Maria Minna

[Tackling Violent Crime Act, November 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is not right when he says that we did nothing with respect to crime prevention.

The national crime prevention program was one of the best in this country. In fact, if I am not mistaken, I believe the hon. member's government reduced funding to that program with its first budget. Other programs came forward from the mayor of the city of Toronto with respect to gun violence in that city and other areas.

Some of the programs that were put forward by the Liberals were not renewed by the government, not to mention the fact that the government eliminated the national child care program that would have helped children with mental health issues receive assistance and be identified early on when they are in an early childhood development environment where they could receive help.

For me, it is more about the overall societal responsibility to prevention. It is not just one little program, a one off in one part of the country that may deal with it. It is an overall effort with respect to the prevention of crime for domestic violence, which, by the way, the government has done nothing about with respect to women. As I said before, it has eliminated advocacy and any other work with respect to women.

When it comes to high risk offenders, there is no question that we need to address that issue, but we must also be extremely careful as to who we identify because rehabilitation for people is still one of the best ways to prevent crime if we want to address crime seriously.

[Tackling Violent Crime Act, November 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, that is an indication of exactly what I was trying to say. We cannot deal with the amendment without dealing with all the other aspects I was discussing. With all due respect, what I was saying was very much appropriate. If we prevent crime in the first place, we do not have to get to the point of having to have reverse onus at all.

This is very important with respect to youth. Chile has an agreement with Quebec to take the Quebec model and to use it in Chile. Maybe the government might want to learn something from some of our own provinces and how they are applying prevention and rehabilitation so we do not get to the point of discussing the issue of reverse onus.

We must address the growing problem of domestic violence in the country as well. I know the hon. member does not want to hear about it, but the reality is that 53% of all women who are victims of a violent crime were victims of a common assault, 13% were victims of sexual assault and 11% were victims of assault with a weapon. Not all of these are preventable, necessarily, but most of them are if we were to spend some money in education with respect to problems with domestic violence. However, the government instead has chosen to cut and to change the mandate of the Status of Women Canada and eliminate not only the issue of equality, but the research and advocacy needed in this area and the kind of work that is required. The United Nations has pointed that out already.

Again, in order to change a social condition that exists in our country, we have to ensure that these kinds of crimes can be prevented. However, the government does not seem to be interested in these things.

We all know that women are considerably more likely than men to be victims of violent crimes, such as sexual assault and criminal harassment.

Women are also more often victimized in their homes, in communities and in prisons, as we have seen more recently. There were 224,000 women who said they feared for their lives as a result of a violent spouse. These are things that can be assisted. Rehabilitation will work in those areas in many cases. We should look at the conditions of poverty, mental health and other situations.

Furthermore, aboriginal women are more than three times likely to report being victims of spousal violence than their non-aboriginal counterparts, 24% of aboriginal women, or almost a quarter.

Due to the often cyclical nature of domestic violence, women involved in abusive relationships are often caught in a revolving door of abuse and refuge. The government is doing little to nothing in the way of prevention. In fact, it has gone the other way around. Portions of this omnibus bill attempt to do that, but I do not think it addresses it to the extent we need.

The government has proposed an American style “three strikes and you're out” law to jail certain offenders indefinitely. In fact, those particularly affected would include aboriginal women with addictions or histories of abuse who have acted out in violence and have inadequate access to healing. Again, these are areas of prevention; women who are incarcerated, larger numbers in the aboriginal communities. A great deal of issues are not being addressed by prevention.

In part, the government is criminalizing the poor and mentally ill as a result of this rather than ensuring access to affordable housing, incomes, training, support, mental health services and assistance. Mental health is one of the areas that receives the least attention and the least funds whenever it comes to health dollars. Yet more than 50% of all those incarcerated, as we know, have mental health issues. Again, this goes to prevention and it goes to the civility of the society.

According to Statistics Canada, the number of Canadians spending time behind bars increased in 2005-06 for the first time in more than a decade. This increase is due to the larger number of individuals in remand, serving time waiting their trials or sentencing. In fact, the number of adults in remand rose 12% in 2005-06. This means that for the first time, the number of Canadians awaiting their trial or sentencing outnumber those serving actual jail time.

The result is that offenders are spending less time in custody because courts are giving credit for time spent in remand when determining the length of a sentence and no rehabilitation is taking place while they are there.

If the Conservative government is so tough on crime, why is it that jail sentences for those found guilty of a crime is decreasing, while time spent in jail for those waiting to have a fair trial is increasing? Again, while they are waiting for justice, no rehabilitation is being offered at this time, which goes to the problem of recidivism.

It seems that the Conservatives' attempts to play partisan games with the Criminal Code is holding up more than legislation in this House. It is also holding up Canadians' rights to fair and speedy trials.

The number of women serving jail time is also on the rise. In fact, the fastest growing prison population worldwide is women. In particular, it is racialized. These are young, poor women and women with mental and cognitive disabilities. These escalating numbers are quite obviously linked to barriers in health care, education and social services. Again, these are areas that the government is ignoring, quite deliberately. Again it goes to the issue of rehabilitation, which means that we would not need to use the reverse onus or the draconian kinds of laws that we are so bound to use.

The number of Canadians incarcerated in 2005-06 was 110 per 100,000, which is a far cry from the United States where it is 738 per 100,000. The Americans have been going down the road of incarceration for many years and, in fact, they are beginning to look the other way because it has not worked. Increasing the jail population does not work. It does not prevent crime. It does not help to rehabilitate criminals. It does not reduce crime on our streets.

I would really like to challenge the government on this. Not only does the reverse onus not work and, as other members have mentioned, may not be constitutional, but, more important, it does not address the problem of the security of our communities, which is the main point.

[Tackling Violent Crime Act, November 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, protecting citizens against violent crime is very important in my community as it is to all of us. However, crime rates have actually gone down over the past 10 years, as we all know, but there much more to be done. I think we could all agree with that as well.

We must tackle the problem of violent crime, but we must also do it responsibly. We cannot simply lock people up and throw away the keys, as the government obviously wants to do.

We have worked hard to improve on these bills from the last session, despite the Conservative government's attempt to obstruct its own legislation by not calling the bills forward for debate in the House of Commons.

We proposed to fast track the legislation we supported in order to protect Canadians, but the Conservatives refused to pass their own legislation. I think they are still focused on being in opposition where all they did was obstruct government bills. They continue to do the same with their own government.

I want to talk about how violent crime affects women in the country and also try to get the government to see that we can do more to prevent crime, rather than increase penalties and lock people away forever.

We see that even in U.S., where mandatory minimum sentences are in place, the government is moving away from this method because it simply does not work. It fills up prisons and does not help in rehabilitating the offender.

I believe it is better to prevent the crime in the first place. That way we do not have a criminal and we do not have a victim. It is so much better not to have victim. When prevention fails to stop an individual from committing a crime, we must ensure that the rehabilitation process is in place and is effective.

I want to give an example of the Youth Criminal Justice Act and how it is applied because that is a major area of discussion these days as well. Quebec, for instance, has a much lower recidivism problem with respect to young offenders than other parts of the country. Why? It is because its prevention program is much better, but also the supportive program, the rehabilitation program, is much stronger and much more effective.

In fact a few years back Chile signed an agreement with Quebec to use their model—

[Bangladesh, November 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my condolences to the family members and individuals who lost loved ones in a recent cyclone that struck Bangladesh. This devastation has left more than 3,000 people dead and destroyed over 500,000 homes.

The Red Cross and Red Crescent are doing great work to raise money to send to the devastated region.

As a former minister, I have dealt with major natural disasters around the world and understand the importance of immediate assistance in order to prevent further deaths as a result of the spread of disease.

I urge the government to ensure that all assistance is given to the people who need it most. I request the Government of Canada to expedite immigration applications already filed in order to achieve family reunification more quickly.

On behalf of the thousands of Bengalis in my riding and across the country, I stand with them in this time of sadness. I extend to them my most sincere condolences and offer any assistance I can in helping to reunite family members.

[Business of Supply, November 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I understand what the hon. member is saying with respect to the procedures, processes and all of the things that have been put in. Many of these things were there before. They have been tried before.

This system has been in place for 34 or 35 years now and the reality is that when a system is complaints based, it means that the women have to complain about their employer. They have to take action. They have to go to someone in order for employers to comply.

Up until now we have seen a whole lot of litigation because the legislation is not strong enough. It does have to be more proactive. In provinces such as Ontario and Quebec, where there is proactive pay equity legislation and employers in the private sector have had to deal with this in a more aggressive manner, they have found out, as a result of the evaluations that have been done, that actually it is working better for them.

In fact, in the workplaces the morale is better. It is working very well, but the employers also admitted that they would not have done it had they not been obliged to do it in the way that the legislation basically forced them to do.

In regard to what is being put in place, it is not fair to women to put them in the position of having to fight and go to court and push and risk losing their jobs to try to get what is rightly theirs.

Quite frankly, I think we have had this debate. We have had the research. We have had two standing committees look at it. We have had two independent committees study the situation in this country and make reports to Parliament, two or three times now, and the last one was not that long ago.

Things have not really changed in this country. It is time that we actually introduced new proactive pay equity legislation and gave women the kinds of tools they need for their rights.

[Business of Supply, November 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that the response from the government to the standing committee with respect to implementing proactive pay equity legislation does not really work. I know that the government is putting in all these new measures but the reality is that they are no different from the procedures that have been in place for a number of years.

In fact, it took the Bell employees 25 years of litigation before they got any answer on their issue. No matter which way we look at it, it is complaint based legislation. That is the major problem with it. In fact there is all kinds of litigation that goes on against the employees who dare to question and try to get their rights under the law.

This is why we need proactive pay equity legislation. It exists in Quebec and Ontario for the private sector. In fact Quebec has recently done a review which clearly shows that it is working very well. The employers themselves agree that they would not have done it had there not been legislation as strong as that. They have said that it is helping their companies in that there is better morale and better productivity in their companies.

Quite frankly, I would ask the hon. minister not to allow more time to elapse while trying things that are not going to work and one, two or three years from now we will be back here. Women in this country are paying the price. It is not fair to do this to them. Proactive legislation does not cost the government any money, but it does in fact give women the right to receive equal pay for work of equal value which they deserve.

[Business of Supply, November 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, this last fall and summer I did some consultations with women's organizations across Canada. For some of that work I was in Winnipeg and in The Pas, in the northern part of Manitoba.

During those consultations, I met with many aboriginal, first nations and Inuit women. There were a lot of issues, but some of them had to do with the need to develop a national anti-poverty and anti-violence strategy for this country specific to aboriginal communities. Another was to provide greater access and assistance for education and training for aboriginal women and Inuit women.

I wonder if the hon. member, whom I know has a great deal of expertise in this area with respect to her own critic portfolio, could expand on those issues and any other issues that actually affect more directly first nations women and Inuit women in our country.

[Business of Supply, November 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, small, large and business in general have said, through consultations, that they want literacy training for a lot of people who need it.

Training and adjustment is fine but the problem is that when people arrive at their companies they do not have enough literacy to do their jobs and the training is not as effective.

Could the hon. member expand on the problem of the cuts with respect to literacy? A lot of money was cut from that and, if I am not mistaken, I think the literacy directorate was also shut down. This affects thousands of Canadians. In some parts of the country a very large percentage of the population has a literacy problem. We need improved literacy training to have a competitive, well trained and upgraded labour force in our country.

[Business of Supply, November 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, in a letter from many local and provincial organizations to the Prime Minister, the women stated that:

--when a country like Canada enacts constitutional rights it takes for granted that residents, when they believe the government is violating their rights, can and will challenge the offending law or policy. If residents cannot use their rights because of financial barriers, then Canada’s constitutional democracy is hollow.

I wonder if the hon. member would expand on and explain to the House the elimination of the charter challenge, how that directly impacts on women's rights in this country. Does she consider women's rights to be the same as human rights and how all of that affects women's ability to participate in both the economic and social success of Canada?

[Sitting Resumed, November 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the committee, the hon. member has worked with us and has heard the presentations from various organizations and groups at our hearings. We heard from the Canadian Teachers' Federation. Rural women, first nations and Inuit women and immigrant and visible minority women made presentations.

There are some things that are common to all of those groups, one of which is child care which allows women to participate in the workforce and helps them to become financially secure, and another is literacy. In both areas the government campaigned on cuts to and the elimination of a national child care program. It has been two years now. Essentially many spaces have not been created. The $1,200 does not do it because it gives parents absolutely no choice. It is taxed back in any case, so it is not $1,200. The amount announced earlier by one of the member's colleagues of somewhere over $200 million, is not even close to the $5 billion the provinces were receiving and up to the $10 billion which was committed in the last election by our party.

For literacy it is the same thing. Businesses in this country want literacy back. There were cuts to literacy. Women need those programs.

Could the hon. member explain why the government is doing contrary to what the women essentially asked for at the hearings?