up for the equality of women. She said:

I can assure the member and all women in Canada that this government will stand up for the equality of women and their full participation.

By the government's actions, actions like ending the funds for court challenges, ending funding for literacy programs, for Status of Women Canada, for museums, for summer youth programs, the government has shown that it is not interested in these very interesting words. Neither the Minister of Justice nor the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Status of Women has stood up. It is clear that women are not a priority

In order to comply with its international obligations and truly advocate for women in Canada, the government needs to fund research, legislation and programs in order to address the 26 recommendations made by the United Nations committee, the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women. It needs to fund the court challenges program. Funding for Status of Women Canada according to the estimates has stayed relatively stagnant, except for about $1 million in transfer payments to the Sisters in Spirit initiative through the native women's network to raise awareness of the alarmingly high rates of violence against aboriginal women in Canada.

Status of Women Canada needs more funding to address women's issues, especially those outlined in the CEDAW recommendations, not just for projects but to address the systemic causes of inequality. According to the estimates, the promote public policy program is being cut by approximately $5 million, while there has been an increase of about $6 million for the build knowledge and organizational capacity on gender equality. The large cut to promote public policy program will prevent the development and implementation of federal initiatives that narrow the gap between women and men and expand opportunities for women. This cut in funding also means that there is only $2 million to address the CEDAW recommendations.

The amount of $21 million is dedicated to develop the knowledge and capacity of a number of stakeholders so that they are better informed and able to address gender based issues of significance to Canadian society in a coordinated manner. Of this money, $10 million is dedicated to grants.

While women's organizations need funding, the large adjustment between the two programs indicates that the government would rather have a hands-off policy when it comes to promoting women's equality instead of funding federal programs with direction and cohesion. Again the government shows that women are not a priority. Clearly it does not believe that government should promote women's equality. Instead, responsibility is passed over to the non-profit community, or in some cases, the for profit community.

The Government of Canada continues to ignore that Canadian women need Status of Women Canada to achieve equality. Addressing the symptoms of systemic discrimination against women, as the government's actions do, will not eliminate the inequalities that women face.

If the Conservatives truly cared, they would make sure that the $100 million for Status of Women Canada was available to meet our international obligations. They would reverse the closure of 12 of 16 Status of Women Canada offices across the country and reverse the cancellation of the independent policy research fund. They would also reverse the restrictive funding mandate of Status of Women Canada and reverse the cancellation of the court challenges program. They would truly address violence against women, provide core funding for women's groups and increase funding to the women's program at Status of Women Canada by at least 25% for investment in women's groups and equality-seeking organizations.

If the Conservatives truly cared, there would be better parental benefits. There would be proactive pay equity legislation and a commitment to safe, affordable, regulated child care.

Women across this great nation deserve that. They deserve the basic human rights that this country says it intends to guarantee: safety and protection. No one should be denied these rights. We need the court challenges program.

We need to have a government that respects and supports the women of this country. We do not have one yet; we are still waiting. We demand a government that respects women and will restore the programs that bring them equality, the equality they deserve.

[The Environment, April 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, this Sunday is the 37th Earth Day. Sadly, we are still facing an environmental crisis in Canada and around the world.

Since taking office, the Conservatives have embarrassed and disappointed Canadians by their position on the environment. One of their first acts in government was to give up on Canada's international commitments to address climate change and global warming.

Quite simply, ordinary Canadians are tired of this inaction. They know that this is not only a health issue for their families and future generations but the beginning of a serious economic problem for all Canadians.

New Democrats are fighting hard to ensure that Kyoto remains a priority for the Conservative government.

By helping to completely rewrite the clean air act, we now have the opportunity to pass legislation that would significantly reduce our greenhouse gas emissions with tough regulations on big polluters, an end to subsidies for oil and gas, a green car strategy and energy efficiency programs.

The government has to get the message. We need to protect our environment.