House of Commons photoLost her last election, in 2011, with 31% of the vote.
Child Care November 27th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government continues to ignore the voices of Canadian women. It has refused to implement pay equity legislation. It has made multi-million dollar cuts to Status of Women and eliminated equality from its mandate. It cancelled a national early learning and child care program, slashing 25,000 spaces in Ontario alone, ensuring that Canada will lag behind other nations.
Why has the government not delivered a single space in child care?
Business of Supply November 1st, 2006
There are Liberal spaces under the agreement. You are getting rid of it.
Business of Supply November 1st, 2006
Mr. Chair, she is not protecting low income Canadians because being taxed on the lower income means that single moms who do not have a spouse pay taxes on everything they earn. In fact, the data shows that the lower the income the higher the tax.
The government says that the $10,000 tax incentive to create child care spaces will be unused, and we know that. The sum of $10,000 is a mere fraction of what it costs to set up a new space. In Vancouver it would cost about $40,000 to create a new space in child care.
Why will the minister not realize her mistake and honour the agreement with the provinces?
Business of Supply November 1st, 2006
Mr. Chair, the minister is giving families no choice at all. The reason that poverty is up in Toronto is because there is no child care.
The Caledon Institute says that the Conservative plan discriminates against low income families. Indeed, the $100 per month is taxed and the less people make the more they are taxed.
Why does the minister insist on continuously punishing the more vulnerable in our society? They have no child care and they have discriminatory income support. Will the minister fight for children or not?
Business of Supply November 1st, 2006
Mr. Chair, a year into the making and it has been working but we are losing thousands of spaces.
The government also broke a promise from the election. It said that the $100 would not impact the child tax benefit. In fact, the government eliminated the young child supplement program, and the modest income that Canadians are now receiving does nothing to help them. There is no affordable child care to boot and the money is taxable. This gives parents absolutely no choice.
What does the minister have against children and learning and providing them with the opportunities they need to succeed?
Business of Supply November 1st, 2006
Mr. Chair, the Conservative government eliminated the early learning and child care initiative altogether. The taxable $100 a month which the government is providing is not even enough to provide for one day of child care. It costs on average $783 per month for child care. That $100 creates absolutely no spaces whatsoever. In fact, in Toronto, increasing poverty has been tied directly to the fact that child care spaces are not available.
Will the minister tell us that she in fact has no plan for child care for this country?
Perfluorooctane Sulfonate Virtual Elimination Act October 26th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have put this bill forward. Bill C-298 seeks to eliminate a very harmful chemical from the environment to protect the health of Canadians.
This chemical is recognized around the world as a toxic substance. It is not new. In fact, 3M Corporation stopped manufacturing this substance some time ago and Sweden has called for a global ban on PFOS already. The United States has done the same thing and has stopped using it.
PFOS is persistent in the environment for long periods of time. At the beginning of my statement I said that it was an inherently toxic substance. It is also bioaccumulative, which means it stays in the body for years. In fact, if one were to stop using it as of this moment, it would take eight years to eliminate the substance from one's body. Children are especially affected. It is used widely enough for serious risk to human exposure.
The list that I have just enunciated contains the criteria that need to be matched to determine if a chemical is a threat to human health. It should be regulated because PFOS meets all of the criteria I have just mentioned in terms of its toxicity, being bioaccumulative and so on.
Listing PFOS as a toxic chemical in schedule 1 of CEPA does not eliminate the chemical from the environment. Instead, it just sets the stage for more consultation and comment. The studies have been done. Environment Canada and Health Canada agree that the only way to deal with PFOS is through virtual elimination. That was their recommendation in 2004, so I cannot see how it would change at this time.
Also, in the first hour of debate on this bill, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment stated, regarding the assessment period of listing PFOS under schedule 1 of CEPA, 1999:
The revised assessment concludes that PFOS is a persistent biocumulative and inherently toxic substance in the environment. Furthermore, the revised assessment concludes that PFOS is entering the environment in concentrations that may have a harmful effect on the environment.
That was part of the government's own statement. This is what the hon. member said and yet the government does not want to eliminate PFOS from the environment. That is totally irresponsible. Listing PFOS under schedule 1 of CEPA, 1999, and virtually eliminating it is not the same thing.
I hope the government decides to take the health of Canadians and the protection of the environment seriously and support my bill. However, with the joke that is its so-called environment plan, I doubt anything serious about the environment will come from the government.
Government members have stated themselves in their own statements that this substance is bioaccumulative and inherently toxic. What else do we need to know in order to eliminate it altogether? I believe this bill does that and I would ask the rest of the House to support it because it is one thing we can do for the environment.
Budget Implementation Act, 2006, No. 2 October 26th, 2006
That is taxed.
Budget Implementation Act, 2006, No. 2 October 26th, 2006
No, they do not, not according to the Constitution of this country. Not according to what is stated. It was the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women that helped Canadian women get their constitutional rights.
If the hon. member is telling me that everything can happen by itself, why was it that in 1982 the Government of Canada in order to get the charter of rights, the compromise with the provinces was that women's rights were written out? There were no women's rights in the Constitution when it was first tabled. Why was it that the women of this country had to march on Ottawa in order to get themselves recognized in the Constitution of this country? It is only with that kind of assistance and the charter challenge program that women will have the ability to continue to help themselves in this country. By stating that equality is there by virtue of its existence is not good enough.
We can say that women are strong people. One of the members was mentioning today at committee that women are strong and must I admit that women are strong. Of course they are strong. My mother was a very strong woman. She worked for long hours in a factory that had no standards whatsoever. She was paid a pittance of a salary and she raised four children on it. She was a strong woman, but she should not have had to put up with that kind of situation, that kind of unhealthy work environment.
The fact that women are strong does not mean they deserve to continue to be abused. There are rights in this country. It is an issue of human rights. It is not an issue of alms or charity.
I resent that we are talking in terms of all the women pitching in a dollar. They pay taxes. They should not have to pitch in a dollar. The government has an obligation. We collectively have an obligation to help each other.
There is no question that our philosophies are different. Our ideologies are different. We believe in a collective responsibility of looking after one another. The Conservatives do not.
Budget Implementation Act, 2006, No. 2 October 26th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, there is quite a lot there to chew, and some of it, I have to say, I find somewhat offensive. I will tell the House why.
The philosophy of seeing someone in need and handing out a bit money is charity. Why should people be subjected to charity? They pay taxes. They have rights. There is dignity involved. I am sorry, but I think the member's philosophy is offensive.
I have seen people who work for a minimum wage which is so low. It is not acceptable. I find that offensive. If only we would increase the minimum wage, they would have a decent income.
I do not come from a wealthy family. My parents worked hard. I went to work long before I was able to go to university to help myself out. I do not expect that children today should have to live on alms. To think that the poor children of Canada should have to wait for charity before we help them out is offensive.
On the issue with respect to women, the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women was established purposely as an agency to assist women to achieve equality. With respect, REAL Women is not an organization that works to help women to achieve equality.