Maria Minna

[Business of Supply, September 28th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to some of the comments the member opposite made earlier with respect to the increased funding for immigrant women and settlement programs and so on, with which I have no problem, obviously.

As someone who spent 35 years in the field of settlement programs and fighting for immigrant women, I understand this very well, but I should tell the hon. member that it was as a result of a charter challenge that we were able to get language training for women in the mid-1980s. There are many other inequalities that still exist for women, such as pay equity and many others. In fact, immigrant women, if we look at the studies, are the most affected in terms of earning the lowest income possible at this point.

Spending on programs for immigrant women and immigrant settlement does not in any way justify the cutting of Status of Women Canada, which is for all Canadian women now and in the future. In fact, it impacts on and hurts the ability of those women to fight for their rights. How can the hon. member justify one with the other?

[Business of Supply, September 28th, 2006]

Yes, but we did a lot of great things in those 13 years. We did not have to lose the child care. We did not have legislation, but we did have an agreement. There was a structure in place for child care in this country. That was established.

On pay equity, we did have the study and we did commit. There is a report to the committee that we would introduce legislation.

We also established Centres of Excellence for Women's Health in this country. We established the court challenges program, which had been cut by the Conservatives and we reinstated. In addition, there were the OAS and GIS income increases.

I am not going to go through the list, because I could go through a very long list of things. What is most important here today, and what I would like the hon. members to share with us, having said all of the things we are saying, is this. The bottom line here is that we have a court challenge program that has been in place for some time, was cut by the previous Conservatives, was reinstated and now is cut again. We also have the cut to the women's program, which therefore will not be able to have the kind of strength it had before.

Could the hon. member tell me exactly what will happen for women in this country without a voice for them at the national level?

[Business of Supply, September 28th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member feels the need to slam and to criticize. Nobody is perfect. Sometimes it takes a few years to get things done, but--

[Business of Supply, September 28th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to say that the Status of Women was actually established in 1971. As the hon. member knows, it was a major catalyst in women getting their rights embedded in the Constitution of 1982. Women were not part of the Constitution at that time and did not have equality.

Since then, through charter challenges there has been a tremendous number of other rights which women have been able to receive. In fact, in the last 10 years there were over 1,200 applications for charter challenges which goes to show that there is still a major need.

Could the member tell me given the cuts, how will that impact on the ability for the Status of Women and for the women of Canada to actually exert their rights in this country?

[Business of Supply, September 28th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I find it reprehensible that the member feels comfortable taking something that was discussed at committee, which I said, out of context. I did not mean sexy in that negative context. I was trying to be facetious in the sense that we needed to discuss also and primarily the economic security of women which underpins some of that issue. She seems to have chosen to quote only a part of it, which shows to me how seriously the government takes this issue.

The issue of trafficking, which is a heinous practice, does not take away from the fact that economic security for women underpins what is going on, whether it is trafficking, prostitution or any other situation. We need to address and tackle the underpinning situations. For instance, 36% of female lone parents are at the poverty rate, 38.4% of unattached women under 65 are at the poverty rate, and unattached senior women are at even a much higher risk.

These are real figures of economic security issues within Canada. There are situations, some of which I mentioned earlier, with respect to unemployment insurance biases, with respect to the Canada pension plan, and with respect to women who are now caregivers.

The member opposite is really skewing words. The issue is the cuts to the Status of Women, and not that we do not agree with trafficking. Of course it is something we need to address, but let us deal with the bottom line.

[Business of Supply, September 28th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have said many times that the $1,200 as income support under the child tax credit is absolutely no problem. It is not an early education and child care program. It does not help all women in Canada. In fact, it hurts the poorest women in this country. As I said, the child supplement was cut and the Conservatives increased the taxes. The $1,200 does not provide any infrastructure for early education and child care. It actually does not help at all. It cannot be called a universal program.

[Business of Supply, September 28th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, what it tells me first of all is that the Conservative government does not believe in citizens being able to fight for their rights and defend themselves under laws that are made by governments.

We have a three-branch governance in this country. We have the parliamentary system with Parliament, the executive branch and the judiciary. The judiciary is there for a reason. The charter challenges program was there to support the most vulnerable citizens of this country in being able to fight for their rights.

The law commission is absolutely fundamental. It was very fundamental in helping us to develop the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to develop some of the rights that we now enjoy in the Constitution. It is there to vet our laws and to encourage and guide. I cannot believe that the government would get rid of the law commission, which, as my colleague said, is a statute.

As I said earlier, on charter challenges, these were immigrant women who were not able to get ESL. I mentioned that earlier. I will not go into it again, but many charter challenges have been made.

[Business of Supply, September 28th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, when the task force report on pay equity came in, the government made a commitment to introduce pay equity legislation. Actually, the hon. member's party knocked us out of power and therefore we were not able to do that. Maybe she needs to report that.

On early education and child care, again, we tried in 2000 with $2.1 billion on the table and we could not get the provinces to come onside. Finally, in 2005 we were able to, after much negotiation and $5 billion and basically with conditions saying that the provinces would not get the money otherwise. It took 13 years and we finally got the provinces to sign. Even with that, the province of New Brunswick, headed by a Conservative, was still hedging and it was only an agreement in principle.

The Liberal government did have in place a national program before that party knocked the Liberal government out. That program is still in place. The Conservative government intends to cut it in 2007. Had we been there, that program might have had a chance to actually survive a few years and take root.

With all due respect, we do not have much to apologize for.

[Business of Supply, September 28th, 2006]

That is right, Mr. Speaker, and I will simply say that I do not, and I am not even going to go there any more.

Quite frankly, those members are not prepared to speak about the real issues. All they are going to is fearmongering. They are going through stuff from before. I am not going to go to the smear stuff. They are not prepared to address the real issues. They are afraid to talk about women's issues. There was no mention of what they are planning to do. I think it is despicable that they are going down to the level of the gutter, quite frankly, instead of addressing the issues we are trying to address today.

I cannot believe that the member is actually referring to and being proud of the $1,200. The government actually cut the supplement for children under seven from the poorest families. The government increased taxes for the poorest families and then taxed the $1,200 it is putting into their hands. These families will get a lot less than families with higher incomes. The poorest people will get about $585 or so whereas people in the upper income group will end up getting something closer to $900. That does not even begin to create an early education and child care program in this country.

We are the last country in the world to have such a program. Most progressive countries have a true early education program. The Conservative government is not even interested in discussing real issues today.

[Business of Supply, September 28th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the member is throwing a lot of stuff in there. Let me set a few things straight. First, I do not do fearmongering door to door. I am very proud of that. You can check that in my riding. You can go door to door. I do not run dirty campaigns.