“Canadian women in a wide variety of roles, jobs, and lifestyles across the country deserve to be recognized for their courage, determination, and sacrifices,” said Green Party Leader Elizabeth May, MP Saanich-Gulf Islands.

The list of changes affecting women negatively since the Harper Conservatives came into power in 2006 includes:

• In 2006, Stephen Harper’s first policy announcement as prime minister was to cut Canada’s year-old, $5-billion national child-care plan, supported by all provincial governments, despite protests from child-care advocates and the provinces.
• In 2006, Status of Women Canada (SWC) funding was temporarily cut by $5 million, forcing the closure of 12 of its 16 regional offices; changing the SWC Women’s Program mandate to exclude “gender equality and political justice;” redrafting funding criteria so that advocacy groups and women’s service providers, such as rape crisis centres, are ineligible for funding.
• In 2007, offices for the National Association of Women and the Law, a well-respected organization that had made valuable contributions to improving women’s human rights in Canada, were closed.  Funding was also eliminated for other women’s organizations like the Canadian Research Institute for the Advancement of Women (CRIAW).
• In 2009, the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act allowed public sector employers to consider “market demand” when setting compensation levels – preserving the policy of paying men more than women for equal work
• In 2010-2011, Status of Women Canada spent just over $10 million on violence against women – an inadequate response to a serious problem which directly affects an estimated one in six Canadians and costs the economy nearly $7 billion dollars a year in missed work, medical, policing, and justice expenses.  Advocates have called on the federal government to work with the provinces and territories to develop a national strategy and action plan to combat violence against women.
• The challenges facing First Nations women are particularly worrying.  Sisters in Spirit, supported by the Green Party and others, have demanded an open, public inquiry into the alarmingly high rates of murdered and missing aboriginal women – without success.

“Not only have key programs and organizations been cut or eliminated in recent years, but there has been little or no progress in reducing violence against women and girls across Canada,” said Rebecca Harrison, Green Party Women’s Issues Critic.  “There have been few initiatives to deal with other issues facing women, including poverty, poor health, inadequate housing, and too few full-time jobs.”

In its October, 2012, gender gap ranking, the World Economic Forum revealed that Canada had slipped three spots compared to 135 other countries in terms of gender equality.   In fact, we have dropped from the world’s Top 20 countries mainly because of low female representation in politics.   Canada is now 21st – behind the Philippines, Latvia, Cuba and Nicaragua.

“As we celebrate the women of today, we should also confront the fact that, with cuts to Old Age Security and Employment Insurance, for example, women of the future will know even greater insecurity,” said May.  “Our best gift to them is to fight to protect and restore our social programs and create a more egalitarian society.”

Note: Our media advisory for Ms. May’s International Women’s Day event in Vancouver.

The post Green Party Exposes Worsening Conditions for Canadian Women appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Elizabeth May is a lone voice in the wilderness and yet she has made her presence known in our riding far more than Gary Lunn who only appeared when there was a tree to be planted or a highway to open.

Elizabeth May cares and she is willing to stand up for what is right. The federal government under Harper is in a sad and sorry state when retirement for pensioners’ age is increased, the CBC is deprived and 20,000 people laid off so Harper can purchase fighter jets. For what purpose? Canada has come a long way from our peacekeeping roots.

It is a sad day for us all.

Lili Soleil-Garbutt
Sidney

View the full original article >>

The post May the ‘lone voice in the wilderness’ appeared first on Elizabeth May.

For a principled Conservative like Andrew Coyne, the budget failed to meet traditional conservative values. I agree.  One of those values was conservation of natural resources.

Killing a deficit is never easy. It involves choices.  With our Green Scissors package of proposals, we found lots of places to cut.  Cuts to government advertising, the Prime Minister’s Office budget, subsidies to fossil fuels, nuclear and biotechnology and many other areas are all areas that could provide serious savings.  

The choices made in Paul Martin’s time as Finance Minister were devastating to social services.  In recent history I think most progressive voters would think those were the worst budgets with cuts to health care, down-loading to the provinces and so on.

The measure of harm from budgets has become percentage cut in funding. So a 6% cut in Environment Canada spending or 4% cut in Parks does not sound like an anti-environmental budget.   

Here is why this is worse.  The most serious threat to our future is the climate crisis.  A responsible government would be working to reduce fossil fuel dependence and maximize jobs in energy efficiency retrofits, conservation, and investments in renewable energy. This budget does not even mention climate change. 

Instead, it is re-writing environmental laws and regulations to speed the development of fossil fuels.  The Enbridge pipeline and supertanker scheme was clearly a beneficiary of the budget.  The so-called “streamlining” of environmental assessment is all about ending environmental reviews at the federal level wherever possible, passing them to the provinces.  Incredibly, the budget time limits on environmental reviews are claimed to apply retroactively to the review already underway (and already weakened by the 2010 budget implemention act changes to CEAA) on the Enbridge mega-pipeline across the Rockies to Kitimat to run super tankers through the most treacherous waters on earth.

Money is being spent in the millions on pipeline agencies, more green-washing for “tanker safety” and money to help develop the off-shore from what looks like the government undertaking seismic testing for the industry.

The budget targets as its primary focus the development of fossil fuels  — off-shore drilling, even targeting the sensitive and highly productive fisheries resource in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, on export of bitumen crude for jobs in refineries in other countries, and expansion in the oil sands.

The voices of critics are being silenced.  Even the tame, in-house agency, the National Round Table of Environment and Economy is being killed.  Created under Brian Mulroney, the NRTEE had continues to talk about climate change.  Its reports were developed in multi-stakeholder processes always involving the industry, but even mentioning climate change is dangerous if you are by statute an advisor to government.  So its legislation is to be repealed, budget eliminated.

And environmental groups have prompted a new $8 million to the Canada Revenues Agency  — $8 million to develop the new rules to shut down criticism – to develop “sanctions” against charities that become too “political.”

This is devastating.  Taken together, this is a war on the environment. It cannot go unchallenged. In the House, Stephen Harper has the votes and after a heated and likely unpleasant round of political theatre, it will pass. We need a grassroots mobilization that says to Stephen Harper, “we will not abandon our children and grandchildren to the ravages of the climate crisis. You have no right to turn your back on our kids. We will stop you.”

The post Why the 2012 budget is the worst in the history of Canada appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Following the memorable historical plunge from a high place experienced by former PM Brian Mulroney over threats to alter our pension plans (“Good bye Charlie Brown”), I can only imagine the shock of Conservative backbenchers at home in Ottawa when their boss stepped out on the ledge in Davos.

The contradictions flew back and forth, (the Conservatives spin machine claimed media was incorrectly interpreting his remarks, and then clarifications ensued that pensions would be changed.  Each contradiction was prefaced with “let me be clear.”).

As the dust settles, it seems increasingly clear that Budget 2012 will include a change in which retirement age shifts from 65 to 67.  I had a more or less clear reply from Minister responsible for Seniors, Alice Wong, on this point when I put the question to her in the House.  The only real question about Harper’s intent remaining is whether the changes will be sudden or gradual and over what period of time.  My bet is that the budget will tell 50 year olds to be prepared to work another 17 years.

The question we should be asking is: is this necessary?  The Parliamentary Budget Officer says “no.”  The PBO report issued February 8 states that, having off-loaded 2 % of health care costs on the provinces, Ottawa has room to absorb the bump created be retiring baby boomers.  In fact, the PBO report says we can increase OAS.

Some commentators are wondering why Stephen Harper would risk changing basic entitlements to OAS.  Many assume he both protects his base and keeps his election promises.  This might be a good time for the seniors who lost their savings with Harper’s reversal on taxing income trusts (Halloween 2006) to brief those counting on retirement at 65.  We can push back and protect Old Age Security.  It is time to mobilize. This is no time to retire from activism.

Originally published in the CARP publication CARP OnlineAction

The post On Old Age Security appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): Mr. Speaker, we hear there will be reasonable time. I find the message from the government confusing. We are told on one hand that we are panicking needlessly about things the Prime Minister said in Davos. On the other hand, seniors are very concerned and so are people approaching retirement age.

When the minister says there will be reasonable time for a phase-in of, for instance, moving the point of earliest receipt of benefits to age 67, how much time does the minister think is reasonable?

Hon. Alice Wong: Mr. Speaker, we are currently working on that and when the budget comes down, the details will be there.

This year’s budget is expected to be released in March.

The post Minister confirms plans to delay retirement age to 67- details will be in budget appeared first on Elizabeth May.

[6Sy7B1jEOR8]

When the minister says that there will be reasonable time for a phase-in of, for instance, moving the point of earliest receipt of benefits to age 67, how much time does the minister think is reasonable?

Hon. Alice Wong: Mr. Speaker, we are currently working on that and when the budget comes down, the details will be there.

The post Opposition Motion – Old Age Security appeared first on Elizabeth May.