Irene Mathyssen

[Women's Shelters, June 7th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the YWCA released a report on June 1 that outlines the dire need for a national shelter strategy. There are too many women living in abusive relationships and too many women dying at the hands of their spouses. The report found that 77% of women in shelters were in serious or extreme danger.

Because resources are not available, many women are faced with an appalling choice: living in poverty or staying in an abusive relationship. This is a choice that no one in this country should ever have to make.

The need for a national shelter program is critical. Ten per cent of women who seek shelter are turned away due to lack of space. This year, in Ontario alone, 12 women have died at the hands of their partners or spouses. Even one is too many.

Women across this great nation deserve better. They deserve basic human rights: safety and protection. No one should ever be denied this.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2006, June 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I was quite interested in what the member for St. Catharines had to say. In all of his eulogizing about the great benefits this budget has for students, how can he explain that there was no money set aside for grants and that all of the budget in terms of students is directed at ways to help them increase their debt?

Could he also explain to me how $80 for a textbook will help when $80 is about the cost of one textbook and students require many textbooks?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2006, June 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member about a portion of the budget bill that did not become apparent until it reached the finance committee.

The current system for mortgage insurance managed by CMHC allows families that cannot afford a down payment to secure money through CMHC. Likewise, community groups can access money that permits them to build and maintain supportive and special needs housing.

Would the hon. member comment on the Conservative plan to open up mortgage insurance to the private sector and jeopardize these families and community groups?

[Criminal Code, June 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, that points back to my remarks in terms of the situations that keep women in prisons, such as illiteracy, sexual and physical abuse and unemployment. Those are the things that make women's lives very difficult and that clearly underscore their victimization.

We need to improve our literacy programs. We need to ensure that women who have been sexually abused receive the care, the support and the counselling they need. We also need to ensure they have the training to seek employment and look after their children.

I would come back to not just employment to provide for their children but equal employment that includes equal pay for equal work.

[Criminal Code, June 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely, we should be fighting for safer streets and safer situations for women and children. However, with such punitive measures as the ones we saw from the Harris government, we will never be able to achieve those.

I find it very interesting, in talking about poverty, that it does relate to women. We all know that women earn two-thirds of what men earn and that many of them are in situations where they cannot look after their families and children. Just yesterday the committee on the status of women had a vote on pay equity, something that is vital to the future of women so they can provide for their families, pull their children out of poverty and not have to face violence and despair, but the Conservative members of the committee voted against tabling a bill on pay equity.

They speak out of one side of the mouth about safety for women and children and then vote against women in a committee that is supposed to stand up for the rights of women. It is despicable.

[Criminal Code, June 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-9, a bill which has been referred to as the amendment to conditional sentencing. As my fellow members of Parliament are aware, the bill amends section 742.1 of the Criminal Code to provide that a person convicted of an offence prosecuted by way of indictment, for which the maximum term of imprisonment is 10 years or more, is not eligible for a conditional sentence.

As I am sure my fellow members are also aware, conditional sentencing introduced in September 1996 allows for sentences of imprisonment to be served in the community rather than in a correctional facility. This gives judges some freedom to take into account individual circumstances and allow for sentencing that fits with the crime committed.

Judges can take into account such things as the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. For offences that are less serious, judges can choose conditional sentencing. Our jails are seriously overcrowded and underfunded. In 1996 conditional sentencing was seen as a way to ease the burden.

By taking away conditional sentencing, we are second-guessing our judges and limiting their ability to address individual circumstances. Another positive function of conditional sentencing is the ability for judges to provide opportunities for those convicted to acknowledge their crime and even make reparation.

The intention of this type of sentencing was to divert more minor offences out of the prison system. However, I certainly recognize that there is a real concern that conditional sentencing is being used for serious crime such as sexual assault, violent crime and driving offences involving death or serious bodily harm. These are the crimes that merit this amendment. However, I am also very concerned that this amendment to the Criminal Code can do more harm than good. We do not want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

The Conservative government will provide money for federal jails, but this law as is will mean most of the increased jail terms will be spent in provincial facilities. The government should not be downloading the effects of its crime agenda to the provinces without support to hire more local police, expand youth initiatives, and increase and improve provincial jail capacity.

In the United Nations Vienna Declaration on Crime and Justice it states that:

--adequate prevention and rehabilitation programmes are fundamental to an effective crime control strategy, and that such programmes should take into account social and economic factors which may make people more vulnerable to, and likely to engage in criminal behaviour.

The declaration also stresses that “a fair, responsible, ethical and efficient criminal justice system is an important factor in the promotion of economic and social development and of human security”. Eliminating conditional sentencing will not address these concerns made by the UN declaration, but it will increase the population in Canada's jails and will do nothing to address the sources of crime.

One of the key issues that the UN declaration points to is poverty. It calls for countries “to create a conducive environment for the fight against organized crime, promoting growth and sustainable development and eradicating poverty and unemployment”.

What we really need to do to prevent crime is to go to the source. More often than not, that source is poverty. Crime is often a signal that something is terribly wrong with our social safety net, that people are falling through the cracks. Filling up our jails is like putting a band-aid on a broken arm. It looks like we are doing something, but we are not addressing the real problem.

We have seen the Conservative tough on crime attitude before. In Ontario, Mike Harris instituted privately run boot camps in order to get tough on youth crime. These were found to do very little to prevent crime or rehabilitate youth. The facilities charged high rates to taxpayers and did nothing. In combination with these initiatives, the Harris government cut social assistance rates, clawed back the child tax benefit, cancelled funding for second stage housing, cancelled affordable housing projects, reduced funding for women's shelters, and closed down youth initiatives and after school programs.

One particular women's shelter in my riding was forced to cancel a program that offered help to children who were traumatized by domestic violence.

All of the Harris cuts were directed at low income families. It is my greatest fear that we are heading down the same road with the federal Conservatives.

The tough on crime attitude is apparent in Bill C-9 and Bill C-10. Every day I have someone new come to my office asking if funding for one of the many social programs for women and youth will be cut after March 2007.

I am sure some of my fellow members of Parliament are thinking that the link between crime and poverty is not as critical as I suggest. Quite simply, it is. To make my case I want to address the situation of incarcerated women.

Women in the Canadian penitentiary system have the highest rate of HIV and mental illness of any group of women in Canada. Surely a prison is not the institution to respond to someone who is ill.

Forty per cent of incarcerated women are illiterate and 80% have been physically or sexually abused. They were victims long before they resorted to crime. Two-thirds of these women have children. Many had unstable housing at the time of incarceration and 80% were unemployed at the time they were sentenced to jail.

It is obvious that women who are incarcerated are victims of violence and poverty themselves. If we take the brave step to eradicate poverty perhaps we can eliminate much of the need for incarceration.

The Conservative plan to eliminate conditional sentencing will have a significant impact on female inmates in particular. As I previously noted, two-thirds of the women currently incarcerated have children. If conditional sentences are continued for non-violent crimes, these women will have an opportunity to put their lives back on track and may be able to have a relationship with their children. A 10 year jail term would kill any chance of that.

I am very concerned that the Conservatives have gone too far with the bill. Where are the provisions for the prevention of crime?

I referred earlier to the actions of Mike Harris in Ontario. The punitive approach he took to the needs of vulnerable communities has consequences. We live with those consequences now. If a human being is beaten down by the loss of hope and opportunity, eventually that human being will strike back. Have we learned nothing from the Harris legacy?

We have seen an increase in poverty and despair. Last week the United Nations social, economic and cultural council issued a scathing report condemning Canada for being inactive in key areas of social development. We have failed Canadians when it comes to safe, affordable child care, affordable housing and care for abused women. How on earth would the bill change that neglect?

[Housing, June 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, every penny in the Conservative budget for housing was a re-announcement of money that we secured in the NDP budget. Just like under the Liberals, there is a lot of talk on housing but no action. The housing crisis in our country is an internationally recognized shame and the government is doing nothing about it.

Could the government tell us why, at a time when it has record surpluses, it can find billions to subsidize profitable oil companies, but not one new penny for affordable housing?

[Housing, June 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the recently issued UN report is a stinging indictment of the way past Conservative and Liberal governments have created huge holes in Canada's social safety net. The report is especially critical of Canada's treatment of single mothers. It states that women without housing are forced to give up their kids and that women cannot leave relationships due to inadequate assistance.

When will the government stand up for Canadian women and take action to end poverty and when will it increase access to safe, affordable housing?

[Trade, June 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the federal government has initiated free trade negotiations with South Korea. These negotiations are very concerning to many of my constituents in London--Fanshawe. They feel that their jobs, as well as other Canadian auto sector jobs, will be placed at further risk with a new deal.

Canada imported 130,000 vehicles from Korea, but exported only 400 vehicles back to Korea. For every dollar of automotive product we export to Korea, we import $150. This is not balanced trade.

NAFTA style trade agreements have not been beneficial to Canadian businesses. Recently, we saw Canada get the short end of the stick in the softwood lumber deal. We do not want the Conservative government to put our auto industry at risk as it did softwood.

Canada needs a new automotive trade policy, one that protects auto workers and the Canadian auto industry by ensuring equal access to offshore markets that import into Canada.

[Business of Supply, May 16th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Parkdale—High Park.

There seems to be some confusion among members in the House today. We are talking about the non-essential cosmetic use of pesticides. The use of cosmetic pesticides is an issue that is of great importance to me and to people in the city of London where this issue is currently being debated.

I strongly believe that cosmetic use of pesticides should be banned unless it is proven that pesticides do not pose risks to the health of humans.

I find it most troubling that the pesticide industry keeps on insisting that there is no conclusive evidence that these chemicals are dangerous to humans and animals. It reminds me of the argument used by the tobacco industry when fears about the effects of tobacco surfaced many years ago.

It is an argument that lacks logic. Why on earth would we take a chance? We need to know unequivocally that the products that we use do not pose a threat. There is significant evidence that it is prudent to support a ban.

A study done by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario outlined the major effects of exposure to pesticides on human health and the list is frightening. Some of the possible effects include: solid tumours, including brain cancer, prostate cancer, kidney cancer and pancreatic cancer; leukemia; non-Hodgkin's lymphoma; genotoxic effects; skin diseases; neurological diseases; and an impact on reproduction.

Those most likely to be affected by pesticide use are vulnerable patients, including children, seniors and pregnant women. I would like to make a special note of the impact of pesticides on pregnant women. I know the health of pregnant women is of particular concern to some members of the House.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario stated that “Pregnant women are a special risk group, given the findings showing increased risk of childhood and acute lymphocytic leukemia when women use pesticides in the home and garden during pregnancy”. The health of unborn children should not be traded for a weed free lawn.

Pesticides are used on lawns, gardens, school yards and parks, all places where children play. It should not be surprising then that children are one of the higher risk groups. Exposure to pesticides increases the child's risk of cancer, something no child should ever have to experience.

The Canadian Cancer Society also calls for a ban on cosmetic pesticides and has stated that “appropriate action should be taken to limit the risk to human health. This is especially true when the reason for using pesticides on lawns is to prevent weeds and plants that can be removed in other, potentially less damaging ways”.

Even the federal government has called for a ban on the cosmetic use of pesticides. In a federal report issued by the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development, it states:

The Committee firmly believes that a moratorium on pesticide use for aesthetic purposes is necessary until science has proven that the pesticides involved do not constitute a health threat and some light has been shed on the consequences of their use in urban areas. Pesticide use should only be permitted in an emergency, such as a serious pest infestation which threatens the health of people and the environment.

There have been over 100 municipalities in Canada that have adopted pesticide bylaws and many more which are considering a change. One of those municipalities is London, Ontario. The people of London have been demanding a pesticide ban for four years now and still have no ban.

Federal legislation would benefit my riding and the people of London. A poll done in London this past January found that only 23% of London homeowners currently use cosmetic or non-essential pesticides at home. The poll also found that 60% of homeowners who currently use those pesticides would likely or very likely stop using them if they were provided with information on alternative methods to have a weed free garden and lawn. Furthermore, a total of 61% of London residents surveyed agreed that the city of London should pass a bylaw phasing out the use of lawn pesticides.

Ironically, the city of London, by refusing to move forward on cosmetic use of pesticides, has actually stopped using pesticides in parks. The lawns of Victoria Park remain beautiful and green, drawing thousands of visitors downtown every summer for community festivals, and pesticides are not used.

For those who feel a green, weed free lawn is a priority, there are alternatives that are both safe and healthy. London businesses, such as My Green Garden, provide safe organic alternatives that will not harm our children.

This issue is so important to me and the people in the riding of London—Fanshawe that on Friday, May 5, I launched a petition along with London City Councillor Bill Armstrong calling on the Government of Canada to recognize that human and environmental health should take precedence in legislative decision making, as well as in the product approval processes in every jurisdiction in Canada. The petition also calls on the government to enact legislation banning the use of chemical pesticides for cosmetic purposes until rigorous independent scientific and medical testing of chemical pesticides and parliamentary review of results are conducted for both existing and new products, and to enact legislation applying the precautionary principle in regard to restricting future allowable usage in order to minimize risk to human and environmental health. The petition already has well over 400 signatures from residents of London who want a safe and healthy city.

I think it is important to hear the words of some of the people who have signed on to this petition, people who will be directly affected if this motion passes today. One London resident stated:

I fully support a ban on pesticides in the City of London, and have personally practised non-chemical gardening for over 20 years, with no increase in weeds or other pests.

Another resident said:

I strongly support the bill. My neighbour sprays and each time he does my property is saturated with chemicals too.

Another said:

We cannot afford to subject our children and grandchildren to the continued barrage of toxins! Given the rising cancer rate, it is best to err on the side of caution, especially for those toxins that serve purely aesthetic purposes!

Yet another resident said:

We need to stop all this contamination before it is too late. Our health, our children and our pets are much more important than having the greenest lawn on the block.

Pesticides cause cancer. Those who do not believe this have their heads in the sand. It is time we came into the modern world, ban pesticides, and start thinking about the health of our citizens. Another resident stated:

Healthy humans are more important than lovely lawns. Very few weeds are truly “noxious”; in fact, if many of them were difficult to cultivate, we might actually plant them in our gardens. To a child, who is too young to differentiate between weeds and flowers, a sea of dandelions is a treasure trove of flowers to present to mother...It's all really a matter of what one values most: the health of our family, friends and pets or the appearance of our lawns.

Finally, one London resident it best, “For the health of our country, please enact this ban”.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario stated, “Pesticides are designed to kill something”. That is the problem. They do kill. Why would we want to expose ourselves to something like that, something designed to specifically kill?