Jean Crowder

[Aboriginal Affairs, February 16th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, this week the minister told first nations that they had to take personal responsibility for the number of children in foster care, but the INAC website says: “Placement rates on reserve reflect a lack of available prevention services to mitigate family crisis”.

It goes on to say that paying to move children out of the parental home while not paying for prevention services is increasing costs to taxpayers. So, which is it? Blame the parents, or blame the system?

[Business of Supply, February 15th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I think we all would agree that giving people $100 a month will create affordable, licensed, quality child care spaces in this country is a bogus notion. I would argue that we need to continue to support a national child care act.

[Business of Supply, February 15th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, just to be clear, I was not quoting from a letter. I was quoting from a newspaper article that appeared in the Lake Cowichan Gazette on Wednesday, February 14, 2007. The newspaper reporter talked about the cuts in provincial funding by $2 per day per child aged three to five and $4 per day per child under three years old.

I have a couple of points around this. First, I wonder where the plan was to create child care spaces. We do not see a plan to create child care spaces. We do not see new child care spaces being created.

We know that the $100 a month is taxable. We know that, on average, parents will end up with $80 a month and many parents are in a position where that does not remotely cover the true cost of child care.

I would argue that what we have been asking for is a national child care program with concrete funds assigned to it, time lines attached to it and involvement from the child care community to ensure the plan is adequate. I would argue that is what we have always asked for and promoted and we will continue to advocate for it.

[Business of Supply, February 15th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Windsor—Tecumseh for sharing his time with me on this important matter. I too will be speaking in favour of this motion. I am going to address two parts of the motion. I want to talk specifically about budget spending cuts directed at aboriginal people and I also want to touch briefly on child care spaces.

With respect to budget cuts affecting aboriginal people I want to reference two documents. There has been much discussion about the appalling state of poverty for many first nations, Métis and Inuit people. In a document entitled “Federal Government Funding to First Nations: The Facts, the Myths and the Way Forward”, I want to highlight the fact that in this document it says that funding for core services such as education, economic and social development capital facilities and maintenance has decreased by almost 13% since 1999-2000.

This document was written in 2004 so it is not talking about the current fiscal situation. We are all very well of the fact that there has been a 2% cap on spending for first nations people. That cap remains in place despite the fact that this population is growing much faster than the national average in many first nations communities.

In addition, to highlight the situation around poverty for first nations communities, the Assembly of First Nations is currently conducting a Make Poverty History: The First Nations Plan for Creating Opportunity. I will not quote from all of this document, but it clearly outlines the challenges facing first nations communities.

It talks about the fact that one in four first nations children live in poverty compared to one in six Canadian children. About one in three first nations people consider their main drinking water supply unsafe to drink and 12% of first nations communities have to boil their drinking water. Mould contaminates almost half of all first nations households.

In terms of the overall health and well-being of the communities, applying the United Nations human development index would rank first nations communities 68th among 174 nations. Canada has dropped from first to eighth due in part to the housing and health conditions in first nations communities.

Those numbers are shocking. We have recently seen international organizations coming to Canada to highlight the desperate conditions on some of the reserves. I would argue that it is well past time for the House to come together and address in a meaningful way the conditions in many first nations communities.

I also want to speak about child care, specifically the lack of affordable quality child care spaces that have been created in this country. Many of us in the House know that there is currently a campaign called Code Blue for Child Care.

Certainly, in my province of British Columbia many child care activists have been writing, emailing, phoning and marching to raise awareness of both the federal and the provincial politicians about the state of child care in British Columbia. I know it is the same in other provinces, but because I am from British Columbia I specifically want to talk about it.

The Code Blue for Child Care campaign is a nationwide campaign which attempts to have federal-provincial-territorial and other local elected officials work with the child care community to ensure that child care plans are being developed that address the needs in our communities.

Code Blue for Child Care is campaigning for four key areas. It is looking at restored multi-year federal funding so that provinces and territories can put in place systems that work for their communities. It is looking for federal child care legislation that lays out the principles of a pan-Canadian strategy.

On that point, in the previous government after many years of not moving forward on the national child care strategy, finally there was some movement. However, under the Liberals we failed to enshrine that in legislation when we had the opportunity to do that. Under the Conservatives we saw whatever gains we had made being stripped away and replaced by a program that is not creating child care spaces.

In addition, Code Blue talks about effective income support for families, in addition to quality child care and dedicated capital transfers for community based child care services.

The Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada had some very harsh words for the current state of child care in this country. Its press release states:

The child allowance isn't child care and there is no plan. A plan would have to include standards, and goals and timelines for building and sustaining a range of flexible high quality early learning and child care services throughout Canada. It would include complementary and equitable family supports. The Conservatives have not put forward any plan, nor provided the right kind of support to families.

It goes on to say:

The Conservative government betrays its ignorance about early learning and child care services. The goal of a system of high quality services is to provide warm, stimulating and developmental environments for children through programs that are responsive and caring--a far cry from institutional care.

I want to read from an article that appeared on February 14 in the Lake Cowichan Gazette, which is in my riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan, because I think these are the words of the parents who are relying on child care. It states:

Scheffer and other parents who use the Kaatza Day Care are concerned, though, about cuts in provincial funding by $2 per day per [child] aged three to five and $4 per day per child for children under three years old.

The reason that article is important is it is just as we feared. When the Conservatives brought in their $100 a month for parents, we feared that there would be a clawback in some of our provinces, which is exactly what has happened in British Columbia.

The article goes on to state:

The cuts are slated for the end of March in response to the loss of $455 million in federal government funding. Instead, the federal government is providing $100 a month per child under six years old.

Day cares and preschools are a stepping stone to elementary school, says mother Belinda Waller, as well as helping children feel comfortable when they are away from parents and family and make them realize there are safe places they can go to play and learn in a healthy environment.

“If the government proceeds with the proposed funding cuts we will lose our child resource centre that directs parents to these safe centres...,” said Waller. “To the leaders of our country and province, I say shame on you for attacking our most vulnerable members of society and our future, our children!”

That is a direct quote from a parent who has a child in a child care centre that provides that quality, affordable child care that is so important.

The article continues to state:

She added that children not only learn from their families, but also from their peers and “the wonderful trained child-care providers”.

Brenda Montgomery, who also uses the Kaatza Day Care Centre, agrees. She said that without licenced child care in Lake Cowichan, she would not have been able to move to the community.

“I did not know anyone when I moved here, so would not leave my child in unlicenced care,” she said. “I want my child in an early learning environment with qualified staff who understand the developmental needs of children and can apply it. As a single parent wanting to be a productive, taxpaying member of society I require affordable, quality child care for my daughter.”

Currently, the Kaatza Day Care Centre is licenced for 20 children three to five years old and eight spaces for children under three. There's a long waiting list for under three spaces, says Wendy Fetchko, head supervisor at day care centre, but an application with the provincial government has to go on a waiting list until local day care spaces close, at which time the government would consider funding new spaces at 2005 levels.

This is a community that I am talking about. These are people living, working and paying taxes in our community and they want regulated, licensed, quality, affordable child care for their children.

If we agree that children are one of our most valuable resources, surely we should be ensuring that we are providing the kind of services and quality day care spaces that are so important for those children's well-being.

[Questions on the Order Paper, February 15th, 2007]

What funds, grants, loans and loan guarantees has the government issued in the constituency of Nanaimo—Cowichan since February 6, 2006, including the 2006-2007 Budget and up to today, and, in each case where applicable: (a) the department or agency responsible; (b) the program under which the payment was made; (c) the names of the recipients, if they were groups or organizations; (d) the monetary value of the payment made; and (e) the percentage of program funding covered by the payment received?

[Aboriginal Affairs, February 12th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I really did not get an answer to my question.

We are talking about Kashechewan as an example of serious problems with infrastructure and that is repeated in communities across the nation, and I mentioned a few. Part of it is schools have burned down, or they have been contaminated by fuel spills or water. In my own community Cowichan tribes people adjacent to a city cannot get funding for adequate infrastructure for water and sewer. What we have seen over a number of years has been a 2% cap on funding, which has perpetuated a serious infrastructure deficit.

Many of these communities across the country have not had sufficient infrastructure to begin with. We have heard horror stories from communities where there is a water plant in place, but there are no water lines to hook up the homes. We have certainly seen it in Kashechewan.

Again, will the 2% cap be lifted and appropriate funding be put in--

[Aboriginal Affairs, February 12th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it saddens me to rise today to talk about Kashechewan again. As members are aware, Kashechewan has been in the news in the past week, with descriptions of the despair many young people are feeling in the community. Their school has been closed for months.

Along with the continuing worry of flood during the season's ice breakup, worry about the new location of their community, and worry over mental health issues, particularly among the young, the lack of a school creates more stress in the community.

Unfortunately, Kashechewan is not alone. In Attawapiskat, the elementary school has been closed for over a year because of a diesel fuel spill. The students are now attending at the remaining school in shifts.

In Manitoba, students from the Mosakahiken Cree Nation are waiting for a new school to be built after the old one burned to the ground in 2005.

In the Opaskwayak Cree Nation, the school is so overcrowded that it has 25% more students than it was built for.

In the Manto Sipi Cree Nation, two students had to go to Winnipeg and Thompson to attend high school. The students, Dwayne Ross and Sunshine Ross, went missing, and are still missing to this day.

If we look at the water situation, we can see that Kashechewan is not alone. We are not just talking about remote communities.

In my own community of Duncan, Cowichan tribes spend part of every year with contaminated water from their seven community wells and 33 individual wells. These residences are mere metres away from the municipal service in Duncan but cannot have reliable access to clean drinking water. It is all about infrastructure.

Those are just a few of the communities around the country that are waiting for help with their infrastructure.

This is the question I really have. Is it true that there is a shortfall in capital infrastructure money to provide basic services to first nations in this year, 2007-08, of $293 million, and that facilities operation and management dollars are underfunded to the tune of $82 million? That is a total of $375 million overall that first nations do not receive to provide basic services like clean drinking water, waste water treatment, and access to schools and community recreation.

Will the Conservative government commit to meeting this funding gap in the upcoming budget?

[Committees of the House, February 12th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, there were two parts to the member's question. If we want to talk about supporting women around the world, what we should do is ask the government to honour its commitment of 0.7% of the GDP for international aid. That would be a really good first step.

In terms of advocacy, that is a vital role that women's organizations can play. It is also an essential role.

The court challenges program was cancelled. This is one more element where women have to struggle to have their voices heard.

Advocacy has been an essential role that women's organizations have played from coast to coast to coast in bringing to the table issues such as child care, legal aid and lack of access to legal aid. In issues such as adequate housing and employment equity those advocacy roles are essential.

We want to make sure when we develop policies and legislation that we understand the impacts that these policies and legislation can have on women. Often there are inadvertent impacts.

[Committees of the House, February 12th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear the member talk about support for the troops, when today in the House in question period we heard that widows and widowers of forces members who have been serving in Afghanistan are having to fight concerning their mortgage insurance.

If we want to talk about support for our troops, then let us get realistic. We have to not only support the troops when they are over in Afghanistan, and the member knows very well that the NDP has absolutely supported our troops, but we also have to support the troops when they come home. That is fundamental.

The NDP does not want to see the troops when they are already in pain and suffering having to come back to deal with a bureaucratic nightmare at the very time when they need help and support.

If the Conservative government really wanted to support the troops, it would make sure that it eliminated that kind of bungling that interferes with people being able to feel some comfort in their own homes.

[Committees of the House, February 12th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Victoria.

I start by thanking the member for London—Fanshawe for bringing this very important motion before the House. However, it is with some sadness that I am speaking about this motion.

I was part of the membership on the very first parliamentary Standing Committee on the Status of Women in 2004. During that period of time, we heard from women from coast to coast to coast on a variety of issues, including core funding for women's programs. They told us they were tired of being studied, they were tired of coming before Parliament cap in hand, asking for core funding for their organizations. Cutting core funding does not lie at the feet of the new Conservative government. The Conservative government is continuing on with the program that was started by the Liberals. In 2004 women were asking the then Liberal government to reverse its agenda on cutting core funding for women's programs.

In 2004-05 we also heard from women's organizations about things like the convention to eliminate discrimination against women. We heard about the government of the day being cited for its failure to support legal aid programs for women, for its failure to support aboriginal women in terms of access to a variety of programs and services and for its failure to provide adequate housing for women.

It is with sadness that I see this motion before us because it could have been dealt with in the previous Parliament. It asks for an increase in funding by 25% to the women's program at Status of Women Canada. It asks for a mix of core funding and project funding. The recommendations also talked about the position of Status of Women Canada as a leader in the application of the code of good practise on funding. They also state that Status of Women Canada should act now to enter into funding agreements for a minimum of three years. Why is this important for women's organizations?

There are a number of women's organizations in my riding, but two come prominently to mind. One is Women Against Violence Against Women, which is located in the Cowichan Valley, and the other is Women's Resource Centre in Nanaimo. Both of these organizations have to spend a significant amount of their time looking for funding. The executive directors and board members spend a lot of time fundraising and going to private donors. In the meantime, they are unable to fulfill their organization's mandate even though they attempt to do a good job. Time and energy should be put into delivering their mandates rather than constantly looking for funds. This also causes a great deal of instability within these organizations. The staff is committed to the issues facing women both in the community of Nanaimo—Cowichan and across this country. These women are often underpaid and work far more hours than is reasonable to get the job done.

We would really improve the lot of women in their communities if women's organizations had core stable funding to provide the necessary services.

Who sits at the table and who gets to make a decision is important. All parliamentarians are hard-working individuals, but women are not represented here in the numbers they should be. I looked at some research put forward in November 2006 by the Canadian Research Institute for the Advancement of Women. It indicated that women in Canada made up 50.4% of the population, but only 20.8% of the seats in the House of Commons. According to the United Nations, Canada ranks 30th in the world in terms of women representation in Parliament. We fall behind Sweden, Norway, Rwanda, Trinidad and Tobago, among other countries. The current governing party in the House of Commons fielded the fewest women candidates in the general election of 2006, with only 10% of its candidates being women.

These numbers have not budged in quite some time. We have been stuck around the 20% range for at least 10 years. One of the ways we can encourage women's participation in a parliamentary process is to ensure there is funding at the local level.

Before I was elected, I was pleased to participate in a project sponsored by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. It looked at barriers to women in municipal politics. That was just not elected women, but in the whole process. Part of the report stated that there were many systemic barriers to women's participation, one barrier being around education and awareness. This is a role that women's organizations can play. One of the vital functions to which core funding can contribute is in education and awareness so women know what a political process looks like, so they understand how to get involved in that process and what it means to run for a variety of elected positions, school board, municipal and federal.

We would make far better decisions and more balanced decisions in the House if 50% of the representation in the House were women.

I heard some talk about how much women have achieved. Certainly they have achieved much over the last 25 or 30 years, but there is a significant gap. People talked about the fact that women were attending post-secondary institutions in increasing numbers and becoming professionally accredited in a number of areas. However, the economic reality is this, and I quote from the Canadian Research Institute for the Advancement of Women, the CRIAW Fact Sheet report. It states:

At every level of education, women in Canada earn less on average than men. For example, in 2003, women who are high school graduates earned 71.0% of what male high school graduates earned for full-time, full-year work.

The report goes on further about the ratios and states that in terms of the ratio of male to female earned income, the wage gap, Canada ranks 38th in the world behind countries like Cambodia, Kenya and the Czech Republic among others.

I spoke earlier about programs like employment insurance. Women have lost ground under programs like employment insurance. Women have been unable to qualify, for example, for maternity and paternity the way they used to under the old system.

On economic equality, in May 2004 the federal task force on pay equity released its comprehensive report which addressed the criticisms of current pay equity legislation. In the current context, on September 18, 2006, the federal government responded no, to the recommendations of a multi-year federal task force on pay equity as part of its response to the all party House of Commons standing committee.

On September 18, 2006, it responded no to the EI maternity-parental leave recommendations of the all party House of Commons standing committee.

We can start to see this theme emerge. We are undermining women's equality in this country. The current government took all mention of equality out of the terms and conditions of women's programs and changed the rules so women's organizations could no longer use federal funds to advocate for women's equality, including pressing for changes that will recognize the value and contribution women make in the paid workplace and in the home.

According to the 1984 Royal Commission on Equality in Employment, child care is the ramp that provides equal access to the workforce for mothers. Twenty-two years later that ramp has yet to be built.

I know a number of other members have talked about child care, so I will not talk about it for the moment, but I want to talk about legal aid. I come from British Columbia where legal aid has been slashed by the provincial government, but it was also partly in response to what has happened at the federal government level.

The CRIAW Fact Sheet talks about the fact that not everyone has equal access to the law. In the early 1990s the federal government capped its contributions to the provinces for legal aid and subsequently cut it significantly in the mid-1990s. This filtered down to the provinces, with cutbacks and restrictions about who would use legal aid and for what.

We are now faced with a situation where women do not have income equality. They do not have adequate access to child care, to housing and to legal aid.

We have this continuing step back from a women's equality agenda. Here we are in 2007. It is time for women to be able to take their rightful place at all levels in our country. They should have equal access in the paid workforce and in the elected processes.

I urge members of the House to support the motion on core funding. This will get to the very heart of allowing women to speak up and advocate for what should be rightfully theirs.