Irene Mathyssen

[The Budget, May 10th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the member raised a number of points. I do not believe I have time to address all of them, but I would like to refer to one point and that is in regard to tax cuts.

About 18 months ago the World Economic Forum issued a report which said that if one wants to improve an economy and build a community, one does not invest in corporate tax cuts because that does absolutely nothing. Most of that money disappears offshore. If one truly wants to build a country or a community, one invests in the things that make that community strong: child care, education, working families.

Unfortunately, we have seen absolutely none of that in this budget. The only group to come out ahead in terms of this Conservative agenda are the corporations. In the months to come, families will start to realize that these so-called tax credits disappear, as I have said before, into cold thin air.

[The Budget, May 10th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am quite pleased to have the chance to set the record straight. I was a member of a government that was suffering through the worst recession that this country has ever known. We have since found out that particular recession was something that even the international community did not fully understand and has not fully understood until the present time. The world was reeling and Ontario was in terrible trouble because it had lost half a million jobs due to a free trade agreement that a certain Conservative government had put in place.

In order to maintain the services of the province, the NDP had to do remarkable things. We could not rely on the federal government because the Conservatives and then the Liberals did nothing but cut, cut, cut transfer payments and reduced our ability to help. In fact, the Conservatives promised that there would be a training allowance for people who lost their jobs. We never saw a dime. In order to make sure that when the recession ended in 1994 there was an Ontario left, the NDP did what it needed to do. It--

[The Budget, May 10th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Hamilton for sharing his time. It gives me the chance to raise some important issues regarding the impact on women by the Conservative budget.

I must say that despite the admonitions of the Minister of Justice today in question period that his government respects the equality rights of women, I have little faith that the words match the actions.

Besides the $450 million that the Conservative government has allocated for aboriginal education, women, children and families, water and housing, there is no mention of money in the budget specifically allocated toward advancing women's equality. The budget does touch on issues that affect women, like child care, tax cuts, security, housing, immigration, aboriginal peoples and pensioners, but again there is nothing in the budget that specifically refers to the government's funding plans to address women's inequality.

The Conservatives' child care plan does not address the child care needs of working women. Twelve hundred dollars a year does not come close to covering the cost of child care. Families in my riding of London—Fanshawe have made it clear. They need child care spaces, not a taxable $100 a month. The budget does not provide funds to create more child care spaces until 2007-08. We need to invest in our children now. To invest in children is to invest in our future.

The provision of child care is not about pitting one family against another with regard to child care choice; rather it should be about providing quality early learning. Whether a parent stays at home, works part time or full time, families are still looking for early childhood education to provide their children with the opportunity of socialization and the advantage of educational stimulation.

While the Conservatives claim that $1,200 will provide a choice, I must argue that when no child care spaces are created, there is no choice. It would be ideal if all working families could afford to have one parent at home, but the reality remains that many families can only survive on two incomes. The government's child care plan reinforces gender inequality because the Conservative funding plan assumes that one parent, in many cases the woman, will stay at home. These women may well suffer the same inequity as their grandmothers. Fifty per cent of Canadian women 65 years of age and over live in poverty because they were not engaged in employment outside of their homes.

Another issue I have with the budget is that there is no EI plan to address the inequalities that women face. Because a large percentage of women work in part time jobs, marginal jobs and self-employment arrangements, many women are not eligible for EI. This creates two problems. These women are unable to access EI if they lose their jobs and these women are also ineligible for maternity leave when they decide to start a family.

I feel the budget shows very little support for women and suggests that the Conservative government's priorities lie elsewhere. The Minister for Canadian Heritage and 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.

The budget does not reflect the words by either the Minister of Justice or the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Status of Women. It is clear that women are not a priority.

In order to comply with its international obligations and truly stand up 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 on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, CEDAW.

Funding for Status of Women Canada according to the estimates has stayed relatively stagnant, except for about $1 million transferred 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.

According to the estimates, the promote public policy program is being cut by approximately $5 million, while there is an increase of about $6 million for building knowledge and organizational capacity on gender equality. The large cut to the 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 about $2 million left to address the CEDAW recommendations.

Twenty-one million dollars 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. Ten million dollars of this money is dedicated to grants.

While women's organizations do 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, this budget illustrates that women are not a priority for the government. Clearly it does not believe that government should promote women's equality. Instead, responsibility is passed over to the non-profit community.

I also need to speak about the budget's lack of funding for housing.

The one time payment outlined in the Conservative budget was in the NDP budget, Bill C-48, last spring. It is money that was already committed to be spent and falls $200 million short of the budget which was passed last June.

I am very concerned as there is no mention in this budget about who will oversee the funding and ensure the money is spent by the provinces on much needed affordable housing. Previous allocations to the provinces and territories, about $474 million, was never spent because the money had to be matched by the province.

My question remains, who is it that will oversee that money and make sure it is spent on affordable housing, and how is “affordable” defined?

Housing costs have reached an incredible high. According to Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the cost of housing in Calgary has increased by 29.6% since last year. The cost of housing has increased across Canada. When compounded with rising mortgage rates, housing is becoming more and more inaccessible for many working families. According to a CBC report today, housing costs are expected to grow again next year. With rising costs, the need for affordable housing is not an option, it is an essential.

There is also no mention in this budget of a national housing plan that would ensure affordable housing is available in the long term. The government has no long term solution and Canada remains one of only two G-8 countries without a national housing strategy.

The Conservatives say they plan to make new housing affordable. The 1% cut in GST is their example. Their own numbers clearly show that the tax break will not make housing any more affordable, especially for those who need it most. Buying a $200,000 home, and in my riding the average home is $300,000, would provide a tax rebate of about $8.25 a year over a 25 year mortgage. This does not make any home more affordable, nor is it a saving for those who even can afford to buy a house.

The housing money allocated to reserves is not going to address the housing needs of the first nations people. The $450 million allotted may cover repairs needed on current stock, but it will not address the overcrowding or relocation needs in communities like Kashechewan.

We are pleased to see money from the NDP budget go to off reserve first nations housing. The money can be used to ease the current housing burden, but spread across the entire country, it will not come close to addressing the needs of those who most need it. Too often, aboriginal people have seen money disappear into programs with no corresponding improvement in their standard of living.

This budget is not much more than sleight of hand. It pretends to help working families and women, but upon closer inspection, the so-called savings simply disappear into thin, cold air.

[Automobile Industry, May 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it should be no surprise that the economic health of southwestern Ontario is dependent on the auto industry. Many families in my riding are particularly concerned about the Ford assembly plant in Talbotville, which will reduce its line speed, cut 280 jobs this July and drop down to one shift, cutting 900 more jobs by July 2007.

It is a benefit to everyone if Ford keeps its plant on two shifts. It is not just the jobs that are lost. Those workers buy products, use services and pay taxes. With the new Conservative tax cuts, Canada cannot afford to support more unemployment and hope to keep basic services, such as health care, running effectively.

Working families need jobs and the people in my riding of London—Fanshawe deserve employment. The fear is very real that Ford's next step is to shut down the plant entirely. That would devastate the community. We need more jobs, not fewer.

I hope the government is really interested in made in Canada solutions and will meet with the Ford Motor Company and find a way to keep jobs in Canada.

[Status of Women, May 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, my office has received numerous calls that funding has been stalled for various organizations that advocate for women. I am very concerned that important programs are not receiving the appropriate attention of the Minister responsible for the Status of Women. Equity seeking groups fear that they will not receive the funding they need to advance women's rights. There is great concern that today's budget will leave these programs in the lurch.

Will the minister continue to shirk her responsibility to advance the rights of 51% of the population, or will she stand up in this House today and commit to making the Status of Women a file that is a priority?

[Federal Accountability Act, April 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is very important for the citizens of the country to be able to rely on fixed election dates. It gives us a sense of when elections will happen. It is a commitment of Parliament to say that it will work for a four year period and not play games.

Unfortunately, we saw this in Ontario with a Liberal government in 1990. The premier of the day thought he could avoid the recession and played around with the timing of the election. He lost that election, but it was clearly a very cynical kind of behaviour. We have seen enough cynicism in Parliaments and legislatures across the country. We need to be very clear with people who are depending on clarity. We need this manipulation to go away. Fixed election dates would do a great deal in terms of remedying that.

[Federal Accountability Act, April 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely. We in the New Democratic Party are very concerned about what we may see in budget cuts. Ultimately, the people who work in our civil service, very dedicated and hard-working people, have talked to me about their concerns in regard to the lack of services.

In specific regard to that, one example is the services offered by Revenue Canada to seniors who go in to talk about their tax returns. The problem is that these civil servants are being instructed to wait 20 minutes between each customer. If seniors do not understand that they need to have an appointment, they may arrive at 9 o'clock in the morning without an appointment. Then they have to set up one up, they are fourth or fifth in line and they have to wait for several hours before they can see someone who can help them with their tax returns. The rationale is that--

[Federal Accountability Act, April 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin by saying that I do support the spirit of the proposed accountability act because accountability is our obligation as parliamentarians and the very least that Canadians should receive from those entrusted to guide this nation and to serve its people.

We heard a great deal about the sponsorship scandal not just today but it has dominated debate during the last two federal elections. It was a stain on our nation. It demeaned our democracy, this House and the work of the members who serve our many and diverse communities.

As I said, I do support the spirit of the bill but I do have some concerns. Like any bill cobbled together rather hastily, Bill C-2 has many flaws. My concern is that in its 270 pages it may prove to be more ponderous than enlightening and could collapse in on itself. Therefore I believe that it needs some refinements for the sake of ensuring that it does precisely what it was intended to do and that is to bring back accountability and integrity. We in the New Democratic Party would like to work with all members in the House to effect those needed changes.

I am going to refer shamelessly to the work of my former colleague, Mr. Ed Broadbent, the former member for Ottawa Centre, because he did put together a very comprehensive package to address the kinds of problems that we have seen in the House over the last few years.

I would like to begin with financing. Bill C-2 does make some important changes to the financing laws. These changes have been around for a little while. Some were brought in by the previous government. However, unlike the previous government, we see some clear restrictions: lowering the contribution limits locally to $1,000, an additional $1,000 nationally and an additional $1,000 for leadership races. That is very important.

I would like to comment specifically on leadership races because that is missing from this bill. If we allow those who have financial wherewithal to take control and be the only ones who can run for the leaders of this nation, then we are buying into the kind of elitism that we see in American races. I believe that wealth should not be the basis upon which one seeks leadership. I would like to see a lowering of limits or a very clear limit set on leadership races so we can be assured that we have people with the genuine skills and determination to be our leaders rather than those with deep pockets.

I am also pleased to see the elimination of corporate and union contributions. We in the New Democratic Party certainly support that move. We believe it will provide a measure of fairness. I have run many times, both provincially and federally, and it was always a problem. My opponents were constantly able to draw on corporate resources that were well beyond anything that my constituents and my supporters could ever provide. This kind of limit is very important.

I also like the fact that loopholes have been closed in terms of trust funds. Unfortunately, much of this is too little too late. I think the ship has sailed on trust funds and I rather strongly suspect that those trust funds are now in the hands of riding associations. It would have been nice to have seen this much sooner.

One of the things that I do have some real concerns with is the elimination of cash contributions over $20. I would not want members to think that supporters in London--Fanshawe were so well-heeled that they were coming out with lots of cash. In fact, most contributions were made by cheque and they were modest but heartfelt contributions, and I appreciated every one of them.

A lot of seniors in my riding do not deal with credit cards, and money orders just add a lot of extra expense. They are hard-working people who deal in cash. Credit is an alien concept to them. I would not want them to be undermined in any way by this limitation.

I have a story about one supporter of mine, a wonderful man. He had not been on employment insurance. He had worked many years and contributed to the fund, but had never qualified because his work was sporadic. It was very important to him to get the kind of representation that would address this inequity. We know this inequity has been endemic in Canada for a very long time. He walked several miles from his home to my campaign office with $25. He wanted to show how important his participation was and how much he believed in fairness and in an opportunity to have his voice heard. For him, this was a great sacrifice.

Unfortunately, if we start to eliminate those kinds of very small contributions, we are going to lose out a great deal in being able to extend and allow our supporters of modest means to contribute and to feel positive about that.

I also want to talk about fixed election dates. It is very important that we do this. Mr. Broadbent was very clear about that. He said that prime ministers in governing parties should lose their control over when we voted, that the date should be every four years unless the government failed because of a confidence vote. This would add fairness because a prime minister should not be able to manipulate the vote. A prime minister should not be able to look at polling and decide not to call an election because things are not looking good. There should be a consistency to our elections for the various houses in this nation, and fixed election dates would go a long way in terms of doing that.

I would also like to talk a little today about electoral reform. This is sadly missing from the bill, and I think we suffer for that. As a community and as a Parliament, we do not have the kind of representation we should have in terms of our constituents and of the people who should be here in the House.

A few weeks ago, the women in our NDP caucus, and there are 12 or 41% of our caucus is female, of which we are very proud, challenged the other parties in regard to proportional representation and effecting the kind of electoral change that would allow people from visible minorities, from the disabled community and from first nations and women to participate fully in the life of our nation.

I throw this challenge out once again to the members of the House to look very closely at electoral reform, to bring in proportional representation, to add it to the bill and make it better in regard to the electorate's wishes being clearly reflected and respected in the representation of Parliament.

Third, I want to speak very briefly about the lack of floor-crossing legislation. I guess we could call it the Vancouver Kingsway hangover. I make reference to the donor who walked all those miles to my campaign office in order to bring his $25 contribution. Imagine if his member had, after a few weeks or months, seen fit to cross the floor--

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, April 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for reminding us of the deplorable situation that first nations children and communities face in the country.

The federal government has a special relationship with first nations. It is a relationship that goes back several centuries and, unfortunately, we have not lived up to our end of the obligation.

In terms of special education, I must say that it has been horrifically underfunded, federally and provincially, all across the nation. All of our children deserve the very best that we can provide for them because they will be the leaders of tomorrow. We talk about the democratic deficit in this place. It will continue as long as we do not see our children receive the kind of support so that they can come to this place and take over the job of leading this nation, and that means people from every community, it means women, visible minorities, the disabled and first nations people.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, April 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I do indeed have 29 wonderful colleagues and I am very proud to stand with them.

As the member pointed out, there is no simple solution no matter what we do but I think we should begin with the $1.8 billion that we saw in the NDP spring budget and invest that money in child care as it was intended. I am a former teacher and, while I recognize the fact that education may well be expensive, I can say that ignorance is far more expensive.

I can also say that as a secondary school teacher I could see very clearly the difference between those children who came to my classroom who had received the interventions that every child with a disability deserves and those who had not. By the time they get to grade 9 the strategies in terms of managing their disabilities, the time for remediation is long past. We need to act immediately.

As an admirer of Fraser Mustard, I would say that there is absolutely no substitute for proper, regulated, not for profit child care to ensure we have children who can participate fully in the economy of the future and, might I suggest, Mr. Speaker, look after you and I in our dotage.