Joy Smith

[Business of Supply, September 28th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member opposite has put many years into women's issues but I was rather appalled or surprised to hear two things.

First, I would like the member opposite to clarify something. We on this side of the House are very proud of being a part of the Status of Women. We want to see real money put into action to support all the initiatives that we need to support and around the table we have a vote on what we will be doing. We are very happy with the Status of Women and the direction it has taken.

However, I believe I heard the inference that members on the other side of the House wanted to do away with Status of Women. I find that very strange because when I was standing in line at the airport ready to get on a plane someone came to me and said that they were told by the Liberals that there would be no Status of Women this year, that it was gone. By virtue of the fact that I just heard that comment in the House today, I find it disquieting because it is misleading and untruthful.

Second, I keep hearing members opposite slam the organization called REAL Women. In a democratic society I feel that organizations can say or do what they want, which is separate from the MPs and the House of Commons. Our job is to listen to all the variety.

Could l please find out, first, who, apparently on our committee, said that he or she wanted to do away with the Status of Women committee; second, when the person said it, because I will look up the documentation; and third, why are members picking on the REAL Women organization?

[Business of Supply, September 28th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the member for Newmarket—Aurora finds herself leading the so-called charge to save Canadian women. The member prized herself, I understand, on coming from a business background, so I have two questions.

I am wondering how the member can justify spending over 30¢ to deliver $1 to women's organizations. How does that past history wash with her? Is mismanagement of taxpayers' dollars good for women? I do not think so.

I would also like to ask her, if she believes so strongly in women's issues, why is there not one single woman on the board of directors at her company, Magna? Where is her leadership there, or is she just slipping into Liberal rhetoric with the perfect scripted speech and the perfect sentences? We are talking about women's issues, rights of women, professional women, and I think we have to talk about real women in the real world.

[Business of Supply, September 28th, 2006]

Clearly, Mr. Speaker, program funding for women is not cut and will not be cut. There are no plans to cut that.

Members opposite repeat the same words over and over. But Canadian women are intelligent people. With the past government, when we boil the whole thing down, basically 30¢ on the dollar was used for women's programs. Now Canadian women are looking at this and saying, “Yes, we need to be frugal with our money, and we need to make those precious dollars work”. Women are used to budgeting. Women are used to making money work, to making money grow. Now when we look at this, program funding for women is not cut but the action plans are used.

I have a question for the hon. member on pay equity. Pay equity is a very serious thing and is something that members on this side of the House clearly pay very close attention to. In the status of women committee, yes, at that time, the majority of the people, including me, voted for looking at legislation. We looked at it. We decided that what had happened over the last 13 years was that the legislation was there and nothing was done with it.

This minister right now is taking this legislation and making it work. That is another way of making the precious tax dollars be utilized, so would this member not agree that utilizing what we have out there without starting right at point one is a more prudent thing to do? Why start all over again? It is there. Making it work right now is the more prudent thing to do.

[Business of Supply, September 28th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite made an eloquent speech. The member has been a real voice for the women of Quebec. I have been so impressed with the work she has done in terms of the human trafficking issue.

We spoke earlier about the human trafficking issue. Perhaps the member expand a little on why it is very important that Status of Women work with this question and address this issue for all Canadian women across Canada. Whether they be in Quebec, Alberta, or Ontario it is a very important issue.

Could the member opposite comment on that please?

[Business of Supply, September 28th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, pay equity is a very top priority to women all across our nation and it is a top priority to this government and to our minister in charge.

The recommendation was that new legislation come forth. Upon close examination over a number of months, clearly, if exercised, the government could simply say no to tabling pay equity, but right now we decided to work with the legislation that is there.

The minister has put in supports to support the current legislation, to put in supervisors who will be able to go into businesses and take a look and see if things are really happening. We do not want to waste taxpayers' money. We do not want to reinvent the wheel.

Pay equity is extremely important to this government. We believe in equality for all people, especially for women as we are speaking, and as our minister previously stated.

Having said that, we are looking at a very common sense program that supports pay equity for women and makes things work, and will make it work faster, instead of taking 13 years like the previous Liberal government did.

[Business of Supply, September 28th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard many things over the past few days. One day the member for Beaches—East York writes that we cut funding to over 500 shelters and the next day on CPAC she says women's hospitals are funded by the women's program. It goes on and on. How can she tell women that spending over 30¢ to deliver $1 is good for Canadian women?

On this side of the House, we are going to be studying more the economic challenges of women. We have divided the Status of Women and the presentations into two parts. It was ruled by a vote that first we would study human trafficking until Christmas, then following that, we would study all these other economic issues, something that we are very concerned about.

The member opposite has taken this opportunity to stand on the Liberal bandwagon and make misleading statements. Canadians are not listening to that. Canadians want solutions to problems and so we are discussing problems and preparing an action plan that will solve those problems.

[Business of Supply, September 28th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, as the vice-chair of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, I must commend the members of the committee, particularly the minister in charge of the Status of Women for her work, for their work in considering the issues facing women now in Canada.

The Standing Committee on the Status of Women was struck for the first time in the 39th Parliament in 2004. In the last several months we have begun to approach a wider spectrum of issues facing women in our society today.

As members of the House, we bring forth varying opinions on issues from accountability measures for gender equality, to pay equity funding, parental benefits for self-employed workers, and the importance of providing all Canadian women with equal opportunity. As our minister has stated, Canadian women are Canadian citizens and they contribute in a major way to the Canadian economy and social aspects of our country.

The committee continues to expand and does not limit itself to a parameter of issues facing women, as all are important when they deter from one's capacity or capability, and we are making giant strides to explore, research and make change.

More recent, we brought forth discussions on the topic of human trafficking, or as some refer to it, modern day slavery. Many people may not be aware that Canada is a receiver of trafficked persons as well as a transit country for trafficking victims intended for the United States. The key aspect that distinguishes trafficking from other types of migration is the aspects of coercion and exploitation. Confiscation of travel documents, violence, threats to harm family members and debt bondage are used as tactics of intimidation and control over trafficked women. In the case of trafficking, the consent of a victim is irrelevant because of the coercion. The majority of transnational victims are trafficked into commercial, sexual exploitation.

Trafficking of women and children is the third largest illegal money making venture. According to Interpol, a trafficked woman can bring in between $75,000 and $250,000 a year for her captors, while costing as little as $1,500 to purchase.

The connections between the demands for prostitution, legalization of sex work and the trafficking in and exploitation of women are being explored. In countries, where sex work and prostitution are legalized, there is an increased demand for the services of trafficked women. This is unacceptable. This is the difference between our government and members opposite. We do not support the legalization of prostitution.

Our new government has recognized the need to respond and address human trafficking. Countries around the world are battling the same issue. We cannot turn a blind eye to the severity of cruelty to women in our own backyards. This is a woman's issue. This is a worldwide issue. We are partnering with organizations such as the Ukrainian-Canadian Congress in Canada to share ideas, stories and legislation, so, together, human trafficking will no longer be tolerated on our soil.

In the last couple of years the RCMP has produced a video to train officers on how to handle situations in human trafficking, which clearly shows that it is aware of this problem. Committees, people, organizations and NGOs are all getting involved to put a stop to this crime.

The motion put forward before the House is incorrect when it states that “the House objects to the government's partisan and discriminatory cuts in federal support for women's programs and services”. We take the issue of human trafficking very seriously.

Earlier this spring the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration announced new measures to help victims of human trafficking. First, victims of human trafficking will receive temporary resident permits for up to 120 days so they can recover from their ordeal and decide if they want to help in the prosecution of their traffickers. Second, the government will give these victims medical support and access to counselling services to help them begin to recover.

Does this sound like a government that is cutting funding for programs and services? I think not. Under the leadership of the minister, the status of women is going in the right direction for all Canadian women.

Human trafficking is a horrific crime and a very serious issue. It is an issue that affects women and children. Therefore, I strongly disagree with the motion put forward by the member opposite, which suggests that the Conservative government fails to recognize the many roles of women in Canadian society and the importance of providing all Canadian women with equal opportunity.

Equal opportunity has to do with what the minister just previously said, building business, supporting women, putting money into programs for single parents, and action plans. Not spending 30¢ on the dollar toward those action plans but putting that whole dollar directly toward women's organizations. That is exactly what our minister is talking about today and that is what we are proud to talk about on this side of the House.

I also strongly disagree with the member for Beaches--East York who stated at the status of women committee:

If we deal with only trafficking, which is a small slice of the real issue--an important slice, no question at all--we will not address the real issue, and again we will be diverted to something that is really nice and sexy. It's high-profile, it will get attention and what have you, but it won't address the core problem, it won't.

In view of the fact that on April 6 there was a trafficking ring taken down right in Ontario, this is something that the member opposite should be very aware of and be really ready to study. This is the direction that our government wants to take. We believe, on this side of the House, that there is nothing nice and sexy about abuse, period.

I conclude by saying that we recognize that the many roles of women in our society unfortunately include victims, and by identifying and assisting them with support, we are providing them with equal opportunity. I am proud to be part of a government that continues to explore albeit traditional issues facing women but also those who fall outside of the traditional box. We are working to expand and set precedents.

[Foreign Affairs, September 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, on Monday the director of women's affairs in Kandahar, Safia Amajan was murdered outside her home by two gunmen on a motorcycle. She had been a teacher, an advocate for women's rights for more than three decades and ran an underground girls' school during Taliban rule.

I ask the Minister of Foreign Affairs, what is the government's reaction to this outrage?

[Petitions, September 25th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, in another petition in excess of 150 people in my riding of Kildonan—St. Paul call upon Parliament to retain the Criminal Code without changes in order that Parliament not sanction or allow the counselling, aiding or abetting of suicide whether by personal action or the Internet. They also state that the Canadian Medical Association opposes assisted suicide and euthanasia and call for suicide prevention programs.

[Petitions, September 25th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present some petitions from over 400 people in my riding of Kildonan—St. Paul who pray that the government assembled in Parliament take all measures necessary to immediately raise the age of consent from 14 to 16 years of age.