Johanne Deschamps

[Business of Supply, May 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank my colleague from Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou for sharing his time with me so that I can speak to the motion we are debating today, which I feel is of crucial importance to a country like Canada, which claims to be one of the most morally advanced countries in the world.

The Bloc Québécois members support the motion calling for an apology, which the victims of residential schools and their families have been awaiting for so long.

The Bloc Québécois therefore supports the motion by my Liberal colleague from Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River.

We must not kid ourselves: the final Indian residential schools settlement agreement was nothing but a salve on the wounds of broken lives. It was a great day for the victims of residential schools and for all those who cherish justice, respect and compassion. But it will not make up for the ravages that many native people will never get over. However, the Bloc Québécois was firmly convinced that the agreement was the foundation for restoring social justice and promoting reconciliation and healing.

Today's motion gives the Prime Minister the opportunity to apologize to the victims and their families on behalf of the Government of Canada.

It is important to remember that Indian residential schools were designed to solve the “Indian problem” by tearing aboriginal children away from their homes and families to prevent them from learning about their culture, their language, and the ties that bind them to the land. Many lived in inhuman conditions and suffered physical and sexual abuse.

During that period, from 1870 through the mid-1980s, the Canadian government also took away aboriginal women’s status as Indians under the federal Indian Act, along with their right to live in their home communities, if they married a non-aboriginal man or a man from another community.

This policy resulted in the uprooting of tens of thousands of aboriginal women, jeopardizing their ties to their families and increasing their dependence on their spouses.

Even as the residential school system was being phased out through the 1960s, aboriginal children continued to be taken from their families by child welfare programs oriented toward putting children in the care of the state rather than addressing the circumstances of poverty and family violence that placed the children at risk—a problem that persists today.

The legacy of these policies has been the erosion of culture, the uprooting of generations of aboriginal women, the separation of children from their parents, and a cycle of impoverishment, despair and broken self-esteem that continues to grip many aboriginal families.

In 1996, the year the last residential school in Saskatchewan closed, the federal government’s Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples concluded:

Repeated assaults on the culture and collective identity of aboriginal people have weakened the foundations of aboriginal society and contributed to the alienation that drives some to self-destruction and anti-social behaviour. Social problems among aboriginal people are, in large measure, a legacy of history.

As a woman and the Bloc Québécois critic on the status of women and a member of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, the situation of aboriginal women concerns me very much.

A number of women representing aboriginal groups have come to the committee to describe the conditions in which they live. They cope with higher rates of poverty and violence than aboriginal men and non-aboriginal women do. They carry a double burden: they suffer all the inequities inflicted on all women, but they also have to deal with the disadvantages common to aboriginal peoples across Canada.

The following are a few examples to illustrate the seriousness of their current situation:

Aboriginal women are twice as likely as non-aboriginal women to live in poverty and are therefore particularly affected by the social assistance policies of the provincial and territorial governments; a disproportionate number of them—roughly twice as many as non-aboriginal women—head a single parent family; on the reserves, 32% of children live with just one parent, while this is the case in 46% of the aboriginal families living off reserve; aboriginal women are five times more likely to be victims of violence in their lifetime than any other woman in Canada.

A disproportionately high number of them work in poorly paid jobs. Aboriginal women with less than a grade nine education earn less than aboriginal men and non-aboriginal women. At $12,300, the average annual income of aboriginal women is the lowest of any social group in Canada.

However, it is difficult, perhaps even impossible, to accurately quantify these data. Due to lack of funding from the Canadian government, few relevant studies and analyses are available.

All of this proves that the Government of Canada is acting completely irresponsibly toward this country's aboriginal people and, more specifically, toward aboriginal women. It is hard to believe that even now, in 2007, Canada is refusing to do its part to protect the rights of aboriginal women in Canada. It is even harder to believe that Canada is keeping this country's aboriginal communities in a state that looks a lot more like a humanitarian situation in a developing country than like something one would expect to see in the kind of rich, developed country Canada is supposed to be.

Yet solutions exist. While Quebec's aboriginal communities still have a long way to go, their progress sets them apart from those in the rest of Canada. In 2002, Bernard Landry's government signed the peace of the braves agreement. Twenty-five years before that, René Lévesque's government signed the James Bay agreement. These two agreements illustrate the Government of Quebec's level of respect for the aboriginal peoples living in the province.

Wendake in the Quebec City region, Essipit on the North Shore, and Mashteuiatsh near Lac-Saint-Jean have all proven that when governments give aboriginal communities the tools for development, success is possible.

Unfortunately, there are still communities like Kitcisakik in Abitibi-Témiscamingue, where the situation has more in common with what is happening elsewhere in Canada: a deplorable lack of sanitation infrastructure, housing and jobs. The Conservative government's decisions are doing nothing to help aboriginal communities—least of all aboriginal women—take charge of their own future. The first thing the Conservative government did to show its disregard for first nations was cancel the Kelowna accord. Although the accord was just an agreement in principle, it was helping to repair the damage wrought by the growing quality of life gap between aboriginals and other Canadians.

Add to that the $5 million slashed from the Status of Women Canada budget, resulting in the closing of 12 of its 16 offices as well as changes to eligibility criteria for the women's program. This has led to the exclusion of women's rights groups and women's lobby groups.

This program was the major source of research funding for native women's rights groups in Canada. The research sought to assess the extent of violence against native women, among other things. It will now be very difficult, if not impossible, for these groups to conduct research and produce such studies. The elimination of the court challenges program is another good example of the ideological blindness of this government and its inability to understand the issues affecting the most disadvantaged and minority groups.

By abolishing this program, the Conservatives hope to silence all those who do not share their neo-liberal vision. Next Thursday will mark the third anniversary of the publication of Pay Equity: A New Approach to a Fundamental Right, the final report of the federal Pay Equity Task Force. The recommendations of this report, tabled in May 2004, have never been adopted by the federal government. Pay equity is obviously not a priority for the Conservative government, which has deliberately chosen to ignore the report's recommendations, particularly the enactment of proactive pay equity legislation.

In conclusion, the Bloc Québécois endorsed the main recommendations of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples and the Erasmus-Dussault report, which set out an approach for self-government based on recognition of aboriginal governments as a level of government with authority over issues of good governance and the well-being of their people. The entire report is based on recognition of the aboriginal peoples as self-governing nations occupying a unique place in Canada.

We recognize the aboriginal peoples as distinct peoples having the right to their culture, language, customs and traditions as well as the right to direct the development of their own identity.

I will close by calling on this government to show more respect for the native peoples of Canada. It has made a financial atonement for the abuses they suffered in residential schools; however, the time for apologies has come. Human dignity cannot be bought with money.

[Status of Women, March 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Status of Women maintains that she cares about the status of women, but she is changing eligibility criteria in order to deny funding to women's rights advocacy groups.

How can the minister claim to be contributing to the advancement of women when she is cutting funding to the agencies that defend women's rights?

[Status of Women, February 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am speaking to this government. The minister already confirmed that the $5 million in cuts to Status of Women Canada will affect only administration and that services offered to women will not be affected.

Will the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Status of Women admit that cutting $5 million from the budget and closing 12 of the 16 regional offices will lead to reduced services for women, whether we like it or not?

[Status of Women, February 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, women's groups and unions are rallying, calling on the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Status of Women to reverse her decision to close 12 of the 16 regional offices of Status of Women Canada this April.

Does the minister intend to agree to the demands of these women's groups, which are asking her to reverse her decision and to restore the funding for Status of Women Canada?

[Ski Competitions, February 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it was a memorable weekend for two Quebeckers who earned gold medals for skiing. On Saturday, Érik Guay earned the distinction of being the first Quebecker to earn a gold medal in world cup downhill skiing. The next day, Jasey-Jay Anderson won the gold medal at the world cup of snowboarding in the parallel giant slalom event.

Érik Guay, from Mont-Tremblant, is currently ranked fifth in downhill for the season and 13th overall. His bronze medal, won on Friday, made him a favourite to win gold the next day. He will dedicate the next few days to training for upcoming competitions. This athlete, still recovering from injury, can be proud of his performance, and especially of his tenacity and perseverance.

Jasey-Jay Anderson, also from Mont-Tremblant, won the gold medal during the world cup of snowboarding. It is his first medal in two years.

The Bloc Québécois is very proud of the performances of these two athletes from Quebec and we wish them many more victories during the rest of the ski season.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. It is a very specific question and I cannot answer with very precise figures. However, when an office is closed, it does limit the availability of that service for some women. Regional offices have usually been located near these women. When these offices are closed, women are often literally distanced.

These individuals have to pay for telephone calls and must even travel, often many kilometres, to urban centres in order to submit their projects. In my opinion, this is a way of discouraging organizations from submitting projects given the lack of information and the distances. These people are often discouraged and turn to other activities to try to ensure the survival of what is already in place nearby.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her question. She is also a member of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women.

In response, I would like to refer to the testimony of an organization we received during a meeting of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. The organization was the Antigonish Women's Resource Centre, which is located in the riding of the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

That organization was founded in 1983. It is a rural women's community organization that gathers information, and provides services and support programs for women of all ages and all backgrounds, in an environment that is sensitive to the needs of women. The women shared their fears concerning the closure of the offices. They told us that, in their view, it is crucial that Status of Women Canada maintain regional offices. Given that the program officer in the sector is based in Nova Scotia, she was able to establish solid working relationships among women's rights organizations.

The program officers working in smaller regions are in a better position to understand the unique character of the various sectors of the region. This is particularly important for women who live in rural settings, because the problems they face are considerably different than those of women in large urban centres. Often, in rural settings, the problems affect the coastal, agricultural and northern sectors, and sectors rich in primary resources or only one resource. It was important for those women, and they came to tell the committee to maintain the regional offices.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her question. She sits with me on the Standing Committee on the Status of Women.

I would like to tell her that we hope to see an increase in the funding allocated to Status of Women Canada, but not just on an administrative level, since we know what has resulted from these cuts: the closure of 12 offices out of 14.

I come from a rural area where women live very far away from the major centres. The only contact they have with these centres is either with a representative from a government agency or with an officer. They may feel a little more understood in terms of the complexity of what they are going through and their daily problems. Distancing them from these centres causes them additional stress.

We are entirely in favour of adding money on an administrative level. In my opinion, we could also reallocate money to the Women’s Program, as recommended in the report. It does recommend an increase.

These recommendations are the result of hearings with a number of witnesses who came to committee to share their concerns. To ensure the continuity of what they are doing and what they offer, they would like an increase in their budgets. The recommendation calls for a 25% increase to the current budget.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am young, but for my whole life, I have been concerned about the status of women in our society.

I myself have volunteered with various organizations to help improve women's lives economically, politically and socially. Obviously, as a woman, I find the motion before us today very meaningful because it touches the core of who I am and what I believe.

Status of Women Canada was a model of social development and support for women. That is, until the current minister, the member for Durham, arrived. Unfortunately, the minister's lack of leadership has turned it into an empty shell, completely lacking meaning and realism.

Status of Women Canada's three priorities no longer have meaning. Originally, those priorities were: improving women's economic autonomy and well-being; eliminating systemic violence against women and children; and advancing women's human rights. Those are still supposed to be the department's priorities.

To achieve those three priorities, Status of Women Canada worked to ensure that legislation, policies and programs advanced women's equality throughout the federal government; conducted gender-based analysis of legislation, policies and programs, and recommended changes to ensure that government decisions were of benefit to all Canadians, women and men equally; promoted the implementation of gender-based policy analysis throughout the federal government; promoted and monitored the progress of the status of women throughout the country; funded policy research and integrated the research findings into the policy development process; provided financial, technical and professional assistance to women's and other voluntary organizations at community, regional and national levels, to support actions which advanced women's equality; and collaborated with provincial and territorial governments, international organizations and other countries, women's organizations, and other stakeholders, to address women's equality issues.

Unfortunately, all of this work is now compromised because of the actions of the Conservative government, the member for Calgary Southwest and the Minister of Status of Womenand member for Durham.

Since 1973, the Women's Program has been providing funding for women's organizations and equal rights organizations. Its mandate is clear: to support action by women’s organizations and other partners seeking to advance equality for women by addressing women’s economic, social, political and legal situation. This support includes financial support and technical support, such as linking different groups that share a common goal, helping groups gain access to various parts of the government, or providing access to resource materials and tools that help organizations to work more effectively.

This program distributed $10 million every year for projects to improve the economic situation of women, to eliminate systematic violence against women and to achieve social justice.

In response to all this work, often performed by thousands of women and men volunteering their time, the Conservative government imposed administrative cuts totalling more than $2.5 million for two years, or $5 million. Does the minister still believe that this is just trimming the fat? This cut of $5 million has led to the closure of 12 of 16 regional offices, which means eliminating fundamental regional expertise concerning knowledge of various local realities.

It is crucial that front-line organizations have the support they need, as well as a listening ear and understanding on the part of the program and Status of Women Canada, without which their task will be considerably more difficult. This could be very discouraging for many people. In this regard, the end of the National Association of Women and the Law organization is a loud wake-up call.

Indeed, the role of regional officers is to establish strong ties among local organizations to support them in their work for women.

Eliminating these offices and concentrating decision making in four major centres will only mean less knowledge of the needs of women's groups and will leave groups in the affected areas feeling abandoned.

This is just one example of the long-term effects these cuts will have. When we consider the report of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, it is easy to see that the minister does not care about her parliamentary colleagues' opinion.

On May 12, the committee, which I have sat on since I was re-elected in January 2006, adopted its third report, which called for 10 actions by the government. Here are the 10 recommendations.

Recommendation 1 reads as follows:

The Committee reiterates the recommendation made in its 10 February 2005 report, calling on the federal government to increase funding to the Women’s Program at Status of Women Canada by at least 25% for investments in women’s groups and equality seeking organizations.

Yet the Conservative government cut 20% of Status of Women Canada's total budget, in addition to eliminating the court challenges program, to ensure that no women's advocacy group would ever have the means to challenge the government in court.

“Many women’s organizations today are financially fragile because they depend on a web of unpredictable, short-term, targeted project funds”, the Child Care Coalition of Manitoba told the committee.

It is crucial to provide these organizations with core funding so that they have the minimum they need to operate and are freed of the stress that comes from the fear of losing their funding.

Recommendation 2 reads as follows:

That Status of Women Canada immediately take advantage of the ongoing review of the Women’s Program to revise the funding to organizations by introducing a mix of core funding and project funding.

The groups that participated in the roundtables organized by the committee on May 3 and 10, 2005, agreed that there was a need for both project funding and core funding. They told the committee that sustaining funding allows them to cover infrastructure costs and to leverage more funding.

Recommendation 3 reads as follows:

That the Government of Canada, through its central agencies, ensure that all new and renewed funding programs incorporate the commitments undertaken by the Government of Canada in the Code of Good Practice on Funding, particularly the commitment to “reach decisions about the funding process through collaborative processes”.

Recommendation 4, which is related to the previous recommendation, reads as follows:

That Status of Women Canada take advantage of the current evaluation of the Women’s Program to implement new funding processes which could position Status of Women Canada as a leader in the application of the Code of Good Practice on Funding.

The Coalition for Women's Equality said in committee that, “Change is necessary, it must come soon. The particulars of a formula require a coast to coast conversation amongst women’s groups at all levels to come to an understanding of what will foster the achievements of equality guarantees in Canada”.

It is very important to involve equal rights organizations in the valid consultation process on the direction of funding under the Women's Program.

Recommendation 5 reads:

That Status of Women Canada immediately engage equality-seeking organizations in meaningful consultation to determine future directions for the Women’s Program.

Sharon Taylor, executive director of Wolseley Family Place, said, “Who wants to do this job any more? We’re supposed to be manager of the project, we’re supposed to find funds, we’re supposed to do the front line work, and the list goes on. When does it end?”

We have to prevent the turnover of staff and provide staff with competitive levels of compensation which recognize the valuable contribution of the voluntary sector.

The Canadian Council on Social Development noted that, “if an organization does not price what it sells in such a way as to completely cover all of its costs, it will soon cease to exist”.

Recommendation 6 reads:

That Status of Women Canada develop fair and consistent practices which recognize the indirect costs to be covered by Women’s Program funding, and that these practices be developed in collaboration with equality seeking organizations.

Most witnesses indicated that they wished to avoid at all costs the financing models that would pit organizations against one another in order to obtain their share of the increasingly limited funding.

Recommendations 7, 8 and 9 read:

That Status of Women Canada work with other federal government departments to raise awareness about the importance of funding gender projects relevant to the funding mandates of those departments.

That Status of Women Canada explore eligibility criteria for Women’s Program funding through meaningful consultation with equality seeking organizations.

That Status of Women Canada act now to enter into funding agreements for a minimum period of three years.

Funding issues are clearly very important to equality seeking organizations throughout the country. All comments are along the same lines. Funding of groups that promote women's rights must be increased by at least 25%. These organizations should receive core funding and local realities should also be taken into account.

Recommendation 10 reads:

That the Standing Committee on the Status of Women be granted intervenor status in the ongoing review of the Women’s Program to ensure that the comments contained in this report are appropriately reflected in the review process.

The collaboration of women's groups and equality seeking organizations is vital to the development of a new Women's Program funding mechanism.

Although women are considered equal before the law, the reality remains quite different. Even today, they earn only 71% of a man's salary for a full-time job. More than 50% of women who are single, widowed or divorced and over 65 years old live in poverty.

Although women make up over 50% of the population, we hold only 21% of the seats in this House. While women make up only 11% of the Conservative caucus, there are three times more women in the Bloc caucus.

Here is an argument that will surely be easy to understand and may even reach the Conservatives because it involves money. Violence against women costs an estimated $4.2 billion per year in direct and indirect costs related to the justice system, health care, social services and loss of productivity. Status of Women's budget, which represents a small fraction of those costs, is actually an investment in prevention. If they would have us believe that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, they should probably increase Status of Women's budget.

In conclusion, I would like to emphasize that the Bloc Québécois finds the cuts to Status of Women troubling and indicative of how important this government thinks women are. The Bloc Québécois is asking the government to backtrack and cancel cuts to Status of Women. Those cuts were not really about saving money; they happened because of the government's fiercely ideological approach, which is not in line with Quebeckers' values.

Cutting Status of Women's funding and sabotaging its mandate will probably lead to the disintegration of the very organization that is in a position to make things happen.

I am waging this battle from within a party, the Bloc Québécois, that supports Quebec sovereignty. Until Quebec becomes a country, it will have to live with decisions made by the Canadian majority, even though they are not in line with its own ambitions.

The Bloc Québécois has always stood up for women's rights and will continue to do so. It is clear that this government is reactionary and misogynistic. The Bloc will always stand up to the government to protect women's rights until the day we become independent.

[Child Soldiers, February 12th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, on February 5 and 6, 2007, 60 countries including Canada, and several NGOs attended a conference in Paris, chaired by UNICEF and France, to address the issue of child soldiers.

It is estimated that, at this time, there are approximately 250,000 children under the age of 18 implicated in more than 30 conflicts around the world.

The Bloc Québécois is calling on the Canadian government to implement the Paris commitments, which aim to prevent recruitment, release current child soldiers and help them regain the humanity they have lost.

Since 2002, the use of children under the age of 15 in conflicts has been recognized as a war crime by the International Criminal Court.

To close, I would like to share the words of Mr. Philippe Douste-Blazy, the French Minister of Foreign Affairs, who said that children who know nothing but how to fight wars are “lost children, lost for peace and lost for the development of their countries”.