Mylène Freeman

[Ending the Long-Gun Registry Act, February 7th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I am horrified to hear the arguments coming from the other side of the House. The obstinacy with which the Conservatives are calling for the destruction of the firearms registry is neither practical nor well thought out. Bill C-19 is motivated entirely by ideology and seeks to divide rural and urban Canadians. The Conservatives want people to think that those two groups hold irreconcilable positions on this issue, and that is not the case.

As the New Democrats have shown in the past, we have the leadership that is needed for considering both sides of the coin, in order to come up with a solution that works for all Canadians. In 2010, my colleague from Timmins—James Bay introduced a bill that would have made changes to the registry and removed the parts that are problematic for hunters and the first nations, without destroying this vital protection that is used every day by the police to combat spousal violence, among other things.

Rather than supporting a well thought-out solution to the problem, the government decided to divide Canada on this issue in order to play petty politics. I do not need to remind this House that it is women who are the primary victims of spousal violence, women who are rightly terrified at the prospect of the registry and the data in it being destroyed. Anyone who rises in this House and tries to minimize that fear is denying or ignoring the fact that one-third of women killed by their partner are killed by a legally owned shotgun or rifle. They are also denying or ignoring the fact that since the introduction of the registry, the frequency of such incidents has declined by 50%. The government is not just endangering women’s rights; it is playing with their lives.

I represent a rural riding in Quebec. I am one of the New Democrats who represent communities of farmers, first nations and sports hunters. I have no difficulty explaining the bill introduced by my colleague from Timmins—James Bay to them, and the amendments we would like to make to Bill C-19. Those amendments would have created a firearms registry that I could defend wholeheartedly. Those amendments would have controlled the cost of the registry, simplified firearms registration and created a legal guarantee of adherence to the treaties signed with the first nations.

However, today I have to stand up for the women in my riding who are firmly opposed to Bill C-19. I have known Andrée Larochelle and Carole Girardeau of the Carrefour des femmes du Grand Lachute since last May. That organization is a wonderful centre for women, that works with victims of violence on a daily basis.

Ms. Larochelle wrote the following letter to the Prime Minister on December 6:

Dear Mr. [Prime Minister]

You are no doubt aware that December 6 is the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women. It marks the anniversary of the murders of 14 young women at the École Polytechnique in Montreal on December 6, 1989, by a man who hated them just because they were women.

Since that time, in Quebec alone, 973 women and children have died at the hands of violent men.

Here at the Carrefour des femmes du Grand Lachute, we are working to combat the violence committed against women every day. Every day, women of all ages tell us that they are the victims of violence, whether it be psychological, verbal, sexual, economic or physical. Every day!

And now, two decades later, you, Mr. Prime Minister, the leader of our great country whose democracy is a model for the world, are planning to abolish the firearms registry, after so much work was done to implement it. It is incomprehensible. It is unacceptable.

The women of this same great country, particularly those of Quebec, will remember you as the one who undermined the status of women. That is what we will remember. That much is certain.

In the meantime, if you are curious, take the time to read the enclosed list of given names. It will give you an opportunity to personalize violence against women. This list was created in less than five minutes by gathering the names of approximately 30 women who visit our centre. Imagine if every Canadian woman did the same thing...

We hope that we have made you aware of the violence women experience and we send our respect, particularly if you change your mind about the firearms registry.

Sincerely, Andrée Larochelle, case worker and communications officer

I have here the list of names to which the letter refers: Manon, Kim, Nathalie, Guétane, Brigitte, Micheline, Gisèle, Josée, Nicole, Isabelle, Linda, Cécile, Paulette, Lorraine, Diane, Manon, Johanne, Sylviane, Linda, Jacqueline, Suzanne, Ginette, Carole, Sylvie, France, Pauline, Josée, Nicole, Tanya, Laurie, Ronya, Selahna, Cassandra, Ashley, Paula, Amal, Lucie, Rachel, Tanya, Lisa, Lori, Judith, Andrée, Joanie, Chantal, Sandra, Karine, Lise, Lucie, Nancy, France, Danielle, Marie-Karine, Francine, Manon, Maude, Huguette, Chantal, Marianne, Sophie, Jacqueline, Michelle, Thérèse, Jeannine, Kim, Mélissa, Mélanie, Jacynthe, Mylène, Micheline, Nathalie. I did not read all the names. These are just a few of the victims.

On behalf of the women's centre in Lachute, the women and police officers in the Province of Quebec and everyone else across Canada who has spoken out against Bill C-19, I am asking all the members of the House to vote against this reckless and ill-conceived bill.

[Business of Supply, February 2nd, 2012]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Saint-Lambert has asked an excellent question.

It gives me the opportunity to talk briefly about a lovely elderly gentleman from my riding whose name is Jacques. He relies on his community involvement to keep him positive because he and his wife can hardly make ends meet. He tells me that we need to do something to help protect seniors who have worked so hard to build this country.

Instead of spending billions on corporate tax giveaways and cutting support to seniors, which will particularly affect senior women, we need to expand the CPP. We in the NDP have long urged this. A modest increase in premiums could finance the doubling of the CPP benefits for all Canadian workers. This would provide real, sustainable retirement security for Canadians.

I urge that we protect our retirees from being robbed of their pensions, such as the retirees of Papiers Fraser. The NDP is also working on that.

[Business of Supply, February 2nd, 2012]

Madam Speaker, it is extremely important to point out that the OAS and GIS are easily sustainable and are actually projected to decrease in cost relative to the size of the economy in the long run. We should not be considering this the time to cut back. What we should be doing is taking practical, affordable measures to lift every senior out of poverty by expanding the GIS, not by making it worse by slashing old age security. We need to be able to tell all generations that they can live in dignity in their old age.

[Business of Supply, February 2nd, 2012]

Madam Speaker, as I mentioned briefly in my speech, it is often women who do not work in jobs with benefits that allow them to save for pensions. Women make 50% of what men make. Therefore, drawing on the implications of that, it is women who benefit overall from GIS and OAS.

Also, women tend to live longer. The majority of seniors in this country today and in the future are and will be women, so it does affect women disproportionately.

[Business of Supply, February 2nd, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Edmonton—Strathcona.

I rise here today to defend the rights of the people of my riding, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel. These Canadians, including men and women from Thurso, Brownsburg, Saint-Placide and Lachute, will be affected by the Conservatives' attack on old age security.

My riding is definitely not the only one to lose industries, but my constituents have been hit hard, because they are losing their jobs. Plus, young people are leaving the region because of the shortage of opportunities for work and education. Problems accessing health care are also not unique to my riding, especially considering our aging population. There are many ridings like mine, and I urge all families and all workers from those regions to rise up against what this government is proposing, that is, reducing the deficit by attacking people's pensions.

Like many of the cuts proposed by the government, the planned attack on OAS and the GIS is very insidious because it is directed against the most vulnerable Canadians. In fact, this measure affects those already dealing with poverty, illness, advanced age and, at times, disabilities caused by aging. This is a particularly despicable attack because those who will be most affected are middle-class workers and the poorest Canadians. They work at physically demanding jobs and often cannot continue working until 65, let alone 67. It is also difficult for the disabled and those suffering from chronic illnesses to work past the age of 65.

It is obvious that increasing the retirement age and making cuts to social solidarity programs for seniors will harm the less fortunate, especially women and particularly single mothers. The Conservatives have an unfortunate habit of attacking those groups in our society who have the greatest difficulty being heard. By actively attacking these groups, the Conservatives are ignoring the problems of seniors, women, the less fortunate, aboriginal peoples, people who need employment insurance and a number of other groups. Because of the Conservatives' attitude, we should not be surprised that they are trying to attack those who will retire in the future. These groups often believe that they do not have a voice. But they do have a voice in this House. The people of my riding can depend on me. People in every Quebec region have a voice thanks to the NDP.

According to Statistics Canada, the median income in Argenteuil and Papineau is 10% to 20% lower than in the rest of Quebec even though household size is the same. Families in my riding are not rich like the big businesses that have been given tax breaks by the Prime Minister and have then moved a staggering number of jobs outside Canada.

That is the situation for many workers in my riding. Young people from the region are leaving because there are no jobs. These young people do not have access to higher education. Although the region is not far from major centres, the public transit system that would give them access to colleges and universities is either inadequate or non-existent. As a result, young people are leaving the region and cannot take care of their aging parents.

The median age in Argenteuil and Papineau is about 10 years higher than in the rest of Quebec and will continue to increase in the future. The average income after taxes is approximately $17,000 and decreasing as a result of the economic situation affecting Canada and the world. People like the ones in my riding are in dire need of support from programs such as old age security and the guaranteed income supplement.

Income inequality continues to grow in Canada. No one can really predict what type of long-term damage the economic crisis will cause for Canadians. We absolutely must not play sorcerer's apprentice with social solidarity programs because they have been helping retirees with modest incomes since the 1960s.

In my riding, those are the fallouts.

First, I will speak for the women of my riding. I sit on the Status of Women committee and we have spent the past three months studying senior women. Anything that hurts our seniors, hurts our senior women the most. Women are substantially poorer than men, both in my riding and across Canada. Fourteen per cent of single women live under the poverty line and a staggering 52.1% of single women with small children live below the poverty line. The reasons for this are systemic and not that complicated. EI, parental leave and pay equity are needed to close the gender gap, but what this means to my argument today is that women are far less likely than men to benefit from CPP, private pensions or RRSPs. Women are not the top income earners in the country since so much of their contributing labour is unpaid.

There are far more senior women than men. Women live longer than men. The fact that senior women are much poorer than senior men has deeper roots. This makes OAS and GIS so important to women.

Women today need to understand that the factors that plunge them into poverty in their old age are systemic and require structural solutions.

We assume that our public health care system will give all seniors what they need to stay healthy. I thought this, too, until I studied the case of elder abuse. I learned that of all the forms of health care offered in Canada it is seniors' care that is not necessarily covered under the Canada Health Act. Long-term care, both in home and in facilities, is not necessarily covered, and the exorbitant costs of pharmaceuticals, wheelchairs and walkers are also not provided for. Of all the forms of health care in this country, it is seniors who suffer the most from a two-tiered, inequitable system.

When a senior's income hovers around $18,000 a year and the children have left the hometown because the factory has closed down, for that senior to lose any part of his or her OAS and GIS will be a major blow that will necessarily plunge the individual below the poverty line.

Here is another thing that plunged the workers in my riding below the poverty line. When Fraser Papers closed in Thurso, Quebec, it declared bankruptcy, which meant that it was legal for it to divest itself of all workers' pensions. The fact that the company declared bankruptcy is dubious enough since the major financial corporation that owned the controlling shares of Fraser Papers is Brookfield Asset Management, a company that continues to turn huge profits on Bay Street today while it thanks our Prime Minister for its tax breaks. These workers, who invested in their pensions throughout their entire lives, lost them entirely through a corporate sleight of hand. We need to pass the NDP bill that would protect pensioners such as those.

Now I must now go to those pensioners, who have already lost so much, and tell them that they can no longer rely on their OAS and GIS.

Until the Prime Minister looks the hard-working people of Thurso and the women of my riding in the eyes and offers them a way out of the poverty they are facing, it is deplorable to talk about needing to shrink the deficit because of changing demographics.

Let us speak about demographics. The Prime Minister likes to remind us that the population is changing. Yes, we are aging. That is a fact we must prepare for. What he fails to say is that poverty among seniors is also on the rise and, according to forecasts, will continue to rise. Middle-class jobs are disappearing and being replaced by low-paying jobs that are often only part time. People who work in these low-paying jobs, who do not get enough hours and do not receive any benefits, will not be adequately protected by employment insurance. The rich are getting richer. The government is rushing to invest in big business and grant tax breaks to the wealthy, while the poor continue to sink deeper into poverty.

The Conservatives' threat to old age security is another measure that will increase inequality. This is not the time to invest in oil and in fighter jets. It is not the time to impose an austerity budget.

The Conservatives are questioning our ability to invest in social programs. I would respond by asking them these two questions. How can we not invest in social programs? What could be more important than the health, security and dignity of Canadians?

[Status of Women, December 14th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, there are very few female judges in federal courts and the situation is not about to change. In some provinces, no women sit on the advisory committees that provide recommendations to the government about judicial appointments, yet friends of the Conservatives have no difficulty obtaining positions. In Quebec, five people appointed by the government are party insiders.

Why does this government give jobs to its friends and not do anything about gender equality?

[Aboriginal Affairs, December 13th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the government should be ashamed of itself. The UN sounded the alarm about missing and murdered aboriginal women years ago and it has now launched an investigation into this matter. The government is refusing to act and is ignoring this serious situation, adding yet another blemish on Canada's international reputation. The government's contempt for aboriginal people is completely horrifying.

Will this government listen to and co-operate fully with the UN in order to finally protect aboriginal women?

[Committees of the House, December 12th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the original purpose of the study of violence against Aboriginal women was to gain a better understanding of the extent and nature of violence, examine the root causes and recommend solutions in consultation with Aboriginal women.

This report does not do that. Over 150 witnesses spoke to the committee and offered sound recommendations to the government.

I am very sad to announce that the report tabled in the House today has virtually nothing in common with the testimony. The report omits huge portions of the content heard during testimony, offers no recommendations whatsoever that would commit the government to act, and does not acknowledge the humanitarian crisis facing aboriginal women.

This report does not really broach the subject of violence. It is nothing but a list of government programs. And yet, the committee did not hear most of the contents of this report. The programs described as solutions in this report were never mentioned. The final report silences aboriginal women in an attempt to clear the government of all responsibility.

New Democrats have written a dissenting opinion to make recommendations based on the witness testimony. New Democrats will honour the testimony aboriginal women offered us. We will work on collaborative, consultative solutions to end the systemic violence. We will never be complacent to this crisis.

[Status of Women, December 7th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, when we are speaking about pay equity, we are speaking about poverty, and poverty is a women's issue.

According to the Global Gender Gap Index, Canadian women make up half of the labour force in this country today. Women are working as much as men, and yet we are not earning as much as men. Not only that, but we have not been earning as much as men in the same pitiful way for decades. This is indicative of systemic discrimination in the labour force and it is not going to be solved with the government closing its eyes to the problem. It will come when we institute sound proactive legislation that safeguards these rights from the moment wages are set.

Today, 1.6 million women live in poverty and it is easy to understand why. It is because the same wage gap that exists between men and women presents itself again in the wage gap between women with children and women without children. In addition, 52% of single mothers with small children live below the poverty line. More than half of single mothers with little children are in need.

Canada needs a national child care strategy. Our parental leave policies are not good enough and there is no strategy. The Conservatives have never taken the problem of the feminization of poverty seriously.

[Status of Women, December 7th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, in Canada, women have been earning only 71¢ for every $1 men earn for the past four decades. This is a serious problem. The fact that mothers— women who have children—earn approximately 50¢ for every $1 earned by men is an outrage.

The government claims to be a world leader when it comes to women's rights, but it is not taking any concrete action to remedy the systemic discrimination against women in Quebec and Canada. They need quality child care, parental leave, affordable housing and economic independence. The NDP has been saying this for years, the feminist movement has been saying it for decades and women have been saying it for generations. It is nothing new.

This is not a complicated situation. We are talking about providing women with the tools they need to overcome income inequality in Canada. The past four decades of inaction in the matter of equal pay for equal work is directly related to the Liberals' and the Conservatives' lack of political will. Pay equity ensures that Canadians with jobs of equal or comparable value receive comparable pay. Nothing could be simpler.

The undervaluation of women's work and their segregation in the work world are problems that are unfortunately deeply ingrained in employers' pay systems. We must rethink pay equity. In other words, if a job that is traditionally male-dominated is of comparable value to another job that is traditionally female-dominated, employees in both jobs should receive the same pay. It is not always easy to see that the gender-based division of work is the cause of the pay inequity that is still present today. That is why we need clear guidelines to eliminate gender-based wage discrimination.

We need comprehensive guidelines in place to safeguard against wage discrimination. In 2008, when the government had the chance to create a proactive pay equity law, it held in its hands the 571-page 2004 national pay equity task force report, which was written according to the federal review conducted over the course of four years. This report examined, extensively, federal pay equity legislation from 1977 to present. It recognized the inherent problems with the previous regime and called for proactive legislation to be enacted.

Not surprisingly, the government failed to enact proactive legislation, which has already proven to be successful in Ontario, Quebec and Manitoba. Instead, what Canadian women were given is the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act which effectively takes the right to be paid equal wages for equal value work out of the Canadian Human Rights Act and makes it negotiable as a labour right.

The very notion that wage discrimination based on gender, race or age could be framed as anything less than a charter protected human right is absurd. However, my grievance with the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act is that it is impractical as well as absurd.

A complaints-based process as opposed to a proactive regime relies on the ability of an individual to bring a grievance against her employer. This system not only encourages a protracted adversarial litigation process but, in addition, the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act prohibits labour unions from assisting their members in pay equity complaints.

We know from under the old complaints-based regime that it is nearly impossible for an unassisted individual to successfully prosecute a pay equity complaint. It was reported at length by the pay equity task force in 2004 that we cannot rely on the willingness of employers to move toward equal pay for equal value work.

I reiterate my question to the government. Canada is failing to provide Canadians with the tools they need to close the gender gap. When will the government commit to a proactive pay equity regime as the first step to improving gender equity?