Joy Smith

[Child Sexual Exploitation, February 21st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, a provincial inquest this week in Manitoba was told that literally hundreds of vulnerable Winnipeg children as young as eight years old were selling their bodies to adult men for money, drugs and even food and shelter.

Detective Sergeant Coates of the Winnipeg Police Service was called to testify at the inquest of Tracia Owen, a 14 year old who started working the streets in the months before her suicide in August 2005. The teen hanged herself with a rope tied to the overhead door of a garage used by prostitutes.

Coates candidly admitted that most heinous sex offenders, adults who prey on young children, go largely unpunished because police lack the resources and ability to go after them. He also stated at the inquest that there needs to be a political will to go after these johns. Our government has that will.

I call on all opposition parties to support our government on the age of protection legislation and other justice legislation that will protect the innocent youth of our country. It is our obligation as Canadian parliamentarians to protect our children.

[Anti-terrorism Act, February 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is opposed to extending the two anti-terrorism measures his own government brought in. He is still having trouble picking priorities.

A long list of Liberals, such as Anne McLellan, John Manley, and the Liberal human rights critic, the member for Mount Royal, all say that preventive arrests and investigative hearings are important tools for law enforcement and prosecutors.

Steve Sullivan, president of the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime said, “If these provisions are not extended and more Canadians are murdered by terrorists, someone will have to explain to them why Canada did not do everything we could to prevent such an attack. Before you vote on this issue in Parliament, I urge you to think about how you will answer that question”.

I urge the Leader of the Opposition to rethink his decision and make the safety of Canadians a top priority.

[Criminal Code, February 16th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill S-211. Although Bill S-211's objectives may be well meaning and the bill addresses the important issue of gambling, its effect is problematic.

In its wisdom Parliament determined in 1969 that the federal, provincial and territorial governments would each have permission under the Criminal Code to conduct a lottery scheme. In 1985 Parliament chose to eliminate the permission that had existed for a lottery scheme that is conducted by the federal government, leaving provincial and territorial governments running governmental lottery schemes exclusively.

Since 1969 provinces and territories have been free to decide for themselves what kinds of lottery schemes they would offer within their jurisdictions. This decision is one that they can freely take within the range set by Parliament under the Criminal Code. This range is presently very broad and includes not only lottery tickets but even slot machines or computerized lottery schemes. Provinces and territories have chosen to use their Criminal Code permission for lottery schemes in different ways.

For example, Ontario and British Columbia place provincial government slot machines, which pay out by cash at racetracks and casinos, but do not place any video lottery terminals, VLTs, which pay out by a ticket that is then redeemed for cash in bars. Yukon places slot machines at the casino in Dawson City. However, none of the territories places VLTs in bars. Quebec, the Atlantic provinces and prairie provinces all place provincial government VLTs in bars. Quebec, Nova Scotia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba also place slot machines at casinos or racetracks or both.

We see there is a great variety in the provincial and territorial decisions about the extent of machine gambling that will be offered. Each province or territory, I hasten to add, is responsible to its provincial or territorial voters. In fact, Alberta, Manitoba and New Brunswick have held province-wide referenda or municipal referenda on whether to place VLTs in bars. They have respected any decisions for the removal of VLTs from bars, thus reinforcing their rightful jurisdiction to legislate in this area based on the wants and needs of their citizens. Furthermore, some provinces have decided to cap or even reduce the number of their VLTs and slot machines.

It seems to me it is heavy-handed to suggest, as Bill S-211 does, that the federal Parliament should now step in and remove the ability of provinces and territories to make these decisions for themselves.

I also find it very striking that Bill S-211 limits itself to eliminating the possibility of placing provincial or territorial government VLTs in bars, but it does not eliminate them from casinos and racetracks. If the logic really is to reduce problem gambling, one certainly must wonder why provincial and territorial government VLTs and slot machines would remain permissible at all.

It seems illogical to me to think that problem gambling would be reduced by simply shifting the provincial government VLT machines into a mini-casino, in a strip mall or in a shop within the same locality where the VLTs now sit within a bar.

In effect, what Bill S-211 would bring about would be a redistribution of the rental fee now paid by provinces to bar owners over to some other landlord or even to the provincial government if it decides to be its own landlord for VLT gaming.

Bill S-211 sounds very much like an incursion into provincial areas of authority, and I would call it an intrusion, without having a real connection to the reduction of problem gambling. This alone could be enough to negatively affect federal, provincial and territorial relationships.

There is, however, the additional element of the federal, provincial and territorial agreements on gaming that would be thrown over by Bill S-211. They call for the preservation of the position achieved by the provinces through the agreements and stipulate that any alteration is to be made by unanimous agreement.

Although Bill S-211's objectives may be well meaning, its effect would be to completely ignore important provisions of the existing gaming agreement. It would also set a drop-dead time period for negotiating prior to proclamation into force. Its delayed proclamation date also sets parameters for negotiating any new agreement.

In reality, Bill S-211 would unilaterally kill the veto that provinces and territories now hold under the negotiated gaming agreement. Although the federal government is not putting forward this bill that breaks the deal, it would nonetheless be left to deal with its fallout in terms of federal, provincial and territorial relations. Such a state of affairs is highly undesirable.

All hon. members must clearly understand the impact that Bill S-211 would have on the trust relationships built between the federal, provincial and territorial governments on this issue. Bill S-211 would lead to the erosion of an important intergovernmental agreement without necessarily lowering the rate of problem gambling in Canada.

For these reasons, I cannot support this bill.

[Petitions, February 16th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, today I am presenting petitions from people all across Canada who are requesting that the government continue its work to combat the trafficking of persons worldwide and here in Canada.

[Business of Supply, February 15th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the $5 million is not a cost cut at all. It is a cost savings. That money is put directly into programs for women. There have been many studies.

What we are saying is we know what the problems are and we have to take action and make things happen.

When we got into government we found out that only 31¢ of every dollar was actually being given to women on the ground in communities. Yes, that number is being increased. We are making sure that the full dollar of every dollar works for women across Canada.

[Business of Supply, February 15th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I have to note that members opposite had 13 years to solve the problems. We hear every day in the House of Commons how things are not being done. In reality that is not true. In reality this government has provided $100 to parents who have children under six years of age. The parents can use that $100 for what they need in their homes. The government has provided tax credits for people whose children are enrolled in sports initiatives. We have put millions of dollars into shelters. We have done many things. In one short year, we have done more than what the former Liberal government did over a period of 13 years.

It is embarrassing to the Status of Women to hear of all the studies that have been done with no action or problem solving following those studies.

This government is taking action. We are getting the job done.

[Business of Supply, February 15th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont.

I appreciate the opportunity to set the record straight. Unlike the motion by the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore, I will be brief and I will stick to the point.

The omnibus motion before the House today is reminiscent of the Liberal Party of the past. It is an indication of what would come should the Liberals ever have the opportunity to form government again. It should remind us that all that party is is a party in disarray, a party that cannot pick priorities and a party that is obviously facing division within its own ranks. The motion touches on Kyoto, day care, agriculture, justice, linguistic duality, the Wheat Board and the Status of Women Canada. It is the latter that I will discuss this afternoon.

For months now, the opposition has been attempting to mislead Canadian women about what has been happening since we formed government. There has been a great deal of discussion around the renewed terms and conditions of the women's program and the new criteria for funding. We believe advocacy has a role to play. Canada's new government believes that now is the time to act and we want to focus taxpayers' dollars towards action. We have the studies; we know there are problems. Instead of wasting time discussing the issues, our government is looking at tangible ways in which we can make a difference now.

For example, the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs is dealing with matrimonial property rights for aboriginal women. Our government increased funding to on reserve family violence shelters by $6 million. As well, the minister announced $450 million for improving water supply and housing on reserve, education outcomes and socio-economic conditions for aboriginal women, children and families, real money in the hands of organizations that are on the ground working to make a difference.

In terms of human trafficking, the former minister of citizenship and immigration developed a program to offer victims temporary visas. Human trafficking is on the rise and the majority of those trafficked are women. They are brought to this country and are forced into a life of prostitution. Instead of being treated as criminals, our government will issue temporary resident permits for up to 120 days and will provide the necessary health care required free of charge.

Women's issues are issues that all Conservative MPs and cabinet ministers are concerned about, not just one minister, all cabinet ministers. The Minister of Human Resources and Social Development announced $4.48 million to help retrain women on social assistance in New Brunswick. This three year pilot project called Partners Building Futures will help women on social assistance get the training necessary to find jobs.

As well, the minister has introduced legislation, Bill C-36, that will make it easier for Canadians to access the guaranteed income supplement. The guaranteed income supplement pays out $6.2 billion a year and goes to 1.5 million low income seniors who are mostly women. This is real change that will affect people right where they live in our communities across our nation.

In one short year we have introduced the universal child care benefit to help women and their families in their homes. We have implemented patient wait time guarantees for prenatal aboriginal women. We have expanded eligibility for compassionate caregivers, most of whom are women. We have introduced pension splitting for senior citizens. We have targeted tax cuts like the GST, the textbook credit and the credit for families with children involved in physical activity to ensure that families are supported. This is real change, ideas and policies that are making a difference in real Canadian women's lives.

This government is committed to action in terms of women and justice issues. There are stories in the paper every day about repeat offenders, men who have abused their wives, children or girlfriends, who are back on the streets putting lives in danger because law enforcement does not have the necessary tools. Domestic violence is an issue that this government takes seriously.

The Minister of Justice has brought forward tougher legislation. We need effective sentencing where dealing with sexual predators and repeat offenders is addressed. We need to end conditional sentencing and raise the age of protection. This is critical.

Canada's new government believes in supporting programs that have a direct impact on women. We believe in putting money into the hands of groups that will help women in their communities.

In October 2005 Canada was cited by the United Nations committee on human rights as failing to adequately address the high rate of violence against aboriginal women. These women and their children deserve safe communities. This is why Canada's new government has committed to the multi-year funding of $1 million a year until the year 2011 to the Native Women's Association of Canada. The Sisters in Spirit initiative addresses the high rates of racialized, sexualized violence against aboriginal women. This project will have a direct benefit on the lives of aboriginal women in their communities.

There is no simple answer. The economic security of women can be traced back as a root cause of the problems women face on a daily basis. We need to ask how we can work together to alleviate these problems, and how we can work with the provinces to better provide services for women. That is one issue which the status of women committee is addressing as we speak. The committee is taking a look at the economic security of women all across our nation.

When a woman faces domestic violence, what can we do to help her get herself out of that cycle of abuse? How can we help women to get out of these situations, to find jobs, build homes, be self-sustaining? We need to let women know that there are other options enabling them the opportunity to change their lives.

The idea that this government is trying to silence women or their advocacy groups is completely ludicrous. I would like to put our partisan political differences aside and work with all members of this House to ensure that we are making a difference in the lives of women all across Canada.

It is imperative that action replace words. It is imperative that problems are solved so women in their daily lives, in their homes and communities all across this nation can get the assurance and support that they need.

It is a pleasure to be here today working with our government in terms of putting words into action.

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

Mr. Speaker, in Afghanistan women now are going to school and are opening businesses. For years women were oppressed and were not able to do that. Today in this House we have heard so many comments about equality for women, and the NDP members have stood up and said we need to bring an equal voice to women and have equality for women, yet they vote against and stand against the mission in Afghanistan. I am wondering how this squares: wanting equality for women yet not supporting our mission in Afghanistan. Because of the soldiers, women now are able to go to school and to start businesses. They are able to have a life.

Would the member please explain to me why this double standard is here in the House this afternoon?

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

Mr. Speaker, may I remind the hon. members of their repeated opposition to our men and women serving in Afghanistan. I add that these men and women are serving to free the Afghan people, and in particular Afghan women, from their oppressive Taliban rulers. Thanks to our brave men and women soldiers over there, over seven million Afghan children, a third of whom are girls, are enrolled in school this year, a figure which was inconceivable a year ago.

We talk about advocating for women's rights. The member just said that it is time for women to take their place in society. Why do the NDP members speak against the Afghan mission? This has done more for women and children than anything that has ever happened in that country before.

These programs would not be possible were it not for our brave soldiers stationed in Afghanistan. We need to ensure that programs like this for women's equality are maintained.

I do not understand why the members opposite can blindly oppose these programs, all of which actively encourage women of all ages to break the shackles of their oppressive regime and embrace freedom, democracy and the rule of law.

Instead, they continue to badger Canada's new government about not doing enough for women. We have heard it this afternoon. Those members have stood up and said that the government is not doing enough for women. The opposition members want to have their cake and eat it too. Do they support women or do they not?

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

Mr. Speaker, I know the member is very dedicated in many respects to women's issues.

I was interested in many aspects of her speech because the member opposite and her colleagues had 13 years, more than a decade, to do everything she talked about as she stood in the House today. In that time, the funding for programming was cut, not once, not twice but three times.

Today we are talking about a small amount to be put in to be conciliatory and support the kinds of positive things that are happening for women all over the country.

Again today the member mentioned day care.

Clearly, actions speak louder than words and our government has taken action to ensure that programs are provided for women. I am sure all members on all sides of the House want this to happen.

Going back to the day care, is the member against families receiving $100 per child for children under six years of age? Do you not think that parents now have the choice to use that money any way they want?