36th Parliament, 2nd Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 129
CONTENTS
Monday, October 16, 2000
1100
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Motion No. 425—Speaker's Ruling
|
| The Speaker |
1105
1110
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| FIREFIGHTERS' PENSIONS
|
| Motion
|
| Mr. Murray Calder |
| Motion
|
1115
1120
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1125
1130
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
1135
1140
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1145
1150
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
1155
1200
| Mr. Rick Limoges |
1205
| Mrs. Sue Barnes |
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
1210
| REPORT OF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
|
| The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland) |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| SUPPLY
|
| Allotted Day—Poverty and Violence Against Women
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Motion
|
1215
1220
| Ms. Christiane Gagnon |
1225
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
1230
1235
| Amendment
|
| Mrs. Pauline Picard |
1240
| Hon. Hedy Fry |
1245
1250
1255
1300
| Ms. Christiane Gagnon |
1305
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1310
| Miss Deborah Grey |
1315
1320
1325
| Hon. Hedy Fry |
1330
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1335
| Ms. Jean Augustine |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
1340
1345
| Mrs. Sue Barnes |
1350
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
1355
| Mr. Pat Martin |
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| JIM STONE
|
| Mr. Paul DeVillers |
| THE LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
1400
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Réginald Bélair |
| FIJI
|
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
| WORLD MARCH OF WOMEN
|
| Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
| YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
|
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
| VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
|
| Mrs. Sue Barnes |
1405
| WORLD MARCH OF WOMEN
|
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| WORLD MARCH OF WOMEN
|
| Ms. Jean Augustine |
| WORLD FOOD DAY
|
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Stan Keyes |
| WOMEN'S RIGHTS
|
| Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
1410
| WORLD MARCH OF WOMEN
|
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
| YOUNG ENTREPRENEUR AWARDS
|
| Mr. John Cannis |
| WORLD MARCH OF WOMEN
|
| Mr. Jean Dubé |
| WORLD FOOD DAY
|
| Mr. Robert Bertrand |
| THE LATE DR. MICHAEL SMITH
|
| Mr. Ted McWhinney |
1415
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| GRANTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
1420
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Mr. John Cannis |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| TAXATION
|
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
1425
| WOMEN'S RIGHTS
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
1430
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
| Hon. Maria Minna |
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
1435
| REPORT OF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| SOCIAL HOUSING
|
| Ms. Christiane Gagnon |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| Ms. Christiane Gagnon |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| CANADIAN HERITAGE
|
| Mr. John Reynolds |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| Mr. John Reynolds |
1440
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| WORLD MARCH OF WOMEN
|
| Mrs. Pauline Picard |
| Hon. Hedy Fry |
| THE ECONOMY
|
| Ms. Carolyn Bennett |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| CANADIAN HERITAGE
|
| Ms. Louise Hardy |
1445
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| Ms. Louise Hardy |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| TRANSPORT CANADA
|
| Mr. Bill Casey |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| Mr. Bill Casey |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| WORLD MARCH OF WOMEN
|
| Ms. Judy Sgro |
| Hon. Hedy Fry |
| VETERANS AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
1450
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| PARENTAL LEAVE
|
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| POVERTY
|
| Ms. Angela Vautour |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
1455
| INFRASTRUCTURE
|
| Mr. John Harvard |
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| FEDERAL ELECTION
|
| Mr. John Nunziata |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| REPORT OF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
|
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| PAY EQUITY
|
| Mrs. Monique Guay |
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Dennis Gruending |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
1500
| GUN REGISTRY
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
1505
| HAZARDOUS PRODUCTS ACT
|
| Bill C-506. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. John McKay |
| DEFENCE PRODUCTION ACT
|
| Bill S-25. Introduction and first reading
|
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| AN ACT TO INCORPORATE THE WESTERN CANADA TELEPHONE COMPANY
|
| Bill S-26. Introduction and first reading
|
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| PETITIONS
|
| Kidney Research
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
1510
| Health Care
|
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
| Immigration
|
| Mr. John Harvard |
| Gasoline Pricing
|
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
| Transgenic Products
|
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
| Health Care
|
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
| Fuel Taxes
|
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
| Child Poverty
|
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
| Canada Post
|
| Mr. Gar Knutson |
| Health Care
|
| Mr. Peter Mancini |
| Mr. John Solomon |
1515
| Crime
|
| Mr. John Solomon |
| Fuel Prices
|
| Mr. Pat Martin |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY DEBATE
|
| Agriculture
|
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
1520
| The Speaker |
| QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| SUPPLY
|
| Allotted Day—Poverty and Violence Against Women
|
| Motion
|
| Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
1525
1530
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
1535
| Ms. Angela Vautour |
| Mr. Philip Mayfield |
| Mr. Mark Muise |
1540
1545
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
1550
| Ms. Angela Vautour |
1555
1600
| Mr. Paul Crête |
1605
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
1610
1615
| Mr. Dennis Gruending |
1620
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
1625
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
1630
1635
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
1640
| Mrs. Sue Barnes |
1645
1650
1655
| Ms. Louise Hardy |
1700
| Ms. Jean Augustine |
1705
1710
| Mr. Philip Mayfield |
1715
| Mr. Dennis Gruending |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
1720
1725
1730
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| Mr. Philip Mayfield |
1735
| Ms. Christiane Gagnon |
1740
1745
| Mr. André Harvey |
1750
| Mr. Jean Dubé |
| Mr. Bernard Patry |
1755
1800
| Mr. Philip Mayfield |
1805
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Ms. Marlene Catterall |
1810
1815
| Division on amendment deferred
|
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
| Infrastructure
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
1820
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 129
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, October 16, 2000
The House met at 11 a.m.
Prayers
1100
[English]
POINTS OF ORDER
MOTION NO. 425—SPEAKER'S RULING
The Speaker: I am now ready to rule on the point of
order raised by the hon. member for Fraser Valley on June 14,
2000 concerning the placement under private members' business of
a motion regarding the Senate's progress on Bill C-247, an act to
amend the criminal code and the Corrections and Conditional
Release Act and on the intervention made by the hon. member for
Langley—Abbotsford on October 5, 2000 on the same subject. I
want to thank both members for their interventions.
1105
[Translation]
I would also like to thank the Leader of the Government in the
House of Commons and the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona for
their contributions on this matter last June.
[English]
In his submission, the hon. member for Fraser Valley contended
that his motion should be more appropriately considered under
motions, under the rubric routine proceedings, a point echoed by
the hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford. The member for Fraser
Valley referred to an earlier question of privilege raised on
September 16, 1996 concerning the failure of a committee to
report a bill back to the House. He drew a parallel between the
principles regarding the fate of that bill and the principles
regarding Bill C-247, which is presently before the Senate. The
member also stated that his motion concerned the proprieties and
authority of the House, which are normally dealt with under
routine proceedings.
I have carefully examined both hon. members' arguments and, in
my opinion, there are two aspects to this point of order. The
first is whether a parallel can be drawn between proceedings in a
House committee on a bill and proceedings in the Senate on a bill
originating in the House of Commons. The hon. member for Fraser
Valley made reference to my earlier ruling on Bill C-234 and I
would like to repeat a part of that statement, which is contained
in Debates, September 23, 1996 at page 4561.
Should a Member or a Minister be of the opinion that a committee
charged with the review of a bill is defying the authority of the
House, he or she may choose to bring it to the attention of the
House by placing on notice a motion to require the committee to
report by a certain date.
As hon. Members know, this can indeed be done under Government
Orders or Private Members' Business, but such a notice of motion
could also be placed under the rubric motions and be dealt with
under Routine Proceedings.
I think that it is important to note that this ruling deals with
an internal situation that lies clearly within the purview of the
House. However, in a bicameral parliament such as ours, the two
Houses share in the making of legislation. Each House is the
master of its own proceedings. The rules of one House cannot
also be applied to the other, nor can one House compel the other
to conduct its work in a specific manner or according to a
specific timetable. Accordingly, in my view the situation with
regard to Bill C-247 is not analogous to the situation that was
at issue with regard to Bill C-234 since the proprieties and
authority of each House are completely independent one from the
other.
The second aspect of this point of order concerns the proper
rubric under which the hon. member's motion should appear on the
order paper. House of Commons Procedure and Practice
states at pages 390-91:
Different categories of business have developed over the years in
response to the need to adapt to the organization of House
business....As a general rule, motions dealing with matters of
substance or government policy are moved either by Ministers
under Government Orders or private Members under Private Members'
Business....the Chair accepts certain motions put on notice by
private Members for consideration under the rubric “Motions”,
such as motions of instruction to committees and for concurrence
in committee reports. When private Members give written notice
of other substantive matters, these motions are placed under
“Private Members' Business” on the Order Paper.
[Translation]
If a member or a minister wishes the House to express an opinion
on any matter which falls outside the narrow scope of what is
considered to be House Business, such motions should properly
appear under Private Members' Business or Government Orders, as
the case may be.
[English]
On that basis, I must rule that the motion under the name of the
hon. member for Fraser Valley placed on the order paper under
private members' business is indeed in its correct place and I
thank him for having brought this matter to the attention of the
House.
1110
The Deputy Speaker: It being 11.10 a.m. the House will
now proceed to private members' business as listed on today's
order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
FIREFIGHTERS' PENSIONS
Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey,
Lib.) moved:
That the government consider the advisability of increasing the
pension accrual rate for firefighters to allow them to retire
with adequate financial provisions for their retirement.
He said: Mr. Speaker, Canada's professional firefighters have a
long and proud history of protecting the lives and property of
their neighbours. For their selflessness and service to the
public they rightly enjoy the respect and admiration of the
Canadian people and the members of the House. I am confident
that we all share the same image of the professional firefighter:
a highly trained, courageous man or woman who assists us when
emergencies arise.
The image is certainly accurate. I know first-hand the great
job that our firefighters perform. I would imagine that members
remember the date 1958. I remember it as a child of six years.
At around 2 o'clock in the morning I remember my father crashing
through the farmhouse telling all of us to get up, get dressed
and get out of the house because the barn was on fire. The
building that burned that night was a three story structure, 40'
by 175', 21,000 square feet. I can remember the firefighters
that night trying to save the barn and finally having to give up.
They then tried to save our farmhouse, which they succeeded in
doing. I remember them hooking a tractor onto a huge propane
tank beside the barn, disconnecting the tank and getting it away
before it left a very large hole in the ground. They were
successful.
I remember that the individuals who fought the fire that night
took their lives in their hands on a number of different
instances. It is something that has been branded on my mind and
in my memory. I will carry with me as long as I live the memory
of what happened that night.
Perhaps there are other members in the House who have also
benefited from such bravery and professionalism during an
emergency situation, or who have at least witnessed firefighters
in action at the scene of a fire, an accident, a medical
emergency or some other kind of emergency.
We owe the firefighters a debt of gratitude. There is no
question about it. In the name of fairness and in the hopes of
correcting a long-standing inequity, I rise today to share
another image of the professional firefighter, one not so widely
known but accurate nonetheless. I am talking about the
individual firefighter who spends 30 years in a career that has
one of the highest rates of on the job injury and illness, who
faces the result of a career spent in the line of toxic
substances, communicable diseases and a myriad of dangerous
situations. It should be noted that while other Canadian workers
have the right to refuse dangerous workplace situations, the
professional firefighter does not enjoy the same right. Danger
is an everyday reality for them. It is part of the job.
According to data collected by the International Association of
Fire Fighters, which represents 17,000 professional firefighters
and emergency medical personnel in Canada, firefighters
experience the highest rate of job related injury and illness of
any sector of the workforce. In 1997 almost one in three
firefighters suffered an injury or illness in the line of duty,
far exceeding and in fact tripling the rate of injury and illness
experienced in other sectors such as mining, construction,
manufacturing or agriculture. I am a farmer and I know the
injury level in agriculture.
1115
Several studies have showed a link between the occupation of
firefighting, heart disease and certain types of cancer. This is
as a result of a firefighter's exposure during the course of a
career to toxic substances encountered while attacking blazes in
chemical and industrial settings, a type of fire that is becoming
more and more common in Canada.
We all remember too well the fire that raged for four days in
July of 1997 at the Plastimet recycling facility in Hamilton,
Ontario. More than 100 Hamilton firefighters were exposed to
burning polyvinyls. They fought to save the city from this toxic
inferno and were successful. However, the long term health
effects on these firefighters may not be known for several years.
To give the House an example of that, I had a chance to talk to
these firefighters last year when they were in Ottawa. Two of
the fire trucks that were involved in that blaze were aluminium.
They were totalled by the chemicals. The trucks could not be
repaired and they had to do away with them. The firefighters
were exposed to those same chemicals.
In a past experience, a toxic fire at a Saskatoon landfill site
in 1982 illustrated that the long term health effects are in fact
a sad reality. Six of the 12 firefighters who fought that blaze
are dead. Cancers have been diagnosed among those who survived.
To give another illustration, one month ago the International
Association of Fire Fighters added the names of more than 50
firefighters from across North America to its memorial in
Colorado Springs. All of them were firefighters who died in the
line of duty during the previous 12 months. This is the highest
number of names added to the memorial in a given year. It is
another reason why I think it is appropriate that we deal with
this motion today.
I remind the members that line of duty means the same as in the
course of saving lives and properties of people in the
communities.
Canada's Income Tax Act recognizes the dangerous nature of
firefighting and deems firefighters to be members of a public
safety occupation. This permits them to retire early at age 55,
which has long been considered to be in the best interests of
firefighters and the communities they serve.
However, there is a problem with the regulation in that it stops
there. It permits firefighters to retire at age 55 but it does
not contain any mechanism to allow them to make up for the
retirement incomes they forfeit because of an early retirement.
This is a definite inequity which has robbed many firefighters
and their families of the right to retire with dignity and with
financial security.
It is an inequity that the International Association of Fire
Fighters has been raising with the Canadian government since the
1970s. This is too long. It is an inequity that our
firefighters have endured long enough.
It is time to add concrete regulatory action to the respect and
admiration we give our professional firefighters. As it stands,
a firefighter retiring at the age of 55 with 30 years of
accredited service will retire with 60% of his or her
pre-retirement income according to the 2% annual accrual rate
that he or she and other Canadians contribute to their registered
pensions. This is just too low when the government identifies
70% of the pre-retirement income as a benchmark for the enjoyment
of an adequate standard of living in retirement.
For three years now a proposal has existed which would correct
this injustice. It involves a very simple regulatory change to
the Income Tax Act, something that can be done easily and without
rewriting the legislation. It involves a regulatory increase in
the yearly accrual rate for professional firefighters' registered
pensions from the current 2% to 2.33% for the years of accredited
service.
1120
Why 2.33%? This is the magic number for firefighters. With a
2.33% accrual rate, a firefighter who retires at age 55 after 30
years of service will achieve 70% of his or her pre-retirement
income reaching that important benchmark for the quality of life
in retirement. Again, this regulatory change can be done very
easily and it would come at no cost to the Canadian government or
the Canadian taxpayer. This is a win-win situation.
This is long overdue. It is a regulatory change. It is simply
the first step in pension fairness for firefighters. It would
allow the higher accrual rate to be negotiated and reflected in
provincial pension plans. The final ingredient comes at the
collective bargaining process at the local level. However, it
starts here at the federal level.
Less than one year ago the Standing Committee on Finance
released its report to the finance minister. In the report the
committee, after listening to a compelling presentation from the
International Association of Fire Fighters during its prebudget
consultation exercise, acknowledged the inequity in firefighters'
pensions and recommended that the finance minister consider
taking action in correcting it.
Shortly afterwards, in April of this year, professional
firefighters from across Canada descended on Parliament Hill
during their annual lobbying conference. Of the 154 MPs who met
with the firefighters, 101 of them, a full two-thirds, said that
they supported an increase in the accrual rate for firefighters'
registered pension plans in the name of fairness.
Support for this initiative and other methods of pension
fairness for our nation's professional firefighters was voiced in
the House in April echoing the growing chorus of support for this
initiative. As it stands, there is no concrete action toward
correcting this injustice. This is our opportunity to provide
meaningful pension reform for Canada's heroes.
Let us not let it slip away. Let us take this opportunity to
tell our professional firefighters and the people of Canada that
we recognize the sacrifices that firefighters make in the course
of their career. We are prepared to take action on their very
legitimate concern about their right to retire with dignity and
with security.
Firefighters are not asking to be put on a level above Canadian
workers, they are asking to be treated the same. They are asking
the government to enact a regulatory change under the Income Tax
Act that will allow them to retire with the same standard of
living as other working Canadians.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have the
opportunity to speak on this private member's bill introduced by
my colleague who just spoke.
This is a private member's bill designed to address a concern of
a profession that meets with members of parliament each and every
year on the Hill. I would say that this particular group does
one of the best jobs on putting forward its concerns to members
of parliament than any of the groups who we meet with from time
to time. It prepares its briefs very well. It makes its issues
clear and concise. It involves its grassroots members in the
effort. It is not just professionals or paid lobbyist but real
people in our communities who talk to us about their concerns. We
appreciate the efforts they take to meet with us and to work with
us on their concerns.
My colleague and others in the House who will speak, speak for
all Canadians in expressing the appreciation that all of us feel
for the work of firefighters. The job entails a great deal of
danger and involves a great deal of physical and mental ability.
There has to be a lot of not only physical strength and fitness
but also good judgement, bravery and ability to meet challenges
in an effective way in this profession. We believe that some of
the finest members of our community are involved in the
firefighting profession.
1125
This is sometimes a profession that is not appreciated as much
as it should be until some of us experience firsthand the need
for the kind of rescue operations that firefighters offer when
our homes, our businesses or our communities are touched by fire
and by the danger which firefighters deal with each and every
day.
Firefighters are deserving of the highest praise, gratitude and
appreciation by Canadians and by members of our community. We
want to give them that appreciation today. This bill gives us an
opportunity to emphasize how much we appreciate and value the
work of firefighters in our communities and in our cities.
In many of our rural communities, there are volunteer
firefighters. They carry pagers and if there is a fire or a
situation in the community that calls for their services they
drop everything to respond. These volunteers sometimes leave
some pretty important situations in order to help out other
members of the community.
I heard a story about a volunteer firefighter who was at his
daughter's graduation when his pager went off. He simply left to
help other families and other members of the community even
though his daughter was graduating that day.
Again, we want to express appreciation for volunteer
firefighters across our nation, many of whom work hard in other
jobs but are still willing to be on call all the time to assist
their community and their fellow citizens. The concern for
fellow citizens which is inherent in the firefighting occupation
is something that is very praiseworthy and we want to acknowledge
that today.
The firefighters have put forward, in the seven years that I
have been in parliament, three major concerns each and every
year.
One was that dangerous goods be tracked across the country so
that when there was a fire involving trains or trucks
transporting dangerous chemical, firefighters would have a very
quick and easy way of ascertaining what chemicals might have been
involved in a particular fire so they would know how to deal
with the chemicals.
Second, they asked for the opportunity to find out, when
they were contaminated by blood in an emergency situation, whether
they were infected with a dangerous disease.
I am pleased to report that my colleague from Fraser Valley West
put forward a private member's bill called the blood samples act
that would allow firefighters to obtain an analysis of blood that
they were contaminated with and which they felt may have infected
them. This bill passed second reading in the House and is now in
committee. We are hopeful that this blood samples act, brought
forward by my colleague from Fraser Valley West, will pass all
readings in the House, will be passed by the senate and become
law so that firefighters will have the peace of mind they need
knowing they can ascertain if they were infected inadvertently
with a dangerous communicable disease. This was another step
brought forward by a private member of the House to assist
firefighters and to respond to their concerns.
The third issue that firefighters have consistently brought
forward is the matter of the Canada pension plan and the changes
that they are requesting. We have this motion today and I will
read it:
That the government consider the advisability of increasing the
pension accrual rate for firefighters to allow them to retire
with adequate financial provisions for their retirement.
1130
I think it is fair to say that the wording of the motion is a
little bit tentative. Even if we pass the motion, the government
would simply be considering the advisability of making these
changes. The motion would not have the effect of actually making
the changes. It is perhaps a small step. I do not fault the
mover of the motion for the wording because I am sure that it was
well considered.
I want to point out that even if the changes to the Canada
pension plan, which we are being asked to consider, were put into
place they would not really allow firefighters to retire with
adequate financial provisions. The Canada pension plan is
designed to replace about one-quarter of the retirement needs of
working Canadians. Even changes that would increase the accrual
rate for firefighters would provide only a very small portion of
the pensions that they need.
If this matter was to go forward for consideration there would
be three issues that would be debated before the House and in
committee: first, the issue of fairness and equity; second, the
issue of coherence of the pension plan; and third, the issue of
the best interests of firefighters or how any profession might
best meet their retirement needs.
On the first issue of equity and fairness, many people have
raised the fact that other professions must retire early, such as
the military, or often retire early and become involved in
stressful occupations within the public service. The question
would be whether making special provisions for one profession
would not lead to concerns about fairness and equity to other
professions. I think that is an issue that needs to be
considered and addressed.
The second issue would be that of whether the Canada pension
plan, which is a pension plan for all Canadian workers, is the
proper instrument of public policy to address specific concerns
for specific groups that may access the plan. Of course the more
a plan is tailored for different groups the more difficult it
becomes to administer and the more costly. That also is something
that experts will talk about.
The third concern is whether the Canada pension plan, which in
the future will yield less than a 2% rate of return, is the
instrument that firefighters, and particularly those entering the
profession, would want to count on for retirement income. There
is some concern, and we have raised this in the House, about the
Canada pension plan and its long term viability.
Those are issues that we would be discussing if the motion is
approved by the House. I want to say how much we appreciate the
the firefighters taking the trouble to put their issues forward
to us so clearly. We are pleased with the work they do. We
appreciate them and we are also pleased to consider their
concerns today in this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak to this private member's motion, and
congratulate the member for Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey on his
interesting proposal.
The purpose of his motion is to restore equity with respect to
CPP premiums for the firefighters of Quebec and of Canada, who
are so important to the life of this country. That is why it
deserves our careful attention.
Under the existing Income Tax Act, the occupation of firefighter
is one associated with public safety.
Firefighters are therefore forced to retire when they reach the
age of 60. Over the years, a number of commissions of inquiry
in Quebec, as well as in Ontario and elsewhere in Canada, have
suggested that the age of retirement be 55 because this is a
high risk sector.
It is a high risk sector not just because of the sometimes fatal
injuries that firefighters sustain, but because of the toxic
substances to which they are exposed every day and which may cut
short their lives.
1135
Moreover, a study carried out in 1994 by the Ontario Industrial
Disease Standards Panel stated that there was a link between
firefighting and heart disease, as well as brain, lymphatic,
colon, bladder and kidney cancer.
This is serious. The people in this profession are exposed
daily to risks not found in other professions. In my riding in
June 1998, the municipal fire chief of Acton Vale, Michel
Daragon, died at the age of 55 while fighting an industrial
fire. Firefighter Jacques Houle lost his life in the same
incident.
Eight firefighters were injured in the one fire, including Chief
Daragon's son Mario, who was seriously injured. Serious head
injuries were sustained by one firefighter, Réjean Messier.
In my riding, and elsewhere, these people are exposed every day
to dangers that can result in fatal injuries. I should point
out that just about everyone has a firefighter in the family.
In my case it was a cousin, Gilles Archambault, father of two
girls, who was faced daily with situations in which he could
have been killed. He risked his life to save others.
This past weekend I saw a boyhood friend, Benoît Desjardins, a
career firefighter with two young children, ages six and eight.
He too puts his life on the line every day.
They receive no pension contributions, despite the fact that
they often have to take early retirement by age 60, at the
latest, because this sort of job involves public safety.
What happens when these people start drawing their pensions at
age 60? They have contributed to their pension plan during
their life of active service at a maximum rate of 2% annually.
At age 60 they are obliged to retire. In the period between 60
and 65, there are no contributions of 2% annually so these
people can benefit from fair pension plans as other professions.
The public official who retires at age 60 can catch up between
the ages of 60 and 65 by continuing to contribute to the Canada
pension plan or Quebec's Régime des rentes. This is not the
case for firefighters.
Their active life, what is called credited service, lasts until
age 60 at the latest. And so, their benefits are reduced
because they are forced to leave their profession at age 60 and
are unable between the ages of 60 and 65 to contribute to the
public pension plan.
They may retire at 55, which is often the case. This is not
really an old age, but it is a fairly advanced age for doing
such a dangerous job and is as risky for the firefighter as it
is for his colleagues. Some firefighters, for health reasons or
things that have happened to them during their career, are
forced to retire at 55. Things are even worse in this case,
because between 55 and 60 they do not work and therefore do not
contribute to their pension plan. In addition, they face the
same prejudice all firefighters face, no contributions between
ages 60 and 65. Therefore, they receive less pension income.
In the United States, many years ago, firefighting was
recognized as being a high risk job. The value of this
profession and the immeasurable contribution firefighters make
have long been recognized. Pension contributions there are at
the rate of 2.5% annually.
1140
The firefighters association is asking us to restore annual
authorized contributions to 2.3%. This is not much. In so doing,
the government would restore fairness by treating firefighters
like the members of the other professions relating to public
security.
The time for fine rhetoric is over. The government must now take
its responsibilities regarding this type of measure. In 1995,
the Minister of Finance—with a hand on his heart or, more
accurately, on his wallet, which is full of our money—sent a
letter to the firefighters' association, in which he said:
I want to tell you that I am very aware of the daily pressures
experienced by public safety officials and of the fact that,
because of the burden that their profession represents, a large
number of firefighters and police officers see their career cut
short.
The time has come to follow up on that letter, sent by the
Minister of Finance in 1995. We have here a concrete motion that
seeks to partly correct the unfair treatment given to
firefighters. It also ensures that firefighters are treated just
like others public safety officials. Allowing early retirement
at age 55 would make room for young people while avoiding—because
this is a high risk profession—threats to the physical integrity
of those 55 and over who are firefighters and of those whose
lives they save, almost on a weekly basis.
The Bloc Quebecois will support this initiative.
[English]
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
also wish to begin my remarks by complimenting the sponsor of
this motion for bringing forward what I believe is a very topical
and timely issue as it relates to the health, safety and
well-being of working people.
I also want to compliment the International Association of Fire
Fighters for being visible and very active in trying to promote
this particular issue for many years, both in the general public
and in the House of Commons.
During their annual lobby, every MP on the Hill has probably
been visited by members of the IAFF as they have come to our
offices to ask for recognition of the issues that they feel are
most important and front and centre for the members that they
represents. I do not believe any organization has run a more
effective lobby in terms of making members of parliament aware of
the issues that this particular organization is advocating. The
association should be complimented for the long, hard road that
it has followed to finally bring this issue to debate in the
House of Commons.
It is generally agreed that firefighters enjoy a special status
in the hearts and minds of Canadians. All Canadians recognize
the inherent dangers of the job, the courage and the physical
stress and duress that such an undertaking shows on working
people. All of us recognize what a necessary and valuable
position firefighters hold within our communities, whether they
are rural or urban communities.
There is no other job in the world like firefighting. Every
time the bell rings and every time someone is called out to their
workplace they are faced with imminent danger. We can view many
jobs as dangerous, whether it is logging, coal mining or the
building trades that I come from, but no worker faces the day to
day risk that firefighters face every day they go to work.
It is in recognition of that fact that we are sensing broad
support in the House of Commons for this very reasonable
amendment to the Income Tax Act. I regret that the motion was
worded in such a soft way, as are most private member's motions.
The motion does not particularly bind the government to leap into
any particular action in the immediate future but it does give
direction to the government to act in a certain way.
Specifically, the firefighters have come to us year after year
in their annual lobby asking for just a few simple things. It is
to their credit that they have rendered down the number of issues
facing their members to a few achievable goals that they have
been very persistent and consistent in putting across to us.
1145
A number of those were itemized by previous speakers. One is
the hazardous materials identification system firefighters are
advocating that would go above and beyond the WHMI system that
all other workers enjoy. WHMIS is the workplace hazardous
materials identification system. It is based on the premise that
all workers have the right both to know the chemical makeup of
the materials they are handling and to refuse unsafe work.
Naturally, WHMIS fails firefighters. Firefighters do not have
the right to refuse unsafe work. Everything they do would be
categorized in any other conventional workplace as being
inherently unsafe. Given the chemical soup that serves as a risk
to workers these days in many manufacturing settings,
firefighters are even more concerned. Unfortunately the ill
effects of that chemical soup are even more obvious as
manufacturing systems and processes become more elaborate and
sophisticated.
One of the real and existing dangers pointed out by firefighters
who have visited my office is that often it is not any one
chemical that will harm them on exposure. It is the compounding
effect of a variety of chemicals reacting with one another in a
person's system. For instance, chemical A is ingested at
one fire and chemical B is ingested a year later. Those
two go on to form chemical C within the firefighter's
internal organs.
This is a terrible problem. Firefighters we call the walking
wounded are walking the streets today. They are really ticking
time bombs in terms of showing the ill effects of exposure to
hazardous things.
One of the paramount things firefighters want addressed is a
more sophisticated hazardous materials tracking system,
specifically on the rail lines. That way, when a rail car
overturns and creates a toxic plume, firefighters would have some
way of knowing what was in the tanker car prior to rushing to the
scene. They would not have to read the card on the side of the
overturned tanker that may be burning.
The second issue always raised with us when firefighters come on
their annual lobby is what we are dealing with today, the fact
that the Income Tax Act recognizes the hazardous nature of the
work by allowing early retirement at age 60 and even an optional
window for early retirement at age 55. This is in recognition of
the hazardous nature of the work and the fact that there is wear
and tear on the bodies of firefighters just by the nature of that
work. However, it fails to recognize something else. A
firefighter opting for early retirement at age 55 pays a penalty
for every month prior to the age of 60 and is thus forced to
retire with an often inadequate pension.
Firefighters seek to achieve by this motion a change in the
Income Tax Act to allow for pension benefits to be accrued at a
higher rate than that of the average worker. When firefighters
opt for early retirement they would do so at full pension. We
think this is a reasonable proposal, and I am glad to see that
all parties in the House seem to agree.
We should point out to the public that this is not an additional
cost to the government. There is no immediate cost associated
with this recognition. In fact, this would allow firefighters to
sit down at the bargaining table with their employer and
negotiate a higher premium contribution to their pension plan
above and beyond the 2% allowed by law today.
It really is not a cost to the general public. It is not a cost
to the government. It is not a cost to the taxpayer. If at the
bargaining table firefighters were able to achieve that increase
in contribution rates from their employer, they then would enjoy
a maximum of 2.33% pension accrual rate.
We should notify the public that by the passage of this motion
and the implementation of the recommendations of the motion we
are not voting for a cost to the taxpayer. We are not talking
about any increased cost in CPP or any other tax relief for
firefighters. We are simply giving them the ability to negotiate
a higher rate of contribution to their pension plans.
1150
We have many graphic examples of the unique nature of the day to
day work and workplace of firefighters. A recent and horrifying
example is the Plastimet fire in Hamilton, Ontario. It often
comes to mind as a graphic illustration of the inherent hazards
associated with this job. Given the number of fatal injuries
from that fire and the many complications for the people working
there, it would not be an exaggeration to say that Plastimet
serves as the firefighter's Westray. On a per capita basis it
was as severe and as extreme and it deserves our immediate
attention.
This bill will give relief to one minor detail in terms of
recognizing the special position that firefighters hold within
our culture and communities, but it does not deal with many of
the other issues often raised in this regard. I do not believe
any job in the country should be considered a dangerous
occupation. We have it within our means to make all workplaces
safer if we address ourselves to that issue. No amount of
compensation justifies a dangerous job.
We used to face that in my trade. They would give us danger pay
for doing certain dangerous jobs. I do not really want another
dollar an hour for putting my life at risk. I would rather we
take that dollar an hour and put it toward research to make the
job safer in the first place so that no one gets put into a
dangerous situation.
Firefighters are unique in that when all other workers are
running out of a burning building from a dangerous situation
firefighters are running in. There is no easy solution to making
the workplace safer for firefighters. There is more we can do
with the co-operation of the union, their employers and
government regulatory bodies.
The best we can do now for firefighters is to recognize the
inherent danger of their workplace and to give them some
satisfaction in terms of this issue and the other legitimate
concerns they have brought before us, including the hazardous
materials identification system for at least the rail system and
the blood sample that was situation raised by other speakers.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, it
is with a great sense of pride that I rise today to speak to the
motion put forward by the member for
Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey.
In a previous life I had a substantial amount of experience
working very closely with a municipal fire department. I can
assure the House that I have nothing but respect for the men and
women who put forward their lives to look after our constituents
in their duty as firefighters.
I would also like to thank the member for Mississauga South who
I know originally put forward this motion. It is a very
important issue, one that will deal with the notion of increasing
the contribution to pensions from 2% to 2.33%. However, before we
get into that, I think it is important to recognize as other
speakers already have indicated that the profession of a
firefighter is indeed unique among emergency services.
Firefighting has changed quite dramatically over the past number
of years. This past weekend I had the opportunity to stand
onstage for the 14th annual Manitoba firefighters conference. At
that conference two things happened. First, there was a memorial
at the emergency fire services college in Brandon in memory of
the 38 firefighters in Manitoba who lost their lives over the
last 100 years. I mention that simply to indicate that the
profession itself is a very dangerous one. When a firefighter
goes to work he or she does not know what will be encountered
that day. It could be a life threatening occurrence.
1155
The second thing that happened at the conference was a skit
comparing firefighting of 100 years ago with firefighting of
today. They used horse-drawn water brigades 100 years ago. They
fought fires using different technology and different training.
Today both the system and the profession have changed quite
dramatically. We talked about the haz mats, the hazardous
materials faced by firefighters.
My firefighters wear a number of hats. They are full-fledged
paramedics who have to deal with ambulance calls and other
situations either on the highway or in the community. They have
to deal with search and rescue. They are responsible for search
and rescue on our open waters and in other areas of Manitoba. We
have firefighters in northern Manitoba, where forests go up quite
regularly. The danger of fighting those fires is much more
dramatic now than it was 100 years ago.
Everyone in the House is aware that firefighting remains a very
dangerous profession. As compared with workers in the private
sector, firefighters have twice the rate of job related
fatalities. I simply go back to the 38 firefighters recognized
in that memorial. More than 40% of all firefighters suffered job
related injuries in 1997. That far exceeds the rate of injury
for any other occupation. Firefighters are nearly six times more
likely than the average private sector worker to suffer injuries
on the job.
The right to refuse unsafe work does not practically exist for
our firefighters. When people are running away from a burning
building, firefighters are running in the opposite direction,
directly into the inferno, to save property and to save lives.
I mention this because the profession is a unique profession.
One of the other things I noticed when I was onstage at the 14th
annual Manitoba fire conference was that through the fire college
a number of very young, well trained and physically fit
individuals in my community were prepared to go into the
profession.
It is a very physically demanding job. Because of the demands
placed on the individual it is not a job that has longevity. In
the city of Brandon we decided a number of years ago that the
retirement age of a firefighter should be 55. Unfortunately the
pension contributions that can be made do not allow my
firefighters to retire at 55 with their full pensions. We do have
people to take over from the firefighters who wish to retire at
55, but we have to make sure we can get those firefighters off
the job and retired.
In order to do that, with respect to the motion before us, the
International Association of Fire Fighters advocates that the
finance minister increase the pension accrual rates from 2% to
2.33% for firefighters. This would allow them to retire with
adequate financial provisions for their retirement.
In a letter to the Minister of Finance dated December 15, 1999,
the IAFF urged the federal government to revisit the current
provisions for professional firefighters. In the city of Brandon
we have been prepared, through negotiations, to top up the
retirement funds of firefighters to accommodate to a degree their
request to retire at age 55. A regulatory change to the Income
Tax Act would provide all firefighters with the opportunity to
collectively bargain for a fair and equitable pension on
retirement.
The regulatory change to the Canada Income Tax Act that the IAFF
is advocating would allow Canada's firefighters to retire before
the rigours of the job pose a threat to both the individuals and
their fellow firefighters. The change would allow firefighters
to make adequate pension contributions toward retirement.
The proposed regulatory change would be the crucial first step
in this process, as firefighters would have to make the same
change with their respective provincial pension legislation and
then bargain the increased contribution with their employers. It
is a critical first step that the federal government put into
place the necessary legislative changes.
The Canadian Police Association also strongly supports the
position of firefighters on this issue.
1200
Last year's report from the Standing Committee on Finance is
clear in recommending an increase in the accrual rate from 2% to
2.33%. It has been almost a year since the report was tabled in
the House. I urge all members of the House of Commons to support
the motion and members on the government side to actually take
action. The finance committee has already considered the motion.
It is now time for the government to act.
It is a simple legislative change, as was mentioned earlier. I
thank the member for Mississauga South. I also thank the member
for Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey for bringing it to the
attention of the House. Now it is a matter of putting action in
place.
The firefighters that represent us in our communities deserve no
less. They put their lives on the line. They wish to be able to
retire at a younger age because of the difficulties and danger of
the job. It is incumbent upon us to make it available to them.
We will be supporting the motion put forward by the member.
Mr. Rick Limoges (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I appreciate the opportunity to address private member's Motion
No. 418. Yesterday I had the honour of attending a memorial
service jointly carried out by padres of both the Detroit and
Windsor fire departments wherein honour was brought to those who
laid down their lives in the service of our community. It has
been said that there is no greater love than the love displayed
by laying down one's life in the service of others.
Specific provisions in the Income Tax Act are what we are
talking about and the fact that firefighters are in a very
different situation than most other people in our society. Most
are required to retire early due to contract provisions and the
physically strenuous nature of their occupation.
Earlier this year I was able to convene a meeting with senior
members of the finance department, those people responsible for
the calculations and for putting forth the provisions of the
legislation once it is passed by the House, along with the
executive of the firefighters association. At that meeting,
along with the member for Essex, we were able to discuss for
several hours provisions of the pension plan and the firefighters
request for the 2.33% integrated plan.
We understand there is scope within the existing pension tax
rules for plans covering firefighters to increase pension plan
benefits. This was explained to members of the association along
with me. We understand that a number of firefighter pension
plans provide a 2% pension benefit that is integrated with Canada
pension benefits. This means that these plans are not currently
providing the maximum pension benefits permissible under the
Income Tax Act. However, due to the vagaries of collective
bargaining, it would be very difficult for firefighters across
the country to be able to negotiate the full benefit they seek.
I understand that firefighters would like to be provided with a
2.33% pension benefit that is integrated with CPP. I understand
that by maximizing the benefits under the current rules the plans
could possibly provide an even larger pension benefit than could
be obtained in the 2.33% integration, but as I said earlier it
would be subject to unprecedented success in collective
bargaining.
It is clear that firefighters provide a service to our community
that is desperately needed and absolutely essential.
1205
It is clear that firefighters provide a service to our
communities that is desperately needed and absolutely essential.
In my 14 years of experience in municipal council I had the
opportunity of seeing firsthand what some firefighters were doing
and the dedication they brought to their jobs. We in Windsor are
very proud of them.
Firefighters in Windsor were faced with a situation 15 years ago
where there were very poor labour-management relations between
the fire department and the city. They now enjoy an absolutely
positive attitude and marvellous relationship. There can always
be improvements, I suppose, but in talking to firefighters across
the country it was brought to my attention that Windsor was a
model others could only hope to follow.
Firefighters are out in the community doing the job of public
relations and of increasing safety awareness in children and
families. We are extremely proud that we have the type of
relationship where everyone benefits.
It was explained to us yesterday during the memorial service
that we do not take enough time to recognize and thank
firefighters for the sacrifice they have made over the past
century.
The motion speaks to the need for further consultation and
consideration of the issue. It is paramount for firefighters and
their families. I urge members of the House to support the
motion before us.
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate the fact that we have a very short time and many
members wish to speak to the motion, so I will keep my remarks to
the point.
I have listened to the debate today but, more important, I have
had an ongoing dialogue with the firefighters in my community of
London, Ontario. They do honourable work all hours of the day
and night. They do it with safety. They do it with integrity.
They do it with our interest at heart.
We have an obligation to listen to their concerns. That is what
many of my colleagues around the House on all sides and I have
been doing. I believe a valid point is made here. I add my
voice to the people supporting the motion.
I have been lobbying the finance minister. In short order we
should be looking at the reality of bringing in a regulatory
framework that would provide the needed change. I will not
restate the statistics. We know them. I will allow someone else
to speak at this point.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to the particular motion. I
would like to make three specific points about it. It deals with
the rights of firefighters or the consideration of whether
firefighters should have a different accrual rate to their
pension plans. They have to retire early because of health
considerations, physical fitness considerations and other
matters.
First, in my opinion firefighters have one of the most effective
and most grassroots inclusive lobbying groups on Parliament Hill.
They do a great job of integrating both the parliamentary role of
their associations and the grassroots back home. They do it as
well as any other group in the country. I have told them that
and I compliment them on that.
Second, I would like to put a plug in for my private member's
motion on the blood samples act. It specifically targets
firefighters and gives them protection against contamination from
bodily fluids with which they may come in contact during the
course of their duties.
Third, specifically the motion has to do with the accrual rate.
It should be passed and sent to committee for consideration.
Firefighters will have to work with other groups like the
military, police officers and others that also face the same
problem with the accrual rate. I will leave it at that.
1210
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The time provided
for the consideration of private members' business has now
expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of
precedence on the order paper.
* * *
REPORT OF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I have the
honour, pursuant to section 38 of the Access to Information Act,
to lay upon the table the report of the information commissioner
for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2000. This report is
permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and
Human Rights.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—POVERTY AND VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ) moved:
That this House work to provide the means needed to fight
poverty and violence against women as demanded by the World
March of Women, particularly in the areas of income protection,
health, international aid, violence and wage parity, so as to
ensure a fairer distribution of wealth between women and men.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, I would like to give you
notice that the leader of the Bloc Quebecois will be sharing the
time allotted him with our colleague from Longueuil. All
members of the Bloc Quebecois will proceed in the same fashion.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, this motion comes at a rather
particular juncture today, because the women are in Washington
today. They were there yesterday as well. They marched in
Ottawa as well, as they did in Montreal on Saturday, and in
Quebec City on Friday and in all regions of Quebec and in all
neighbourhoods of Montreal and in other regions in Canada. In
fact, pretty well around the world. On Saturday, over 30,000
women demonstrated in Brussels. Tomorrow, all these women will
be in New York.
The Bloc Quebecois members are proud of the fact that this
initiative originated in Quebec. It was the Fédération des
femmes du Québec and its president, Françoise David, who had the
idea and linked up with women around the world in order to blend
the demands they were making of their respective governments and
of international organizations such as the International
Monetary Fund.
Tomorrow they will be meeting Secretary General Kofi Annan at
the United Nations.
Many people feel that the women's demands are nothing but
wishful thinking and that, while we agree in theory, it is
impossible in practice because we cannot afford it.
We in the Bloc Quebecois have checked whether indeed we had the
funds and the means to respond to the women's demands. Looking
at the surplus in the hands of the Minister of Finance and the
government—and it is important to say this today because we are
apparently going to be having a mini-budget on Wednesday—it is up
to $165.8 billion according to our figures. Without taking the
agreement with the provinces relating to the Canada social
transfer into consideration, the figure comes to $147.9 billion
instead.
This represents a lot of money that can be used to meet the
demands the women have made.
This is not a debate about whether we have or do not have the
means, it is a matter of whether we do or do not have the
political desire to respond to the women's demands.
We have taken great care in calculating the surplus. For
example, last year we stated that the figure would be $11.5
billion while the Minister of Finance was announcing $3 billion,
knowing as well as we did that it would be far more. He did not
want it known, in order to avoid a debate like the one we are
having here today. In the end, the figure was $12.3 billion.
Looking at the Minister of Finance's five year forecasts, I see
the figure is in the order of $160.8 billion.
1215
Taking the agreement out of the equation, as I said earlier, the
figure comes to $142 billion and a bit, which is about $5
billion off the figure we had predicted. This opinion is shared
by some of the leading economists as well. Last week, in a
debate at the Conseil du Patronat, the same figure was reached
with the same evaluations. It seems likely that this is what
the Minister of Finance will be telling us on Wednesday.
Unfortunately, however, it is my impression that he will not
reach the same conclusions as we on how to use these surplus
funds.
Women are asking, among other things, for a review of the whole
employment insurance issue. If the federal government is
currently enjoying surpluses, it is because it created them at
the expense of the provinces.
It was the case with the Canada social transfer. The federal
government finally recognized that it had taken money from the
provinces, but even more so from the employment insurance fund,
where it took more than $30 billion from the poor and also from
businesses. The result is that the employment insurance program
has become a tax on employment, with over 60% of contributors
being penalized, since they contribute but do not qualify for
benefits once they are out of work.
The changes announced by the government regarding employment
insurance have only a very marginal and temporary impact on
seasonal workers. Does the government realize that over two
thirds of women who contribute to the program do not qualify for
benefits? This is blatant injustice and must be corrected. This
is why the Bloc Quebecois is saying that the government must
reinvest $25 billion in the employment insurance program, over a
five year period.
As regards transfer payments for health, post-secondary education
and income support, women are asking the government to invest,
to take into account the fact that there are enormous needs in
the health sector, that the provinces must provide services
without having enough money, while the federal government does
not have to provide such services, at least not much, but has
the money to do so.
The federal government announced $17.9 billion over five
years. We believe that this amount must be indexed on the basis
of the cost as it was in 1994, which would mean an additional
$10 billion, and that the federal government must put $27 billion
into the social transfer because it affects the health of
families, and of men and women in an aging population.
Speaking of an aging population, one of the important demands being
made by women—I will not go over all the demands because my
colleagues will be doing so in the course of the day—has to do
with old age security so that older women do not have to live in
poverty.
Forty-two per cent of single women over 65 in Canada are living
in poverty because many of them did not work outside the home;
they worked in the home and this is work that is unpaid. Not
that they worked any less, but they do not have a pension plan.
These women are living under the poverty line. We must invest
$3 billion to ensure that those who raised children, who raised
our families, who helped build the future, are not abandoned to
unacceptable and appalling conditions.
Despite what some say, when all these demands from women are
factored in, there is certainly enough both for paying down the
debt by $21 billion over five years and for tax cuts. We know
the Minister of Finance will be announcing $58 billion in
tax cuts with his plan to lower the capital gains tax from 66%
to 50%, but the rate of taxation on employment income is 100%
and low and middle income Canadians will not benefit.
What is needed are tax cuts and that is something that we can
aim for, all the while balancing the budget and holding the line
on the deficit. We do not want to go back to a deficit
situation. In my view $73.8 billion could be set aside for this.
This is in no way incompatible with the duty—and I do
consider it a duty—to invest in the social, economic, education
and health fields.
1220
As far as the $73.8 billion allocated to the middle class is
concerned, they are the ones who have borne the brunt of the
deficit reduction, because they do not have enough money to take
advantage of the wonderful tax loopholes that companies like
Canada Steamship Lines can because it earns so much that it pays
no taxes. The middle class has borne the brunt of it and must
get some help.
When I speak of the middle class, I mean the many single mothers
who cannot make ends meet because they have to pay income tax
while the rich companies do not. This is social inequality and
it is unacceptable.
For example, a family of four, two adults and two children, pays
no income tax in Quebec if their total income is less than
$30,000. On the federal level that same family starts paying
tax at the $14,700 level. In most cases, women and children are
the ones who suffer. Often women are raising children on their
own.
That is why we must make an effort to respond to women's
demands, while at the same time not neglecting to cut taxes for
the low and middle income groups. We can afford to do so.
I will close on that point. It is not a matter of wishful
thinking. This will be addressed in the election campaign. I
do hope the government will settle this for us this week. The
opposition would lose a point of argument but women would gain.
I feel that is more important.
If the government does not settle this we will not hold our
tongues. What is more, as Ms. David has said, women are
determined to follow the candidates in this election and to let
them know that there is a sizeable surplus, that there are
priorities to be respected and that the wealthy friends of the
party in power and the companies are not the only ones that
vote.
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I thank the
leader of the Bloc Quebecois for speaking on this important
issue of women's situations and quality of life.
I would like our leader to raise an issue of considerable
urgency, that of public housing. I would like him to explain
the dynamics of public housing.
Since 1993, the federal government has provided insufficient
funding. Everyone knows that women, single parents and families
living under the poverty line are having a hard time making ends
meet and obtaining appropriate housing.
Therefore, this is a Bloc Quebecois fight, and I would ask our
leader to put this pressing matter to the public.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, over the past few years,
negotiations have been taking place between the federal and
Quebec governments regarding social housing. The federal
government said it was withdrawing from social housing, but it
has not given back the money that it has collected in taxes for
social housing. It has not lowered taxes accordingly.
Quebec is quite prepared to sign an agreement and to take over
that responsibility provided it has the means to fulfil its
obligations. The Quebec government estimates that the province's
needs for social housing account for 27% of Canada's overall
needs, this with 24% of the country's population. However,
Ottawa is only offering 18% of the money, which means there is a
significant gap.
We must absolutely invest in that area because way too much
money is being paid in rent by people.
Some families spend up to 50% of their income on rent, while
they should normally not allocate more than 25% of their income
to that item.
1225
Under the agreement with Quebec, this represents an amount of
$400 million. This means that for the whole country the
government should invest $1.5 billion. Based on our budget
forecasts, we are anticipating new spending of $18.5 billion,
without any deficit. As for the government, it is anticipating
at this point that new spending will total $10.9 billion.
The amount of $1.5 billion could easily be allocated to social
housing if, again, there was a political will to do so. I know
that women organizations estimate the amount to be $2 billion
over a five year period. At yesterday's meeting we agreed that
our economists, both theirs and ours, would meet to determine
whether it is $1.5 billion or $2 billion. It will then be a matter
of reorganizing other requests, but there is enough flexibility
with an amount of $147.9 billion to settle this urgent problem. I
fully agree with the hon. member for Québec that we must take
action regarding this issue. Again, this is something that could
be corrected in the mini-budget if this government would listen
to ordinary people, to the men and women who pay taxes in our
society but who are not getting the services to which they are
entitled.
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise today on this opposition day motion to support
women on the occasion of the World March of Women. Allow me to
read the motion:
That this House work to provide the means needed to fight
poverty and violence against women as demanded by the World
March of Women, particularly in the areas of income protection,
health, international aid, violence and wage parity, so as to
ensure a fairer distribution of wealth between women and men.
This motion is quite clear, in my opinion. We all know the
government can afford it and that its coffers are full.
The government has the means to give women a positive answer. It
has accumulated indecent surpluses while thousands of women live
below the poverty line. Worse, the government rakes in the
taxpayers' money while the provinces are the ones who provide
front line services.
Is this renewed federalism? The money is all kept in Ottawa. The
government pockets all the money it can and just before an
election it scatters a little here and there. No thank you. It
is time for things to change. Women want a change.
As status of women critic for the Bloc Quebecois, I have a wish.
I would like to see justice and fairness for all women. But
today, Mr. Speaker, it is as a woman that I speak to you.
There are still too few women in the House. I sincerely feel
that during last week a great number of us have been walking
through the streets of Quebec and the rest of the world to put
forward our claims. I believe that week has left its mark on us
all, women and men, on various levels. However, I am convinced
that we will emerge from it transformed. Let us hope that, as
they did not walk, members opposite listened.
It is with sadness that I must point out that, although we are
in the year 2000, we still live in a patriarchal society. Much
remains to be done so that women and men are equal and treated
fairly.
Here, in the very best country in the world, what kind of
record can the Liberal government show with regard to fair
treatment? The government took more than 15 years to show respect
to its own employees in the area of pay equity. We also know that
it is the only government left in Canada without proactive
legislation in that regard. This means female workers under
federal jurisdiction have to lodge individual complaints of
discrimination if they want to get pay equity. Such is the
shining record of the federal government with regard to pay
equity.
Even worse, the federal government refuses to extend the
settlement to female employees of crown corporations and agencies
who work under the same job classification system. It seems to
me, from a strictly logical point of view, that if the court has
ruled that the practices the treasury board used in the federal
public service were discriminatory, these very same practices
should not be tolerated in crown corporations and agencies. But
no, the treasury board is still refusing to act.
This is the kind of respect the government has for its own
employees. Frankly, it seems so difficult for the government to
get some money out when it is for women, while it seems to be so
easy when it is for its friends.
1230
Just for the information of hon. members and people who are
watching us at home, here are the government's priorities:
$45 million for Canadian unity; $90 million for the Canada
Information Office; $200 million for propaganda; $15 million for
the one million flags operation. This is where the priorities of
this government are. This is a lot of money.
This is precisely the kind of mean-spirited behaviour that leads
women to fight against poverty.
This is one of the 2,000 good reasons for marching.
I would like to remind hon. members today where this wonderful
idea of the world march came from.
In 1995 the march “Du pain et des roses” in Quebec was a great
success. More than 850 women marched for 10 days to make several
economic claims. That march led women from all over the world to
aim for higher goals and to build world solidarity.
This year, in October 2000, the Fédération des femmes du Québec
struck again by organizing the World March of Women, which
brought together 4,200 groups from 157 countries and
territories. In each of Quebec's regions, thousands of women
joined the march. I did also and I know my colleague from
Charlevoix and most of my colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois
did. I must admit this march was moving.
Back home in Longueuil on a bright Friday morning 400 women
marched. Standing together they were so beautiful that for a
moment I thought they were signalling that the time had come for
a change.
Of course we all know that the purpose of the World March of
Women is to end poverty and violence against women. This is a
peaceful movement toward hope, equality, peace and democracy.
This is a movement toward recognition of the rights of all women
throughout the world.
The World March of Women underlines two main demands. The first
one is the elimination of poverty and the fair sharing of the
world's wealth between the rich and the poor, between men and
women. The second one is the elimination of violence against
women.
The status of women is a key issue for the Bloc Quebecois. This
is why our party proposed various concrete measures over the
years, beginning within the party itself.
At the last general convention of the Bloc Quebecois, the party
faithful supported the demands of the World March of Women. At
their last general meeting, they renewed their support toward the
demands of the World March of Women and invited party members to
participate in the campaign promoting the signing of support
cards.
Bloc Quebecois members also worked in parliament, at the
Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, and asked that women's
demands be examined on a priority basis, as early as this fall,
so that women could have a political and parliamentary forum to
voice their concerns and their demands.
We have also relentlessly urged the federal government to treat
young people and women fairly within its employment insurance
program.
On the 10th anniversary of the tragic massacre at the École
Polytechnique, the leader of the Bloc Quebecois asked the
federal government to launch a public awareness campaign against
violence. We are still waiting.
The Bloc Quebecois also wanted to hear what the people had to
say. We travelled throughout Quebec to criticize the government
for its lack of investment in the fight against poverty. We have
also made a solemn commitment to the public to demand that the
federal government make the fight against poverty one of its
priorities.
As in 1985, the Bloc Quebecois is getting involved and takes
part in this great show of solidarity.
Whether it is to inform, to raise awareness or to mobilize
public opinion, the Bloc Quebecois wants above all to ensure
that the federal government does everything it can to eliminate
poverty and violence against women.
The Bloc Quebecois is getting involved because we believe that
the time for change is now. The Bloc Quebecois is getting
involved because 70% of the poor on this planet are women and
because 1 out of 5 women in Canada is poor.
We are getting involved because 51% of women in Canada have been
victims since their 16th birthday of at least one physical or
sexual assault as defined in the criminal code. In Canada, women
are still afraid to walk alone at night. In Canada, every week,
one women is killed by her spouse or former spouse.
1235
Violence can be physical, sexual, verbal or psychological. What
is clear is that violence is a reality for all women. That is
why we earnestly hope the federal government will create a
$50 million fund to fight violence against women, and that it
will give the provinces the means to act in this area.
Another request the Bloc Quebecois made here in the House
concerns basic funding for women's organizations. Since the
beginning of our mandate, we, members of the Bloc, have been
requesting that the federal government earmark $30 million. This
represents two dollars for each woman and young girl in the
country. The funding for women's groups has been reduced by 15%
under the liberals, and it has also been reviewed.
I am convinced that the World March of Women will be one of the
milestones of the new millennium. Let us hope that the federal
government will finally act and take all necessary measures to
eliminate poverty and violence against women. In this year 2000
some tangible changes are required; women have the right to
equality.
The Bloc Quebecois believes that society is made up of men and
women and that it is through their complicity and solidarity
that they will finally achieve an egalitarian society.
Before I conclude, I would like to table an amendment to this
motion. I move:
That the motion be amended by adding after the words “That
this House” the following: “immediately”.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The amendment is admissible
and the debate is now on the amendment.
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I thank my
colleague from Longueuil for her excellent speech.
What struck me in the demands put forward by women's groups is
something that could now become an issue during the election,
that is, the core funding of organizations.
Since the government took office it has backed away from a
commitment toward the women's groups that fight daily for the
most deprived of women as well as for all the women of Quebec and
Canada, groups that defend women's rights and speak out against
poverty and violence against women and children.
I would like my colleague to speak in greater detail of how the
government has backed away from this commitment since it took
office. I would like her to tell us what solution the Bloc
Quebecois is proposing so that these women's groups can work
without having to set up projects and that the money needed for
the fight against poverty and violence is made available.
This is a minimum. I would also like my colleague to tell us in
detail about this core funding problem.
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: Mr. Speaker, before answering the
question asked by the hon. member for Drummond, I would like to
underline the work she is doing as a woman and a
parliamentarian. I know she is appreciated by everyone in the
House.
More precisely, to answer her question, funding of women's
groups has been cut by 15% by the Liberals. It has also been
reviewed, and it is another scandal. From now on, funding will
be made on a project by project basis and not on the basis of
the budget required.
1240
As we all know, these groups need basic funding. They also need
recognition and support, and we are still waiting for the
government to do just that. What we members of the Bloc
Quebecois are proposing is basically the same thing as what
women are asking in their world march, that is $2 per woman and
little girl or roughly $30 billion.
According to the Minister of Finance, that is not economically
viable, but he should be reminded that if we want real
democracy we must give a real voice to everyone, especially the
most vulnerable.
I hope the government will intervene and give money to
women who are on the front lines and who are the first to offer
their help to our women in Quebec and Canada.
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism) (Status of
Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity
to respond to the motion put forward by the leader of the Bloc
Quebecois regarding the World March of Women, an event that our
government welcomes heartily.
[English]
The march is bringing together over 5,000 groups in 157
countries around the globe to tell governments and international
institutions, such as the World Bank, the IMF and the United
Nations, that we need to do a great deal more to end poverty
among women.
[Translation]
I want to congratulate every group in our country that has
played a major role in organizing this march, particularly the
Fédération des femmes du Québec, which played a leading role in
making this march a reality.
[English]
The Government of Canada shares the goals of the World March of
Women 2000 and has been doing what it can to help make it a
success. For example, on Wednesday the Canadian ambassador to
the United Nations will host a meeting at the conclusion of the
march to allow the women to present their resolutions to the
secretary general of the United Nations.
I am also very proud of the fact that the federal government has
been able to contribute $700,000 to the international march and
$200,000 to the national march, for a total of $900,000, in
support of women speaking out on this issue.
The reason we support women is that in spite of the fact that we
talk about tax cuts, flat taxes and debt reduction, there are
still people in this country who live in poverty, and most tend
to be women. We still have violence, which tends to be directed
mostly at women. We believe NGOs and volunteer organizations
play an important role in bringing this to the attention not only
of the public but of governments.
We want to continue to ensure that governments in Canada and
around the world focus on the issues of the march that these
women are bringing to the fore. Our government agrees with the
issues. We know there is more to be done both on the domestic
front and on the international front, but we need to do this in a
consistent and co-ordinated way.
We believe that this is an area in which we can work more
closely with women and other equality seeking organizations to
see that those goals are met in a way that will ensure that the
day to day realities of women and their families are addressed.
Yesterday the Prime Minister met with representatives from the
women's march. This is the first time in 15 years that a prime
minister has met with women's organizations and spent almost an
hour listening very clearly to the issues that were brought to
his attention.
Meetings between representatives of the march and some of my
cabinet colleagues will be taking place within the next few days
to discuss the very specific issues that the women are bringing
forward and some of the very specific solutions that they are
bringing forward.
We fully support the approach taken by march organizers to
initiate a constructive dialogue to get the priorities and the
design right as we build for the future. In the last federal
budget the government committed an additional $20.5 million over
five years to Status of Women Canada to develop and establish an
agenda for gender equality. This agenda will expand on the 1995
federal plan for gender equality so that we can further advance
the goal of gender equality in the 21st century. That means we
will continue to develop gender based analysis which will take in
the realities between men and women and how policies and
legislation affect them. We will work horizontally to ensure
that every single department does gender based analysis on every
single piece of legislation and policy that it brings forward.
1245
All governments have a responsibility to take a lead in bringing
about changes that affect the lives of women everywhere. This
government believes that it is important for women to play their
role to the fullest in the economic, social and political life of
the country. We want to give them the tools they need to be
able to do that.
[Translation]
In 1996, 88% of domestic violence victims in Canada were women.
A majority of the persons killed in a situation of domestic
violence are women. It is sad to realize that violence remains
largely unreported. This is mainly because women are too afraid
to seek support from the outside or because they feel
intimidated.
[English]
Action has already been taken in these areas. These are the
building blocks. The actions the government has taken to date on
violence against women are the building blocks upon which we hope
to advance women's equality and to decrease violence against
women, each year addressing those in accordance with the plan
that we are going to develop with women.
With the shelter enhancement program, we have committed $43
million to build and improve shelters for women, children and
youth who are victims of family violence. Because we want to get
at the root causes of family violence, we recently added $7
million to an already over $40 million initiative supported by
seven departments in the government to deal with the family
violence initiative.
The Minister of Justice has also put $32.5 million toward a
crime prevention strategy, $32.5 million over five years. One of
the core pieces in that puzzle, on which she is working with
community groups, is to specifically address the issue of
violence against women.
At the last meeting in August in Iqaluit, our Minister of
Justice brought to the table, to the other justice ministers, a
project to deal with advancing and improving legislation on peace
bonds and against those who commit violence against women. That
result will come up by the end of this year.
We know that to strengthen our response to the tragic reality of
domestic violence, jurisdictions have to work together. We have
to work with women to make this so.
There is an extremely important piece of the strategy in
defeating and dealing with violence against women. We know that
88% of the people killed in domestic violence are women and about
75% of them are shot. We know that the gun control legislation
brought out in 1996 is an absolutely key piece in decreasing the
shooting of women, especially when we know they are shot with
guns that happen to be in the house.
Spousal violence is a key factor underlying homelessness. Single
women and families headed by women account for an increasing
proportion of the homeless population. The government is taking
action to address this problem. The 2000 budget confirmed a $735
million strategy to combat homelessness.
A piece of that strategy is specific work with women's
organizations, because we know that many women who are homeless
are homeless because they are running away. They are the
invisible homeless. They do not want to be found because they
are running away from violent spouses and partners and they know
that if they are found someone will take their children away from
them. These women tend to move from place to place.
Confidentiality is a key component. We are working specifically
with women's organizations to address that confidentiality
component.
We also know that a key component of homelessness is not only
violence but women's inequality. The face of poverty in Canada
and around the world is female. More than two-thirds of the
world's population lives on as little as one American dollar a
day. Poverty is still a reality in Canada. We accept that this
is truth. In 1997, 13% of all Canadian children under the age of
18 lived in low income families headed by a single female parent.
This figure represents 40% of all low income families. In 1998
60% of homeless runaway children aged 12 to 17 were female.
Actions that the government has taken are the building blocks. I
want to stress that we are not going to do everything in one
year. We are beginning with strong building blocks. The actions
we have taken are building blocks upon which we will continue to
build, working closely with NGOs and women's organizations.
1250
Significant resources have been committed to assisting poor
families with children. We know there is an additional $2.5
billion a year for the Canada child tax benefit, which brings the
annual investment of new money by the federal government to more
than $9 billion, to address the issue of low income and poor
families, which we know are mostly headed by women.
There is the early childhood development agreement which, under
the recently signed action plan for health, provides another $2.2
billion to help ensure that all Canadian children get the best
possible start in life.
We have made changes to the employment insurance program to
extend maternity and parental leave from six months to a year to
allow new mothers to spend more time with their newborn or newly
adopted children. We know that one of the chief stresses on
women today is balancing the paid work they do with their family
responsibilities, because women still bear the disproportionate
burden of caregiving in our society.
We know that further changes to EI, announced recently, will
ensure that parents who leave the workforce to remain at home
with young children will not be penalized the next time they find
it necessary to apply for EI benefits. This is a positive step
for women's equality since most of the parents who do remain at
home with their children are women.
The government has also introduced several programs to assist
aboriginal women whom we know suffer disproportionate
discrimination and multiple barriers that prevent them from
having access to some of the things that other Canadians take for
granted. We are investing $22.5 million annually, plus an
additional $100 million over four years on the aboriginal head
start program for children living on and off reserves. We have
created or improved 7,000 quality child care spaces under the
Inuit and first nations child care program because that is a
federal jurisdiction. We know that in many other areas in the
provinces child care is a provincial jurisdiction.
The future in Canada can belong to women but they need an
education to get them there. Enhanced support for students by
increasing the amount of tax free income from bursaries,
fellowships and scholarships, such as the $2 billion Canadian
millennium fund, will help women. It is direct assistance that
the federal government is moving to this area.
We have heard questions asked about money from HRDC. That has
been specifically used to forgive loans, especially for people
who cannot afford to pay them, and we know that those persons
tend to be women with dependants, women who are trying to get an
education so that they can have a better chance of supporting
their children with pride and dignity. The Canada studies grants
for high need, post-secondary students with dependants, students
with disabilities, high need, part time students and women
pursuing doctoral studies is a grant program, not a loan.
I have been talking about actions we have taken for Canadian
women but Canada has also taken a leadership role internationally
in promoting gender equality and the diversity of women in a
number of international fora such as the Francophonie, the United
Nations, the Commonwealth and the Asia-Pacific because Canada has
written the book on gender based analysis.
If we are to move forward and ensure that the steps we take will
actually benefit women, we have to know the figures on the status
of women at the moment. We have to be able to set clear
strategies within each department so that looking at women's
needs will not be only a ghettoized place in Status of Women
Canada but so that at the end of the day we will be able to
evaluate the strategies and see what worked, what did not work
and what we need to do better.
We will continue to reach out to women as we do on our research
policy, where many grassroots women's organizations in
partnership with academia work on particular grants and
particular research projects that help us to understand what are
the next steps we need to take.
In terms of international assistance for the women of the world,
let us not forget that Canada is part of 155 countries that are
marching around the world. We have set aside an additional $435
million for the international assistance envelope over the next
three years. We have undertaken a $2.8 billion five year plan to
strengthen social development in developing countries.
I know that Canada is one of the few countries to call for an
immediate moratorium on debt repayment for the world's heavily
indebted nations. In fact Canada, has done that.
We have forgiven the debt to the heavily indebted nations.
1255
When the Prime Minister was in Okinawa recently and talked to
the G-8, he talked about having every country raise the amount of
foreign aid it gives and dedicating it especially to housing, to
drinking water, to health issues and to literacy for the women of
the world. As members know, my colleague, the minister
responsible for international development, has recently doubled
the percentage of money in her budget that she has been spending
to specifically target those areas in which women around the
world need more help.
We can assist women around the world not only with talk, with
rhetoric, with gender based analysis and with instruments of
government, but also by putting money into the areas where we
know women need help: to be able to read and write, to be able
to know that their children will not die because the water they
drink is unsafe, to know that they have shelter and housing.
Our priorities as a government over the past few years reflect
our commitment to a focus on areas where outcomes will improve
the quality of life for women. Federal initiatives are helping
to combat violence against women and to reduce poverty in Canada
and around the world. We know we cannot achieve the ultimate
goals where women are absolutely equal, where they fear violence
no more and where they are no longer among the poorest in the
world, in isolation. We know that we have to do this in
partnership.
That is why the Prime Minister met with the women on the march.
That is why we have supported the march financially, with a large
and substantive amount. We believe that organizations and NGOs
have a real role to play in moving the agenda forward, especially
when we see political parties talking simply and only about taxes
and debt and not even considering and understanding the needs of
poor women. We have heard members across the House talk about
how changes to EI will help women to be on greater welfare. The
reality of women's lives does not factor in with our colleagues
in the Alliance who do not seem to understand anything about the
lives of real women.
We also think it is extremely important that women move into the
political process where they can help make those kinds of
decisions. We know that by having a lot of women in our caucus
who consider this issue every single week we have managed to push
an agenda toward looking at gender equality in all the areas we
talked about. Having women in political positions helps to move
that agenda forward in a balanced way.
Our Prime Minister has done everything that he can to move women
forward. We have the first female head of the Supreme Court
Justices of Canada. We now have 31% women in the Senate, where
the Prime Minister has been appointing women two to one. He has
taken initiatives to name women in winnable ridings because we
know that the nomination process has been difficult for women. It
is because of this that we have the kind of government we have,
one that has been paying attention to the issues of women.
The government understands that achieving gender equality not
only enhances the economic, social and political participation of
women, it benefits their families, their children and society as
a whole. We have always recognized that economic and social
progress go hand in hand. This is a government that knows this.
This is something we are committed to.
We cannot have strong social programs without a strong economy
and we cannot have a strong economy without the social supports
that allow every individual to contribute to society and to have
some kind of economic autonomy. This is a balanced approach.
This is the approach of the government.
We believe that the dignity of all individuals is enhanced when
everyone is treated fairly and equally. I want to stress that
equality does not mean sameness. Equality means recognizing that
different people and groups in society have different barriers to
face, and we must have different strategies to address each one
of those issues. That is something that I think our friends in
the Alliance might be able to learn from us.
We continue to realize that diversity in the policies, plans and
programs we put forward is completely important. To reach our
goal we must work together in partnership. We must listen to
non-government organizations and not treat them like special
interest groups, as I know certain members across the way have
been wont to describe women's organizations in the past.
I hope that every member of the House will agree with me that we
must ensure as we move into the 21st century that no woman or
girl is left behind as we move into this new millennium.
1300
It is significant that 100 years ago, when we entered the last
century, women could not vote, stand for public office or be
appointed to the Senate. We were little more than the chattel of
husbands in those days. We were pieces of furniture.
The past century has brought enormous change, but if we are to
be competitive and strong the 51% of the population who are women
must be allowed to play a very strong role in building the
country and in playing a significant and equal part.
[Translation]
I am proud to be part of a government whose vision is based on a
future where systemic discrimination against women will be
something of the past, for the benefit of all Canadians and the
future of our country.
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened
closely to the remarks of the Secretary of State for the Status
of Women, who is part of this government. We know that women feel
concerned by the women's march and all the demands made by this
great mobilization that started in Quebec and has spread to the
whole world.
I doubt that the government is committed, and I urge the
Secretary of State for the Status of Women to keep a watchful eye
over the issues of real concern to women. I know she is very
sensitive to all women's issues, but I am not convinced her
government has made or will be able to make all the efforts
wished for by various women's group in Quebec.
That is why the Bloc Quebecois has put forward a $45 billion
strategy over the next five years for a real investment after
what I would call seven years of social deficit incurred by the
Liberal government as far as caring for citizens, for women and
children, for the most destitute in our society, and for men too.
We have demands to pass on to the government. I am sorry, but
this debate today concerns mainly women. The Bloc Quebecois had
the opportunity to meet some community agencies, which have to
face tremendous challenges to promote fairness and balance in our
society. What they are asking for is the reinstatement of core
funding for community agencies.
It is a well known fact that community organizations had to pick
up the pieces.
The Secretary of State for the Status of Women talked about
parental insurance. It is one thing to extend the period during
which women can stay home with their children but how could they
take advantage of the new insurance program if they are excluded
from EI? I wonder if the minister could make specific requests to
the government regarding the day care system, the financing of
community help organizations, funds to combat violence and
funding for social housing, where the government has disinvested.
Since 1993, there has been no new money to answer the needs of
the population. I think that we are far from meeting the main
objectives of the World March of Women in response to the great
debate on the societal issue of poverty which affects women,
children and men. I would ask the secretary of state to be more
specific. It is not the first time that a Prime Minister meets
with women's organizations, but it is the first time for the
present Prime Minister. It is a bit sad to see that he waited six
years after coming to power to finally sit down with women's
groups.
[English]
Hon. Hedy Fry: Mr. Speaker, I want to let the hon. member
know that it was not $25 million. We have contributed $20.5
million over five years only to Status of Women Canada. We have
also increased the money given to women over the last few years.
We brought it up to more than $40 million by adding another $7
million to be able to deal with violence against women.
I have just talked about the money put into homelessness, much
of which will be discussed with NG organizations. There will be
discussions about their ability to find ways to deal with
homelessness, transition homes and shelters in a confidential
manner.
Much of the $32.5 million per year for crime prevention will be
dedicated to working with grassroots groups to look at prevention
of violence against women. We are not just talking about the
Status of Women Canada looking after women's issues but about how
every department addresses women's equality.
1305
We are still committed to working with non-governmental
organizations, as we said in the throne speech. We have an ad
hoc group of ministers currently looking at how we work with NGOs
and volunteer organizations. We are discussing with them how to
improve their capacity. We are working with them before we even
begin to develop public policy. They are at the table with us to
develop that public policy so that it is implementable and
effective.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister two questions that
I think should demand fairly straightforward answers.
She mentioned in response that $20.5 million over five years
went to Status of Women Canada. How much government funding from
her department went to the group REAL Women?
She also mentioned that the Prime Minister met yesterday with
some of the representatives of the women's group. Why it is
being reported today, then, that the leaders of NACSOW have said
that seemed to be a complete waste of time?
Hon. Hedy Fry: Mr. Speaker, I do not have the exact
figures, but I think over the last nine years we have funded REAL
Women in projects it has brought to the table. It has in fact
been doing very good work in dealing with the issue of unpaid
work, something at which the government has been looking, the
caregiving work women do for which they get no reimbursement.
We have funded REAL Women but we did not fund that group this
year because it did not come forward with a project worth
funding. We have not funded many other groups when their
projects did not meet the criteria for funding.
The Prime Minister met with women because he is very supportive
of the attention the World March and the women's march in this
country is bringing to issues that he has consistently had to
defend in the House.
Members of her party only talk about tax breaks and the wealth
of individuals. The Prime Minister is on record as saying we
have to deal with the issue of disadvantaged persons. That is
the kind of balanced approach we are taking. That is why the
Prime Minister met with them. The Prime Minister told them that
he does not micromanage and that in their meetings with members
of his cabinet that will take place over the next two days they
will discuss the very specific issues in their 13 requests.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, listening to the minister responsible for the status of
women reminds me of an old expression “one step forward and two
steps backward”.
I do not need to say how hopeful women were 20-25 years ago at
the height of the women's movement. We were moving toward pay
equity, dealing with violence against women, addressing the need
for pensions and dealing with poverty. The list went on and on.
Yet here we are today with thousands of women coming to Ottawa
appealing to the government on the most basic demand, the most
basic questions pertaining to economic and social security.
Today women are under stress more than ever before as they try
to juggle work and family responsibilities. Women are finding it
more and more difficult to meet all the demands on their time and
to provide for themselves and their families.
My questions are threefold. The minister talks about the Prime
Minister meeting with the organizers of the women's march. Is it
better for the Prime Minister to meet and patronize women with
words and spurn their concerns, or is it better not to meet at
all?
Second, when it comes to the rhetoric of the minister around
gender based analysis, why do we never see that translated into
actual policies and programs? I can testify to the fact that
when it comes to applying those words, as we had an opportunity
to do in the health committee, it is Liberal members who stand
and refuse to apply gender based analysis, refuse to even ensure
parity on the governing councils for such basic areas as
scientific and medical research.
On the most basic of matters where women are truly struggling,
why does the government stand in the way each and every time?
Whether we are talking about providing for national child care,
national home care, national drug coverage or national housing
programs, these issues really matter to women in terms of making
a difference the government has done nothing. It has actually
backpedalled and made the situation worse.
1310
Will the government reverse the agenda of privatization and
deregulation and start to work in the best interest of women to
ensure we finally achieve equality in this millennium?
Hon. Hedy Fry: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member must not
confuse rhetoric with fact. The issue of what gender based
analysis has done is pretty clear. The changes in EI announced
recently by the minister of HRDC show that gender based analysis
has played a part.
Looking at the changes in the CPP, the government pushed very
hard to ensure that the dropout provisions would be there for
women so that they could drop in and out and not lose their
pensionable earnings. The survivor benefits in the CPP are part
of it. We talked about health. The whole new gender institute
in CIHR is a huge piece. When the government came into power in
1993 it established five centres of excellence for women's health
across the country.
I could go on and on about the initiatives taken when gender
based analysis showed us the way to go. What the hon. member
does not understand is that gender based analysis is about
helping each department. She should look at each department and
the changes that have been made, many of them in the budget when
the Minister of Finance put forward a tax credit for women who
are caregivers. That was a start.
Students with dependants was another start. Persons with
dependants getting grants was a start. It all shows that we
understand that women with dependants have a need for education
and other issues. I could go on but I do not have the time.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the debate today as well. I
noticed that my colleague talked about the fact that we have been
trying very hard for 20 or 25 years, I think was the number she
used, to advance some of the problems we have seen today. I
would like to put on record that a full 35 years ago in the
mid-sixties, my mother Joyce was a single parent. It was fairly
rare back then, certainly in Vancouver in the sixties. I can
remember being I think the only family in our school that had
divorced parents. It is not that many years down the road and it
seems almost strange if a student has two parents at home.
Government money is going into looking at these problems. They
are endemic in society, but is just throwing money at them the
ultimate solution?
The minister just took a shot across, saying that my party and I
are only concerned about taxes and debt, that we do not
understand the lives of real women out there. I have news for
her. I know all too well on a personal basis the pain involved
in growing up in a single parent family in Vancouver, very close
to where she lives right now. I have been very blessed by that.
I would have given anything if my mom had been able to be a
doctor or a professional person to raise her kids. She had no
trade. She went out, got a job in a lamp store and raised five
children single-handedly. I take my hat off to her.
There are thousands and probably millions of people out there in
the very same position, but surely these things have been going
on not just for 25 years but for 35 years. For the money the
minister says she is putting in to rectify these problems, surely
something else is missing in this equation. It is not just money
for this group or money for that group, but something is wrong if
the basic building block of the family is not a concern.
We put forward a tax friendly policy toward families because we
truly think that families are discriminated against if, for
instance, one parent chooses to stay home and raise the kids.
That does not mean I advocate that one parent out of every family
should stay home, but surely they should be given that choice.
The minister knows that under tax policy one needs a receipt for
third party day care. What is the problem? If someone chooses
to have one parent stay at home, why can that not be treated as
some sort of tax break? We have been around the block on that. I
know that the junior minister of finance got backed right into a
corner some months ago about this very issue because it is
indefensible.
If she says that all I do is rant about taxes, that is one way
they could solve a whole lot of problems in a big hurry.
Many of these things we are looking at and talking about today,
and which the March of Women, address the whole idea of violence
against women. However, there is violence against everyone in
our society. Everyone of us here should abhor that. Surely we
could make changes in the justice system.
1315
I look at the youth justice bill for instance. The justice
minister was sworn in I believe on August 3, 1997, but I am not
sure of the exact date. She said the youth justice bill was
going to be her number one concern. It is now October 2000 and I
am terrified to think what concerns seven, eight and nine are.
The youth justice bill deals with women but it also deals with
all kinds of problems. It deals with young men and women being
perpetrators of crime and young men and women, older people and
children being the victims of those crimes. What happened? She
blamed the separatists and said they were holding it up in the
House of Commons. This is a majority government. If something
is as important as making sure that our justice system works
well, surely to heaven we do not have to blame it on the Bloc
just because it is doing a bit of filibustering in the House. If
a government really believes that then let it work through the
House and through committee. For goodness sake in two
parliamentary terms, one of which is coming evidently to a rapid
end for no reason, why can we not get these things through and
let justice be justice in the justice system and not under the
guise of the Minister of State for Multiculturalism.
Justice and equality do not necessarily require further
government intrusion. As I said earlier, we put more and more
money into these programs and yet the minister claims that the
incidence of violence and the incidence of women's shelters is
going up at an alarming rate. It would seem to me that when she
talks about the roots of violence or family domestic problems, we
have to dig a little deeper to the root.
She talked about the gun control bill and that this really was
going to help things because she said guns commit these crimes,
and granted they do in violence against women. However, it is
almost as if there is a myth across the way that nothing is going
to happen or some of these dreadful things will not happen again.
Even if a gun is registered, do government members think that a
gun will not be used commit a crime?
Let us look at the roots of violence and why domestic violence
happens. I know plenty about violence even though the minister
would laugh and say that am just a Alliance member and know very
little about it. I understand what family violence is about. I
do not understand it totally but I understand that even if there
is a gun in the house or a knife or a frying pan, if a male or
female has it in his or her heart to commit violence, we know
darn well it is going to happen. It does not matter if a gun is
registered or if a longbow or a crossbow or a Henckels carving
knife is used. If violence is in someone's heart, the person is
going to commit violence. I really do not think gun control is
going to answer the question.
Let us look at economic equality and women and work. Women are
more often greatly affected as part of the sandwich generation.
They have kids at home to look after. Many of us who are baby
boomers are not only getting older but our parents are aging.
Many of us look after our parents at home and that obviously
takes up, in terms of unpaid work, huge amounts of responsibility
for women.
I already mentioned family tax fairness and child care. Why
would we discriminate against two parent families where one
chooses to stay home? Who in the House would be able to defend
such a policy where the government discriminates in the tax
system against someone who chooses to stay at home.
Setting up the promised national child care fund is something
that the group is looking for, starting with an immediate
contribution of $2 billion. When I talk about family and
celebrating family as a priority, lots of people send their kids
to day care and many times they have to. I do not think it
should be a natural way of life to assume that we are going to
send our kids to day care as a matter of course. This motion
certainly leads in that direction.
Let me talk about personal and business taxes. The minister
talked about taxes. I wish she were here to hear this because it
is a really good one. She needs to know that women are starting
businesses at twice the rate of men. That to me is a pretty
significant and exciting development. Yet, I did not hear
anything about it from the other side.
Mrs. Sue Barnes: I did S. O. 31s on that years ago.
Miss Deborah Grey: Very good. I am glad to know that
somebody over there has talked about how women are starting
businesses at twice the rate of men. That is good news.
1320
When we talk about taxes and how this will absolutely help, we
want to lower business taxes. The minister and a couple of other
members over there are rolling their eyes to indicate as if this
would help. Lower business and payroll taxes would help a man or
woman with a small business. I see that as good news and I am
sure they do over there too. It is just the looks on their faces
that does not have me convinced.
On planning for retirement, the official opposition has a plan
to benefit all older Canadians, especially women. That is
exciting to me. In 1997-98 women made up 52% of college
enrolment and 55% of university enrolment. There is nothing
wrong with that. It is certainly representative of what they
represent in the population and it is absolutely wonderful to see
that happening. The minister talked about some of the good
things happening regarding student loans.
Let me wind down by talking about the manifesto of the March
of Women 2000 and NAC have as their plank and platform. This
actually is what we are voting on, not just the words of the Bloc
motion.
First, of its feminist dozen, which is 13, is to restore federal
funding to health care and enforce the rules against the
privatization of our health care system, beginning with Alberta.
I notice that at the Liberal convention this weekend people
want to talk about two tier health care systems in Quebec. I
will be interested to watch the health minister have a little fit
like he did with the folks in Alberta. I also will mention for
the listening audience that B.C. and Alberta pay health premiums,
and I understand that no other province does. That is kind of
interesting.
Second is to spend an additional 1% of the budget on social
housing.
Third is to set up the promised national child care fund,
starting with an immediate contribution of $2 billion.
Fourth is to increase old age security payments to provide older
women with a decent standard of living. That is an excellent
idea. Women between the age of 55 and 65 who are widowed receive
pitiful survivor benefits. It is a difficult 10 or 15 years that
they have to spend.
Fifth is to use the surplus from the employment insurance fund
to increase benefits, provide longer payment periods and improve
access as well as improve maternity and family benefits. It is
funny that the Liberals took all that away but now that we are on
the eve of an election all of a sudden it comes forward. Maybe
we should revive that old Barry McGuire song “The Eve of
Destruction”. It is not an eve of destruction but it is
certainly an eve of an election.
Sixth is to first support women organizing for equality and
democracy by allocating $50 million to front line, independent,
feminist, women controlled groups committed to ending violence
against women such as women's centres, rape crisis centres and
women's shelters. Yes, these are good ideas. However, what
happens to men who are perpetrating violence or men who are
victims of violence? We would all agree that we have some of in the
country. Surely they would not just fall through the cracks.
Second is to recognize and fund the three autonomous aboriginal
women's organizations to ensure full participation in all
significant public policy decisions, as well as provide adequate
funding to aboriginal women's services, including shelters in all
rural, remote and urban aboriginal communities. Third is to fund
a national meeting of lesbians to discuss and prioritize areas
for legislative and public policy reform. Fourth is to provide
$30 million in core funding for equality seeking women's
organizations which represents only $2 for every woman and girl
child in Canada, our fair share. I am not sure what that is.
Seventh is to fund all consultations with a wide range of
women's equality seeking organizations prior to all legislative
reform of relevance to women's security and inequality rights
beginning with the criminal code and to ensure access for women
from marginalized communities.
Eighth is to implement progressive immigration reform to provide
domestic workers with full immigration status on arrival, abolish
the head tax on all immigrants and to include persecution on the
basis of gender and sexual orientation as grounds for claiming
refugee status.
Ninth is to contribute to the elimination of poverty around the
world by supporting the cancellation of the debts of the 53
poorest countries and increasing Canada's international
development aid to .07% of the gross national product. We are
$600 billion in debt. For every family of four either watching
here or on television today that is an extra mortgage of $75,000
on our debt. It cannot be forgiven. We owe that money and every
single family of four in the country owes that percentage to our
national debt. Surely we are in a pretty grave situation here
too.
1325
Tenth, of the feminist dozen 13 immediate demands to the federal
government to end poverty and violence against women, is to adopt
national standards which guarantee the right to welfare for
everyone in need and ban workfare.
I always liked working. I am very glad and grateful, being
raised by a single parent, that my mom did not have to use
welfare. She worked in a lamp store and raised five kids by the
scruff of the neck in downtown Vancouver in the sixties when
such a thing certainly was not popular. She was very blessed
that she did not have to go on welfare. She certainly did not
think she had a right to it. She had the opportunity to get out,
get a job and raise those kids. For her, welfare would have been
something that she would have to fall back on if she needed to. I
certainly do not think she thought that it was a right.
Eleventh is to recognize the ongoing exclusion of women with
disabilities from economic, political and social life, and take
the essential first step of ensuring and funding full access for
women with disabilities to all consultations on issues of
relevance to women. Yes, that it a good thing but are men with
disabilities treated fairly in the workforce as well? Do we just
eliminate them? There are great problems with all people with
disabilities and we would be discriminatory if we just picked out
one group of them and not the other.
Twelfth is to establish a national system of grants based on
need not merit to enable access to post-secondary education and
reduce student debt. As far as I know, we are the only national
party in the country that has in our platform an income
contingent student loan repayment plan. I have not seen that
over there. I understand that the minister of HRD not long ago
said “We lost $245 million but shucks it was student loans.”
These were taxpayers' dollars. They just disappeared? We have
said pay the money back. If they have a job doing x when
they are qualified to have a job doing y then surely they
should pay back some of it out of the money they are making doing
job x. Make it contingent upon their income. People would
know that they would be paying back their loans, maybe at a lower
rate. However, when they get a better job at least we know it
would be paid back fully. Then we would not have the HRD
minister saying that they lost the money and since it was more
than six years ago they just wrote it off. I do not think that
is fair to anyone.
Thirteenth is to adopt proactive pay equity legislation. I have
always believed in equal pay for equal work. I am a high school
teacher and worked just as hard as every male teacher in that
school. How do we go to pay equity where we are talking about
equal pay for work of equal value? How do we ever define that?
I would like to mention to the minister as I wind down now, that
in my little school in Dewberry, Alberta we had some problem with
the boiler systems. One morning it was 45 below. Yes, the
principal is number one in any school, but does anyone know who I
went to see on that morning when the boilers were out? I went to
see the janitor because I knew he was the only guy who could get
those things going or get some propane tanks in there to blow
heat down the hall. How do we ever determine what is work of
equal value—
Ms. Jean Augustine: Equity is important then, is it not?
Miss Deborah Grey: I see I have touched a nerve. It is a
funny thing. When we look at it, we must
realize that these are the demands we are talking about and
will be voting on maybe not later this afternoon but
certainly tomorrow.
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member
and I realize that she does not have a clue. She still does not
get it. She does not understand the difference between the
realities of men and women. I do not know what part she does not
understand that 88% of persons who are killed in domestic
violence are women. It is all about sameness. It is all about
one size fits all.
The question I want to ask is on the issue of pay equity. Here
is another prime example of how that party across the way does
not even have a clue. Pay equity recognizes the fact that women
have for a long time been caught in what we call the pink ghetto
or in the low paying jobs in which the jobs were paid low
because women did them. They are still being paid low wages
because women are still doing them. It brings them up to scratch
in terms of the value of the work that secretaries do, the value
of the work that elementary school teachers do and puts it
against the value of the work that men are doing.
1330
Would the member explain to me why she does not seem to get it?
I would like to know where she lives. She talks a lot of
rhetoric, but I would like to ask her to explain to me what she
knows about the historical pay equity problems, the pink ghetto,
and the fact that women for so long have been underpaid because
of the work they do. Could the member tell me what she thinks
about that.
Miss Deborah Grey: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says I
just do not get it and do not understand the differences between
men and women. Does that mean seven years of marriage have
taught me nothing?
Let me assure the hon. member that I am well aware of the
differences between men and women, and I say praise God. I was
41 when I was married the first time and I love having a husband.
The hon. member can bet I understand the differences between men
and women. I grew up in a family of four daughters. My husband
is the eldest of five sons. I certainly do understand some of
the intimate differences between men and women.
The hon. member talks about women being caught in the pink
ghetto. She said I do not get it and she asked where I live. I
live in Edmonton. I have seen some things all across the
country, specifically in Vancouver, where family members still
live.
The member laughs this off and talks about the pink ghetto and
whatever else. Frankly, I do not find it very funny. The hon.
member says I do not get the fact that women have been ghettoized
and asks me to explain that.
The minister knows there are many reasons why women exit the
workforce. She just talked about it with her CPP in and out
plan. That is one of the reasons there are problems. That is
one of the problems. Beyond that, many women choose to go into
the humanities and other areas. They make conscious decisions
about child raising and child rearing.
Just to label it off and make comments about the colour I am
wearing today, I am not sure—
Hon. Hedy Fry: That has nothing to do with it.
Miss Deborah Grey: Mr. Speaker, she says it has nothing
to do with it. What does have something to do with it is the
fact that when government money is being thrown at something and
it really does not solve the problem, the government needs to go
back to the table and say “wait a minute, maybe there are deeper
root causes for some of these issues”.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, as I sit here and listen to the Liberals and the
Alliance on the issue of pay equity I just want to say a pox on
both their houses. The concept of pay equity is well understood
by those who have worked long and hard to advance this notion
over the past 20 years. I do not understand how, in 2000, we are
sitting here debating whether or not it has merit and can be
applied.
Members of the Alliance sit in the Chamber and say no to pay
equity, no to equal pay for work of equal value. The Liberals
just refuse to apply the law. Goodness gracious, we sat here for
10 years while the government found every legal loophole it could
to avoid paying its obligations and applying equal pay for work
of equal value.
What is the difference? On the one hand we have a party that
gives lip service and lots of rhetoric but refuses to do anything
until it is pushed, dragging and screaming, to do something. On
the other hand we have a party that just does not acknowledge the
basic facts and the basic situation. It refuses to simply
acknowledge that fundamental aspect of the pursuit of equality.
For the benefit of Alliance members I should point them back to
some 15 years ago when the concept of equal pay for work of equal
value was developed and implemented. It was implemented fully in
the province of Manitoba. It was implemented fully in Yukon. It
was implemented in other provinces across the country. It works.
Would the member give some thought to the record of
jurisdictions that have applied this concept, bring her policies
up to date, and support the very important struggle we have as
women in parliament and in the country to ensure full equality
between women and men?
Miss Deborah Grey: Mr. Speaker, I would be interested to
know if the government of Saskatchewan has brought in full pay
equity. Maybe it is working on this before Roy leaves. I am not
sure. This might be his last item of business.
I have been told that I do not know the difference between men
and women and that I just do not get it. Now I have had a pox
put on my house. This could be a long winter. However, I am
looking forward to heading home to see my husband as soon as time
permits.
1335
Let me go back to the difference between equal pay for equal
work and equal pay for work of equal value. How do we know the
value of work? It seems to me all work is valuable. It seems
the government is talking about the fact that only some work is
valued. I think all work has value whether it is done by men,
women or young people. I spoke at two or three schools last week
and saw groups of young people. I think it will be exciting to
have them in the workforce.
It is very difficult to see an ill defined policy like this one.
I just gave probably the best life example of work of equal
value. As much as I respected my principal, he was the last guy
I wanted to see when it was -45°C and the boilers were not
working. Somebody has to somehow arbitrarily put value on work
A, work B or work C.
I see I have exorcised some of the members across the way.
Before we move on to the next speakers, and I look forward to
hearing what they have to say, let me reiterate very strongly
that with more and more government money being distributed to
various groups on various issues, the problem is only increasing.
We can talk about women's shelters, family violence, violence
against women, women staying home with their children, or those
of us with older parents. Many baby boomers are staying home
with those people. Is it getting worse? It would seem so. The
government just continues to put in more and more money and give
the rhetoric that it has solved the problem.
The Prime Minister met with NACSOW. I was amused the minister
said that I was ranting about the Prime Minister's meeting with
the women's groups yesterday. It was not this member but the
NACSOW people themselves who said the meeting was a colossal
waste of time. I was not at that meeting. I was on an airplane.
When the people themselves say it is a waste of time, I think we
need to realize that surely there are better ways to solve the
problem than an increase in rhetoric and money and everything
else.
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have been listening very intently to the member. I
think we want to establish for not only ourselves but all
Canadians the position she is putting forward as an individual
member and on behalf of her party.
I get the idea that she is saying one size fits all. Are we
talking about equality and equality in the workplace? What is
her party's position on dealing with equality in the workplace,
on women gaining equality in the workplace? How would the member
deal with visible minority women, aboriginal women and women with
disabilities in the workplace?
Miss Deborah Grey: In two words, Mr. Speaker, equal
opportunity. Regardless of whether it is based on gender or
disability it should be equal opportunity for everyone.
The minister stands and says she defends these feminist dozen. I
do not know how anyone, even a Liberal, could defend the fact
that they say they want full funding access for women with
disabilities. That is discriminatory. There are lots of women,
lots of men and lots of young people with disabilities who need
equal opportunity, period, in the workplace regardless of gender
or disability.
That is not one size fits all. That is making sure we do not
just separate out women with disabilities but include men with
disabilities and say that we will hire on the basis of merit and
merit alone. There would not be the discrimination that I see in
this document.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I take
great pleasure in participating in this debate. I will be
sharing my time with the member for Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, the
status of women spokesperson on behalf of the New Democratic
Party.
As I reflect on the exchanges that have taken place between the
spokespersons for the government party and the official
opposition, it is little wonder that women in the country have
become discouraged. They are tired, fed up with being dismissed,
demeaned and basically pushed into the shadows by the party in
government and the official opposition.
1340
Is it worse to have an official opposition that does not even
understand the concept of equality and justice, that does not
even understand the notion of sisterhood and solidarity, that
clearly embraces the Margaret Thatcher view of the world that
there is no such thing as community or society but only
individuals living as isolated islands in a society that does not
care about them? Or, is it worse to have a government party that
actually does understand something about the magnitude of the
problem, that cannot even make that excuse, but that does not use
the power, the mandate and the resources it has at its disposal
to do something to advance equality and justice on behalf of
women? It is hard to know which is worse.
I want to leave that very depressing situation to focus on
something very much more hopeful.
[Translation]
Yesterday a group of Canadian women held a huge
rally here on Parliament Hill. I remember that six years ago
Quebec women organized a solidarity march which focused on a
very important and progressive symbol: bread and roses.
Today I want to congratulate Quebec women for having shown
leadership in the great battle to fight violence against women,
to fight poverty and to promote justice, solidarity and
equality for women.
[English]
I am very proud of the leadership shown by the women of Quebec
in this struggle. They have undertaken to turn what started out
to be a modest and successful march in the province of Quebec
which extended across Canada the next year into an international
women's march against poverty and violence.
Yesterday, as I had the opportunity to mix and mingle and
participate with those women, as did many of my New Democrat
colleagues, I felt very hopeful. Despite all the discrimination
women have suffered, despite all the reasons women have to feel
discouraged, they celebrated yesterday. They celebrated with
music, with humour, and with a reinforcement of the kind of
solidarity and sisterhood they know will be necessary to move
governments to act to eliminate poverty and violence against
women in society.
It is not an accident that the women of the world who have come
together have recognized that they have to work with one another
and support one another to get governments to act. That is why
we are privileged to have a democratic process that allows women
an equal voice.
I was very encouraged to hear woman after woman, and not just
those who had the opportunity to speak on behalf of others, speak
very much from their own experiences, their own hearts. They
will not take no for an answer. They have been waiting on the
sidelines. They will use the democratic process available to
them in the upcoming election to say enough is enough. They will
not put up with a government that is sitting on a surplus, which
is building to $121 billion and beyond, and refusing to implement
its commitments to women, to the people of Canada, in the 1993
election and again in 1997.
1345
What were those commitments? A commitment to a national child
care program, which still has not seen the light of day, and a
commitment to a national home care program. Make no mistake
about it, it is women who carry the double burden of the cutback
in our health care system. The government brags that it has
reinvested some money into health care. Wrong. It has not even
brought health care funding up to the level that it was, for the
name of heavens, under the Mulroney government when it took power
in 1993.
There was a commitment to a pharmacare program that would ensure
that elderly women would not be forced to choose between buying
their groceries or filling their prescription for drugs given to
them by their doctor. There was also a commitment to more
adequate, affordable housing.
When the Liberals were in opposition they said that social
housing was a disgrace and that more money needed to be invested
in social housing. Does anyone know what their contribution has
been to the women and children struggling with inadequate
housing, struggling with the reality that more and more women and
children are homeless on the streets in some parts of this
country? We have some 5,000 children who are homeless and who
have nowhere to go to bed at night except at an emergency shelter
in the city of Toronto. Does anyone know what the federal
Liberal contribution has been toward solving that problem and
eliminating any national commitment to social housing? We are
the only industrial nation in the world that does not have a
national housing program.
Far from despair, I celebrate and I take hope from the fact that
50,000 women came together representing millions of other women
to say “We will solve this problem. We will take charge of our
own futures. We will use the democratic instruments that are
available to us to ensure that we demand accountability from our
governments and we make progress that will advance genuine
equality and justice for ourselves and for our children”.
I will conclude by once again saying how inspiring it has been
to watch women come together to support one another in this
struggle. This is not just a slogan. The women's movement, I am
prepared to say, is the single most important movement
happening in the world today. These women have come together and
said “As long as one woman is a victim of violence, as long as
one woman in this world is a victim of poverty, then we are all
at risk of victimization”. That is the meaning of the notion of
sisterhood in solidarity.
[Translation]
“So, so, so, solidarity”, that was the slogan. Many women, not
only across Canada but literally all over the world, are working
together to solve the issues of violence and poverty. I am very
proud to participate, along with my NDP colleagues, in this
great battle, one we intend to win.
[English]
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
not as concerned with the speech we have just had as I am with
the speech made by the member of the official opposition.
I do not think the official opposition understands pay equity
and women's issues. I believe the member of the NDP and her
caucus understand these issues very well.
What I have a problem with is talking about it, dealing with it,
then voting for it and encouraging NDP governments to support
those same positions. This seems to be where the rhetoric comes
first and the reality is that we do not quite get there.
1350
Let us talk about pay equity in Saskatchewan. That government
says it cannot afford it but we cannot afford not to do it.
This is a serious issue. That member, who was the previous
leader of that party, voted against gun control. Gun control was
a woman's issue. I know there were members of that party who
clearly understood the issue. My concerns come from wanting to
have both the actions and the words on this issue on the same
page, which I believe would actually unite us in many respects.
I respect a lot of the members in that caucus for their stances
and their positions. They have been very supportive in many
cases. However, I was disappointed with what happened when we
voted on gun control. I would like that explained to the
Canadian public.
Ms. Alexa McDonough: Mr. Speaker, why does it not
surprise me that Liberal members of the House absolutely never
want to deal with their own record? What do they want to do?
They want to ask me to account for a government at some other
level in some province that is halfway across the country from
where I spent my political years and active life so they can be
satisfied that they do not have to do anything about pay equity.
Who can blame government members for not wanting to talk about
the fact that some 17 years after pay equity legislation became
the law of the land they were finally forced, because the courts
would not let them get away with breaking the law any longer, to
pay up. No wonder they do not want to talk about that issue.
What do members of that government have to say about the fact
that it is now seven years later and we still do not have a
national child care program? What do they have to say about the
fact that poor women, visible minority women and the poorest,
most discriminated women of all in this country, aboriginal
women, are able to give more leadership in the fight for child
care, for services to deal with domestic violence, for home care
and for pharmacare than this whole government put together with
all of the resources in Canada at its disposal. No wonder the
members of the pathetic Liberal government do not want to give an
accounting of their record over the last seven years.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can talk about the record of
the government. I can talk about health care and the
reinvestment in prenatal programs. I can talk about EI and the
government's move in this area for women and their families. I
can talk about equity. I can talk about all kinds of programs in
terms of head start programs and children's programs.
I do not understand why the members of the NDP, and that leader
in particular, want to take the high ground here when they would
bankrupt the government with their spending spree. They have no
concept of equality. They have no concept of equilibrium. What
they would do is spend the whole pot on whatever they think is
appropriate without being fiscally prudent.
The leader opposite should hang her head in shame knowing that
she cannot bring about the balance necessary. I can defend the
record of this government any day of the week and twice on
Sundays because we have done the right thing. What they cannot
get their heads around is having the fiscal responsibility
necessary to govern.
Ms. Alexa McDonough: Mr. Speaker, for seven straight
years the government has used the excuse of the deficit for
breaking practically every single promise that it made in two
election campaigns that might have positively impacted on the
suffering of women.
The hon. member should not talk to me about fiscal
responsibility. The reality is that the jig is up. The
government can no longer use the excuse of the deficit for
continuing to turn its back on home care, on child care and on
pharmacare, on the things that would really make a difference in
the lives of women.
Yes, that member is correct. When it comes down to what we
would do with the surplus, we would make no apology for the fact
that we would overwhelmingly spend that surplus to deal with
poverty, with violence, with homelessness and with the hunger of
children.
1355
If members opposite want a debate over whether the emphasis
should be on driving more people to food banks, which is what
Liberal policies are doing, or giving yet another freebie to the
bankers, we will fight every time to give women and children what
they need so they are not forced to depend upon food banks. Let
us have a debate.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
after listening to the speech by the hon. Secretary of State for
the Status of Women, I could not help but notice how full it was
of incredible contradictions.
The hon. secretary of state was saying that to eradicate poverty
among women we would have to somehow reduce the capital gains tax
for the wealthy; that to eliminate poverty among women we would
have to give bankers another tax break; that to eliminate poverty
among women we would have to change the EI system in a structure
where still only 30% of unemployed women will qualify for EI.
I wonder if the hon. leader of the New Democratic Party could
clarify some of the inherent contradictions in the attitudes held
by the hon. secretary of state.
Ms. Alexa McDonough: Mr. Speaker, I can try to clarify
but I sure will not make excuses for the Liberals. What is so
astounding about this is that they do know better. They know
that when a federal government eliminates its commitments to
social housing it is bound to increase the number of homeless
people and the number of people living in substandard housing.
The Liberals do understand that if they provide no leadership on
child care they will have more and more families at risk and more
and more children who do not have the benefit of affordable
quality child care.
What makes this so pathetic is when one of those members stands
up, as he just did, and says “Why are you not congratulating us
for our head start program?” I have worked with the head start
movement for 33 years. What the government knows is that the
vast majority of Canadian children are being robbed of getting
the kind of head start in life they need because the government
has completely abandoned its commitments to universal affordable
child care.
[Translation]
The Speaker: Since it is almost 2 p.m., we will now move on to
Statements by Members.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
JIM STONE
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
take this opportunity to extend my congratulations to Mr. Jim
Stone, a constituent in my riding of Simcoe North, who recently
donated his time and talent overseas in the service of the
Canadian Executive Services Organization.
CESO is a non-profit, volunteer based organization which brings
Canadian expertise to businesses, communities and organizations
in Canada and abroad. Mr. Jim Stone volunteered in Lima, Peru
where he used his expertise to advise on the management of the
paper and textile industry. He also provided technical
assistance and made recommendations on production quality and
cost.
On behalf of all Canadians, I wish to congratulate Mr. Stone and
the many highly skilled Canadian volunteers. It is because of
the efforts of people like Mr. Stone that Canada enjoys a strong
international reputation.
* * *
THE LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, evidently the Prime Minister had to scour the
countryside to find new cabinet material.
Is there no one over there whom he already trusts? Or maybe
they are already so divided that he cannot build a cabinet out of
wood, hay and stubble.
What about this one, Brian Tobin? Mr. Speaker, you know him.
He is the guy who promised to serve a full term as the premier of
Newfoundland. He said “I intend to put in a full day every day
for the full term that I have been given”. That was in the
Montreal Gazette on February 10, 1999. What a short term
it has been. It is another example I guess of how promises by
Liberals at election time mean diddly-squat.
After 93's flip and 97's flop, Canadians will reject the Liberal
government campaign of negativity and attacks in the year 2000.
We will have no part of it. One strike, two strikes, three
strikes, well, the government may be out. It is a new game and a
new day in Canada.
* * *
1400
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Réginald Bélair (Timmins—James Bay, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I was very disappointed and outraged that the city of
Toronto has approved a contract that would allow tonnes of
Toronto's waste to be shipped to Kirkland Lake. The situation
demonstrates a total lack of respect for the residents of the
Timiskaming area and by extension the whole population of
northern Ontario.
Will this decision create a precedent for similar projects in
other larger centres in southern Ontario? Will the mine sites in
the city of Timmins be targeted next?
How could the proponents ignore the reports completed many years
ago warning of deep cracks in the bedrock of the Adams mine site?
How could they ignore the pleas of thousands of protesters who
only want to protect their environment, their health and their
quality of life?
There is no reason to use the citizens of northern Ontario as
guinea pigs for the disposal of their waste. The problem was
created in Toronto and should remain in Toronto.
* * *
FIJI
Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today on an issue of great concern to many citizens around
the world.
On May 19, 2000 an anti-government demonstration was held by
civilian rebels in Suva, the capital of Fiji. At that time,
Prime Minister Mahendra Chaudhry and members of his government
were taken hostage and a military government was established.
Following the release of the hostages and the toppling of the
military government, Fiji fell into a period of anarchy in which
an interim civilian government was undemocratically established.
The interim government has announced that it will not hold
elections for three years. It plans to rewrite the constitution
of Fiji within one year in order to place further restrictions on
the basis of racial origin.
I rise today to ask members of the House to support the
commonwealth ministers' action group in its desire for free
elections in Fiji as soon as possible and to ensure that a new
constitution is written, free of restrictions on the basis of
racial origin.
* * *
[Translation]
WORLD MARCH OF WOMEN
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am extremely pleased to rise in the House and
announce that the World March of Women was a knockout success
here in Canada.
Some 30,000 women, men and children took part in the march held
on October 14 in Montreal, and approximately 20,000 people
gathered here on Parliament Hill yesterday, October 15.
In addition, representatives of the Canadian Women's March
Committee met yesterday with the Prime Minister for
approximately three quarters of an hour.
The Prime Minister reaffirmed our government's commitment in the
fight to end poverty and violence against women.
I would point to the $30.7 million set aside by the government to
eliminate domestic violence and the $20.5 million reinvested in
the status of women.
* * *
[English]
YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it is a picture I cannot look at, this photograph of an
89 year old Kelowna woman who was beaten savagely. Around each
bewildered blue eye the bruises are red and painful. Her face is
swollen and discoloured. She has suffered terribly. Her
assailant was a 17 year old. It is disturbing.
It is disturbing to learn that this offender will not be tried
in adult court as befits his crime but in youth court where the
sentence will be much less severe.
Because of that there is no healing. The bruises are gone but
not the fear, a fear that has spread and has robbed the people of
my community of a sense of safety. Surely the justice minister
can see that the Young Offenders Act is not an effective
deterrent against youth violence but a weapon being used against
our society.
* * *
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
violence can take on many forms. It can be physical,
psychological and sexual. Although violence can affect everyone,
violence against women, particularly physical violence against
women, is a predominant reality. The UN estimates that around
the world one-quarter of the female population is severely abused
at home. Battery is the world's leading cause of injury among
women aged 15 to 44.
A report about violence against women, a focus on women, from
the UN in 1995, reports that because of custom two million girls
experience genital mutilation every year. That works out to five
young girls every minute.
1405
In Canada in 1997, 88% of all spousal violence victims reported
were women and 65% of those women reported more than two
instances.
The World March of Women brings attention to an important area
of concern for all members of society, of all genders. Women and
men have to work together to get at these causes and get the
solutions on the table.
* * *
[Translation]
WORLD MARCH OF WOMEN
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I took part in last week's World March of Women.
My reason for doing so was quite simply that I think that we
should all take an interest in this global event to fight against
poverty and violence.
If we had watched women march with complete indifference and
without feeling that we were in any way concerned, this
extraordinary demonstration of solidarity would have been in
vain.
I have a three and a half year old daughter and I hope that she
will be able to grow up in a society where there will truly be
equality of opportunity, in a society where she will never have
to worry that she might end up living in poverty or suffer
physical or psychological violence.
I would like her to be able to grow up in a sovereign Quebec, a
Quebec that wants to change things, that will be allowed to build
not just a prosperous society, but a society where I hope racism,
sexism and violence will have no place.
* * *
[English]
WORLD MARCH OF WOMEN
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, delegations from over 5,000 international women's groups
from 157 countries will participate in the World March of Women
in front of the United Nations building in New York. There, 200
of these women hope to meet with the heads of the security
council, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan and many of the other
delegations.
The World March of Women was launched on March 8 of this year.
Postcards were sent to various offices. We know that women
rallied in Brussels. Canadian women came to Parliament Hill and
went to other major cities across Canada, while the main focus, a
rally in Washington D.C., took place over the weekend.
I rise to ask all hon. members to take the time to look at the
platform, to look at the issues that these women have brought
before us and to give consideration to the women—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake.
* * *
WORLD FOOD DAY
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, today is World Food Day. It is the
day that Canadians are asked to focus on the goal of delivering
adequate food to everyone in the world.
The United Nations has defined food security as existing when
“all people, at all times, have safe and nutritious food to meet
their dietary needs for an active and healthy life”.
We have enough food in the world today to meet this goal.
Tragically, because of war and political interference, millions
of people are suffering from malnutrition. More must be done to
get the food to the people who need it.
I need to end my statement by highlighting the difficult times
facing our food suppliers, our Canadian farm families. Farm
families all across this country are being forced into bankruptcy
by international interference in the market.
Their plight is being made worse today by the inept Liberal
agriculture policies. Farmers are in an impossible squeeze. At
the same time that the price they receive for their commodities
is being forced down, their cost of production is being forced
through the roof.
I call on the government to act today, on World Food Day, on
food safety and also to support our farmers who are part of the
solution to feeing the world's hungry.
* * *
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians are watching developments in the Middle East with great
alarm and dismay.
We are witnessing the worst violence seen in recent years, with
casualties mounting on all sides. It appears that the prospects
for a meaningful peace between Israelis and Palestinians may be
in jeopardy.
All Canadians are holding their breath in the hope that today's
emergency summit meeting in Egypt will bring an end to the
violence and a return to the negotiating table.
Canada's role should not be to lay blame. Canada's role should
not be to support inflammatory, lopsided resolutions. Canada's
role should be to live up to our well earned reputation as a
peacekeeper and an effective negotiator on the world stage.
We ask the people of the Middle East to exercise restraint and
place reason over passion in their march toward peace.
Here in our own communities, we must also remember to hold true
to the Canadian values of equality, tolerance and compassion.
* * *
WOMEN'S RIGHTS
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday, 60,000 women and men took to the streets in
this capital. Their aim was to demonstrate to the government
that women's issues cannot and will not be ignored any longer.
1410
They were demanding an end to poverty and violence against
women, and support flooded in from across the country.
Thirteen immediate demands were presented to the Liberal
government, such as: the restoration of federal funding to
health care and the enforcement of the rules against the
privatization of our health care system; an additional 1% of the
budget to be spent on social housing; an immediate contribution
of $2 billion for the promised national child care fund; the
supporting of women's organizing for equality and democracy
through a variety of methods; the establishment of a national
system of grants based on need, not merit; and the adoption of a
proactive pay equity legislation.
We in the NDP wholeheartedly support these demands and will
stand in solidarity with Canadian women to force the government
to act upon this.
* * *
[Translation]
WORLD MARCH OF WOMEN
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Bloc Quebecois salutes the courage, determination and solidarity
with which the women of Quebec, of Canada and of the entire world
are attacking the violence and poverty of which they are victims.
The impact of the March of Women will be a permanent one, for it
sets out the parameters of our political action for a number of
years to come.
The March of Women concerns all people, women, men and children,
who are the victims of poverty and of violence. It also involves
all those who are no longer able to tolerate the fact that one in
five people lives below the poverty line.
With a surplus assessed at more than $160 billion over the next
five years, the Bloc calls upon the Prime Minister to acknowledge
the wrongs his government's social policies have done to women
and to get on side with our party's motion, investing the
necessary funds over the next five years to meet the legitimate
demands of the women of Quebec and of Canada.
* * *
[English]
YOUNG ENTREPRENEUR AWARDS
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
today I am delighted to pay tribute to a special group of young
men and women who have joined us on Parliament Hill today. They
are the winners of this year's young entrepreneur awards.
The awards, which are sponsored by the Business Development Bank
of Canada, are designed to honour Canada's most successful young
entrepreneurs, 30 years old and younger. There are a total of 13
winners representing each province and territory. They provide
an excellent example of what can be achieved through the
entrepreneurial spirit and innovative approach in business.
These men and women embody what it takes to succeed in today's
fast moving world of commerce. In short, they represent the new
generation of Canadian business leaders.
As such, I congratulate them and wish them continued success.
* * *
[Translation]
WORLD MARCH OF WOMEN
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am
please to rise to speak today on behalf of the women of the
riding of Madawaska—Restigouche.
This past Sunday I took part in a very important march, a march
to raise awareness of the problems women in this country and
throughout the world are faced with. Women everywhere in Canada
are coping with the problems of poverty and abuse.
Often the ones having to deal with poverty are single mothers
with young children. The priority for this government, and for
this parliament, should be to put an end to poverty for the women
of Canada and women throughout the world, particularly those with
young children.
I encourage all members of parliament to get involved. It is up
to us to take action. I would like to congratulate Yvette
Bourgouin for all of her efforts, as well as the Dames d'Acadie
in my region.
* * *
WORLD FOOD DAY
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, October 16 is World Food Day.
This day draws attention to the creation of the UN Food and
Agriculture Organization in Quebec City on October 16, 1945.
This year's theme in the celebration of world food day is a
millennium free from hunger. At present, over 800 million people
in the world, or 13% of the world's entire population, have no
access to food.
In 1996, at the world food summit, Canada and 186 other
countries made a commitment to halve the number of people who are
underfed, by 2015. Canada's action plan for food safety comes
out of this commitment.
However, despite Canada's vital contributions to world food
safety, we cannot rest on our laurels.
Food security is a complex issue and has a variety of facets
requiring the co-operation of—
The Speaker: The member for Vancouver Quadra.
* * *
[English]
THE LATE DR. MICHAEL SMITH
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
world renowned scientist Michael Smith died of leukemia on
October 4, 2000 at the age of 68.
1415
From England he came to the University of British Columbia in
1966 as a graduate researcher. His professional life was
associated with UBC from that time onward.
In 1993 he was awarded the Nobel prize in chemistry for his
research on DNA. A modest man, he gave away all of his Nobel
prize moneys to scientific research and to the development of
future scientific leaders.
His influence is apparent in several of the revolutionary ideas
present in the last several federal budgets: the millennium
scholarship fund, the 2000 chairs of research excellence and the
Canadian Institutes of Health Research.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
GRANTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, if you were approached by someone asking for $5 million
and you knew that the guy was under investigation for fraud and
theft, you would probably be a little hesitant to hand over the
cash, but not with this government, not in the Prime Minister's
riding. It handed over five million more dollars to Mario Pépin
in spite of an ongoing RCMP investigation for fraud and theft.
Why would the government give millions of taxpayer dollars to a
suspected fraud artist?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with reference to the individual and the
circumstances the hon. member is bringing to the House, there are
RCMP investigations under way. She knows full well that it is
inappropriate for me to comment on this further in the House.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, there was already an RCMP investigation under way
and it would seem to me pretty highly appropriate not to give
them five million more dollars while the investigation was going
on.
Do not let the investigations discourage you, Mr. Speaker, if
you want to get your hands on the public purse; in fact maybe
just move to the Prime Minister's riding.
Mario Pépin and his Groupe Forces were under RCMP investigation
already for fraud and theft, but the government thought nothing
of handing him five million more dollars of taxpayer money.
I would like to know: Do all fraud suspects qualify for
millions of dollars of taxpayer money, or just those who live in
the Prime Minister's riding?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me say again that it would be
inappropriate for me to comment on circumstances surrounding
investigations.
The hon. member knows full well that it is inappropriate for me
to comment upon it, as it is inappropriate for her to ask about
it.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, let me just say again how highly inappropriate it is
of the minister to okay funds of $5 million to go to someone who
is already under investigation. Talk about secrecy.
With a nudge and a wink, and may the Groupe Forces be with you,
the Prime Minister handed five million more dollars to a
suspected fraud artist, and now the minister says that she has to
hide behind a cloak of secrecy. She cannot talk about it.
It was okay for her to okay a cheque. Why does residency in the
Prime Minister's riding qualify even suspected fraud artists and
thieves access to the public purse that she okays?
The Speaker: We are going a little further than we should
be going. We would hope that the words used in our questions
would be a bit more judicious. If the hon. Minister of Human
Resources Development wants to address herself to the question,
she may.
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I listened to the hon. member's
question, first, she seems to be presuming guilt and I think that
is highly inappropriate.
Second, I remind her that when it is clear that things are under
investigation it is not only inappropriate for me to be
commenting but it is inappropriate for her to be asking such
questions.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, we have heard answers from the minister and the
government before. They say they cannot comment because there is
a police investigation and blah, blah, blah. They keep going on
like that but they could at least answer this.
While they were twiddling their thumbs and the police were doing
their investigative work, doing the good work they are supposed
to, why did the minister not at least ensure that no more money
went to people who were already charged with theft and fraud?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again I would suggest the hon. member is
presuming the outcome of an investigation.
Let us be clear. As I said on a number of occasions, the
government takes very seriously the investments we make in
communities right across the country, but if there is ever any
evidence of misuse of Canadian tax dollars we send it to the
appropriate authorities for investigation.
1420
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, eventually, in July 2000, Mr. Pépin was actually charged
with fraud and theft. He had been investigated all spring.
We could ask ourselves why. Why would the government give
another $5 million grant, this time from Industry Canada, to a
guy who has been charged with fraud and theft?
The better question is not why. The question is where. Where
did it take place? It took place once again in the Prime
Minister's riding. Why is it that whenever the Prime Minister's
riding is involved, even if someone has been charged with theft
and fraud, the money just keeps getting ladled out by the federal
government?
Mr. John Cannis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member is just not
listening. I think the minister not once, not twice, but three
times has said repeatedly that with the situation and the
position it is in it is inappropriate to answer. Hopefully they
are professional enough to understand that.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
we all know that the government is enjoying huge budget
surpluses, including a surplus of over $30 billion in the
employment insurance fund, something which the Bloc Quebecois has
been condemning for months.
In the context of the World March of Women, is the government
prepared to make a formal commitment and follow up on women's
claims by ensuring that the surpluses in the employment insurance
fund are used only for employment insurance purposes and that
women will finally get what they deserve?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, like many of my colleagues I am looking
forward to meeting with those who are representing women on this
very important march and looking forward to hearing directly from
them about their demands.
I would say to the hon. member that he need not look too far for
our record in support of Canadian women. First and foremost let
us remember that since 1993 the unemployment levels for women
working in the Canadian marketplace are the lowest they have been
in 25 years.
In addition we have made focused investment, not only using EI
money but through the national child benefit that goes directly
to low income earners.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, I met with the women's delegation. These women did not
share the minister's opinion. They condemned the government for
being driven by vote-seeking motives with its employment
insurance reforms, on the eve of a general election. Two thirds
of unemployed women do not qualify for benefits.
I am asking this government and particularly the Minister of
Finance, who is about to lower the tax rate on capital gains for
the wealthy, the following question: Could they not get moving
and take concrete action to meet the needs of women, considering
that two thirds of those who are unemployed and who paid premiums
are not getting any benefits? There are no words to describe this
situation.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
had the Bloc Quebecois leader listened to the minister, he would
have heard her list a whole series of measures taken by the
government, and the minister in particular, for the benefit of
women.
Also, in other areas, including measures to improve employment,
support for universities, help for single mothers and so on, the
leader of the opposition will know that this government is fully
aware of the plight of women.
* * *
TAXATION
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as we know
75% of single parents are women, and they taxed federally even
though they earn less than $35,000 a year.
As the Bloc Quebecois is advocating and as we know that billions
of dollars are accumulating monthly in his coffers, would the
Minister of Finance agree to relieve these families of having to
pay taxes after his mini budget is tabled?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there is no need to await the budget or the upcoming economic
statement, one needs only look at the February budget to see that
we substantially increased help to Canadian families.
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
according to the National Council on Welfare, 42% of older women
living alone are poor. This is totally immoral when the
government is floating in billions of dollars in surplus.
Could the Minister of Finance simply promise right now in the
House of Commons to respond to one of the demands of the world
march of women and substantially increase old age security
benefits? That is easy enough.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the women's cause is one that is very important to this
government. This is why a number of ministers, including the
Minister of Finance, intend to meet their representatives
tomorrow. This will certainly be one of our topics of
discussion.
* * *
1425
[English]
WOMEN'S RIGHTS
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, every
day Canadian women are paying the price for Liberal choices. More
and more women and children are forced to use food banks. More
and more go without adequate child care. More and more live in
substandard housing.
Yesterday 50,000 women, on behalf of millions across the
country, came together and said that is not good enough. When
will the government recognize that investing in women and
children must take priority over investing in hotels and golf
courses?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I remind the hon. member of the
investment that the government has made in support of Canadian
women. First and foremost, let us look at the doubling of
parental benefits from six months to twelve months.
Second, let us look at the $2.5 billion that will be invested in
the Canadian child tax credit which goes directly to low income
families, many headed by women.
Let us look at the recent changes to employment insurance where
we will not claw back from women who choose to stay home with
their children. There are a number of investments specifically
directed at Canadian women.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
Canadian women are not buying the government line. Women finally
got to meet with the Prime Minister yesterday, and do we know
what they said? They said it was a waste of time.
Women have been waiting for seven years for the Prime Minister
to take them seriously, for the government to take action against
poverty and violence. When will the government get beyond the
publicity stunts and begin to address the real needs of women?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let us continue on with the commitments
of the Prime Minister and the government to women. Let us look
at the Canada study grants where we recognize that single women
want to go back to university, to study and to improve the
livelihood of themselves and their children.
Let us look at our self-sufficiency project where we are
offering earnings to ensure that women who take work have
sufficient income to support their families.
Let us look at the changes to the Canada pension plan that look
at the different work patterns women face in the workplace. There
are more indications of our commitment to Canadian women.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Deputy Prime Minister and it is about
helicopters.
There are concerns that the bidding process has been rigged to
rule out the EH-101. Last week that company formally asked the
Government of Canada to “order complete documentary disclosure
of all documents in the possession or control of the Department
of National Defence or Public Works Canada” that are relevant to
the matter in question.
The Deputy Prime Minister knows this file very well. Will he
cause all those documents to be published this week and not let
them be hidden?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the statement of requirements put out by
the Canadian forces, by the Department of National Defence, has
been in fact adopted by the government. That is the basis on
which we are proceeding with this procurement. It is an open and
fair procurement.
We intend to follow that process to get the best helicopter to
meet the operational requirements of the Canadian forces and to
do it at the best price for taxpayers. That has always been our
aim and throughout this process that will continue to be how we
conduct ourselves.
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker,
this is a scandal that has already cost the lives of Canadian
pilots. It is a scandal now in that the bidding process is
regarded by at least two of the participants as being rigged.
There has been a formal request following the rules that the
truth be told, the documents be published. Why does the
Government of Canada continue to hide the facts of this issue?
Why will it not tell the people of Canada and the Parliament of
Canada the truth on the helicopter bidding process? Why will it
not table the documents now?
1430
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government has
started a very open and transparent process. As a matter of
fact, we immediately issued a letter of interest so that
everybody in the industry could comment.
We believe that our process is open and transparent. There is
one firm that decided to ask the CITT for comments, and therefore
we are waiting for the comments of CITT. We believe this is the
right process to get the equipment for a very good price.
* * *
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, today another of the HRD minister's
little secrets was exposed.
In January she denied our access request forced her to expose
the billion dollar boondoggle. She claimed she came forward
because she is committed to openness and transparency. Even as
she spoke the words she was hiding a huge, costly mistake with
CPP and OAS T4s.
How can Canadians trust a minister who talks openness and
transparency but practises secrecy and cover up?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows the department has
a legal obligation to ensure that Canadians have their T4 slips
in their hands by the end of February.
This year we found an error on an information insert that was to
accompany the mailing. The department took corrective action to
ensure, first of all, that Canadians did get their T4 slips on
time and, second, to make sure that no misinformation accompanied
that mailing.
I sincerely regret that an error was made, but I can inform the
House that the incident was fully reviewed to ensure that it
would not happen again.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is too bad the minister did not
see fit to come and inform the House a lot earlier about this
mess.
In fact the information commissioner just released his report,
which was a scathing indictment of the government's tendency to
secrecy and to cover up. It is entitled “Access—A Right Under
Siege” and begins “Mayday—Mayday”. He says that the PCO
ignored orders for full protection of records; failed to fully
comply with orders; and in one case non-compliance persisted
until after two federal court judges had ordered the PCO to
comply; withheld records claimed to be privileged; and refused to
answer questions under oath. Why is the government—
The Speaker: The hon. government House leader.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member raised
the Privy Council Office because the report in fact says that
special mention and genuine praise for its accomplishments came
despite a 67% increase in the number of requests, and that PCO
devoted the energy and resources necessary to clear up a
significant backlog of cases and established procedures and
practices to prevent the delay problems from recurring in the
future.
* * *
[Translation]
INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, ten years
ago Canada made a commitment to the UN to increase its
international aid budget to 0.7% of its GDP.
Many countries have met this objective. Canada, however, has
cut its budget, which was barely one-third of the objective it
agreed to in 1990.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. Given that 70% of
those living in poverty on this planet are women, does the
government intend to respond to the demand of the 2000 World
March of Women and substantially increase its international aid
budget?
[English]
Hon. Maria Minna (Minister for International Cooperation,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, in the last
budget the government increased considerably the budget for CIDA
both in terms of the baseline as well as increases for the next
two years.
There were $175 million put aside for the highly indebted poor
nations as well. In addition I have just announced a redirection
of moneys within the department for a total over five years of
$2.8 billion to assist in specific areas of poverty in countries
to focus the programs more. We are doing a great job in the
department. The government has in fact increased the budget.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, these are
fine words, and sound much like what the Minister of Finance said
at the IMF meeting on September 25.
But bilaterally, all the Minister of Finance managed to do was
write off $600,000 owed by Bangladesh.
On the occasion of the World March of Women, what is the
Minister of Finance waiting for to follow up on the general
statements he made in Prague with respect to debt relief for poor
nations?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am very glad that the member, on behalf of all Canadians, has
raised this issue.
1435
Canada went one step further. Canada suggested that all
bilateral debts of heavily indebted nations should be forgiven.
It was Canada that was a step ahead of the others. Canada showed
leadership and will continue to do so.
* * *
[English]
REPORT OF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, in the information commissioner's annual report there is
a section called “All Talk—No Action”. The report says the
government's palpable animosity toward the “right of access” is
no more apparent than in the disconnect between talk and action
in the matter of reform of the Access to Information Act. It
would prefer to dole out information by grace and favour in well
digested mouthfuls.
How can the government say it is committed to openness when the
information commissioner has so thoroughly condemned the actions
of the government?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the
information commissioner did not point out in his report that the
President of the Treasury Board and I announced a review of both
the administration of existing legislation and a review of the
substance of existing legislation in August.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the information commissioner has even provided some very
telling examples. “An agent of the attorney general took the
unprecedented position of impugning the constitutionality of the
very legislation which the attorney general has the duty to
defend”.
How can the government defend its action when the information
commissioner has so thoroughly condemned what the government does
every day?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in fact the hon. member knows
full well that what he is presenting in those comments is a
biased and unbalanced perspective on the information
commissioner's report.
As I have said, unfortunately the information commissioner does
not inform Canadians that the President of the Treasury Board and
I on behalf of the government have commenced a full review of the
access to information legislation.
* * *
[Translation]
SOCIAL HOUSING
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, one of the
key demands being made by the World March of Women concerns
social housing.
Does the Minister of Finance plan to comply with the women's
urgings that he immediately increase the overall budget share
allocated to social housing? This is something I have already
called for in the past, moreover.
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government
Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all, we are negotiating
with Quebec on the transfer of social housing, as we have with
most of the provinces and territories of Canada.
Not long ago, we met in New Brunswick with all of Canada's
housing ministers and agreed on a working plan. I am certain
that we will be able to come up with some concrete results within
a few months.
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, social
housing needs have nearly doubled in the past decade.
The problem is even more acute with women, because one in two
tenant households has a woman as the main wage-earner.
I am calling upon the Minister of Finance to invest massively in
the construction of new social housing units, which are very much
needed, and to conclude as promptly as possible an agreement with
Quebec providing it with its fair share of funding.
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government
Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I believe that our present
negotiations with Quebec are good ones.
If there has been a delay, the hon. member ought to be aware
that there was a change at the head of the Société de
l'habitation du Québec this summer. We therefore had to wait
until the new person was in place, and have just resumed
negotiations. As far as this part of her question is concerned,
therefore, I believe she should inquire at the head office.
As far as the construction of affordable housing is concerned,
as I just said, we are working in conjunction with all of the
housing ministers across Canada to reach an equitable solution,
because this is a problem that concerns all governments—
The Speaker: The hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine
Coast.
* * *
[English]
CANADIAN HERITAGE
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of
Canadian Heritage. Will the Minister of Canadian Heritage tell
the House what is the protocol for the renaming of mountains or
established geological sites in Canada?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the protocol is that there is a recommendation made
to the Geographical Naming Board by both the Government of Canada
and the government of Yukon, and the Geographical Naming Board
has the ultimate decision.
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, in a Maclean's magazine article
of July 1, 1998, a panel of 27 Canadian historians named Sir
William Logan as sixth among the most important Canadians in
history, well ahead of any former prime minister.
1440
Why would the government want to show such disrespect for this
outstanding and distinguished Canadian by removing his name from
Mount Logan?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no intention to disrespect
anyone.
* * *
[Translation]
WORLD MARCH OF WOMEN
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in the
context of the world march of women, groups of women have joined
together to ask for the equivalent of $2 per woman and girl as
funding for their organizations.
The government, which is floating in billions of dollars in
surpluses, has reached the hour of decision.
Will the Minister of Finance agree to give these women the basic
funding they are asking for in support of their action?
[English]
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the last budget $20.5
million over five years was put into the Status of Women Canada
budget to deal with the issue.
* * *
THE ECONOMY
Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there has been a lot of speculation concerning the state of the
Canadian economy and the strength of its growth. In fact there
has been a lot of speculation that the Minister of Finance may
actually be preparing a statement on the economic status of the
country. We wonder when the Minister of Finance might deliver
that to the House.
[Translation]
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the pleasure of announcing to this House that the economic
statement, the budget update, will be presented here on
Wednesday, October 18, following oral question period.
* * *
[English]
TAXATION
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, it is pretty easy to get a standing ovation around
here. All they have to do is send out a press release in
question period like that.
I am looking forward to the financial statement from the
Minister of Finance because I would like to know whether he will
deliver on the much demanded gas tax relief that Canadians are
looking for, or will he simply hand pick a small number of
Canadians to send out a one time election cheque to? Does he
really think Canadians are that gullible? Does he think that
Canadians do not want real broad based gas tax relief?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member might well ask that question of the
government of Ontario, the government of Alberta or any other
provincial government, governments which have had to deal with
the particular issue.
I must say I am delighted the hon. member is looking forward to
the statement on Wednesday. I think Canadians as well are
looking forward to that statement.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, all Canadians can look forward to this week and next
week is record high gas prices at the pump and a record high
federal government tax take from their wallets, to the point
where independent truckers are on the verge of losing their
businesses. After all the hot air from the government about gas
tax relief we are still seeing no relief.
Will the minister send out election goodie cheques, or will he
deliver real tax relief to the people who need it now and are
struggling to pay gas tax bills?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, one must really wonder about the capacity of the hon.
member day after day to put up crocodile tears.
He says that he is worried about working class Canadians, low
income Canadians, moderate income Canadians, when in fact the
centrepiece of his party's tax plan is still a flat tax that
would essentially give millionaires $130,000 in tax relief and
virtually nothing to the middle class.
* * *
CANADIAN HERITAGE
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the heritage
minister has a very close relationship with the Prime Minister.
Maybe she can get him to change his mind because the people of
Kluane, Haines Junction, Yukon and Canada are really shocked at
the Prime Minister changing the name of Mount Logan.
People have told me they do not mind a tribute and in fact they
support a tribute to former Prime Minister Trudeau, but they do
not like how this was done. They are opposed to it because they
think it wrongs Yukoners, first nations and the Logan legacy.
Will the heritage minister make sure that Mount Logan stays
Mount Logan and that the Prime Minister changes his mind?
1445
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, first, I want to thank the hon. member for Yukon who
a few days ago expressed support for the suggestion by the Prime
Minister.
I also want to thank the member for her personal input. I hope
we can work together with interested parties, including the
Government of the Yukon, the member and the first nations, to
ensure that any move to change any name is respectful of all of
the parties involved and does not disrespect the history or the
name of any pioneer of Canada.
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have
spoken clearly that I support a tribute. The Yukon also supports
a tribute but it does not support this tribute. Maybe the
aboriginal affairs minister has something to say because the
umbrella final agreement for the Yukon, which was signed in 1993,
clearly states that a traditional territory, if it is to be
renamed, has to be done in consultation.
The Prime Minister's approach to this has been a failure. It
has offended and affected first nations people. It has offended
Canadians. It has probably seriously embarrassed the Trudeau
family. They should rethink this, do it properly and let
Canadians choose a tribute.
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the member will know that when she stated her
support for the renaming, she and a lot of other members were
responding, in particular, to the support that people have for
the recognition of a beloved former prime minister of Canada, Mr.
Trudeau.
I think the message she is sending, and certainly the message
being sent by Canadians, is that we have to ensure that in
respecting Mr. Trudeau's memory we do not cause any difficulty
for the history of Mount Logan. That is something that the Prime
Minister has taken into account and is certainly something we
will want to work on with her, with other members and with the
government—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester.
* * *
TRANSPORT CANADA
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
on September 18 I asked the Minister of Transport about a shell
company that was established for the sole purpose of accessing $3
million of taxpayers' money under the pretence of working on the
Digby wharf.
Has the minister stopped the shell company from disbursing the
next scheduled transfer of $600,000, scheduled for October 27,
until there is a complete accountability of every single dime of
the $3 million?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for bringing this to the
attention of the House some weeks ago. As a result of his
representations, we moved up the audit by Transport Canada on
this particular wharf. It would be very premature to start
making any further moves in the absence of the audit which will
be completed very soon.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr.
Speaker, I am really glad the minister is reacting to the issues
we bring up. We are giving him advance notice of one that is
going to happen on October 27. He does not have to wait for us
to bring it up until after it has happened. He knows it will
happen.
On October 27, $600,000 of taxpayers' money will be transferred
from a non-profit society to a private company. Will he stop
that payment until he knows where every single dime is going?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has entered into an
agreement with the society that is now in charge of that
particular port. As such, we assume that the society is living by
the agreement as made. If the audit shows to the contrary then
obviously we will take remedial action. However, we will wait
for the audit report which should come very quickly.
* * *
WORLD MARCH OF WOMEN
Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the World
March of Women has drawn the attention of parliamentarians and
Canadians alike to two critical issues that impact gender
equality: poverty and violence against women.
My question is for the Secretary of State for the Status of
Women. How is the government responding to the demands voiced by
the women of this country?
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, gender equality and women's
issues have been at the forefront of the commitment of the
government since it came into power.
We have set out a clear set of infrastructure issues that deal
with violence and the economic issues women face. Each year, in
each budget and within each department, we have been building on
that infrastructure.
We are looking forward to meeting with the women. The Prime
Minister met with them yesterday and assured them that his
individual ministers will discuss their individual issues with
them. They will look at how we work with them to build upon the
initiatives we have already taken and do the right thing to make
sure—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Souris—Moose Mountain.
* * *
VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, Justice Brockenshire brought down a
damning judgment against the federal government, condemning the
government for breaching its trusteeship related to the pensions
it managed on behalf of the severely handicapped veterans.
Canadians need to know as soon as possible if the government is
going to honour the judge's decision? Will the minister now do
the honourable thing and negotiate a settlement starting today?
1450
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Veterans
Affairs, I would respond to the hon. member by pointing out that
the decision is currently being reviewed by the Department of
Justice and the Department of Veterans Affairs. Within 30 days a
decision will be made on whether or not an appeal will be made.
Canada prides itself in having some of the best programs for its
veterans in the world. I know the minister wants to continue
that practice.
* * *
[Translation]
PARENTAL LEAVE
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, two thirds
of women who are currently unemployed have no hope of receiving
employment insurance benefits. The government dares to say it is
improving parental leave, when the majority of women will not
even have access to it, contrary to Quebec's proposal.
My question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
When will the government respond to women's demands for
accessible and universal parental leave, which will leave no one
out in the cold? When will it negotiate with Quebec to develop
something like this?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Indeed, Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member points out, we
will have doubled parental leave benefits for Canadians, men and
women, by the end of this year. At the same time, we will reduce
the number of hours required for women to get these special
benefits.
Again I point the hon. member to the changes in Bill C-44 which
deal with the issues of clawback and others that specifically
relate to the impact of employment insurance on women.
* * *
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
I want to commend the government for supporting the recent UN
security council resolution 1322 on the tragic events in the
Middle East, particularly the call for an impartial international
inquiry into the violence in the territories illegally occupied
by Israel since 1967.
In light of this, can the minister explain to the House why
Canada shamefully abstained on the vote to call a special session
of the UN commission on human rights on these tragic events? Why
did Canada not support the call for a special session of the UN
commission on human rights into the situation in the Middle East?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am sure I speak for all members of the House in
hoping very deeply that the summit, which is taking place today
between the parties, will result in a step back from the violence
and the killing and that we can begin to resume serious
discussions on a peace process.
Canada has been very active in the last several days making
calls to try to support that process. The Prime Minister called
his counterparts in the Middle East, along with President
Clinton. I spoke yesterday to Syrian and Lebanese representatives
to talk about the kidnapping of the Israeli soldiers and to see
if we could have some return in those areas.
We met with the Israeli envoy today to talk particularly about
how we can assist as Canadians in trying to restore peace. This
is the important thing.
* * *
POVERTY
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, PC): Mr.
Speaker, I believe that everyone would recognize that the
government has failed badly when we talk about women and
children. There are more women and children living in poverty
today than we have ever seen, especially since 1993.
Will the Minister of Finance recognize these women in crisis and
introduce solutions in his upcoming budget so that we can put an
end to the suffering and the unfairness that women and children
are facing in this rich country? We should not have one woman or
child living in the kind of poverty we are now seeing. Will the
minister introduce something—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Finance.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the situation in which many Canadians find themselves,
despite the fact that our economy is very strong, is one that is
obviously of great concern to all Canadians and certainly this
government.
The hon. member must recognize that because of that, this
government, in a recent federal-provincial agreement, put $2.2
billion into early childhood development.
After creating the national child tax benefit, this particular
government has consistently increased it. The government has put
money into prenatal nutrition and community welfare organizations
and it will continue doing those kinds of things because we
share—
1455
The Speaker: The hon. member for Charleswood St.
James—Assiniboia.
* * *
INFRASTRUCTURE
Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the
Treasury Board.
The minister was in western Canada last week. In that regard, I
would like to know whether she can provide the House with details
of infrastructure agreements she signed on behalf of the federal
government with the provincial governments of the four western
provinces.
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am happy to report that we signed agreements last week with the
Governments of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British
Columbia under the infrastructure Canada program. The total
value of the four agreements is $1.6 billion.
The priority of investment will be the green infrastructure to
improve the quality of air and water for our citizens. This is a
very good example of all different levels of government working
together for the benefit of Canadians.
* * *
FEDERAL ELECTION
Mr. John Nunziata (York South—Weston, Ind.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. The Prime
Minister is about to call an election, an election that nobody
wants, not even his backbenchers.
This will be the third election in seven years. It is a cynical
and arrogant move on the part of the Prime Minister. Why is the
government calling an unnecessary election when it still has two
years to run in the mandate it was given in 1997?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my hon. friend's question is purely speculative and
hypothetical.
* * *
REPORT OF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the information commissioner's report
is very damning to the government. Especially troubling is a
section that says:
The future careers in the public service of the Commissioner's
staff have, in not so subtle terms, been threatened.
This development in inexcusably unprofessional and profoundly
troubling. If members of the public service come to believe that
it is career suicide to work, and to do a good job, for the
Information Commissioner, the future viability and effectiveness
of the Commissioner's office is in grave jeopardy.
Why is the government attacking—
The Speaker: The hon. President of the Treasury Board.
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
these are very serious allegations. It has always been a policy
of this government to support the role of the information
commissioner. It is very clear that if there are grounds for
these allegations, we will act accordingly, but we will ask the
commissioner to supply the relevant information.
* * *
PAY EQUITY
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
legislative provisions having to do with pay equity are still too
timid and the way in which the legislation is now being applied
is short-changing the majority of women.
My question is for the President of the Treasury Board. What is
the government waiting for to abandon the judicial approach to
pay equity and adopt proactive legislation that would speed up
the resolution of disputes and force the parties, employees and
employers alike, to sit down and negotiate pay equity in good
faith?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am very happy that we have resolved the pay equity dispute
involving all employees of the Public Service of Canada.
When this dispute was resolved, the Minister of Finance and
myself announced that we would be reviewing the legislation
specifically with a view to a much more proactive pay equity
mechanism. We are most certainly going to follow up on this
commitment.
* * *
[English]
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Dennis Gruending (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, there is a disaster unfolding right before our very
eyes on the Canadian prairies. We are told by Statistics Canada
that we have lost 22,000 farmers in the past year. In
Saskatchewan alone we have lost 12% of our farmers and Manitoba
has lost 15%.
The Liberal government has to bear responsibility for this
disaster. Will the agriculture minister commit today to a
doubling of support to Canadian farm families?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the last two years we have increased
the support and the safety net to Canadian farms by 85%. We said
that we will pledge to continue to support Canadian farmers in
every way we can, both domestically and internationally, in trade
talks.
It will take the work of all of us, and a very diligent and
strong effort, to do so. We will continue to do that on behalf
of Canadian farmers.
* * *
1500
GUN REGISTRY
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, as costs skyrocket, the gun registry continues to be
a cumbersome failure on the part of the government.
Can the Minister of Justice provide absolute assurances that
there has been no breach in the security of the gun registry
databank? Such a breach would provide a government sponsored
road map for criminals who choose to steal guns. Could she
provide that assurance today?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first let me take the
opportunity to say that more gun owners in this country continue
to comply with the gun registry than ever before.
As we always knew, legitimate gun owners are committed to gun
safety and to complying with the gun registry and licensing
provisions.
Let me inform the hon. member that to the best of my knowledge
there has been no security breach. I would appreciate hearing
from the hon. member rather than having him raising fears and
scaremongering.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, the government's response to 10 petitions.
1505
[English]
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order
with respect to statements by ministers. I am wondering if,
given the volatility of the situation in the Middle East, we are
going to hear a government statement in response to that
situation.
The Speaker: That is not a point of order. That is a
question. Perhaps the hon. House leader of the Conservative
Party could approach his colleague to get that information
privately.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is in
relation to the letter that I delivered to your office as to
whether you would consider, under Standing Order 52, having an
emergency debate.
The Speaker: That is not a point of order, as the hon.
member knows. I will deal with those two things under applications
for emergency debates.
* * *
HAZARDOUS PRODUCTS ACT
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.) moved for leave
to introduce Bill C-506, an act to amend the Hazardous Products
Act (fire-safe cigarettes).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill, if accepted, will be an
opportunity to reduce the hazardous effects of cigarettes and
introduce fire-safe cigarettes.
This issue was brought to my attention by Mr. Doug Lennox, a
lawyer representing a Brampton family who tragically lost a three
year old child and two teenagers in a fire that was attributable
to careless smoking.
Like many Canadians, I had no idea that the tobacco industry for
years has known how to make fire-safe cigarettes. This is what
the bill is designed to do: it will bring to Canadians'
attention the fact that fire-safe cigarettes can be manufactured.
Literally thousands of Canadians lose their lives and there is
literally millions of dollars worth of property damage to
Canadian property on an annual basis as a result of careless
smoking. Much of this can be reduced if not eliminated by having
fire-safe cigarettes. That is the thrust of my bill.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
DEFENCE PRODUCTION ACT
Hon. David M. Collenette (for the Minister of Public Works
and Government Services) moved that Bill
S-25, an act to amend the Defence Production Act, be read the
first time.
(Motion agreed to and bill read the first time)
* * *
AN ACT TO INCORPORATE THE WESTERN CANADA TELEPHONE COMPANY
Hon. David M. Collenette (for the Minister of Industry)
moved that Bill S-26, an act to repeal an act
to incorporate the Western Canada Telephone Company, be read the
first time.
(Motion agreed to and bill read the first time)
* * *
PETITIONS
KIDNEY RESEARCH
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
to present three petitions on the same topic. I will present
them all together. The petitions deal with bioartificial kidney
research.
The kidney was the first human organ to be replicated by a
machine. Dialysis is the result of that replication. Research
is now in progress to develop a bioartificial kidney which will
one day be placed inside the human body. The researchers hope
that just as the kidney was the first organ to be approximated by
machine, the bioartificial kidney will be the first case of a
fully functioning artificial replacement.
1510
I am glad to present these three petitions on behalf of the
citizens of Peterborough who call upon parliament to work in
support of the bioartifical kidney, which will one day eventually
eliminate the need for both dialysis and transplantation for
those suffering from kidney disease.
I thank Ken Sharp of Peterborough for his work on these
petitions.
HEALTH CARE
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition which calls on
the Parliament of Canada and the House of Commons to save the
Canadian public health care system.
The petition is signed by hundreds of residents of my own
constituency of Burnaby—Douglas and by other residents of
British Columbia. It notes that the federal Liberals ignored the
top priority of Canadians in the 2000 budget by giving only 2
cents for health care for every dollar spent on tax cuts.
It decries the small amount that the government has spent on
health care, which has led to a shortage of nurses, hospital beds
and emergency room spaces. It points out the concern about two
tier American style health care and privatization being
introduced by way of Alberta's bill 11. Finally, it notes that
Canadians want immediate action to save public health care in
Canada and to stop two tier American style health care cuts from
coming to Canada.
I am tabling this on behalf of these petitioners who also call
for a national home care program and a national program for
prescription drugs.
IMMIGRATION
Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and pleasure to
present a petition signed by hundreds of Manitobans who seek
abolition of the $975 right of landing fee for family class
sponsorships.
These petitioners point out that immigrants contribute greatly
to Canada's economy, that the right of landing fee is a burden to
many families and that the fee is no longer applied against
refugees.
Therefore, these petitioners call upon parliament to eliminate
the landing fee for family class sponsorships.
[Translation]
GASOLINE PRICING
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to table four petitions today.
The first concerns the price of gas.
TRANSGENIC PRODUCTS
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I also wish
to table three other petitions containing 2,800 signatures. The
petitioners call upon the government to make labelling of
transgenic foods mandatory.
GMOs continue to be a hot topic and people are increasingly
interested in knowing what they have on their plate.
[English]
HEALTH CARE
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to stand and present
some petitions pursuant to Standing Order 36.
The first petition is from people from the Kamloops and North
Thompson Valleys. They point out their concerns with the
existing health care system and are calling on parliament to do
whatever is possible to stop for profit hospitals and restore
proper federal funding for health care. They are particularly
concerned about the necessary funding for home care and a
national program for prescription drugs.
FUEL TAXES
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, on another topic, petitioners are
concerned about the high price of fuels and are calling upon the
Government of Canada to institute immediately a national highway
priority whereby moneys from gas excise tax would go into the
development and improvement of Canada's highway system.
CHILD POVERTY
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, the next petition from Kamloops is very
lengthy. The petitioners are concerned about the unacceptable
level of child poverty in Canada. They are urging parliament to
fulfil the promise of the 1989 House of Commons resolution to end
child poverty by the year 2000.
CANADA POST
Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin—Middlesex—London, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a petition to present on behalf of rural route
mail couriers asking for the repeal of subsection 13(5). Such
a repeal would allow the rural route mail couriers to unionize.
HEALTH CARE
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
it is my honour to rise, like my colleagues from Burnaby—Douglas
and Kamloops, only from the other side of the country, from the
citizens of Sydney—Victoria, and present to the House six
petitions all dealing with the issue of health care and calling
upon parliament to stop for profit hospitals and restore federal
funding for health care.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am pleased to present a
petition on behalf of many Canadians who are very concerned about
the broken Liberal promises.
The Liberals in the last couple of elections promised national
programs for home care and prescription drugs. They promised to
adequately fund health care.
1515
The petitioners are very unhappy with the Liberals for having
choked health care to the point where they are asking parliament
to stop now the fourth plank of the Liberal platform to privatize
hospitals and to set up a two tier health care system.
They are asking for a restoration of federal funding. They are
asking the federal government to immediately implement a national
home care program and a national program for prescription drugs.
CRIME
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my second and final petition is related to crime.
The criminal code has not been amended by the Liberal government
to defend our defenceless citizens from crime. They are asking
the House of Commons to amend the criminal code to prevent
persons convicted of serious crimes from being released from
custody pending the hearing of their appeal, except in
exceptional circumstances. This is in response to the fact that
they believe it is too easy for convicted people to get out of
their five year sentences and so on.
FUEL PRICES
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
very grateful to present, under Standing Order 36, a large
petition from residents in my riding who are very upset about the
rising cost of energy, specifically gasoline, and the seemingly
arbitrary way in which oil companies can change the price of
gasoline.
These many thousands of citizens in my riding are calling upon
the government to institute an energy price commission to oversee
and regulate the price of gasoline, home heating fuel and diesel
fuel so that they are not vulnerable to the shocks and
fluctuations in energy prices.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY DEBATE
AGRICULTURE
The Speaker: I have two requests for emergency debates.
They deal with basically the same subject. I will let hon.
members make brief interventions.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
application for an emergency debate pursuant to the provisions of
Standing Order 52 concerns the devastating financial and mental
stress affecting farming communities across the country.
As was mentioned in question period, over the past year more
than 21,500 farmers have left. They no longer exist in western
Canada. They no longer farm the land. We also recognize from
question period that there will be an economic statement issued
by the Minister of Finance.
This emergency debate would make sure that the government
recognizes the urgency and priority of agriculture and places it
in the economic statement by the Minister of Finance. I do not
think the government recognizes the real urgency and the stresses
on farming communities in rural Canada, particularly rural
western Canada.
I stand before you, Mr. Speaker, to ask that you allow us an
opportunity to have this open debate later today or tomorrow so
that we can put that urgency on the floor.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, my application is also pursuant to
Standing Order 52 and deals with agriculture.
Successive Conservative and Liberal governments have not been
able to deal with the farm income crisis over their years in
government. As a result I point out that for the last three
years Canadian farm families have been struggling against foreign
market interferences that have decimated our commodity prices.
The federal government has attempted to address falling farm
incomes through such programs as AIDA, agriculture income
disaster assistance. However these attempts have not addressed
the needs of farm families. For example, only 42% of emergency
funding promised in December 1998 has actually left the cabinet
table in Ottawa and been delivered to farmers. That leaves an
awful lot of money still sitting here.
The farm income crisis is being pushed to new levels of urgency
because of escalating fuel costs. Energy costs make up a
significant portion of farm input costs. For example, experts
have estimated that a 10% increase in energy costs will cause a
6% decline in farm income.
1520
Farm families already in the grips of an income crisis will not
be able to withstand this further. As a result I think we need
to have another discussion with regard to the farm issue facing
the country at this time.
The Speaker: I thank the hon. member for
Brandon—Souris and the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake. Over
the months and indeed years I have heard both these members and
others from the other side of the House raise the matter of the
problems faced by farmers in the west. However at this time I
feel that the calls for an emergency debate do not meet our
criteria.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. The only problem with your decision is that I was talking
in a Canadian context and you indicated western only. I would
like it considered in the context of all of Canada.
The Speaker: Perhaps I should have been a little broader
in my statement. I would include all of Canada. My decision
would stand.
Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
wonder whether there would be consent of the House for me to
provide answers to questions that have been tabled in the House.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
Questions Nos. 40, 69, 78 and 96 could be made orders for
returns, the returns would be tabled immediately.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
.[Text]
Question No. 40—Ms. Wendy Lill:
What funds, grants, loans and loan guarantees has the government
issued in the constituency of Dartmouth for each of the following
fiscal years: (a) 1993-1994; (b) 1994-1995; (c) 1995-1996; (d)
1996-1997; (e) 1997-1998; (f) 1998-1999; and in each case, where
applicable: (i) what was the department or agency responsible;
(ii) what was the program under which the payment was made; (iii)
what were the names of the recipients if they were groups or
organizations; (iv) what was the monetary value of the payment
made; and (v) what was the percentage of program funding covered
by the payment received?
Return tabled.
Question No. 69—Mr. Eric Lowther:
Could the government provide a complete accounting of all
Canadian taxpayer dollars transferred to, or in any way spent on,
international organizations and agencies (including United
Nations agencies and all other multilateral institutions) by any
channel during the fiscal year 1998-99, listing clearly each item
of expenditure by both the disbursing department and by the
recipient organization or agency?
Return tabled.
Question No. 78—Mrs. Michelle Dockrill:
What funds, grants, loans and loan guarantees has the government
issued in the constituency of Bras d'Or—Cape Breton for each of
the following fiscal years: (a) 1993-1994, (b) 1994-1995, (c)
1995-1996, (d) 1996-1997, (e) 1997-1998, and (f) 1998-1999, and
in each case, where applicable: (i) what was the department or
agency responsible; (ii) what was the program under which the
payment was made; (iii) what were the names of the recipients, if
they were groups or organizations; (iv) what was the monetary
value of the payment made; and (v) what was the percentage of
program funding covered by the payment received?
Return tabled.
Question No. 96—Mr. Gordon Earle:
What funds, grants, loans and loan guarantees has the federal
government issued in the constituency of Halifax West from June
2, 1998 to June 1, 1999 and, in each case where applicable: (a)
the department or agency responsible; (b) the program under
which the payment was made; (c) the names of the recipients, if
they were groups or organizations; (d) the monetary value of
the payment made; and (e) the percentage of program funding
covered by the payment received?
Return tabled.
Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. Speaker, I ask that answers to starred
Questions Nos. 88 and 95 be made orders for returns. These
returns will be tabled immediately.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
.[Text]
Question No. 88—Mr. Jim Pankiw:
With respect to the Canada Foundation for Innovation and its
Board of Directors, what has the government through Industry
Canada determined to be: (a) the names of those organizations
and/or persons represented on the Foundation's Board of
Directors; (b) the criterion for being selected to the Board; and
(c) the duration of service for Board members.
Return tabled.
Question No. 95—Mr. Jim Pankiw:
With respect to the Canada Research Chairs initiative: (a) what
is the total number of applications received to date from each
Canadian university; (b) what is the formula to be used for the
granting of program money to Canadian universities; (c) what is
the amount of money to be given to each university in the
upcoming fiscal year; and (d) in each case, which granting
council will award the money?
Return tabled.
Mr. Derek Lee: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—POVERTY AND VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the
amendment.
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate today, but I
think it is very important that we also talk about what is
happening across the country as we sit here. We have to look at
the facts.
One in five Canadian children, or 1.3 million, live in poverty.
That is up 25% since 1989. The fastest growing segment of the
homeless population in Canada is families with children. Up to
40% of all food bank users are children under 18 years of age.
The Canada child benefit, Canada's major tax transfer program for
children, goes to only 36% of poor families. Those are the
facts.
Yesterday was a momentous time for women across Canada and the
world. The streets of the capital were filled with 50,000 men
and women in a demonstration to make their demands known to the
federal government.
What was the purpose of the march? What had inspired such a
mass demonstration of anger toward the Liberal government? The
march was for equality. The march was to stop violence against
women. The march was to end poverty affecting women. It was an
expression of anger at the Liberal government. Here we are, a
supposedly civilized developed nation, and yet we still have to
march in the streets to demand decent funding for health care.
This is what Canada has come to. Yesterday 50,000 people shouted
that it is time for a change.
In 1985 the UN announced that the target date for equality
between men and women was the year 2000.
We have two months left before the target date and it is
terrifying to see how far we are from equality.
1525
Wages for women are on average two-thirds those of their male
equivalents. The glass ceiling in many professions is just as
solid as it was 30 years ago. Members should look around the
House. Do we see equality?
One in six Canadian women is poor. This figure of one in six
includes all types of women. Of those women living alone who are
more than 65 years of age there is a poverty rate of 49%. Is
this how the Liberal government wants to thank those women who
have put so much into our country? As well, of women who head
single parent families 56% are poor. Is this the environment the
Liberal government wants our future generations to be raised in?
What does this mass poverty lead to? It leads to women staying
in violent or abusive relationships. The financial cost of
escaping is too great. It leads to fear of running away. We all
know the federal government has not set aside resources and
benefits to protect these women.
Should it really take 50,000 marchers to make the government
give money to those who really need it? The demands of the World
March of Women are vital to the development of our nation. We
must restore federal funding to health care and prevent it from
the awful prospect of privatization.
Over the lifetime of the Liberal government millions of dollars
have been cut year after year. Acceptable health care is a
crucial part of society. We must fight every day to restore it
to acceptable levels. We must also continually demand that a two
tier system of health care be prevented. Only recently Alberta
made moves toward such a system. The nation was outraged.
Canadian women say health care funding must be restored now. The
World March of Women also demands that an additional 1% of the
budget must be spent on social housing. With increasing numbers
of people being forced to sleep on the streets and rising numbers
of women using women's shelters, increased federal spending on
social housing is well overdue.
The federal government promised to contribute $2 billion to the
setting up of a national child care fund. This money is yet to
materialize. Any working mother knows the difficulty of juggling
a career and a family, and yet the government seems to be
reluctant to support these women who need their help.
When will the Liberal government recognize that until women know
that their children can be looked after they cannot go back to
work? In many cases they cannot afford child care until they are
earning a wage. This is an ongoing nightmare for many women
across the country who are desperate to get back to work but are
unable.
There are many more specific demands submitted by the World
March of Women and it is time they were answered. Last month the
government triumphantly announced its $12 billion surplus. Now
it is time to use it. How long can the government ignore the
shouts of thousands of its citizens who say give the money to
health care, give the money to benefits, give the money to reduce
student debt, promise to protect women from violence at home, and
find ways to secure equality between men and women? It should
open its eyes and recognize that these issues will not go away.
These are not just women's issues. These are the issues of
Canadians. The NDP has been calling for many of these changes
throughout this parliament. Health care and education have been
two of our highest priorities. We will not give up the fight to
protect and approve them.
The member for Halifax and I were on the Hill supporting the
march. We were showing our desire to gain equality and end
poverty and violence against women. Today the NDP women are on
the inside of parliament shouting just as loudly for the same
demands.
Yesterday's march was a triumph for the women of Canada. Now
that momentum must be harnessed and pushed forward. The
government cannot ignore the cries of 50,000 people with the
support of thousands more around the country and the world. The
message is loud and clear. It is time for change.
1530
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I congratulate my hon. colleague from Cape Breton for an
excellent speech and for the work that she has done on behalf of
not only the women of Canada but the important work that she has
done in promoting equality, justice and solidarity with women
globally.
I was very pleased to see that an important element of the
women's march yesterday was a recognition that we are global
citizens. When women are victims of violence or when women are
victims of poverty around the world, that pain is pain we as
Canadians must respond to as well. I salute the hon. member for
leadership on this issue.
As a New Democrat I say that we are proud to stand in solidarity
with the women who marched yesterday and to support the demands
of the women's march.
Our leader, the hon. member for Halifax, spoke eloquently this
morning about some of these demands, in particular challenging
the failure of the Liberal government to take seriously a number
of the specific concerns raised among the demands made by these
women.
Because this is a day long debate and I think it is important
that there be a broad range of issues covered, I want to refer to
one element. That is the section in the women's march document
which called for respect and promotion of the human rights of
lesbians.
Too often when we speak of women as minorities, when we speak of
aboriginal women, and when we speak of women with disabilities,
we forget another group of women still unfortunately face
violence and still face discrimination. The section included in
the march document points out that despite recent victories
recognizing same sex couples, lesbians have not yet achieved
legal equality. Because of hatred and prejudice, lesbian mothers
can still lose custody of their children despite overwhelming
proof that children in lesbian homes grow up healthy. Lesbians
still do not have the right to bring partners to Canada under the
Immigration Act. Lesbians of colour face a toxic mix of racial
and homophobic prejudice.
The document points out the high suicide rate of young lesbians,
which is indicative of the hatred and self-loathing experienced
in a country that refuses to denounce homophobia and fosters
heterosexist values and norms.
The document goes on to point out that internationally in many
countries a woman who enjoys an intimate, physical relationship
with another woman can be criminalized, jailed, slashed, flogged,
harassed, shunned and sometimes even killed.
The document finally notes that women's right to sexual autonomy
must be respected as well as their freedom to choose and
celebrate their sexuality.
We as New Democrats support full equality for Canadian women and
justice for Canadian women. I wanted to note particularly as
well some of the challenges that face lesbians in Canada. We
stand in solidarity with those women and we urge the government
to respond to the very important demands made by the women's
march in Canada.
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon.
colleague for his comments. I think he makes a very valid point.
When we are talking in the House about equality, as women have
been talking across the country, that is just what we are talking
about: equality for all women who are Canadian citizens.
Recently we have heard a lot of discussion from the other side
of the House about values, about Liberal government values. As a
Canadian citizen I have to say that we all should be standing
here and holding our heads in shame when we look at the social
deficit that has been caused at the hands of the Liberal
government.
As a mother I cannot imagine knowing and dealing with, day after
day, my children having to go to bed hungry. Women across Canada
to their credit yesterday sent a clear message to the government.
This is not about our asking for equality. This is about
Canadian women from coast to coast to coast saying we want it and
we want it now.
1535
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, PC): Mr.
Speaker, the member gave a beautiful vox intellectus. I would
like her to speak on the challenges of women in politics,
She experienced a bit of her ordeal through all this. There are
challenges at every level including women who are in poverty and
some who are not. We have a whole global problem when it comes
to women in this advanced country. I believe that we have to
look at all the issues. I would like the member to speak to
that.
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague
for her question. As she knows, being a mother, it is a struggle
and it is tough being a mother and not having the ability to feed
or clothe one's children.
What we have seen happen is a slash, burn and cut mentality from
the Liberal government. Unfortunately women have carried the
brunt of the Liberal cuts.
With respect to the member's question about whether it is
difficult, as I said earlier in my speech, the government talks
about equality, but when we sit in the Chamber do we have
equality? Not yet. Will we? I believe so.
What is important about the women's world march is that it is
not about asking any more. It is about Canadian women demanding.
This will be something for which women will want an answer from
every government member when they possibly go knocking on doors
in two weeks.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the comment of the
hon. member. She mentioned that there is no equality in the
House. Could she explain to me where the lack of equality for
men and women in the House exists?
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill: Mr. Speaker, it is really simple.
It is the number. All we have to do is look at how many men and
how many women there are in the House of Commons.
Probably the member has some ideas about why that is so. We
talk about equality. We hear the government talk about it all
the time. If we as members are not committed to that equality
when it comes to representing citizens, I am afraid that by the
time my 11 year old daughter is old enough we still will not have
that equality, if we do not have that commitment from the Liberal
government.
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, I will be
sharing my time with my hon. colleague from
Beauséjour—Petitcodiac.
It is with genuine sadness that I rise before the House to
participate in the Bloc Quebecois opposition day motion calling
for an end to poverty and violence against women. It is also
demanding equality in the workplace and better health care
programs for all women throughout the country. I say genuine
sadness because who would have thought that as we entered the
21st century women would still be victims of domestic violence?
Governments are quick to condemn these acts of violence yet they
do very little to protect individuals against their abusers. What
about discrimination in the workplace and the high prevalence of
poverty found within our female population? For years women have
been listening to governments promise to address these inequities
in society, yet most cuts in government spending
disproportionately affect women. Provincial cuts for women's
shelters and housing programs force many women to remain with
abusive partners.
1540
A lack of subsidized child care spaces and reductions in
education and retraining programs effectively prevent women from
pursuing a better life for themselves and their children.
I wish I could say that I completely understand and appreciate
the frustration women are feeling because of the lack of progress
in addressing their serious concerns, but to say that I
completely understand would be patronizing and completely false.
Only those women who live in poverty or are victims of violence
or discrimination in the workplace can truly understand the
situation.
In 1995, at the fourth United Nations world conference on women
in Beijing, Canada reaffirmed its commitment to a number of
international United Nations agreements including the charter of
the United Nations, the universal declaration of human rights,
the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination
against women, the convention on the rights of the child, and the
declaration on the elimination of violence against women.
Let us add to this impressive list the designation by the UN
that the years 1997 to 2006 are to be known as the international
decade for the eradication of poverty.
With the Canadian government being a signatory to all these
agreements, why are Canadian women still being marginalized and
in many instances treated like second class citizens? I will
tell the House why. It is because the Liberal government is more
interested in offering lip service than actually addressing the
serious concerns facing women.
On Sunday our Prime Minister met with a delegation representing
over 5,000 women who gathered on the Hill to protest the lack of
government commitment toward addressing serious women's issues.
In 1993, prior to being elected Prime Minister, the leader of the
Liberal Party wrote a letter promising to abide by any decision
rendered by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal with regard to the
outstanding issue of pay equity. This issue affected
approximately 200,000 predominantly female workers in the public
service.
This is the same individual, our Prime Minister, who fought
tooth and nail to try to prevent these workers from getting the
money they so rightly deserved. The Prime Minister reneged on
his promise just as he did on the GST and free trade.
Unfortunately for women in Canada and around the world he is
likely to renege on our international UN commitments as well.
In 1993 women working outside the home earned 72 cents for every
dollar earned by men. This is totally unacceptable and serves
only to magnify the disparity which exists in Canadian society.
Already 60% of families headed by single women live below the
poverty line. If this wage gap continues we can expect that the
number of single women living in poverty will certainly increase.
What can we do to address poverty in the country? The PC caucus
put together a task force on poverty last year that travelled
extensively across the country to meet with Canadians to discuss
the issues and try to come up with possible solutions to the
problem. As a result of these extensive consultations, our party
released a report in January entitled “It's Up To Us” which
identifies a number of the problems associated with poverty and
makes a number of recommendations on how some of these problems
should be addressed.
Because the member for Shefford was instrumental in helping put
this report together, I am confident that she will be able to
convince her new party to adopt many of our measures.
What is the Liberal government doing to address domestic
violence which continues to be perpetrated against women in
society? The answer is very little.
The tragic 1989 killing of 14 young women at École Polytechnique
in Montreal shocked the nation and forced us all to look deeper
into the roots of violence within our society.
1545
Unfortunately, as so many people's memories of the event are
waning, so is the Liberal government's commitment to finding ways
to put an end to violence against women.
Statistics Canada reveals that at least 51% of all Canadian
women have experienced at least one incidence of physical or
sexual violence since the age of 16 and that sexual assaults
account for almost one in ten violent crimes. This suggests to
me that government policies are not working. We need more money
for women shelters, community counselling, child protection,
crisis lines and legal aid. We need better training for our
enforcement agencies to handle domestic disputes. We need a
justice system that is more in tune with the potential danger
facing women by their partners.
As our Canadian women's lobby continues on to the world march in
New York City, I can only hope that this Liberal government will
take concrete measures in its expected mini-budget to address the
immediate concerns of women's rights across the country.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am sure that the member will appreciate that all Canadians are
very concerned about the issues that the member talked about,
which were child poverty and domestic violence. Certainly there
are a number of issues. However, I was very interested in the
member's statements about the domestic violence angle and the
solutions that he suggested which were more shelters, more crisis
intervention and many things after the problem occurs.
Would the member not agree that there should be a balance
between prevention and remediation and that part of the solution
of domestic violence is trying to make sure that it does not
happen in the first instance? The member will well know that
family breakdown is terribly high in Canada. In fact 50% of
married persons will break up before their children reach their
18th birthday. He will also know that common law couples will
also have the breakdown in their relationship 50% more frequently
than married persons.
The problem here, and I am sure the member would like to
comment, is the reasons why families break down and the reasons
why the children are the real victims of divorce and family
breakdown. The fact is it is not a simple, linear excuse. It is
a multiplicity of things. I believe the member would agree that
strengthening the Canadian family and investing in the Canadian
family, men, women and children, and not making it simply a
women's issue but making it a societal issue, is the fundamental
prerequisite to addressing the serious problem of domestic
violence.
Mr. Mark Muise: Mr. Speaker, I think the member's
question comes truly from the heart and I recognize that.
My colleague's question and comments were genuine. I would like
him to be able to share some of those same sentiments with his
caucus so that the government enacts legislation and policies
that will help people in society. Also, his comment that this is
family issue and not just a woman's issue touches on an important
point.
Today's children who are poor are poor because their parents are
poor. When we have a situation in the home where people do not
have the resources to adequately clothe, nourish and house not
just their children but their whole family, it leads to stresses
that cause the types of things that we are discussing today.
As my colleague says, what we are looking at is even broader than
just the women's issue. It goes back to the fact that the
government has reneged and has cut to the point where families
are negatively impacted, hence negatively impacting women.
1550
Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, the member also touched on
the issue of child poverty. He mentioned some statistics about
lone parent situations. I understand that about 14% of all
families in Canada are in lone parent situations but they account
for over 54% of all so-called children living in poverty. Of
course, the member will acknowledge that it is really families
living in poverty. This again very clearly goes to the issue of
family breakdown.
Would the member not agree that investing in the Canadian family
and in our children, and making sure that children are raised in
a healthy and well adjusted environment so that they can grow up
to be healthy, well adjusted children as they move into adult
life, is prevention versus remediation? I think the member gets
the gist that my concern is not so much what to do when we have
the problem. My concern is more with what are we doing to
prevent the problem from occurring in the first place.
I do not say for a moment that we should legislate behaviour but
I think we have to encourage healthy family life in Canada.
Mr. Mark Muise: Mr. Speaker, it is fine for my hon.
colleague to say what he said. However, when I look at the cuts
the Canadian people have suffered over the last seven years, a
$33 billion surplus in one year, and I see poverty and all the
negative impact that it has on the Canadian population, I cannot
stand here and accept what my colleague is trying to put across
to the Canadian public.
The Canadian people deserve a part of the $33 billion surplus. A
good chunk of the surplus comes from the people who could least
afford to pay it. They are single parents, those on fixed
income, the poor and the elderly. That is not acceptable.
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, PC): Mr.
Speaker, I want to thank the organizers for the marches across
the country and the world. A world women's march does not happen
overnight. We are talking about days and months of organization.
As a woman member of parliament, I want to thank them for
everything they are doing.
I was part of the organization when we organized the national
women's march against poverty in 1995 or 1996. I helped
co-ordinate the march in New Brunswick which certainly brought
awareness. Pay equity was one of the big issues.
After several courts, the Liberals finally decided to pay what
was owed to mostly women who were federal government workers.
Maybe to the Liberals it did not seem very important but it
recognized that there was an inequity within salaries of federal
employees. What the mostly women and some men did with that
money was reinvest it in their communities. It also helped a lot
of them to catch up.
I want to also recognize the work that was done by the members
of the Public Service Alliance of Canada. We have to thank them.
We have to thank Nycole Turmel and the whole group who worked
on this. Without their persistence and work I believe that women
would not have won this very important justice that was owed to
them.
Ten minutes is certainly not enough time to talk on all the
issues but we have to touch on violence.
[Translation]
Violence against women is clearly unacceptable. There is
certainly too much violence against women in this country.
Women's needs are not being met by our justice system. Too often
women find themselves in dangerous situations. They ask the
courts for help, but their spouse still manages to find them
eventually, and we often see children who end up losing their
mother.
1555
Too often women live in shelters. This should not be happening.
They should have the right to live in their own home, in their
own environment, and feel safe. We must address this problem. Too
many women live in fear and insecurity, afraid to leave the house
or go to work, because they fear for their life.
Looking at the way the justice system works, it is obvious that
the Liberal government has to do a lot better to correct the
problem.
[English]
As my colleague mentioned a while ago, we certainly have to
address the problem. Yes, I believe in prevention. I believe in
a justice system. We need more prevention. We need prevention
at home and, as mothers, we need to make sure that we address
that with the our children. We need a society that talks about
it and recognizes it. We need governments that address the
problem. That is how we are going to fix this.
We also need shelters and we need to put a lot more money into
them. We have the rural communities which are always
disadvantaged. Shelters for battered women are much needed in
our rural communities. We always have to scrape and scrape to
try to get enough funds to operate shelters which are safe homes
for women and their kids. They are safe homes that allow those
moms to get out of a situation. They can get some counselling.
They can reflect on their situation. They can get safety for
their children. Then after they have had a time to rest, to feel
safe and secure they can make those decisions. Those shelters
work.
I used one quite a few years ago and it worked. There was
counselling. Children were safe and the women could think.
Unless we have those shelters for women who need them, they
cannot get out of the environment. They cannot think straight.
It does not matter how much prevention there is we will never
solve all the problems. However, we need the shelters and we
need to reinvested in them. All levels of government need to
co-operate and address that. If we do not then we are not facing
up to the problem.
Most children living in poverty are female. We have to look at
the changes to the EI.
[Translation]
The changes to the employment insurance program have affected
seasonal workers, of course, but women in particular. Did the
Liberal government recognize that when it brought in these
changes? The Liberals said that the changes to the employment
insurance program would primarily affect women. Now they want to
make changes to maternity leave.
It is very nice to tell women that they will get a one year
maternity leave, but how many women can afford to take advantage
of it with 55% of their $6 an hour salary? These women will spend
a minimum amount of time at home with their children because they
are forced to go back to work. They have no choice, because they
cannot stay at home and live on 50% or 55%—the new amendments
have not been adopted, and it looks like the government will not
let them go through—of their salary. A woman cannot afford to
stay at home with her children if she receives the equivalent of
$3 an hour. It is simply not possible.
It is very nice to announce that a woman will be able to stay at
home for a whole year with her children, but that only applies to
women who earn big salaries. Those who are at the bottom end of
the income scale will not have access to maternity leave, because
they will not be able to afford it. We must also take a look at
the child care program.
[English]
Child care is a big problem in this country. In August I
released my report. On page 31, I recommended that we look at
child care, especially in rural Canada. There are serious
problems when it comes to child care. It is too expensive. A
lot of women are working in fish plants or in tourism and are
earning low salaries. They cannot afford child care. So where
are the children going? The children are going where the moms
and parents can afford afford to send them.
Are they getting the best care? I am not too sure that they are.
Is it the parents' fault? No, it is not the parents' fault.
1600
We have to address child care in this country. It is not right
and it is not fair that only people making high incomes can
afford child care.
I do believe that Quebec has a good example in child care at $5
a day. We have to look at that. We have to look at it as a
model and implement it across the country in different provinces
where governments want it. I believe every provincial government
should want an affordable child care program for parents. The
children deserve it. If those governments do not care about the
parents perhaps they should care about the children who are the
ones suffering at the end of the day.
Let us look at breakfast programs. On the weekend I was talking
to a director of a school of about 500 children. Two years ago
he had to put in place a breakfast program, not twenty years ago
but two years ago. He is feeding 20% of the kids in that school
at least one meal a day, which is an awful shame. Why? Not
because the parents are doing better, but because the parents are
making less money and everything is going up. It may be gas,
milk or bread, but everything is going up. Salaries are not
going up. They are going down. Those are the issues that keep
parents and children in poverty. That is not right.
How about part time workers? Who usually has a part time job?
It is women. Which group was attacked most in the EI cuts? It
was part time workers. They now pay into the fund but they
cannot collect. Before when they used to pay they used to get at
least a little bit but now they do not.
When the EI legislation was passed it was clear that women in
particular were going to be targeted by it. The government
passed it anyway. We need a system in place with policies that
make sure there is not one group in particular being targeted.
This Liberal government does not do that. The government speaks
well today that it cares about women and poverty but I do not
think it is really doing anything about it.
Violence and poverty among women has to be addressed. We are
living in a very rich country. Every woman should feel safe in
her home. Every child should have food in his stomach when he
goes to school. Only by addressing poverty among parents can we
ensure that. Single parents are usually women. This issue has
to be addressed. Talking about it is not enough. We need sound
policies that are going to address it once and for all.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my
colleague's speech. I am very pleased to see that she will
probably support the Bloc Quebecois' motion.
It provides, and I quote:
That this House work to provide the means needed to fight
poverty and violence against women as demanded by the World March
of Women, particularly in the areas of income protection, health,
international aid, violence and wage parity, so as to ensure a
fairer distribution of wealth between women and men.
The member mentioned the $5 day care program that Quebec has put
in place and that is indeed an excellent program. Could she
provide more information and tell us whether she shares the
viewpoint of the Canadian women's march committee, the
representatives of all Canadian women, which,
concerning demands pertaining to issues under Quebec's
jurisdiction, recognized that Quebec has the right
to establish its own standards, programs and policies in these
areas?
Could the member tell us whether she shares this viewpoint, the
one of the women of Canada, which is ahead of everything the
federal government has proposed? For many years, the federal
government has considered that it alone could put forward such a
vision. Should the Liberal government not in some specific way
respond to the demands from Quebec to grant the parental leave
that the government of Quebec has set up and which is part of a
structured family policy, rather than limit itself to ensuring
its visibility through the program it condemned, namely the
parental leave program under the employment insurance program? It
will leave people with low incomes in a state of poverty, thereby
ensuring that it is simply unrealistic to take a year's leave.
Ms. Angela Vautour: Mr. Speaker, my answer is clear: I believe
so. The government must consult the provinces. I believe Quebec
has a formula that works.
1605
It has proven that the $5 dollar a day child care program works.
There cannot be an immediate no simply because it is Quebec.
It is clear that anything coming from Quebec triggers an
immediate no from the Liberals. I am not saying that they
should always say yes, but they should consider the situation in
each province. There must be leadership. Provinces must be
encouraged to participate with the federal government and the
municipalities. The problem must be addressed. The maternity
leave problem is a serious one.
Only high income women will be able to afford to stay at home
with their children. The women who work for minimum wage in a
variety of factories—there are plenty of women in my area who
work year round for $6.50 an hour—are certainly not going to
stay home for a year with their children, not out of choice but
for financial reasons.
The government must sit down with the provinces and find a
workable formula. It should not do so with all provinces at the
same time but rather one at a time, in order to solve the
problems once and for all.
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
had an opportunity to write a monograph entitled “The Tragic
Tolerance of Domestic Violence”. I would like to share with the
member a couple of statistics.
In January 1998 a newsletter called “Common Sense and Domestic
Violence” reported that only 25% of women in shelters actually
go there to use the shelters as hostels. It also showed that 50%
of cases of domestic violence involve alcohol use or misuse. It
showed that 71% of domestic violent situations occur in
non-marital relationships and that 30% of all abuse cases occur
between the ages of 18 and 34.
I think the member will probably acknowledge, and maybe she
could acknowledge, that this is not a simple societal problem we
are dealing with and in fact only 15% of cases of domestic
violence are ever reported to any authorities to break the cycle
of violence. Would she not agree that encouraging women to step
forward and report cases of violence is an important part of the
solution as well as requiring mandatory counselling for all those
convicted of domestic violence in order to prevent the
reoccurrence?
Ms. Angela Vautour: Mr. Speaker, I do agree. I do not
have the figures the hon. member mentioned. What I do know is
that when women go to a shelter it means they need shelter.
We need to address the problem. When partners are convicted
they need rehabilitation. We need to have programs out there,
maybe before the partners are convicted. We do not have enough
programs. There was a program at one point that was called the
turn around program. The success rate was not very high but at
least it was a beginning for men who wanted to work out their
violence and their tempers.
Those programs cost money, but unless we have those programs,
unless we invest in having these programs available to help these
men who do not want to be violent any more, who want to control
their violence and who want to have a normal life, these men do
not have the resources to get themselves out of it. A lot of men
who hit their women are not happy with themselves but they do not
have the resources to get themselves out of it. We need to have
resources available, not only for women but for men.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am very
proud to address this Bloc Quebecois motion. I am not only proud
because the Bloc Quebecois presented this motion, but because
this extraordinary march of women in 2000 has its roots in a
similar initiative by the Fédération des femmes du Québec in
1995, a march that all Quebecers remember and which was called
the Bread and Roses March.
1610
This women's movement is something extraordinary for all
Quebecers and Canadians, for all those interested in organizing
a movement to counterbalance the constant and rampant phenomenon
whereby the rich are getting richer—it is true of countries and
it is also true of the people living in these countries—and the
poor are getting poorer, which is also a reality for countries
as well as for the people living in them.
In a way it is just a start, but a very promising one, which was
strongly felt in my riding, and perhaps also in yours,
Mr. Speaker. In the riding of Mercier, women's groups, and two
women's centres in particular, namely the Centre des femmes in
Pointe-aux-Trembles and Info-Femmes in Tétreauville, mobilized and
prepared this great march of women, first in my riding and then
here in Ottawa.
A number of these women are currently in New York city to take
part in the great international march. I am very proud of all
the work that has been done.
However that is not the end of it. One only had to hear the replies
provided today by the government to realize that the fight is
far from being over. This mobilization—that is what this
is—will ensure that issues as serious and as important as poverty
among women and children and violence against women will no
longer remain secret. The women who are the victims of such
situations will no longer be isolated and basically led to
believe that they are responsible for what is happening to them.
Even if the time available is extremely short, I would like to
speak today to the international outlook of this march of women,
which began in Quebec, became Canadian and is now an
international event.
What are Canadian women calling for? They are calling for an
international outlook. They are calling on Canada to get ready
to meet the international aid objective of 0.7% of GDP, which
could be called the nation's wealth. It makes sense to link
international aid to wealth.
They also called on the government to reduce the debt of the 57
poorest nations. They are so right, because these debts are
eating up what little revenue these small countries have leaving
nothing for health and education.
The government's reaction to this should not be that everything
it is doing is just fine. I would remind the House that it was
in 1990 during a full recession that Canada made its commitment
to the UN to meet an objective of 0.7% of GDP. At the time,
Canada was contributing 0.48% of its GDP to international aid. It
was already close to 0.7%.
Since then, its contribution has continued to slide. So much
for the so-called “best country in the world”. Right now,
international aid stands at 0.25%, compared to the 0.48% it was
at the time the commitment was made. How many years have we been
enjoying this period of prosperity of which the government is so
proud? Six years, seven years?
The situation is completely unacceptable and I am extremely
grateful to women for adding their voices to those of all the
people in Quebec and in Canada who think that Canada's position
does not make sense.
It makes so little sense that in committee I asked the
president of CIDA and the minister responsible for international
cooperation what percentage of international aid comes back to
Canada.
1615
The minister was somewhat taken aback. At first she said it was
30%. The president of CIDA had to step in to correct that
statement by saying that it was 75%. Of all the international aid we
provide, which is far from the objective set out by Canada in
1990, 75% comes back to Canada.
Everything we heard about helping underdeveloped countries to
repay their debts, about helping poorer countries by providing
international assistance, about targeting the hundreds of million
dollars announced by the minister is nonsense.
We are very worried because it is in the poorest countries of
the world, mostly in Africa, that the status of women is the most
vulnerable in terms of health and violence.
What is even more horrible is that these women often have to
face poverty and violence in countries that are fighting what
seem to be endless wars, where the international community is
reluctant to interfere because it fears that it may not be equal
to the task. People have to realize that the international
community has been extremely cautious. Unfortunately the troops
the UN sent to Sierra Leone, for instance, became the laughing
stock of the world, to make a long story short since my time is
limited.
I want to quote a report that everyone ought to read,
the Year 2000 Report of the United Nations Population Fund. The
introduction begins as follows:
Gender inequality holds back the growth of individuals, the
development of countries and the evolution of societies, to the
disadvantage of both women and men.
It goes on:
The facts of gender inequality—the restrictions placed on
women's choices, opportunities and participation—have direct and
often malign consequences for women's health and education, and
for their social and economic participation.
They added something that is extremely important and important
to this country too:
Yet until recent years, these restrictions have been considered
either unimportant or non-existent, either accepted or ignored.
The reality of women's lives has been invisible to men. This
invisibility persists at all levels, from the family to the
nation. Though they share the same space, women and men live in
different worlds.
That is true here, improved to some extent in certain areas, but
it is poignantly true in developing countries and in the poorest
countries.
I am going to wait for the party opposite, on the eve of an
election, to wake up and provide money instead of fancy words,
wherever it wants to appear generous. Canada does not have the
situation under control by any means. Far from it. This is
shameful in the field of international aid.
[English]
Mr. Dennis Gruending (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for Mercier for her perceptive
comments and also for the motion that has come forward today.
I want to make a few comments rather than ask a question if I
may have a minute or two to do so.
Our leader spoke this morning about the women's march and the
women's demands.
1620
A group from the women's march on poverty met with our caucus
recently. When its representatives presented us with their
demands I found that they fit like a hand in a glove with the
kinds of things the New Democratic Party has been proposing.
We believe an election may be near. Each party is coming up
with a platform, and we are as well. While I do not have all the
details, I will go through some of their demands and indicate how
closely they resemble some of our platform points.
They want to restore federal funding to health care. We have
argued for that all along. They want to enforce rules against
privatization of health care. We have fought that fight as well
and agree with the women of Canada.
They want an additional 1% of the budget spent on social
housing. The government has removed itself from social housing
almost entirely and we have a crisis on our hands. The
government has done virtually nothing during this crisis. We are
with the women of Canada in saying that we must do something
about social housing. We are proposing 25,000 units per year.
They want a promised national child care fund set up. The
Liberals made that promise in 1993 and it still has not been
acted on. I recently presented a petition in the House from
parents and other members and friends of the Confederation Park
Childcare Cooperative in my riding asking about that fund. They
were talking about the fact that two-thirds of Canadian women
work outside of the home. Not everyone has a situation whereby a
family member can care for the children. In this economy, if we
want to be productive and just, we must have such a program. We
in the NDP are pushing for that.
They want old age security payments increased. We have fought
the Liberal government's attempts to reduce old age security
payments.
We have also supported the reduction of the head tax on
immigrants. The women of Canada have asked for that.
Like my colleague from Mercier, we have also been calling for a
restoration of our overseas development assistance to the target
level of .7 of 1% of GNP. We are saying that we have to get to .35%
immediately. In that, I agree with the women and with my
colleague.
Finally, we have adopted the proactive pay equity legislation.
The women of Canada are calling for that and we support them
entirely.
I merely wish to state that the wishes, desires and demands
brought forward by this group of women from Quebec and from all
over Canada fit very closely with what the NDP has been
advocating for years. Perhaps it is no accident. We have eight
or nine women members in our caucus and they have had a great
impact on bringing forward issues from the women of Canada.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois is most
decidedly happy to have the NDP vote in favour of its motion.
Indeed, what would make us really happy is to have the entire
House support it.
This motion is an extension of the march of women, these women
who have developed positions that we in the Bloc Quebecois are
extremely comfortable with because we have been fighting for
these proposals for years in the House of Commons. We are very
proud to see that the Regroupement canadien des femmes fully
recognizes that the provinces are the ones to act in matters of
provincial jurisdiction, as the president of the Fédération des
femmes du Québec put it so forcefully.
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
member had a quote that I thought was interesting. She said that
men and women live in different worlds. We have an organization,
Men Against Violence Against Women, which was created because men
had been shut out of the process.
Does the member agree that the issue of domestic violence is in
fact not just a women's issue but a societal issue? If she does
agree, would she not support all men and women getting together
to work together on effective solutions for the issue of domestic
violence?
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde: This is an interesting question, Mr.
Speaker, and I shall answer it in this way. The more one studies
these questions the more one knows that the solution to violence
toward women must be found in a context where there is no need
for men to be violent.
The way to make it possible for men and women to be equal
partners is to ensure that both can fulfil their total potential
and then they will go on to be capable of a partnership of
equals.
1625
What we are finding more and more, and what some people have
realized for a long time already, is that the couple must be
based on a relationship of equality. As for help, the networks of
men and women must be such that they create couples in which
there can be an equal to equal relationship.
This is the case not only here but also in the poorer
developing countries. I find the report so
extraordinary because it states that the inequality between the
sexes is considered a problem of the utmost urgency and is a
priority for development. To quote the report, it is “a matter
of urgency affecting both human rights and development
priorities”.
Inequality must be brought out into the light and solutions
sought, with women first of all, in order to manage to attain a
level of equality so that within the couple, the woman can assert
herself in situations relating to her fertility. There are
millions—
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member
but her time is up.
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on this
opposition day on the World March of Women, I would like to
welcome to the world my granddaughter Béatrice, who was born at
midday.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Ms. Hélène Alarie: My wish for her, her mother and her
grandmother is that we may live in a world where increasing
efforts will be made to eliminate poverty and violence, and that
she, her grandmother and her mother may be able in their
respective communities to establish themselves and live in the
equality that is vital to their development.
I would like to reread the motion we introduced this morning
because every word in it is important in my view:
That this House immediately work to provide the means needed to
fight poverty and violence against women as demanded by the World
March of Women, particularly in the areas of income protection,
health, international aid, violence and wage parity, so as to
ensure a fairer distribution of wealth between women and men.
As has been repeatedly pointed out today, the government is in a
position and has the means to help women with their demands. The
budget surpluses can be used to do much to improve the conditions
in which women and, by extension, their children live.
The World March of Women, which brings together 5,000 groups of
women from 159 countries, managed to get over three million
signatures in support of its demands. These signatures are cards
that will be delivered to Kofi Annan, the UN secretary general.
This march has its roots in Quebec, where a group of organized
women, of activists, came to the conclusion that many policies
at all levels were not working and were harmful to women. Back
then people probably did not think that the movement would
spread to other countries, that these women would join forces
with others to achieve the success that we are witnessing this
week.
I took part in the march in my riding and felt solidarity
between the men and women who participated.
Colleagues, friends, fathers and even young men took part in the
march. We could feel solidarity among us and, above, all
dignity and pride in representing women who, after all,
symbolize the perennial character of society and account for at
least 52% of its members.
1630
That march was necessary and it was a wake up call for many
people. Wherever we are we must recognize that the poverty
level is increasing.
In my area, an organization called La Table de la pauvreté
conducted a survey. It found that in a riding which appears to
be rich 25% of the families were living below the poverty line.
I can assure members that living below the poverty line in a city is
very difficult. It may be more difficult than in the country
where people can sometimes manage to get by, which is not the
case in cities.
In echoing what was said here this morning, I would like to talk
about two groups in particular.
The first one concerns aboriginal women and human rights.
Members may wonder why I am the one speaking about the human
rights of aboriginal women. It is because I had the pleasure—and
I say the pleasure because I discovered a lot of things with
them—to study with a group of aboriginal women.
I would like to salute them today. I am thinking about Fernande
St-Onge, Suzanne Achini, Germaine Pinette, Marie Jourdain and her
sister, Angéline, who came from Maliotenam to study on the south
shore, in La Pocatière, in my colleague's riding.
They came to the south shore because they wanted an education
that would help them make things better in their society. It was
not easy for them to attend a boarding school and be away from
their people for a whole school year. But they did it and today
they hold values that they share with us.
Those involved in the march of women are calling for a lot of
things. To eliminate poverty and violence against women they are
asking the federal government to support the human rights of
aboriginal women as well as the welfare of their children, their
family and their community and to respond to their concerns
regarding housing, health, education, justice, territorial issues
and resources.
They are also asking the government to make funding available to
national and regional groups representing aboriginal women so as
to ensure their full participation in discussions on
self-government.
They are asking that all programs include a gender equality
analysis.
When we realize that the aboriginal peoples have a concept of
equality governing their traditions, this demand appears totally
justified.
They are asking for changes to the Indian Act to restore the
traditional rights enjoyed by women in the transmission of native
heritage.
They are asking for sufficient funding for aboriginal women's
groups to enable them to set up halfway houses and other
services in the communities.
Finally, they are calling for the full implementation of the
recommendations of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples,
which includes a whole section on the equality of women.
The Bloc Quebecois has already proposed a review of the rules of
the dissolution of an aboriginal marriage, which discriminate
against women by failing to recognize the right to equal division
of matrimonial property. It also proposes a bill to rectify the
situation given the government's inertia on the matter.
We support funding for aboriginal women's organizations, as
requested.
I would also like to speak of another group of citizens for whom
the march of women has made demands. They are calling for the
implementation of a progressive immigration reform so that
domestic workers receive immigrant status as soon as they arrive.
Domestic workers are all too often a source of cheap labour
governed more by the terms of modern slavery than by positive
immigration measures.
The Bloc Quebecois proposes that the government tighten up the
procedure for support of candidates for this program so they may
be monitored by an immigration officer in order to prevent abuse.
1635
We also want the immigration reform to call for the elimination
of the head tax for all immigrants. We want this federal tax to
be abolished because the federal government is taking no
responsibility whatsoever except in Quebec, I might add for the
integration of immigrants.
Another major recommendation concerning new immigrants would
include persecution based on gender or sexual orientation as a
specific reason justifying the granting of refugee status.
The 1951 United Nations convention relating to the status of
refugees stipulates that:
As a result of events...and owing to well-founded fear of being
persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality,
membership of a particular social group or political opinion—
In 1993 the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that membership of a
particular social group must include people who are afraid of
being persecuted for other reasons such as gender or sexual
orientation.
The Bloc Quebecois wants the federal government to ensure that
visa officers overseas interpret the definition of a refugee
according to the court's ruling.
I have only one minute left, but I could keep going for hours.
I just want to say that, as my hon. colleague pointed out, we
are in favour of forgiving the debt of the 53 poorest countries
of the world.
As agriculture critic for my party, I want to add that the
farming industry could very easily help to feed the poor on this
planet. The problem has nothing to do with production but
rather with the fair distribution of our production.
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
member started off by saying that it would be nice to abolish
poverty. That might be part of the problem. There seems to be a
sense that somehow we can legislate it away.
The member will know from the prior debate that the statistics
with regard to the lone parent situation is quite alarming. In
fact 14% of all families in Canada are lone parent families but
they account for over 54% of all children living in poverty.
With that as background, if the member is truly interested in
finding constructive solutions to address the problem of child
poverty, we will then have to deal with issues such as family
break down. I hope the member would acknowledge that and comment
on it.
Second, I would like to pose to the member another approach. If
we cannot legislate behaviour, maybe the approach within programs
at all levels of government should be to create an environment in
which children are raised to develop good, sound social, moral
and family values so that when they grow up and take their place
in adult society they will make decisions that will make sure
they do not end up in poverty or in situations where
domestic violence occurs.
The idea is prevention, not remediation after we have the
problem. I wonder if the member has some comments on those.
[Translation]
Ms. Hélène Alarie: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his
question. I must say there are all manner of means for
lessening the tensions that lead to major difficulties.
In reference to lessening tensions, since this morning I have
been thinking that what we have been discussing is a series of
steps that can be readily taken in relation to funding social
housing, health, the aging population, and all that can be done
to set up day care centres. These ought to be able to
accommodate very young infants. All of this would improve the
social climate in our society.
Very often, when one looks into social problems more thoroughly,
one realizes that poverty is indeed very much what lies behind
social problems.
1640
I would say that the poverty in which people live is a natural
source of conflict, so if part of the conflict can be eliminated
through measures providing direct assistance to women, and when
we are speaking of women then we are speaking of families, in
order to provide them with more support and more of a chance to catch
their breath, then probably there would be less tension within
the family, which is what leads directly to violence.
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, the member would like to
discuss child care so maybe I could pose to her the principle
that the most important thing for a child is a secure and
consistent attachment with an engaged committed adult.
I am not sure whether or not day care, as a simple solution,
will necessarily provide that to all families. As a matter of
fact, it appears to me that we have both the urban and rural and
accessibility and affordability of child care may be an issue.
Does the member not believe that families should have more
choices so that they include such things as allowing families to
be able to provide direct parental care? Right now more than 50%
of families provide direct care. Does she not believe that maybe
promoting simply a child care solution is somewhat simplistic and
does not take into account the realities of the Canadian family?
[Translation]
Ms. Hélène Alarie: Mr. Speaker, of course, in a perfect world
each child would be able to stay home with one parent
or both.
Unfortunately that is not they way things are. Because of that,
I think we need a family policy that addresses the needs of both
parents and children.
When we talk about $5 a day day care, it is
a very effective way of helping parents. When parents can do
another kind of work during the day, they come home at night
with an open mind ready to resume their child-rearing duties.
We must help families so that children can grow up in the best
environment possible.
We must be realistic, however. It is easy to say that the ideal
situation would be this or that, but reality is different and
we must find the means to address the major problems in our
society.
Mr. Antoine Dubé: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
would like to ask for the unanimous consent of the House so
that, notwithstanding the standing orders governing private
members' business, we can have one more hour tonight, October
16, at the end of government orders, to allow debate on Bill
C-213, dealing with shipbuilding, at report stage and, if
necessary, at third reading stage. This bill is extremely
important, and with all the rumours we hear about an upcoming
election, it should be dealt with as soon as possible.
The Deputy Speaker: The member said he would like one more hour.
Does he mean tomorrow night or tonight, even though
consideration of private members' business was this morning?
Mr. Antoine Dubé: Yes, but if there were unanimous consent—
The Deputy Speaker: I just wanted to clarify the request.
Is there unanimous consent of the House to proceed in this
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: It is my duty pursuant to Standing
Order 38 to inform the House that the question to be raised
tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon.
member for Peterborough, Infrastructure.
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will
be splitting my time with my colleague, the member for
Etobicoke—Lakeshore.
I want to speak on the subject of violence against women and
girls as a health issue of grave concern.
1645
As women have marched across the country, not only in Canada but
around the world, governments have had to concentrate on and
remind themselves of the enormity and complexity of this problem,
a problem that continues in Canada despite the efforts of
organizations, governments and individuals to eliminate it.
When we speak about violence as a health issue, we include
violence in all its forms, physical, sexual, psychological and
spiritual, which then includes things like abuse, date rape,
stalking, violence in the home and in the workplace, and violence
by family members, acquaintances or persons in positions of
trust.
There is no doubt that all forms of violence seriously impact on
the health and well-being of women. Along with immediate and
more physical impacts of physical and sexual violence, there are
many other possible consequences, which would include the
possibility of HIV-AIDS, sexually transmitted diseases, unplanned
pregnancies and permanent pain, injury and disability.
Violence against women and girls has serious psychological
impacts. They can become withdrawn, have depression and low
self-esteem, have eating disorders and self-destructive
behaviours which I have seen evidenced in my own constituency
office with people having to deal with these issues. They can
have physical problems that are a consequence of poor mental
health.
We do not have a simplistic viewpoint. There is a whole range
of areas to be considered. These all have an impact on women's
ability to empower themselves and to interact with their
community, with their family and with society. In a sense they
have this area of their lives where they feel powerless. I think
that is wrong and it is very difficult to overcome.
Health is a function of much more than biology and health
services. Health is also greatly affected and impacted by the
social and economic factors. The social impacts of violence
against women can include hours of lost work, lost income, loss
of home and isolation. These can all worsen one's health.
In March of 1999 Health Canada released its “Women's Health
Strategy” which had a significant component of the government's
health agenda. There were 64 commitments in the strategy which
were based on a health determinants approach. As part of the
strategy, Health Canada undertook to integrate a gender based
analysis. We have talked about that many times in the House. I
think the fact that gender based analysis is integrated into the
department's programs and policy development work will have an
eventual impact on what we are trying to do.
Gender based violence is a risk factor that women face and has
wide ranging consequences for not only health but for the health
system. We had recent negotiations at the UN's special session
of the general assembly. It has been commonly referred to as
Beijing +5. It did address the violence issue as a health issue.
States recognized that while some advances had been made in the
provision of specialized health services for women and children,
there was a lack of a co-ordinated multidisciplinary approach
responding to violence. We need to include not only health
systems but education systems, media, workplace knowledge as well
as the justice system.
As a result of the Beijing +5 commitments, we have a view now of
a more holistic approach to the issue of violence against women
and girls, including marginalized women and girls. That would
also then encompass those areas of provision for appropriate
health care and services which on the whole are not well
integrated in all our communities in Canada at the present.
However, in the health sector we need to do more than treat the
impact of violence. This has been mentioned a number of times
today. We need to encourage and engage in preventing violence
before it starts, in all of our systems. Health care services
should also recognize the symptoms of violence and provide
support to women and girls.
We also know that we have marginalized women and girls in our
society, often aboriginal women, immigrant and refugee women,
lesbians, women with disabilities, older women, and women of
minority, racial, ethnocultural and linguistic groups. They need
services that are sensitive to their culture, their situation and
their life experience. Unlike the reform alliance, one size does
not fit all and cannot help all the people that need to be
helped.
1650
Along with those groups, women in isolated and rural communities
also have difficulty accessing the services they require.
Community groups and non-governmental organizations have been
active in these areas and are to be commended for their work to
date, which is essential to achieving the holistic system we are
after, that holistic response to violence.
I will give a few examples. Through the Health Canada health
transition fund, the University of Montreal completed a project
to implement and evaluate the use of a screening tool in local
community health service centres for the detection of women
abuse. Recently in my home town, the London based task force on
the health effects of women abuse released a report recommending
that health care providers screen female patients for abuse. The
Centre of Excellence for Women's Health has studied the
relationship between health and violence among aboriginal women,
the impact of violence on women's mental health and the provision
of health services to women diagnosed with mental illnesses who
are survivors of trauma and abuse.
Through family violence initiatives, Health Canada supports
research related to health consequences of violence against
women, particularly with a view to encouraging and educating the
health care sector to respond more effectively to violence
against women as a health issue. This includes guidelines for
physicians who are dealing with women abuse and the criminal
justice system, a handbook for health and social service
providers and educators and children who are exposed to women
abuse, and a handbook for health and social service professionals
responding to abuse during pregnancy, a particularly vulnerable
time.
The National Clearinghouse on Family Violence contains many
resources that provide information to aid women, including women
from these marginalized areas of our country and from minority
groups. I hope that women and men will access these resources.
The government will continue to promote respect for the physical
and psychological integrity of all individuals. Health and
well-being are necessary to women's full participation in
society. Girls and women of all ages, I believe, cannot achieve
any real equality until they are free from all forms of violence.
I see around this House people who understand the issues, many in
different parties but certainly on the government side of the
House. We have to understand the problem while we work at the
solution. Women and men, civil society, all governments and all
members of the House must be engaged to eliminate violence.
I was very pleased on Sunday to come to Ottawa a day early to
spend time with some of the people who came from London, Ontario
to visit the Hill and participate peacefully in a demonstration
that raises very significant issues for Canadians to understand,
to take action on and to involve themselves in. The government
has been working in its various departments to continue the work
that has progressed since we have been here. I can only speak of
the time since 1993, but this is not my first debate on these
issues of violence against women. I hope that by the time the
grandchild of the hon. member opposite, who just had a grandchild
today, reaches the age where she or he can enter the House, it
not be in a similar debate.
There are good people in the House and in the communities who
believe this is an important area. The Alliance Party in
particular demonstrated earlier today some misunderstanding of
some of the basic theory that goes with some of the issues we
talk about in the House and that we have to follow through with
our policy and practice in our ridings.
There will not be a debate in the House on violence that I do
not want to participate in because it is important to recognize
it, not to hide behind the statistics that say everything is
getting better. It is always important to stand up and say that
there are still marginalized people, that we are still
underserviced in many ways and that resources, both human and
monetary, have to go into these areas for progress to continue to
be made. I believe that the government, with its gender
analysis, will help integrate all those solutions into the policy
development of the government.
1655
I thank the members of the House for participating in this
worthwhile debate. I also thank the member from the opposition
party who put forward this motion today.
Mr. Philip Mayfield: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I am aware that there is quite a list of speakers who
would like to get involved in this debate. I was wondering if
there would be unanimous consent for us to forgo questions and
comments so that more speakers might be involved.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland):
Does the hon. member for Cariboo—Chilcotin have
unanimous consent of the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am hoping
that the member from London can help me on this. I know she has
worked hard on this issue and believes strongly in equality for
women.
When it comes to women's issues or moving policy on women's
issues it seems to be really difficult. When policy does get
changed it gets changed so that it penalizes women, such as in
the case of the EI program or moving forward with child care.
One area that has bothered me a lot is the area of the defence
of provocation. This defence is used if a man is insulted or his
honour is besmirched on the basis of an insult. We excuse the
murder done to a woman because he was insulted. We are making
excuses for anger when it comes to violence against women. It is
in our laws. It is very symbolic. The law says that a man can
react violently to what he perceives as a verbal insult. It is
very discouraging to think that we cannot even make small changes
like that.
There is another little thing I want to bring up, which is not
little for the women involved. Everybody knows that Canada is a
huge country with vast areas of isolated communities. The
federal prenatal health program has just cut funding for women in
Dawson City. They can no longer get any assistance to go to
Whitehorse to give birth. They do not have a choice in this.
They cannot stay in Dawson City to give birth. They have to
spend at least two weeks in Whitehorse near the hospital but the
funding to enable them to do that has been cut. Most of these
women are not wealthy. They live on very fixed incomes and the
accommodation is expensive. Why would something like that
happen? It is just unbelievable.
I know the women members on the other side of the House are
working hard to change things but why do we not have the changes
that we need? Why do we have something like this? The amount
of money we are talking about is only around $7,000. It is such
a minuscule amount compared to our full budget. Why was it cut?
It has a drastic effect on the lives of women at a time when they
need help to give birth in a place that is safe. They do not
have any other choice.
Mrs. Sue Barnes: Mr. Speaker, I respect the hon. member
opposite. I also know she works very hard because I have had the
pleasure of working on committees with her.
First I will address the question that she raised with respect
to the provocation defence and the criminal justice system. I am
sure the hon. member is also aware that this defence has been
used successfully in the past with women who have been repeatedly
attacked by their spouses in a situation where there was ongoing
abuse.
That is one of the areas we have to look at when we make changes
to the criminal justice system. On the one hand it is seen as an
out, but in other circumstances there are real reasons it is used
as a valid defence. I see a need to examine this area. I believe
it is currently being examined in order to look at how we can
better get at the goal without necessarily changing the exact
section of the code she is referring to.
I also want to pay attention to the comments made earlier in her
remarks about child care. I remember being part of a woman's
caucus in 1993 when we on this side of the House had a minister
who was very much prepared to go forward to the provinces with
child care policies. There was no take-up from many of the
provinces.
That was at a time when there were deficits in a lot of the
provinces.
1700
Today, though, a child care agreement has recently been
negotiated inside the health care agreement with the provinces
and territories. Money would be available for those provinces to
choose where they would put the resources and programs in
relation to their populations. I believe in Ontario the dollar
amount is $800 million.
Some of those provinces may in fact choose to go with child
care. I understand that B.C. and perhaps the member's area,
although I am not certain of the latter, may go with increased
child care. However, other provinces may very well choose to
spend those extra resources in areas where the resources are most
needed. I understand that where fetal alcohol syndrome is more
of a problem some of the provinces are looking at increased
spending in that area.
I understand my own province has not given any indication, and I
know there is a dire need. The women's programs in my city could
use more beds every night in our shelters.
I understand I am out of time. I thank the hon. member
opposite. On the health care, I am sorry, but I will have to
take that at another time.
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to join in the debate on this opposition
day motion.
I want to begin by saying that the Government of Canada supports
the World March of Women. As a member of the women's Liberal
caucus, I offer support to the women of Canada as they make their
demands and look for ways and means to better the lives of all
women. As chair of the Canadian Association of Parliamentarians
on Population and Development, I see this march as being an
important initiative that demonstrates the increasing level of
global linkages being created by Canadian women, NGOs and other
organizations.
Many of my constituents in Etobicoke—Lakeshore participated in
this march for women. They too joined and they want the
government to know that they are working to improve their lives
and the lives of all women all across the country and the world.
I want to focus on the issue of family violence and take up from
where the previous speaker, the hon. member for London West, left
off. I will quote from a recent Canadian publication that is
especially relevant to this world march. It states:
Violence against women knows no geographical, cultural or
linguistic boundaries and it affects all women without regard to
their level of income. For many women, poverty adds another
dimension to the pain and suffering they experience as a result
of violence. Poverty limits choices and access to the means to
protect and free oneself from violence.
Much has been said here today, but I think one thing that is
very clear to me and that was left with all of us is the fact
that the Canadian Alliance has proved that it does not understand
the issue of pay equity, which is a very important issue for
women. As well, it believes in a one size fits all approach to
equality. It should not speak to them about measures to address
visible minority women, aboriginal women or women with
disabilities. This is very sad. This march underscored the
importance of those issues for women.
As well, I want the women in my riding and all women to know
about the resources we have within the federal government to
address the issue of family violence.
1705
The quotes I mentioned earlier came from a document called
“Breaking the Links between Poverty and Violence Against Women:
A Resource Guide”. I think that report adequately reflects the
perspective of the government.
The Government of Canada is committed to both ensuring that
women are safe in their workplaces, their homes and their family
situations and to reducing the toll that violence takes on
Canadians. We are also committed to finding solutions to such
problems as poverty, which affects the health and well-being of
all Canadians.
Health Canada has some responsibility here. It is the lead
ministry in co-ordinating the family violence initiative. As
part of this initiative the Government of Canada continues to
help individual Canadians and communities increase awareness and
develop more effective ways to prevent and respond to the
problem.
What have we done? Let me take this opportunity to go through a
number of initiatives. We have allocated $7 million a year for a
range of activities across seven federal departments and
agencies, some of them very important, including Canada Mortgage
and Housing Corporation, Canadian Heritage, Health Canada, the
Department of Justice, the RCMP, Statistics Canada and Status of
Women Canada. The initiative entails collaboration with an
additional six departments that are not funded through this
initiative but act on the problem through their regular budgets.
The government has introduced a wide range of legislation,
policies and programs dealing with violence. On this side of the
House from time to time we draw attention to those programs and
policy areas. They are managed through a variety of
interdepartmental collaborative mechanisms, including, for
example, the interdepartmental working group on family violence,
the interdepartmental working group on crime prevention and
community safety, and working groups dealing with related issues
such as Canada's drug strategy.
There are other federal initiatives. The building healthy
communities program provides crisis intervention services for
aboriginal communities. Other initiatives deliver intervention
and treatment programs to offenders in correctional institutions
and other facilities. Those programs have an impact on family
violence.
Through successive initiatives we have established a baseline of
information on the nature and extent of family violence in
Canada. We were able to share this with our international
partners in this area. Research that is done in Canada is
research that is up front and at the same time very progressive.
We have conducted research and provided data on such important
areas as violence against women, children and older persons, and
the utilization of transition houses and shelters. We have
conducted ongoing research to evaluate the effectiveness of what
we are doing and to address the gaps we have identified in the
consultations we have had with the provinces, territories,
frontline workers, and NGO and service agencies. We also provide
research to policy makers and services providers to give them up
to date information so that they can work on the ground and with
communities to address family violence in the most effective way
possible. We have the data. We have the research. We have the
information.
As well as addressing this awareness and understanding of the
problem, we see the issue of family violence addressed daily in
the common media and in the multidisciplinary, multi-sectoral
intergovernmental approaches to this very important issue.
1710
Family violence is a long term problem that requires a long term
collaborative response involving all sectors of Canadian society.
I think all of us in the House recognize that this is not an
easily solved problem. Frontline workers, community groups,
members of the public, and all the others working together on
this issue recognize the difficulties involved in dealing with
family violence.
We also have had a special national campaign against violence.
There are two phases. The Canadian Association of Broadcasters
has been working with us in this regard. With $1 million coming
from Canadian Heritage, Health Canada, Justice Canada, Solicitor
General, Status of Women and National Defence, the CAB has
provided approximately $20 million of airtime for a series of
television and radio messages revolving around three themes:
violence against women, violence against children and media
literacy. We thus have partners in this endeavour.
Another example of partnership is an interdisciplinary project
on family violence. It is a complicated issue. It is an issue
that all of society has to deal with. The World March of Women
highlighted the issue for us. The government is working
assiduously with all departments and partners in this regard. We
have provided handbooks. We are doing everything we can to
ensure that the issue comes to the fore.
In conclusion, the government is cognizant of the issue. The
women's march has highlighted it. We will continue to work. We
will continue to provide the necessary resources to ensure that
we fight violence against women and that families are safer
places in which individuals can grow and develop.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, as I total the 13 demands it seems to
me they would probably cost about $20 billion a year. These 13
demands are listed as immediate demands, so when these are paid
for I presume there would be more demands.
It occurs to me, from my experience dealing with families and
family counselling, that two of the greatest pressures in
families that cause disruption, violence and loss are financial
problems and loss of health by a member of the family.
Let us consider the amount of money Ottawa spends on interest
payments. It is about three times what we spend on health care
and education. We casually talk about this $33 billion surplus.
This money came from taxpayers. I have difficulty understanding
many elements of this argument. Why are we taking money from
families when this is one of the greatest causes of stress and
violence in families? Why can the government not see that it
should reduce the tax level and leave money in families?
Our party has suggested a $10,000 tax exemption for any adult
member who pays taxes and any adult dependant and $3,000 for each
child. That would mean a family of four would pay no taxes on
the first $26,000 of income. They would then pay at the rate of
only 17%, except for the highest earners of over $100,000 who
would pay at 25%.
Does the hon. member consider that some of the fundamental
problems causing the difficulties we are discussing are in fact
promoted by the government and its own policies?
Ms. Jean Augustine: Mr. Speaker, it is amazing how we can
reduce any kind of discussion down to the issues of taxes and
dollars and cents.
1715
I spoke about the problem of violence against women and violence
in families. It is a very difficult and complex issue. It is an
issue we find all over the world in all classes in society and in
all groups, racial, cultural, et cetera.
I spoke about what we are doing in Canada to address that issue,
to bring it to the attention of the public, to work with partners
and to ensure that Canada and Canadian women join with women
across the world to resolve that problem.
The issue of taxes and putting more dollars in the pockets of
individuals to resolve this is not the answer to violence. We
know it happens in families who are millionaires. It happens to
families who have big houses and who have lots of money in their
banks and pockets. This is not a money issue.
I am not surprised that my colleague does not understand what
this issue is all about.
Mr. Dennis Gruending (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague across the way for her
remarks. I want to focus on one point because time is limited.
The women's march talked about the lack of housing as being a
major cause and perhaps the effect of poverty among women. Today
on the Hill there was another related event. The Canadian
Association of Food Banks held a news conference to talk about
two studies it had released. There are now 707 food banks in
Canada and 726,000 people using those food banks, which is an
increase in the last year. Many of those people live in very
poor housing. That is one of the problems.
It talked about the fact that while we have a minister for
homelessness in Canada, we have a lack of a national housing
strategy. I am now paraphrasing from the remarks in the study
this morning. It also indicated that the minister in charge of
CMHC announced further research and consultation but that that
was really not what we needed. We need funds committed to a
national strategy and targets for the creation of affordable
housing. So there is a link between poverty, particularly
women's poverty and the lack of affordable housing.
I wonder if my colleague could tell me how we might attack this
problem? There has been a retraction by the federal government
on this issue. I wonder if she could tell us how we might get
ourselves into a position where we have a decent strategy for
housing?
Ms. Jean Augustine: Mr. Speaker, as you know from my
background, I spent six years as the chair of the Metro Toronto
Housing Authority which houses 125,000 people in what is called
rent geared to income.
I know the situation of the lack of affordability. I know the
linkages and the connections. If the member would remember what
we did fairly recently in the area of homelessness, those people
who are on the street either through eviction, psychiatric and
other kinds of problems, and the work we have been doing with
communities to alleviate those issues.
The issue of affordability is one we have to tackle. Despite
what we have in terms of CMHC and the present RRAP funding, et
cetera, I have to admit that we have to work on the issue of
affordability.
Let us all join together. The issue of affordable housing is
very important. All of us in the House have to find some ways to
take responsibility for that issue.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing mine with the member for
Québec.
I am very happy to rise today to speak on this motion put
forward by the Bloc, of which I am especially proud. Last week,
along with a thousand women from my riding, I walked in
Trois-Pistoles, Cabano, Pohénégamook, in some neighbourhoods in
Saint-Éleuthère, Sully, Estcourt, Rivière-du-Loup, Saint-Pascal and
La Pocatière.
1720
I felt very at ease because many of the issues raised by the
women had already been supported by the Bloc Quebecois. The
efforts made by the Bloc to improve EI were obviously considered
very credible. The Bloc position on poverty, as explained by the
hon. member for Québec throughout the province, also enjoys a
lot of support.
I heard from a lot of people. For instance, after a speech I
made at one of the demonstrations, a young mother told me “You
talk about women and men living in poverty, but I would like you
to talk about the children of these families who have to make
due with what is put on the table”. That stuck in my mind. That
is why I am reminding the House today that the 13 demands these
women made to the federal government would also help to
eliminate child poverty. There are no poor children without poor
parents and especially poor women.
I also saw a young woman who came to talk to me because someone
had said in a speech that it was sad that, on the 8th of each
month, some people did not have any money left from their welfare
cheque to pay for current expenses. A young woman came to me and
said “I still have money left from my welfare cheque on the 8th
of each month, but every day I have to make sacrifices to make
sure my children will have what they need so we can get through
the month, and I will give you examples”. She was very proud to
tell me about the necessities she did without so that her
children did not have to do without.
These are the testimonies I heard during a march where I felt a
lot of enthusiasm. I would say I found in that march the first
organized movement. All the men in Quebec, in Canada and,
basically, in the world must be grateful to women for having
taken the initiative to turn things around, to say that
productivity and profit will no longer be the only things that
matter, that other factors will have to be taken into account in
developing policies.
And this was done by women from our own communities. They are
real people who started marching from the Lower St. Lawrence area
or from Matane on to La Pocatière, and then on to Montreal and
Ottawa. This march reflects a reality. It was not a debate among
intellectuals but concrete action which must be recognized. Those
responsible deserve our thanks.
I also heard testimonies that did not necessarily relate to the
issue of economic poverty.
On that day there was much talk of domestic violence. One woman
came to speak to us about the situation she had been through.
This was a woman who did not necessarily have any financial
problems, but she lived with a very controlling partner who
subjected her to violence. This violence is something else we
must fight against and eliminate from our society. When I
listened to this woman speak, I was also listening as a father,
because I have two daughters. I have a son and I want him to be
able to grow up in a society in which we have done what is
necessary to eliminate such behaviour.
Today, we are not living in a country with financial
difficulties. We are living in a country which has resources,
wealth. There is a major problem distributing this wealth.
Today, I was expecting a much more open attitude from the
government towards the demands that have been presented. I am
very proud that the Bloc Quebecois has brought this debate to the
House.
Last week, on our tour, I said to the women “You know what you
are doing today”. When we had been walking for an hour, an hour
and a half, and might have been a little tired, we said “What
you are doing today will make it to the floor of the House of
Commons and it is the Bloc Quebecois that will take it there. The
Leader of the Bloc Quebecois has made a commitment to do this and
if you listen to the debate on Monday, October 16, you will see
that all your work has been for something, that the federal
government will be called on this, and that there will be a
vote”. This vote will take place tomorrow.
I think that we on this side are doing our job.
At this time, we take great pride as MPs and as politicians in
showing that we are behind the people from our community, behind
the people who want to see more social equity in our society.
Personally speaking, this has been my greatest source of pride
since becoming an MP, that we were able to provide support to the
women organizers of this march and the men who were in solidarity
with it.
Some of the 13 demands I find particularly of interest and of
particular appropriateness to my riding, among them the ones
relating to female seniors living below the poverty line.
1725
The Bloc Quebecois has a very concrete proposal that will affect
not only older women living below the poverty line but also
single men and couples, relating to providing these 506,000
people with $1,180 more a year, to increase their income by
11.6%. This would be for those who are truly below the poverty
line and who need the money to make ends meet.
There are examples in all of our regions, in the little parishes
where older ladies are living in small rooms or apartments and
having trouble getting by. The same thing happens in our cities,
and sometimes also in rural areas. There are more and more women
living alone.
Women are living longer, but they have not had the opportunity to
pay into a retirement plan. They have to rely on the Canada
pension plan. The fact that the CPP has not been improved the way
it should have been is hurting women the most. We have a concrete
proposal that would meet the demands of women while dealing with
elderly men who live alone and are similarly poor.
Needless to say, there is a crying need for social housing. The
Bloc Quebecois has raised this issue on numerous occasion. We are
still doing it and will continue to do so. Statistics do not give
the whole picture, we must stress the principle that people are
entitled to decent, affordable housing.
When 25% or 30% of one's income goes to housing, there is enough
left for other things. But when one has to spend 50% or 60% of
one's monthly disposable income on housing, things go out of
whack. Some people cannot afford food for the last week of the
month. This in turn creates health problems, and problems across
the whole system. I believe this is another concrete step the
government should move on and take a different attitude from what
we have been seeing here.
During that tour I discovered something. I discovered how women
manage with next to nothing, often all they have is very little
means and a lot of determination. This is why these women are
first rate organizers, they have the right stuff to get something
like the march of women off the ground. They are used to doing a
lot with very little money, and they managed to do a lot with
very little money.
We have seen the demonstrations in Montreal and Ottawa, and we
will see the one in New York.
I think the initiative taken by the women of Quebec five years
ago in the bread and roses march, now repeated on the world
stage, must be given real attention by all those involved in the
distribution of wealth as elected representatives. This is the
clearest and most specific message we have had on the fact that a
society creating an enormous amount of wealth but unable to
distribute it properly has no future.
This applies to the incomes of seniors who live alone, public
housing, funding for groups of women to enable them to help their
colleagues, so that when there are groups of people with problems
of self esteem they my be supported, so that in the case of
domestic violence, women may have support to get out of it, in
order to realize their full potential.
The last demand involves the whole issue of maternity leave. In
Quebec, we have a parental leave program that meets needs, that
is a full complement to the family policy of the Government of
Quebec, and the federal government in an effort to ensure its own
visibility is refusing to act on it. I find that totally
unacceptable.
I will conclude by pointing out to the Liberal government that
the demands made by Canadian women include recognition of
Quebec's right to opt out to be able to fund these activities
according to its own criteria. Canadian women, in my opinion,
are 100 years ahead of the current Liberal government. They
already recognize that Quebec is a distinct society. There are
already existing models and the government should accept the
model developed, it should allow Quebec to develop at a
different pace from the rest of Canada, it should avoid coast to
coast standards. This is an improvement compared to all the
positions taken by the government in the past.
There is a strong movement, a movement that has drawn the
attention of the Quebec government, the federal government and
the international authorities. An effort must be made at all
levels. There is room for additional effort by all levels of
government or organizations.
1730
Five or ten years from now, we must not be facing the same
situation regarding child poverty and we must not come to the
conclusion that, as parliamentarians, even though we were not
there 10 years earlier, we did not do our job.
But the Bloc Quebecois will definitely have done its job. We
presented a motion on this issue, here in the House. There is
now a debate and a vote will follow. Again, I say to all the
women who took part in the World March of Women that the Bloc
Quebecois is very proud to have worked so that this vote can
take place.
In conclusion, no more violence, no more poverty.
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member will know that the Government of Canada spends about
$340 million a year on housing in Quebec, most of which supports
the 140,000 low income families in Quebec.
As I understand it, and maybe the member can clarify it,
Quebec's main concern is that it is not being offered its fair
share of social housing assistance based on the current share of
Canadians with housing needs. Quebec, like other provinces, is
being offered federal money to cover the cost of the shared
national portfolio of social housing. In Quebec's case this is
lower than a province's share of current housing needs. Quebec
in fact is getting proportionately more of the current investment
in social housing.
I also want to comment very briefly on the member's issue with
regard to maternity and parental leave. It is an issue that is
very important to me. It was Bill C-204 that brought it to the
House and which was incorporated in the throne speech and budget
2000. I am pleased to say that it will to be implemented on
January 1, 2001 so that families can have up to one full year of
maternity and parental leave to provide direct parental care to
their children. Therefore it is in fact happening
notwithstanding that the member said that it should happen.
I raise those issues for the member simply for his comment.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Speaker, the first thing I would like to
point out is that this is not the federal government's money. It
is taxpayers' money.
The federal government is not some Santa Claus who gives us
presents. This is our money. The $32 billion surplus in the EI
fund did not come from the federal government. It came from
employers and employees. It is this money that the federal
government would like to hand out. This is unacceptable.
It is paternalistic of the federal government and Quebecers no
longer want any part of it. It is an approach women no longer
want. They no longer want to be treated by the Liberal
government as though they were being given a gift. It is
unacceptable.
As for social housing, original approaches are being developed
in Quebec. There are ways of funding what we need. And the
little boxes of the federal government have no place in it. It
is a pity, and because we do not fit into your little boxes, we
are not entitled to the money which is rightfully ours? I think
that we must take another approach and make sure that we get
adequate assistance.
With regard to maternity leave, I challenge the hon. member. If
a woman now earning $7 an hour gets 55% of her salary, that makes
$3.50 an hour. If she works 40 hours at $3.50 an hour, she will
wind up with $150 to live on. Even if her maternity leave went
on for ten years, there is nothing in it for her. What is needed
is flexible maternity leave entitling people to an adequate
amount for a certain number of weeks.
It is this demand from the women of Quebec and of Canada that
the federal government is unable to satisfy.
[English]
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, responding to the member's concern
about the affordability of housing, I would raise the issue of
affordability for seniors' housing.
A lady who owns a very modest house on a very modest piece of
property phoned me. She was in part dependent upon $13,000 that
she and her husband had managed to put in the bank while they
were working. They had a little bit of extra income to go with
their old age pension. When he died she did not have the money,
because of the taxes she paid, to pay the taxes on her house.
The question I am raising is, would it not be better for those
people who think it is so great for the government to collect
money and then decide who to give it back to, to just leave the
money in the hands of those people who are at the bottom end?
1735
We have a policy in our party to take about 1.5 million people
off the tax roles. Would that not be preferable to taking the
money away and then saying that there is not enough to give back
so Canadians can pay their taxes?
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Speaker, we all want tax reductions, but the
hon. member did not talk about the thousands of people who do
not pay taxes and still do not have enough money to live a
decent life. There are 506,000 senior Canadians who do not have
enough money to meet their basic needs, including 359,000 single
women over 65 and 82,000 single men over 65. Even with the best
tax reduction possible, these people would not get a penny more,
because they do not pay any taxes as it is. They do not have
enough to live on. Most of them have worked all of their lives.
This is especially true of women who have worked 30 or 40 years
at home, taking care of their children. Their husbands may have
died or left them, and all they have left today is the basic
pension. That is all they have to live on. A tax reduction does
not mean a thing to them. A tax reduction will not solve
everything. It is however part of the solution, because the
federal government has too much money for its own needs. The
wealth needs to be redistributed differently and that is the
message sent by women.
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am very
pleased to take part in this debate on such an important issue,
namely the status of women and their march against poverty,
against exclusion, for solidarity, and all that synergy that
concerns us as parliamentarians.
I have often spoken in the House about these things. I am
thinking of poverty resulting from a scarce jobs, from a lack of
the necessary resources to make ends meet or to improve one's
quality of life.
The march of women is a way to fight against exclusion so there
is no more suffering for children, so there is more equity
between men and women and, above all, so there is no more
psychological and material violence against women.
Making a few changes in our justice system will not be enough.
We need better social policies. We need this government to have
social priorities. We have seen was the seven year social
deficit of the Liberal government has wrought.
I toured Quebec with regard to the issue of poverty in April,
May and June, before the summer recess, and I met the
representatives of some 400 community organizations. They all
told me they had difficulty meeting the urgent needs of people
living below the poverty level, living on the minimum wage,
unable to afford decent housing, unable to have a certain
quality of life and to put enough food on the table for the
children.
I say bravo to the march of women. Things have to change, the
message has to be heard.
I take pleasure in pointing out that the Bloc Quebecois are the
ones who initiated this debate with the motion by the hon.
member for Longueuil, the opposition critic for women's issues.
I congratulate her and I know that she is involved in a real
struggle to get the MPs to grasp certain realities.
As a member of parliament, I feel a sense of involvement and I
trust that the members on the government side will be able to
bring a positive influence to bear on it as an election is
looming. We know that this is the time to hand out the goodies,
and we can only hope that some of the goodies will help improve
the status of women. There is an urgent challenge to respond to
the immediate and pressing needs of women and children, and men
as well.
When a family is living below the poverty line, as my colleague
for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques has said,
often the husband puts pressure on the wife to make ends meet,
to manage the family budget and be able to meet pressing family
needs.
1740
This world march of women has raised a great many issues and the
Bloc Quebecois has some concrete proposals: $45 billion over
five years.
As far as social housing is concerned, this is a battle that we
have been engaged in since 1993. We all know that the federal
government has backed away from its commitment to social
housing. It is unacceptable that not another cent will go into
social housing.
I put a question to the Minister of Public Works today. He
replied that negotiations were being held and that there had
been a deputy minister change in Quebec. There are negotiations
going on in Quebec City, but there is also a reality in the
field.
Why did they change the deputy minister? I could perhaps say
that they also took a while to attend to Quebec's needs to enable
it to meet the people's public housing needs. The federal
government offer on the table does not meet Quebec's needs.
We know what the government thinks about the situation of public
housing in Quebec. It fails to meet the need and is inadequate
for the population. We understand why Quebec does not want to
sign this agreement, because once it signs, it will be forced to
respond to the pressing need of the public. We have the support
of groups wanting more public housing in Quebec. So we will come
back to the response by the minister, who is a member of this
Liberal government.
We are calling for a second investment in health care, an
additional $10 billion to correct the shortfall the provinces
have faced since this government has been in power. This
additional $10 billion is essential to enable the provinces to
meet the needs of an aging population, and women have a longer
life expectancy than men.
We are also calling for financial assistance for home care. It
is often women who end up taking over the care of sick
grandparents or children. If there is not enough money in the
health care budget, women will have to pick up after seven years
of the Liberal government's social deficit.
We are calling for a fund for daycare and an end to the hide and
seek with national child benefit. The government says it has
invested over $9 billion in this child benefit. I would point
out to this government that it took $720 million away from
daycares and child care services. It was supposed to set up child
care services.
Let us stop playing hide and seek with this money because the
federal government said we could use it to help families. If
there is not enough money to help families, to set up a true
child care system in Quebec, the government should stop telling
us that it is good, and invest more money so that we can have a
real family policy including both a national child benefit and a
child care system to help women go back to the labour market
without having to pay an arm and a leg so that their children are
taken care of during the day or at night while they are at work.
Again, we need $2 billion to have a child care fund; this money
should be turned over to the provinces, they would manage it. It
is said that the only province that has initiated such a program
is the province of Quebec. Hopefully Quebec's child care
initiative will be taken into account.
With regard to old age security, we are asking for $3 billion.
We know that women live longer than men. The guaranteed income
supplement should be increased by $1,100 a year to help women 65
and over who often live in dire circumstances. Through the years,
the purchasing power of the elderly gradually diminished.
We are asking for another $50 million for various groups.
Shelters helping victims of domestic violence are underfunded.
They need a place where they can provide women in need and their
children with a safe place, emotional support, and counselling.
We are asking for $30 million over five years to help community
groups that promote equity and social justice, and help the
community maintain some degree of social balance and peace.
1745
Community organizations are at the forefront, helping these
women, children and men, by providing food banks, clothing, help
with the children' homework and educational services.
Since it came into office, the Liberal government has reduced by
15% the funding for these organizations. No additional help has
been provided to help them meet their needs.
I am asking the government to do its homework and make some
adjustments. Meanwhile, the Treasury Board is racking up a $160
billion surplus. The finance minister is untying the purse
strings with too much caution, and the people below the poverty
line are hurting.
Some $32 billion was taken out of the EI fund. Some very minor
changes were made last week on the eve of an election. But we all
know that some people will still not be eligible for EI.
The same thing goes for the Canada social transfer. Some $17
billion worth of adjustments were made recently. That is not
nearly good enough. We need better health care, because people
living in poverty require more and more health care.
Sick people who have money can afford the medication they need,
like aspirin or other such remedies not covered by pharmacare in
Quebec. We all know that these people need money in their
pockets.
People tell me that they are sick, that they have got the flu,
but that the medication is not covered by a drug plan. These
people need health services that are increasingly more effective
and supportive.
Home care services are under provincial jurisdiction to
adequately meet the needs of the public. The federal government
should stop brandishing the maple leaf whenever it hands out $1
million. There are channels of investment, such as the Canada
social transfer for health, education and income security.
There are pressures at both the provincial and federal levels.
When cuts are made to the Canada social transfer, it means that
cuts are also made to the support that the provinces can provide
to the public. Things must change.
But at the same time, the federal government still finds $500
million to invest in various propaganda programs, such as the
Canada information office, to promote Canadian unity. The
government has no problem finding money for such programs.
I could have talked about child care services, but as my time is
up, I will close my remarks by saying that I hope the government
will hear this message and will be flexible enough to follow up
on women's demands.
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to congratulate my colleague for her speech.
Usually, the Bloc Quebecois strives to defend the interests of
Quebec and of the whole world. What I am interested in is
defending the interests of our respective regions.
The Bloc is always asking for massive transfers, like the
transfer of funds with regard to employment insurance. We know
what happened. In the area of health, there is more money
available.
The federal government is giving money to the provinces for
health and education through equalization payments and the
social transfer. Equalization is a kind of transfer where the
Government of Quebec can use the money as it sees fit.
The federal government uses criteria such as the unemployment
rate, the poverty index and the population.
Can my colleague tell me if the Government of Quebec has a
system of equalization payments and social transfer to the
regions that ensures fairness? According to the figures from the
regional board in my area, I know that we are short $75 million a
year for health care. We can hardly provide health care services
to our population.
I say there is nothing wrong with defending the interests of the
whole world and the best interests of Quebec, but is there a way
of knowing if we can defend the interests of our dying regions
through provincial equalization?
1750
Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member who
has crossed the floor. He has gone over to the other side to
defend the Liberals' upcoming policies.
I can tell the member opposite that we come from the same
region. We were born in the wonderful Saguenay region and I am
very up on the problems there. He has told me that we are
defending global interests, but we are also defending the
interests of Quebec.
When I speak of being able to restore transfers to the
provinces, it is so that they will be able to meet the needs of
the public. When the federal government makes cuts, it follows
that the provinces have problems.
Since the member opposite is used to crossing the floor of the
House, perhaps he could take the debate to the right parliament,
the one in Quebec City, and have things rectified.
I find it unacceptable that, when he was on this side of the
House, he criticized the Liberal government with respect to the
Canada social transfer but, now that he is part of that very
government, he starts criticizing the way Quebec operates. I
think he is speaking to the wrong audience.
I am here to defend the interests of the regions and of Quebec
and I wonder what the hon. member is doing sitting over there.
I believe the hon. gentleman is in the wrong parliament.
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker, I can
tell you that this member here will stay put.
I listened carefully to what my colleague from the Bloc
Quebecois had to say. I also took part in the March of Women
last Sunday.
I also participated in a study carried out by my party on
poverty in Canada in general and among women in particular. We
noticed that women's poverty mostly affects single mothers and
their children. Very recently, the government introduced Bill
C-44 to change the eligiblity criteria for EI.
Does my hon. colleague for Québec, who sits on the Standing
Committee on Human Resources Development, think these new
changes will help women and families with young children qualify
more easily for EI benefits?
Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, this is a very easy
question to answer.
The changes made were mere cosmetic changes. The Bloc Quebecois
expressed concern several times last week when the government
announced the changes. They do not go far enough compared to all
the money that was taken out of the EI fund.
The new changes will not help many women. A lot of them will
still be excluded. Two out of three women do not go on maternity
leave because they cannot qualify for parental leave; they are
not eligible for EI benefits.
With only 55% of their income, these women will not be able to
afford maternity leave. I am sorry we did not come up with more
suggestions concerning, for instance, women who have seasonal
jobs.
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
will be sharing my time with the member for Ottawa West—Nepean.
I am very pleased to rise in the House to talk about the World
March of Women, a very important event for Canadian women and all
Canadians.
Since March 8 of this year, many women from coast to coast have
been working hard to make this march a memorable success. For
more than seven months now, they have been organizing numerous
activities at the local, regional and national level to make
Canadians more aware of the cause of women.
1755
For days, they have been marching hand in hand with their
sisters from all over the world to fight poverty and violence
against women.
And tomorrow, the World March of Women will culminate in New
York, when women from more than one hundred countries will speak
with one voice before the United Nations. As a matter of fact, it
was in the Big Apple that women started making demands almost a
century ago.
Armed only with their will, their courage and their
determination, women took to the streets to speak out against
their dangerous working conditions and their meager wages. These
women rose above prejudice to make sure their message was heard.
Then other women throughout the world took up the torch in the
name of justice and equity. Little by little, progress was made:
the right to vote, respect of fundamental rights, massive entry
into the labour force. Gradually, women took their place in
society.
Here, in Canada, a country known as one of the most progressive
countries, women also had to fight hard to acquire the status of
a person, to have access to higher education or to have the right
to vote. There is no doubt that their collective progress has
been slow, too slow, and often very difficult.
We needed the work of pioneers like the Famous Five to give
Canadian democracy its true meaning.
But today we can see the concrete results of that progress.
Canadian women are present in all areas of our society.
They travel in space, they push back the limits of science, they
amass great wealth, and they are elected to our democratic
assemblies.
Despite this considerable progress, however, the road to
equality is long and obstacle-ridden. For example, Canadian
women are still considerably under-represented in the rapidly
developing areas of science. Far too many are still in insecure
employment.
But there are other still more serious problems that remain with
us. In 1997, 88% of the victims of spousal abuse in Canada were
women, and 65% of these reported more than two incidents of
violence. One victim in four has been involved in ten or so such
incidents.
Our government is very much aware of these problems. Moreover,
poverty and violence toward women are among its highest
priorities. In the area of justice, we have stepped up our
efforts in recent years to eradicate violence toward women and
children. Women cannot develop their full potential except
within a society that is totally free of violence toward them.
In recent years we have made the necessary changes to make
substantial improvements to the situation. We have passed
appropriate and effective gun control legislation. We have
amended the criminal code in order to bolster the provisions on
high-risk offenders.
In 1999, we also passed three extremely important pieces of
legislation. These have made it possible to provide more rights
to the victims of violent acts, to promote the personal safety of
women and children, and to ensure that the legal system provides
a better response to the needs of abused women.
Despite this significant progress, we are firmly determined to
continue our quest for a society in which everyone, men and
women, may live in safety. That is why we have been working so
hard to eradicate the evil at the root of it by fighting poverty
vigorously, especially poverty among children. We are helping
families to ensure that each child gets a good start in life.
The unanimous and historic agreement on health care concluded by
the first ministers includes considerable investment in women's
health and help in early childhood. We are continuing to
increase our help to Canadian families through the national
child benefit.
Between now and 2004, we expect to invest an additional $2.5
billion annually in this initiative, which has been called the
most innovative social measure in the country in the past
generation. We are also investing more in public housing.
We are making available effective initiatives such as the Canada
prenatal nutrition program, which gives considerable help to
pregnant women in Canada. We have also decided to double the
length of maternity and paternity leave to enable mothers and
fathers to devote the necessary time to their family.
These actions merely form the basis of our fight against poverty
and violence against women. More than ever, we have to do more.
And so we will. Yesterday, the Prime Minister met the
organizers of the march. He reiterated his support and that of
the Government of Canada.
1800
He reiterated our intention to work closely with all our
partners to improve the status of women. However, our
government is well aware that legislative measures alone will
not ensure equality. They must absolutely be supported by
effective and flexible policies that take into account the
realities and diversities of women's lives.
In 1995, our government launched an action plan in order to
advance our government's policy on equality.
This plan, which includes the initiatives of 24 federal
departments and agencies, enables us to conduct comparative
analyses between the two genders. This revolutionary approach
allows us to accurately analyze the impact of each legislative
measure and policy on women and men.
This new data helped us learn important lessons. First, it was
imperative to approach the issue of gender equality from a new
perspective. We can never eliminate the anatomical,
physiological and psychological differences between men and
women. Men and women will never communicate, make decisions or
solve problems in the same way. To be sure, we are always
striving to achieve equality, but we must do so while taking
these differences into account, not by imposing uniformity.
In March 1999, the federal Minister of Health introduced, among
other initiatives, the women's health strategy. This innovative
strategy will allow us to not only target inequalities but, more
importantly, to meet the specific needs of women when it comes
to health.
We also took measures in the area of justice with our National
Crime Prevention Strategy, and we are firmly determined to
continue in that direction. We have not given up, far from it.
Rather, we want to intensify our efforts. We know that our
comparative analyses by gender can be improved.
We are working to design new tools and new methods to promote
equality in all areas of our society. However, we are also aware
that governments cannot do everything alone. In Canada, there
are currently over 3,000 women's groups that are active.
Through its equal opportunities for women program, Status of
Women Canada provides financial assistance and professional
services to groups of women working at the regional, provincial
and national levels for equality.
In 1998-99, we contributed $8.2 million in funding to 267 projects
and groups throughout the country. To advance a cause, ideas
and a vision are needed, but much more is often needed as well,
such things as determination, courage, tenacity and willingness.
For a number of days now, participants in the World March of
Women have left the beaten path to take up just causes, values
and ideas. The Government of Canada supports their efforts. We
have invested close to $1 billion in promoting the World March of
Women nationally and internationally.
As we begin a new century and a new millennium, it is wonderful
to see women throughout the world speaking with one voice. They
are sending us a clear message that poverty and violence against
women must be ended.
Today, I am sure that all members of the House will want to join
with me in congratulating women on their efforts and sacrifices,
which will help improve the status of women both at home and
abroad.
We are going to work together to ensure that this historic march
signals the beginning of a new era, an era which will see us
step up our efforts to build a fairer and more equitable
society, a society in which equality of the sexes will be not a
noble objective but a daily reality.
[English]
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I was glad to hear the hon. member
mention the famous five. These are women who were strong, sought
independence and sought the independence of others. I am glad
that we will be honouring these famous five. I thank him for
that.
What I am concerned about is the continuing independence that
people seek and are thwarted often by government policies. For
example, our health care system leaves people who are waiting for
heart surgery in line to the point where they die. In our health
care system cancer patients do not get the diagnosis they need to
save their lives. In our health care system contaminated blood
was given to hepatitis C victims. After many years of struggle
the lawyers have been paid, but the hepatitis C victims have
never received anything from the government.
1805
These matters cause me great concern. I realize that nearly
three times as much money is spent by Ottawa on interest on the
national debt as on health care and education.
Another matter which concerns me is the violence perpetrated
against women and others. For example, people are brought to
justice and then turned loose before they are prepared to take
responsibility.
David Bruce Jennings was out for a short time, reoffended, put
back in again, and now he is out. He has never taken treatment.
The police are telling everyone to be careful, that this guy is
in the community. He has been told he cannot go near schools. He
cannot be near kids under 16. He is not to go near parks, but he
is out on the street. Why is that so?
David Trott asked not to be turned out because he knows he could
not resist reoffending. When he was out he stole three different
vehicles in three different days. Now he is in custody and they
are assessing him to see if he is fit to stand trial.
Why is government policy not giving us a justice system that
will protect women, children and families from these kinds of
violent offenders?
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Patry: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member of the Canadian
Alliance for his question. I will deal with his first point
regarding health care.
Since 1996, the federal department of health has been setting up
centers of excellence for women's health. We are talking about
five focal points for multidisciplinary research financed over
six years. By studying what determines women's health, they will
help shape policies. Women's health is a very important issue.
Another issue that is very important is child poverty. Our
government has been promoting policies to fight child poverty.
It is important for every child to enjoy equal opportunity right
from birth.
We have programs to help mothers even before the birth of their
child. For single and low income families, the government of
Canada has introduced benefits to help mothers and mostly
children. We all know that when children are born, their brain
is made up of billions of neurones that are not yet
interconnected. Children need the right stimulation to make sure
that when they start school, they are ready for it. If they are,
they will experience less problems during their teens. They will
not drop out and will have fewer run-ins with the law.
For us Liberals, policies are there to ensure that in the long
run children will become good citizens.
[English]
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I met
with the representatives of 250 women from Peterborough who were
on Parliament Hill yesterday. I was struck by the universality
of the issues they mentioned, many of which my colleague has
addressed: homelessness, poverty, and the disparity between rich
and poor here and overseas. They also mentioned in particular
education, higher education and access to higher education.
Could my colleague could comment on what has been done in Quebec
as compared with what has been done in Ontario to improve access
to college and university for all students but particularly for
women?
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Patry: Mr. Speaker, it is very important to
mention that at the end of the past millennium, instead of
erecting statues to the glory of our Prime Minister or the
Liberal government, this government decided to invest in our
youth and provide them with grants to go to university or
college.
In Quebec, 23,000 students have received bursaries from the
federal government. This is important, because it means we have
faith in our country's future.
[English]
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I suddenly realized I only have five minutes so this
will be a précis version of a number of the things I want to say.
1810
[Translation]
First I want to congratulate the hon. member for
Laurier—Saint-Marie for bringing forward this motion.
I also want to congratulate women everywhere in Canada, and
especially the Fédération des femmes du Québec, who played a
leadership role in holding the march of women in Canada and
throughout the world and who are responsible for the truly
extraordinary and impressive show given on Parliament Hill
yesterday.
[English]
I have long believed that women will only have social and
political equality when they have economic equality. I trust the
House will indulge me as I talk a bit about some of the measures
that have been taken to improve the economic status of women in
our country.
I will refer to a number of measures in the budget for the
year 2000-01. It is a budget that very much builds on steps
begun in past budgets. It is a budget that has been made
possible by the sacrifices of a lot of Canadians. Because women
are among the lowest income Canadians, that means particularly by
Canadian women.
However we see now that low and middle income earners in
particular will benefit most from a number of measures in the
last couple of budgets with reductions in their net personal
income tax reaching an average of at least 18% annually. Again,
the majority of those low and very moderate income earners are
women and especially those with children.
We have also seen the reindexing of many tax measures which
means that people at a lower income will now see their incomes
rise without them becoming taxable or without increasing their
tax burdens. It means that benefits such as the national child
benefit and the GST credit for low income Canadians will also be
indexed to inflation so that those benefits will not erode over
time. For senior women it means that inflation will no longer
compromise the real value of the age credit for old age security
or the income level at with OAS begins to be reduced.
A number of measures with respect to business are of particular
interest to women and their economic status as well. Women are
now starting up four times as many small businesses, women under
30 compared with men under 30. They are increasingly involved in
trade so a number of the tax measures and initiatives with
respect to developing trade and with respect to reducing the tax
burden of small businesses will therefore benefit a large number
of women.
[Translation]
I truly see the irony in what I just said,
which is that women will benefit from the measures announced in
the budget because their income is lower than that of men in
Canada.
[English]
I recognize very well that there is a great deal still to be
done. The majority of those living in poverty in Canada are
women. Ninety per cent of senior women on their own are living
in poverty. That is a shameful statement to have to make about a
country like ours.
The United Nations calls us the best country in the world in
which to live, and we are, but women in this country only rank
ninth in the world. I will not be satisfied, nor will the
government, until we have taken more measures to improve the
equality of women and to ensure they benefit to a greater extent
from the opportunities that a growing and prospering economy
which we have now offers them.
To those responsible for yesterday's march, I express my
personal appreciation because it certainly lends support to
public awareness of the need to improve the economic status of
women and assist the efforts of all of us in the House who are
working toward that end.
The Deputy Speaker: It being 6.15 p.m. it is my duty to
interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question
necessary to dispose of the business of supply.
1815
The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the amendment
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say
nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Deputy Speaker: At the request of the chief
government whip, the vote on the amendment is deferred until
tomorrow at the end of the time set aside for government orders.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
INFRASTRUCTURE
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
to follow up on my question to the minister with respect to the
national infrastructure program for which funds were provided in
the last federal budget. My question had to do with the
situation of agreements between the provinces and the federal
government and, in particular, with the lack of agreement for
such an infrastructure program with the municipalities in the
province of Ontario.
I have heard right up to today that agreements have now been
signed for flexible infrastructure programs involving the
provinces and the municipalities in British Columbia,
Saskatchewan, Manitoba, even in Alberta and in all the maritime
provinces. There is still no agreement with the province of
Ontario.
The first national infrastructure program initiated by the
government was an enormous success in the Peterborough riding. In
both the city and the county, it was very well received. We had
almost 100 projects. They were projects of all sorts, ranging
from buildings to highways, bridges and things of that sort.
The key, I believe, to the success of that program was that in
the end, subject to the approval of the province and the
Government of Canada, the choice of infrastructure project was
made by the municipality. It was the municipalities of
Peterborough that defined what was important from the point of
view of infrastructure for them at that time.
I understand the debate that is going on with the province of
Ontario is one in which Ontario wants to dictate what is
infrastructure. I have heard different rumours. It has been
suggested that because of the tragedy of Walkerton the province
of Ontario wants to stress sewer and water facilities. I have
heard also that the province of Ontario wants to stress highways.
What I would like to say is, why should we, the upper levels of
government, define what is important for the infrastructure of a
township or city? Only that township or city has a sense of what
is important for them.
For example, let us say we defined, as Ontario appears to want,
that all the money should go to water projects. Let us say there
is a municipality that has been consistently, right up to now,
investing in water and sewer projects.
Why should we penalize it in a national infrastructure program
when its priority might be something else? It might be bridges
or a building of some sort.
1820
Only the municipalities know what is important for
infrastructure at this time. From here in Ottawa we cannot look
across all the provinces to the thousands of municipalities and
make judgments on what is important for each of them. The only
way we can do it is to trust the municipal level of government,
the local level of government, as we did in the first national
infrastructure program and have the municipalities pick the
projects, submit them to a panel of provincial and federal people
which will have established criteria, and then move the projects
along.
As I said, in Peterborough the last time that method worked
extremely well for almost 100 projects. I could take the hon.
members to any of those projects and they would agree with me
that they were well worthwhile.
What we are looking for is a program that will improve the
infrastructure of municipalities all the way across Canada. The
municipalities have asked us again and again for this project.
The federal government, the federal cabinet, our government, has
agreed that this is a priority. The money was earmarked and ready
to flow in our spring budget.
As I have mentioned, the majority of provinces in Canada have
now signed on. I have read those agreements. There are
particular emphases in different provinces but there are
possibilities for infrastructure projects of all sorts.
I want to ask the minister the question again. Where do we
stand with an infrastructure agreement in Ontario? Can we expect
such a program soon?
Mr. Paul Szabo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public
Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, at the
outset, I want to compliment the hon. member for Peterborough who
has worked so very tirelessly advocating on behalf of an
infrastructure program in Canada. Certainly his success in
bringing in infrastructure programs for the benefit of his
community is evidence of their importance to all Canadians.
The infrastructure Canada program was announced in the Speech
from the Throne last fall. The Minister of Finance also
allocated $2.65 billion to the program in his February budget,
with a pledge to have the program in place by the end of the
year.
As the member pointed out, we now have agreements in eight
jurisdictions. Agreements signed to date represent a total
federal investment of some $740 million. Combined with the
contributions of our partners in other orders of government, the
total investment climbs to $2.2 billion.
This infrastructure program was designed in consultation with
groups like the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and with
the provinces and territories which established the priorities.
The majority of the projects will be submitted by the
municipalities themselves. As the member for Peterborough has
indicated, it has turned out to be a very successful approach to
infrastructure programming.
The first priority is green municipal infrastructure, such as
water and waste management treatment and solid waste management.
Secondary priorities include: local transportation;
infrastructure supporting culture, tourism and recreation; rural
and remote telecommunications; high speed Internet access for
local institutions; and affordable housing.
Negotiations between the Government of Canada and the remaining
provinces, particularly Ontario, are continuing. We are very
hopeful that we will reach agreements soon with all the
remaining jurisdictions and, indeed, have them in place before
the end of the year.
The Deputy Speaker: The motion to adjourn the House is
now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly the House stands
adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order
24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.24 p.m.)