Jean Crowder

[An Act to amend certain Acts in relation to DNA Identification, October 3rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, when the member for Windsor—Tecumseh was speaking earlier, he raised a number of issues. I did not hear them specifically raised in this speech and so far, I do not think we have the answers that the House would need. One of them is that the current system was supposed to have undergone a review that was mandated to have happened, I believe, in 2005 and yet, this bill specifically does not address that particular review.

I wonder if the member could comment on that specific aspect which is missing in this current piece of legislation that is before the House.

[An Act to Amend Certain Acts in Relation to DNA Identification, October 3rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary referenced the review that is coming of the DNA databank, and I am wondering why the government has chosen not to go ahead with the review.

The member for Windsor—Tecumseh also referenced the need for an overall reform of the Criminal Code, and I wonder if the parliamentary secretary could comment on that.

[An Act to Amend Certain Acts in Relation to DNA Identification, October 3rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh raised a couple of points in his speech about the retroactive provisions, about the very real need for a review of the Criminal Code and about some of the constitutional and privacy issues. Toward the end of his speech he eluded specifically to the usefulness of the Law Commission and how it could have been used in these circumstances. Under the cuts announced by the Conservative government last week, the Law Commission is on the chopping block.

Could the member talk about the specific role the Law Commission could have played in this issue as well as perhaps in the whole review of the Criminal Code?

[Business of Supply, September 28th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard from women's organizations about how ineffective the current process is. Women are waiting as long as 20 and 30 years to have their pay equity complaints heard. It is unbelievable.

What was recommended in the report was proactive pay equity legislation. The women's organizations in this country, FAFIA, NAWL and a number of others, were prepared to step up to the table and work with the Liberal government of the day. I am sure they would be fully prepared to work with the current government to draft proactive pay equity legislation that would actually address the needs and the inequality of women.

Women earn, on average, 72¢ on the dollar. We cannot continue to have women not take full economic advantage. Surely the Conservatives, who often tout economic performance, should recognize the fact that if women earned as much as men they would actually have more money to generate in the economy. It makes good economic sense and it is a human right.

[Business of Supply, September 28th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, before I answer the second part of the question, I have to address the first part.

Let us just talk about pay equity for a minute. A full-blown consultation process began in 2001 and concluded in 2004. The Liberals had ample time to draft proactive legislation and get that put in place, particularly in the fragile ground that they were operating in as a minority government. They had an opportunity to do that and get it on the table so that women in this country would have equal pay for work of equal value. It was a lost opportunity.

What we see here is Conservatives continuing with a Liberal agenda. What we see here is Conservatives finishing the cuts that the Liberals started. What we are going to see is a worsening of the representation of women in this country. We are going to see an erosion of human rights in this country.

Again, I think it was a lost opportunity on the Liberals' part, but we need to push back on this at this point.

[Business of Supply, September 28th, 2006]

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

I rise in support of the motion, but it is a sad comment that we even need to be debating it. I will give the House a little context.

I had the privilege of serving on the very first parliamentary committee on the status of women. I want to acknowledge the very good work done by the member for Winnipeg North and the member for Vancouver East in making sure that committee became part of the parliamentary standing committees. It was the very first committee on the status of women. It was something for which the NDP had fought long and hard over a number of years. We were very excited about having that committee in place to tackle the very critical issues that were coming before women.

Let us have a little context. Back on January 18, 2006 while campaigning for the job of prime minister, the current Prime Minister signed a pledge which read:

Yes, I'm ready to support women's human rights and I agree that Canada has more to do to meet its international obligations to women's equality. If elected, I will take concrete and immediate measures, as recommended by the United Nations, to ensure that Canada fully upholds its commitment to women in Canada.

I wonder how that commitment to women's equality translates into a $5 million cut to the status of women and how it translates into cuts to programs like court challenges.

On the other hand we have the Liberals. I will talk a fair bit about the very sorry Liberal record. Although I applaud the member for bringing this important motion forward, I question why in the 13 years the Liberals were in government they failed to address the crisis in women's communities from coast to coast to coast.

In Canada 20% of women live in poverty. Senior women face double the poverty rates of men. Shelters and crisis lines have closed from coast to coast to coast. Although some of those are provincial responsibilities, there were cuts in funding that came from the federal government to the provincial governments to fund these critical programs.

Unless people think we escaped international notice, CEDAW, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, in 2003 cited numerous issues that the federal Liberals of the day had failed to address: women's shelters, poverty, aboriginal women not having access to all kinds of services. A very critical piece that the parliamentary committee on the status of women addressed was gender based analysis, how the Liberal government of the day had failed to consider the impact on women of programs and services across the board. We could cite any number of programs and services where the impact on women was not even considered, despite the fact that somebody may have checked a box that said they had looked at how it might impact on women.

One program in particular was the employment insurance program. When the parliamentary committee on the status of women looked at the impact on women on employment insurance, it found that women were disproportionately disallowed when trying to make claims. It found that the number of women who were eligible for maternity benefits was falling.

We had a government that failed to consider the needs of over half the population in this country.

In addition, another body, the United Nations Economic and Social Council, in May 2006 issued a report that talked about making some recommendations around extending the court challenges program to permit funding of challenges with respect to provincial and territorial legislation and policies, provide civil legal aid with regard to economic, social and cultural rights, take into consideration the right of women to work and the need for parents to balance work and family life by supporting care choices through adequate child care services.

We have a current Conservative government that has ripped up the court challenges program and destroyed the child care initiatives that had been signed with provincial governments. However, the Liberal government, when it had the opportunity, failed to enshrine in legislation a national child care act and failed to recognize the recommendations around legal aid that made sure that women and their children had access to legal aid.

During the very good work that the first parliamentary committee on the status of women did, it heard from women from across Canada. There were times when committee members were in tears when they heard the tragedy of the lack of funding for women's organizations and for the women on whom this impacted.

One of the things that came through loudly and clearly in hearing from these women's organizations was the issue of funding. I am going to quote for members from the first report the committee put together:

The Committee has heard that the women's movement has played an important role in keeping equality issues on the public agenda, but that these organizations have been weakened over the past decade as a result of decreased funding as well as a shift away from core/program funding toward project-specific funding.

That was under the Liberal government. Now what we see is the Conservatives further eroding the ability of women's organizations, equality-seeking organizations, to adequately bring forward the needs of women in this country.

Again, I have a quote from a representative of the YWCA of Canada. She said:

The last fifteen years...have seen a marked decline in the visibility of equity issues on the Canadian social agenda. This decline is directly correlated to the significant funding cuts experienced by women's groups in the early 1990s.

As a result of hearing from women across the country, the committee had a unanimous report that went before the government, calling for a 25% increase in core funding to women's organizations. It called for 25% and what the committee recognized was that this amount of money was actually inadequate, but we thought that was a good first step toward ensuring that women's voices were at the table, that women's needs were met across this country, and that women actually had an opportunity to step into their full capacity and be full, active, participating members in our country.

When the committee was looking at its position, we recognized that with a total female population of close to 16 million, the funding disbursed by the women's programs to groups working toward gender equality is less than $1 per girl and woman. The committee thought that we actually needed $2 per girl and woman in this country, but we took a more reasonable step at that time by recommending only a 25% increase in core funding. That was not put in place by the Liberal government of the day. Now we have the Conservatives further eroding our ability to have women join their rightful place in this country.

In May 2005, the parliamentary Standing Committee on the Status of Women tabled another report, “Funding Through the Women's Program: Women's Groups Speak Out”. I will read three parts from this report for members. The first states:

Many women's organizations today are financially fragile because they depend on a web of unpredictable, short-term targeted project funding.

That is from a brief submitted by the Child Care Coalition of Manitoba.

The brief submitted by the Women's Economic Equality Society states:

Women’s organizations have a wealth of knowledge about project-based as well as core operational funding. They should be involved in the design of a new model.

The brief from Danielle Hébert, general coordinator, Fédération des Femmes du Québec, on May 10, 2005, states:

What is needed is mixed funding that better reflects the actual circumstances in which these groups work, by making sure they have the infrastructures they need to carry out their projects.

One of the things we have learned both internationally and domestically is that if we want to make sure that we have successful, effective programs and services, and successful, effective laws that address the needs of the people they are going have an impact on, we need to have the people at the table.

We had a Liberal government that failed to do this. Now we have a Conservative government that has just cut that $5 million with no consultation and no debate.

I want to read a statement from the Women's Centre in my riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan. These women are pleading for the Conservative government not to ignore their needs. This is their statement:

As a non-profit organization dedicated to promoting the political, social and economic equality of women, the Nanaimo Women's Resources Society opposes the [Conservative] government cuts. In particular we are concerned with the $5 million in administrative reductions to Status of Women Canada, and the elimination of the Court Challenges program.

It is disappointing to see federal support for women diminished, particularly after the severe cuts to women's centres throughout British Columbia. Status of Women Canada is the federal body responsible for promoting gender equality in Canada.

To wrap up, I would urge each and every member in the House to support this opposition motion before the House to ensure that women can achieve all they are able to achieve in this country, through having access to programs and services and through having access to the things that make them able to participate in this society in a full and equal way.

[Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, September 26th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I will talk specifically about British Columbia in this context because it is one of the largest softwood lumber producers in the country. Ninety-five per cent of the land in British Columbia is provincial crown land.

I talked earlier about an industrial strategy. It seems to me that between the federal government and the provincial government we need to reinstate that social contract that says that when we have crown land where we are producing logs, there needs be some direct benefit to Canadians.

We see forestry workers cutting logs. We have seen transportation benefit from shipping the logs south. However, I know the Steelworkers, local 180 in my riding, is clearly calling for an industrial strategy that says that these forests must benefit all of British Columbia. We must reinstate the social contract that says not only do we cut the logs, but we process them close to home and that we ensure our communities remain viable and sustainable and our communities benefit directly, which keeps our province health and vital. We should not just be hewers of logs who ship them somewhere else to be processed.

It is absolutely critical that we examine the softwood lumber agreement in that light and that we call for those reinvestments in industry and in our communities.

[Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, September 26th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today in opposition to this flawed bill.

In my riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan, forestry has been a long and proud tradition. We have a long history in forestry, the sawmills, the pulp and paper mills and the men and women who have worked in the forestry but we are seeing dislocation in my community that is impacting not only the workers and their families, but also their suppliers. It is impacting on municipal councils and cities to make long range plans and decisions that will support the vitality in our communities.

I want to remind the House why this is such a bad deal for Canadians and for British Columbians. Many of my colleagues, including the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, have spoken quite eloquently around the impacts, but I think some of these points deserve repeating.

Part of the reason that this is such a flawed agreement is that it is based on some falsehoods. Let us just call it what it is. It is based on the falsehood that the Canadian softwood lumber industries are subsidized. This falsehood has been exposed and rejected time after time by both the NAFTA and the U.S. commercial court rulings that have ruled in favour of the Canadian softwood lumber industry.

This agreement gives away $500 million in funds that are owed to the Canadian softwood industry. This is just a massive giveaway to the U.S. industry and to the U.S. government.

We often talk about accountability in this House and when we talk about accountability we expect good value for our dollar. I would question the fact that we are giving $450 million in funds to the Bush administration, funds that can be used at the discretion of Congress with no accountability attached to them. It seems to me to be a very strange way to talk about accountability.

I heard an echo in the background here talking about subsidy, and it does seem like a subsidy to activities that are detrimental to our industry here in Canada.

The other thing we talked about is the fact that this agreement can be cancelled unilaterally at any time. With that kind of uncertainty, how does that provide any stability to our softwood industry? We have seen this lack of stability played out over the last number of years as companies have been unable to invest in upgrading their equipment, as we have failed to invest in training and education for workers, as we have failed to provide that stability to our small communities.

This agreement also kills the credibility of the NAFTA dispute settlement mechanism. I have already mentioned the fact that we have had these rulings in our favour. This agreement goes outside of the NAFTA dispute settlement mechanism and goes ahead and talks about the fact that part of these illegally obtained $5.3 billion in duties are being sent back to the U.S. to fund further activity against Canadian softwood. It also does nothing for the thousands of workers who have lost their livelihood over the past five years. There is nothing in the softwood lumber agreement to deal with the major disruption that the U.S. abusive trade rules have caused to working families and their communities.

I talked earlier about my own riding. Whether we can directly attribute this to the softwood lumber industry or whether it is a secondary spinoff, we have seen mills close. The Youbou mill in my riding closed four years ago but I continue to hear from people who talk about the impact this has had on their livelihood and on their families. Some of those workers are still not employed on a regular basis four years later.

A little later I will talk about some other spinoffs that have happened that have put the continuing squeeze on this industry, and some of this is about actual deaths in the woods.

While the softwood lumber agreement supplies $450 million of Canadian money to the U.S. to help U.S. communities and workers, there is not one cent in this agreement for the transition for our own workers in our own communities. Many of the workers in our communities have already been displaced. Where is the funding for training and education that helps with the transition that is taking place daily in this industry? Where is the recognition of the value of the workers in our own communities who deserve to have some assistance with training and education as the industry changes? Some of these training and education dollars should go directly toward helping people gain the skills as the industry itself changes but some of these funds also need to be applied to help workers who need to transition out of the industry.

One of the other things, which is hopefully is an unanticipated consequence of the agreement, is that many people feel that this will discourage value added production and stimulate raw log exports. The deal fails to close a loophole that gives raw logs from private lands a competitive edge over logs processed here.

On Vancouver Island, in my riding, a significant proportion of the land is private land. The softwood lumber agreement fails to secure that those logs would be processed in British Columbia. People talked about a made in Canada solution. We do need a made in B.C. and made in Canada solution that considers our industry, our workers and our communities.

The member for Burnaby—New Westminster has consistently called for hearings that to take place from coast to coast to coast so communities, labour and industry have some input into crafting the agreement. I would strongly urge the House to support the fact that we want to see these hearings in communities across the country.

There is also a voice that has been absent in this agreement. I believe first nations were only mentioned once or twice in this entire lengthy document. First nations must be at the table and must be considered in the consultations around softwood. In British Columbia, in particular, we are engaged in treaty process, land claims and the management of resources. First nations must be at the table as equal partners in any discussions that go forward.

I want to talk a bit about statistics, and I know many in the House are thrilled with statistics. There is a need for an industrial strategy in Canada. According to the B.C. government, since 1999, British Columbia has lost 20% of our workforce alone. The workforce around direct forestry activity has declined from 31,000 to 21,000. This kind of massive dislocation in an industry calls for a national strategy. We as a country must determine whether we will commit to us being a processor, a hewer of logs, and we must have an industrial strategy that talks about the kind of reinvestment that keeps us competitive, both domestically and internationally.

According to the United Steelworkers, and it uses the government's own statistics on this, we can talk about the value that is lost both in our province and in our country. In 2001 logging produced revenues of $5.2 billion while solid lumber and pulp and paper mills produced revenues of $11.2 billion and $6.5 billion respectively. It is clear that the real value in our wood is when it is milled, not when it is shipped as raw logs. For every $1 million that forest companies invest, they create 3.9 direct jobs in their industry and 5.9 indirect jobs. In 2005, 3,300 direct jobs were forgone due to exports, which means $250 million in lost earnings.

If we just want to talk about economy, we need to talk about the fact that the more we do closer to home, the more it results in not only direct jobs in our community, but indirect jobs in terms of suppliers, transporters and all those other industries that support our forestry industry.

We talk about economics and industry, but let us talk about real life, on the ground, what happens to people in their families and their lives. Overall it feels like there has been increasing pressure on industry over this last several years and there has been little relief for them. The NDP has called for loan guarantees to help the industry over this tough time. We have called for an additional investment in training and education. The sad reality is there is increasing pressure on the industry. This agreement contributes to that overall pressure.

I talked about this being not just about dollars. I want to talk about last week's inquest into the death of Ted Gramlich in my hometown of Duncan. As a result of this inquiry, a number of health and safety issue have been exposed about the new regulations in the B.C. woods.

Responsibility for health and safety has been downloaded to individuals and contractors instead of the companies that buy the wood, creating huge gaps in the safety net. Last year 43 loggers lost their lives on the job. The Vancouver Island Loggers Safety Group continues to work to raise awareness among politicians and the private side as a whole.

My time is up, but I make a plea to the House to consider the impact, not only on the industry, but on communities and individual lives. This agreement will have a long ranging impact. I would urge us to think very carefully before members of the House support such a deeply flawed bill.

[Aboriginal Affairs, September 26th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Conservatives killed the First Nations and Inuit tobacco control program. Overall, 25% of Canadians smoke but that jumps to 40% for first nations and 60% among Inuit.

People have e-mailed my office to say how the anti-smoking posters in the small communities in Nunavut are taken seriously and do help people quit. This pilot to develop best practices in a few communities and then take those programs nationally is lost. Where is the value for money there?

The long term health effects of smoking, lung cancer and heart disease are known to everyone it seems but the Conservatives. Each person who stops smoking saves health care dollars and that is true value for money.

Other cuts include those to the public diplomacy program and this will scuttle chances for Métis representatives to travel to Washington for negotiations around the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

There has been no consultation and no debate, another sign as to just how controlling the Prime Minister is.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, September 18th, 2006]

With regard to the 2000 Auditor General report, “Chapter 30 Fisheries and Oceans — The Effects of Salmon Farming in British Columbia on the Management of Wild Salmon Stocks”: (a) how many of the Auditor-General’s recommendations have been implemented and what are the details of that implementation; and (b) how many of the Auditor-General’s recommendations have not been implemented and why?