CONTENTS
Thursday, March 16, 1995
(Motion agreed to.) 10574
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 10574
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 10575
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 10575
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 10575
Motion moved and agreed to 10576
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 10577
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 10579
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 10584
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 10584
Ms. Brown (Oakville-Milton) 10588
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 10595
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 10597
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 10603
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 10604
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 10606
Mr. Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury) 10607
Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais 10608
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 10610
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 10610
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 10610
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 10611
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 10611
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 10611
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 10611
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 10612
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 10612
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 10612
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 10612
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 10614
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 10615
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 10615
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 10615
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 10616
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 10616
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 10617
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 10617
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 10617
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 10618
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 10618
Consideration resumed of motion 10619
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 10619
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu) 10619
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 10625
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 10628
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 10630
Consideration resumed of motion 10638
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 10638
Division on motion deferred 10644
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 6.15 p.m.) 10644
The House resumed at 9.14 p.m. 10644
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu) 10644
10573
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, March 16, 1995
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
[
English]
The Speaker: I have the honour to inform the House that Mr.
Jim Silye, member for the electoral district of Calgary Centre,
has been appointed a member of the Board of Internal Economy
in place of Mr. Stephen Harper, member for the electoral district
of Calgary West, for the purposes and under the provisions of
chapter 42, first supplement of the Revised Statutes of Canada,
1985, entitled ``an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act''.
* * *
[
Translation]
The Speaker: My colleagues, I would now like to rule on a
question of privilege raised on Friday, March 3, 1995 by the hon.
member for Sherbrooke, notice of which was given the previous
day just after Question Period. I would like to thank the hon.
member for raising this matter, as well as the chief government
whip and the hon. members for Berthier-Montcalm,
Kindersley-Lloydminster, and Kingston and the Islands for
their contributions to the discussion. I would also like to thank
the hon. member for Guelph-Wellington for her intervention
on this matter on March 13, 1995.
[English]
In his question of privilege, the hon. member for Sherbrooke
alleged that there had been a leak of the budget prior to its
presentation by the Minister of Finance on February 27, 1995.
To support his claim, the member drew the attention of the
House to the March 2, 1995, edition of the Hill Times, and more
specifically, to a comment made by the hon. member for
Guelph-Wellington found therein. In response to the question
``Is there too much secrecy surrounding the budget?'' the hon.
member for Guelph-Wellington is quoted as having said: ``I
don't think so. There were some MPs who were told beforehand
if major cuts were coming to programs in their ridings. They
asked for that in caucus so they could prepare to answer
questions''. The hon. member for Sherbrooke then argued that
if certain members had ``privileged, secret information before
budget day'' this would be to the detriment of other members
and would hinder them in the performance of their duties. The
hon. members for Berthier-Montcalm and
Kindersley-Lloydminster echoed the member's sentiments
and concerns about a certain group of members being privy to
information not available to other members.
[Translation]
The procedural issue before us is not a question of budget
secrecy per se. Several members cited citation 31(5) of
Beauchesne's Sixth Edition to support the contention that
budget secrecy was and is a political convention and not a matter
to be dealt with under the guise of parliamentary privilege.
Indeed, several members emphasized that what was really at
issue was the implication of prior knowledge of the contents of
the budget by certain members, and I emphasize the word
members, and not others. The questions we must therefore ask
are, at first glance, does there appear to be a breach of the rights
of certain members, and has something occurred which has
impaired the ability of members to carry out their duties as
members?
[English]
As I have said on numerous occasions, we have a tradition in
the House which dictates that we accept the word of an hon.
member as truth. Taking the quote of the hon. member for
Guelph-Wellington as represented by the Hill Times, one
might be inclined to agree that there was the appearance that
certain members had been given confidential information not
available to others. However, in light of the comments made by
the hon. member for Guelph-Wellington on March 13, 1995,
and the text of her memorandum from which the hon. whip read
and later tabled, I accept that the hon. member for
Guelph-Wellington was referring to the announcement made
outside the House by the President of the Treasury Board on
February 21 regarding measures for the downsizing of the
federal public service and not to a prebudget disclosure.
10574
[Translation]
Consequently, I cannot conclude that members of the House
have in any way been hindered in carrying out their
parliamentary duties. Hence, I do not find a prima facie case of
breach of privilege.
I thank all hon. members for their contributions.
_____________________________________________
10574
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
(1010)
[English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (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
18 petitions.
* * *
Mr. Paul Zed (Fundy-Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour to present, in both official languages, the third and
fourth reports of the Standing Committee on Industry, pursuant
to the order of reference on Wednesday, June 15, 1994.
Your committee has considered Bill C-43, an act to amend the
Lobbyists Registration Act and to make related amendments to
other acts. Your committee has agreed also to report it with
amendments and to provide as well a substantive report which
explains the amendments being reported and why other possible
changes were not adopted.
I would also like to point out that the third report, which
provides explanations and supplementary recommendations,
breaks new ground for committees reviewing bills. Your
committee felt that such a report was necessary, given that Bill
C-43 was referred before second reading, thus broadening
considerably the scope of the review that was undertaken.
The 13 amendments that have been set out in the fourth report
would, in the view of your committee, significantly strengthen
an already good bill.
I would like to thank members of the committee for working
together to meet the new responsibilities involved in
considering a bill before second reading. The results I believe
speak for themselves and deserve serious consideration by all
sides of the House.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, as the critic for the official opposition on the matter of
lobbyists, I am pleased to rise very briefly today, following the
tabling of the report of the majority, to inform Parliament that I
have tabled, with the majority report, a dissenting opinion on
this bill.
With all we have heard regarding the management of the
affairs of government, I feel the profession of influence peddlar,
as it is called in the business, must be regulated. Legislation was
needed to re-establish a relationship of trust between the
government and the people.
I thought that, with the campaign commitments the Liberals
made in the last election, transparency would be the watchword
within Parliament thanks to this bill. I also thought that the new
parliamentary procedure, which was supposed to permit
in-depth debates and improve the role of members of
Parliament, would enable me to amend Bill C-43 in keeping
with taxpayers' interests. I was fooled, like many others. The
procedure failed to live up to promise as did the wording of Bill
C-43, and this is why I submitted a dissenting opinion, which is
appended to the report. I wanted to let people know of the two
major failings of this bill.
* * *
[
English]
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Secretary of State (Parliamentary
Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order
56(1), I move:
That, on Thursday, March 16, 1995, when proceedings pursuant to Standing
Order 38 have been concluded, the motion to adjourn the House shall be deemed
to have been withdrawn and the sitting shall be suspended until such time as the
Chair may reconvene the sitting for the sole purpose of a Royal Assent;
That, immediately upon return from the Royal Assent, the House shall be
adjourned until the next sitting day;
Provided that, if no Royal Assent has been held by 9 a.m. on Friday, March
17, 1995, the House shall be reconvened for the sole purpose of being adjourned
until 10 a.m. on that day.
(1015 )
The Deputy Speaker: Would all those members who oppose
such a motion please rise. The requirement being 25, and as only
two members are standing, therefore, the motion is carried.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise again to present another petition in this course of action
undertaken on behalf of constituents who wish to halt the early
release from prison of Robert Paul Thompson.
10575
The petitioners I represent are concerned about making our
streets safer for our citizens. They are opposed to the current
practice of early release of violent offenders prior to serving
the full extent of their sentences.
The petitioners pray that our streets will be made safer for
law-abiding citizens and the families of the victims of
convicted murderers.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a number of petitions.
The first two petitions are in regard to the Canadian Wheat
Board. They request that Parliament continue to give the
Canadian Wheat Board monopoly powers in marketing wheat
and barley for export.
The other petition goes beyond that and requests that the
Canadian Wheat Board marketing monopoly powers include all
grains and oilseeds.
The petitioners are from my home riding of
Yorkton-Melville.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): The next
group contains 38 petitions again from my riding but also from
other ridings in and around Saskatchewan.
The petitioners state that the Saskatchewan government is on
the verge of balancing its budget, allowing Saskatchewan
taxpayers to see the light at the end of the high tax tunnel.
Therefore, they ask and request Parliament to reduce
government spending instead of increasing taxes.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): The last
group contains 28 petitions. They come from Ottawa and
Toronto and many other areas in Ontario, Saskatchewan and
Manitoba.
The petitioners ask that Parliament support laws which will
severely punish all violent criminals who use weapons in the
commission of a crime. They support new Criminal Code
firearms control provisions that recognize and protect the right
of law-abiding citizens to own firearms. They support
legislation which will repeal and modify existing gun control
laws which have not improved public safety and have proven not
to be cost effective and have proven to be overly complex as to
be ineffective and/or unenforceable.
Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am honoured
once again to rise in the House pursuant to Standing Order 36 to
present a petition on behalf of constituents of the riding of Kent.
They pray that Parliament ensure that the present provisions of
the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted suicide be
enforced vigorously and that Parliament make no changes in the
law which would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of
suicide, or active or passive euthanasia.
Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
petition from the constituents of Willowdale asks Parliament to
amend the Divorce Act to include provisions similar to article
611 of the Quebec civil code. It states that in no case may a
father or mother without serious cause place obstacles between
the child and grandparents. Failing agreement between the
parties, the modalities of the relations are to be settled by the
court. They request Parliament to further amend the Divorce Act
to give a grandparent who is granted access to a child the right to
make inquiries and to be given information as to the health,
education and welfare of the child.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the privilege to introduce three different petitions today.
The first petition is regarding Bill C-41. People from my
riding and around the province of B.C. have asked that
Parliament not pass Bill C-41 and that section 718.2 as
presently written not include the undefined phrase sexual
orientation in that bill. I am happy to concur with that.
(1020 )
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the next petition was sent to me by firefighters in my riding.
They ask and pray for Parliament to allow the tax exemption
status to rise from $500 up to $1,000 for their equipment. I am
happy to support that measure as well. It has been stuck at that
same level for some years.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the last petition I have the privilege to present was signed by
over 1,000 people from my constituency who are outraged over
the murder of Melanie Carpenter, an event that occurred I am
sad to say within my own constituency.
This petition calls upon Parliament to permit the use of
post-sentence detention orders and to pass Bill C-240 which
would limit the freedoms of high risk offenders. If Parliament
hears this petition, innocent people like Melanie Carpenter
would still be alive and and dangerous ones like her murderer
would remain behind bars.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member may not have been
here yesterday when the Speaker invited members not to say
whether or not they agree or disagree with the petitions.
10576
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to present a petition that is
part of a larger petition of almost 64,000 signatories. This
petition contains approximately 18,000 signatures of citizens in
and around Edmonton Southwest who are asking that the Young
Offenders Act be changed and strengthened so that it would have
the effect of deterring criminal behaviour by young people.
There are many citizens across the country who feel that the
Young Offenders Act does not do what it was intended to do.
These 18,000 citizens of our country are requesting the
Parliament of Canada to strengthen the Young Offenders Act.
It is my pleasure to introduce this in the House today.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege pursuant to Standing Order 36 to
present a petition to the House of Commons. The petition
contains 8,000 signatures collected by representatives of the
Animal Defence League of Canada.
The petitioners note that individuals convicted of wilfully
causing pain and injury to an animal presently face maximum
penalties of six months in jail to two years prohibition from
owning an animal and/or a maximum find of $2,000.
The petitioners note also that in practice they do not know of
any maximum penalty ever having been issued no matter how
atrocious the offence. The petitioners state that they find this
abhorrent and unacceptable when animals are not appropriately
dealt with by our laws.
Therefore, the petitioners call upon the Government of
Canada to enact harsher penalties for offences against animals
and establish an education program for judges to help them
understand society's abhorrence and condemnation of acts of
cruelty to animals.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I have three petitions to present today pursuant to Standing
Order 36.
The first petition pertains to Bill C-91, the drug patent
legislation. The petitioners who have signed this petition are
from my district of Regina-Lumsden in Saskatchewan as well
as the cities and towns of Saskatoon, Borden, Hafford, Speers,
Nipawin.
These petitioners are unhappy with the 12 per cent annual
increase in prescription drugs since this bill was passed. They
are asking that Bill C-91, which has placed financial burdens on
them and health care programs across this country, be repealed.
They request the House of Commons to do same.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my second petition is signed by petitioners from the
Saskatchewan communities of Kelliher, Silton, Watrous,
Raymore, Punnichy, Ituna, Simpson, Foam Lake and other
locations.
Under section 745 of the Criminal Code of Canada, convicted
murderers sentenced to life imprisonment without chance of
parole for 25 years are able to apply for a review after 15 years.
They are calling for the House of Commons to repeal section
745 of the Criminal Code of Canada.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my third and final petition this morning deals with the Senate.
The petitioners are from my constituency of
Regina-Lumsden as well as from Pilot Butte, Saskatchewan. In
view of the fact that the Senate costs approximately $60 million
a year and in their view the purpose of the Senate is useless, they
are asking the House of Commons to repeal sections 41 and 42 of
the Constitution Act which would in effect abolish the Senate.
(1025)
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to present a petition from my constituents containing
2,700 names, which is also part of a larger petition prompted by
the murder of Barb Denelesko.
The petitioners state that Canadian citizens from coast to
coast are calling for changes to the Young Offenders Act. They
want an act serious enough to deter young people from
committing crimes and tough enough to provide real justice. In
its current format the Young Offenders Act is not meeting these
objectives. The petitioners request that the Government of
Canada review the Young Offenders Act of 1992 and amend it
accordingly.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I think you would find unanimous consent for the
following motion. I move:
10577
That notwithstanding any order of the House, that any recorded division to be taken
today during Private Members' Business be deferred until Tuesday, March 21 at 5.30
p.m.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to.)
_____________________________________________
10577
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ) moved:
That this House denounce the government for its insensitivity and its inaction
regarding the adoption of concrete measures to promote the economic equality of
woman in federal areas of jurisdiction.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today of tabling a
motion regarding an issue related to International Women's Day.
In my opinion, the motion is urgent, given the government's
recent actions. The motion is as follows: ``That this House
denounce the government for its insensitivity and its inaction
regarding the adoption of concrete measures to promote the
economic equality of women in federal areas of jurisdiction''.
I would have preferred not to have to table such a motion before
this House, but its goal is to make my colleagues and Canadians
and Quebecers aware that Liberal decision-makers have failed to
act on the fine words bandied about within these four walls.
A year ago, I tabled my first motion on the issue, which stated
that, firstly, it was important to recognize the principle of economic
equality between women and men, and, secondly, that measures
must be implemented to guarantee equity in employment, wages
and living conditions for women. It was most unusual and
remarkable, but government members supported the official
opposition's motion.
However, I must admit that they stopped at the first part of the
motion and have never gone on to the second. How else can the
current situation be explained with the same people in play? How
else can we explain the decisions recently taken by this government
which purports to be concerned with the economic inequality of
women?
How else can we explain the decision to go ahead with the cuts to
grants for women's rights organizations which were announced by
the previous government? All the while, the Minister of Finance
tried to reassure us regarding this issue and, just before the last
budget, stated that his government was fully aware of the issue, that
the last budget proved it and that the government intended to prove
it again in the next.
I recall that the minister then mentioned the important role that
organizations play in promoting women's rights and in improving
their living conditions.
How can we explain that, in two weeks, the government will cut
funding to the initiative against domestic violence, which finances
pilot projects, research, public awareness and education
campaigns, etc.?
(1030)
And yet, the Secretary of State declared last March 3:
``Violence against women, sexual harassment, inequalities and
inequities in employment opportunities, the wage imbalance
and gender discrimination must all be addressed. I am pleased
the government is continuing to push forward on all these
fronts''.
Everyone knows that unfortunately little progress can be
made without money. How else can we explain the government's
policy of tying financial compensation due a woman to her
husband's income? Both these trends are obvious in the
proposed unemployment insurance and old age pension reforms.
And yet, the Minister of Human Resources Development stated
last October: ``We are putting forward major proposals
concerning the problem of family work and the manner in which
part-time workers, the majority of whom are women, can be
given a certain degree of protection with respect to
unemployment insurance and other income security programs''.
Since when is a woman's economic equality acquired through
dependence on her husband? Women do not accept this
approach, nor should they. What explanation is there for the
complete absence of references to child care services in the last
budget, when the same minister stated on that same date that in
the green paper consideration was being given to major child
care programs and a national strategy, requiring funding
amounting to some 700 million dollars. Where are the budgets
needed to create new day care spaces, where are the transfers
Quebec is calling for in order to develop its own network? Why
is there no interest in finally resolving the thorny issue of pay
equity in the public service, when this issue has languished
before the courts for several years now, depriving thousands of
women of money that is rightfully theirs?
And yet, the President of the Treasury Board said last June:
``As an employer we are concerned about pay equity. We would
like to resolve this problem as quickly as possible, in order to cut
short the long drawn out legal proceeding instituted by the
preceding government''. Noble words! How does this explain
the offensive transfer carried out by the Minister of Finance onto
the backs of the provinces, the inevitable result of which will be
10578
either a reduction in health and education services and social
assistance benefits, or a tax hike?
Yet, on February 8, the Minister of Finance stated: ``We are
fully aware of the need to deal fairly with women's needs''.
Does the minister sincerely believe that fairness towards women
lies in reducing their standard of living? And how does one
explain the Secretary of State for the Status of Women's latest
decision to abolish the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status
of Women?
The main role of this organization was to do research and
disseminate information on problems affecting women. It also
played the role of government watchdog by analyzing the
economic impact of government actions and decisions on
women. Yet, in the same speech in which she announced the
abolition of this organization, the Secretary of State repeated the
Prime Minister's comments: ``For its part, the Canadian
government has taken up the challenge. Women's equality is not
a matter of special rights or interests. It is a matter of social and
economic justice. It is a matter of good government''.
The abolition of CACSW is not an example of good
government that will help women meet the challenge of
economic equality; in fact, it is just the opposite. Women's
economic status is not improving. They are the first victims of
the massive cuts in the federal public service. Some 45,000 jobs
will be lost; and women will be hit the hardest. They are still
earning only 72 per cent as much as their male colleagues. In
1920, they were making 50 per cent as much as their spouses.
They still account for the majority of single parents, poor
people, people living in inadequate housing, and victims of
family violence. Women expect measures that will finally allow
them to achieve the economic equality they are entitled to.
On March 8, 1994, the Secretary of State said this: ``For the
first time we have had a government sensitive to the different
impact of programs and policies on women. It is a government
willing to ensure that gender perspective is taken into
consideration in all the proposed changes whether they are
fiscal, social or juridical in nature''. In fact, the decisions and
actions taken clearly show this government's insensitivity to the
inequality still plaguing women in Canada and Quebec. It is also
obvious that this government has no intention of taking the
necessary corrective measures.
(1035)
It is obvious that this government truly deserves the severe
criticisms levelled against it today by members of the
opposition on behalf of Canadians and Quebecers. There is an
urgent need to act instead of merely indulging in rhetoric. Is
``Towards Equality'' not the slogan adopted by the Canadian
government to promote the world summit on women to be held
in Beijing in September 1995? I think that this government is off
on the wrong foot. It will go there to brag about what it has failed
to do at home.
The Deputy Speaker: Questions or comments? No one? Did I
hear correctly that you will share your time? Agreed.
The hon. member for Saint-Hubert.
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we
know full well that, each time the issue of status of women is
raised, we lose a large part of our audience. It is not that too
much time is devoted to this subject in this House. It is just that
many people do not want to hear what we have to say and, more
than anything else, they refuse to take action.
I will speak on the status of women anyway, and the status of
women in the legal profession in particular. In Quebec, you can
be a lawyer or a notary.
I will focus on women lawyers because, unfortunately, a
committee has yet to be appointed to look specifically into the
experience of women notaries in their everyday practice. All our
statistics on women lawyers were provided to us by the Quebec
bar association.
In the legal profession, women experience basically the same
thing women experience in any area in which they work; by
``work'', I mean work outside of the home, of course.
If there has been such an influx of women on the labour
market, outside of the home, we know this is due to a large
extent to socioeconomic factors. It became necessary for women
to help maintain the family income. This has been a determining
factor.
In 1951, women accounted for less than 25 per cent of the
Canadian labour force, as compared to 58 per cent of adult
women in 1991. By far the biggest increase in the labour force
participation rate occurred among women with young children,
the majority of whom have full time jobs.
Women who, by necessity or by choice, head for a career in
law face many difficulties inherent in this line of work. The
dysfunctional relationships with male colleagues, the
under-representation on the bench and the limited number of
female teachers in our law faculties are but a few of the
symptoms of a serious problem which persists in a world which
claims to be eliminating injustice and unfairness.
Women are now part of the labour force, but female jurists
form a distinct group. In the public's eye, we are perceived as
being privileged. Yet, to become a disciple of Themis, a woman
must overcome many obstacles which are not related to her
status as a jurist, but to her status as a woman.
The Quebec Bar Association's committee on women lawyers,
to which I alluded earlier, took a close look at the issues
confronting female lawyers. Unfortunately, the chamber of
notaries does not have a similar committee. A poll was
conducted among women lawyers and the findings were
released in
10579
1992. Those findings are very instructive. They clearly show the
obstacles which we must face not just as jurists, but also as
women.
In the five years previous to the poll, 71 per cent of female
lawyers experienced problems in their vocational practice. It is
important to point out that the situation of the majority of these
women did not change over that period, whether we are talking
about hiring policies, relations with male colleagues, judges and
clients, parental obligations, working conditions in general, or
career advancement. In short, there is no progress.
(1040)
Women lawyers practice a profession which was defined by
men. Our laws and our precedents are set in a masculine mould.
Lynn Smith, the dean of the law faculty at UBC, clearly exposed
the problem in an article entitled ``A system that's changing''.
Let me quote and eloquent excerpt: ``The roots of the current
legal system were planted by men. Developed at a time when
women could not vote, be elected, become lawyers or be
members of a jury, the law sought to protect the interests
deemed important by men, given the realities of their lives as
men. When the law did take women into consideration, it was
solely from a male standpoint''.
The most glaring example of inequity comes from the
judiciary. An overwhelming number of judges appointed by the
federal government, that is, the provincial superior court judges
and the Federal Court judges, are men. Overall, only 134 of the
950 federal judges are women.
By interpreting the law and exerting some moral influence,
judges help to shape and develop the fundamental values upon
which our society is based. Women have been chronically
under-represented among judges. In other words, although they
have had the right to practise law for 53 years now, the
proportion of women on the bench still remains under 10 per
cent of all Quebec judges in the Quebec Court of Appeal, the
Superior Court, the Court of Quebec or the municipal courts.
At the Quebec Superior Court, where judges are appointed by
the federal justice minister, women represented 11.3 per cent of
all judges, accounting for 20 of the 176 judges, as of March 1,
1995.
The situation elsewhere in the country is not much better.
Madam Justice McLachlin and Madam Justice L'Heureux-Dubé
are the only two women out of the nine judges appointed to the
Supreme Court of Canada. They represent 22.2 per cent of these
judges, while women account for 52 per cent of the Canadian
population.
As of March 1, 1995, women made up only 10.3 per cent of the
judges appointed to the Federal Court and the Tax Court of
Canada, accounting for 8 out of these 60 judges. I could go on
and on with the deplorable data concerning the Canadian
women's place in the judiciary, but it would feel like preaching
in the wilderness.
It is up to the Minister of Justice to appoint more women
judges at the federal level. He is duty bound to review the
questionable selection process where potential women
candidates must have an impressive number of years of
litigation practice, when we know that most women cannot
consider that kind of practice because of their parental
responsibilities. Such a criterion is not applied at the provincial
level. It is hard to imagine how a mother could sit at a trial for
three intensive weeks. Yet, it is acceptable for a father to be in
the litigation practice and to devote all of his time to his work.
Men's schedules do not change much when they become
fathers and have young children. However, this is not the case
for women, especially those with preschoolers. Whatever their
profession, mothers of toddlers are the most likely to change
their work schedules.
For example, 95 per cent of career women, including women
judges, work full-time, compared with 68 per cent of women
who have preschool children and a similar job. Almost one third
of women with preschool children and an irregular work
schedule indicated that they had chosen such a schedule mainly
to be able to take care of their children.
The selection process used does not reveal how a candidate is
chosen and should therefore be abolished. Openness is a
necessity, not a luxury.
(1045)
If the process were more open, the Minister of Justice could
no longer hide behind vague excuses like the lack of qualified
candidates. If the requirements are the same for men and
women, they automatically create inequities since, in general,
women do not practise the profession in the same way that men
do.
Treating both sexes the same way is creating inequities. The
low representation of women among judges is in no way a
reflection of their availability since in Quebec they now
represent almost a fifth of the Bar membership eligible for the
bench, that is, people who have been practising law for at least
ten years. Furthermore, with the increased numbers of women
who have entered the legal profession since the early eighties we
can expect that the number of women eligible for appointment
will increase rapidly in the next few years.
I ask the Minister of Justice: Will we see an increase in the
number of women appointed to the bench proportionate to their
representation among the most experienced members of the
legal profession? Time will tell.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, our
colleague from Saint-Hubert raises an issue that is both
sensitive and real.
Indeed, in Quebec like everywhere else in Canada, women are
clearly under-represented in the judiciary. I have vivid
memories of the 1984 election campaign where the leaders of
the four federal parties were proposing gender equality. The
govern-
10580
ments that have been in power since that time have done
nothing, or almost nothing in this respect.
My colleague from Saint-Hubert asked a question of the
Minister of Justice who will obviously avoid giving an answer. I
would like to ask my colleague from Saint-Hubert if, in her
opinion, the federal government demonstrates the will to
achieve, within a reasonable time frame, equity in appointments
to the bench.
Mrs. Venne: Mr. Speaker, the answer is a simple no.
Unfortunately, since the Liberal government came into office in
1993, it has not demonstrated the will to appoint more women to
the bench. We just have to look at the appointments that have
been made.
On this subject, I would like to add that it is often said that if
women are under-represented in the system, it is because they
do not want to be elected to the House of Commons, they do not
want to attend the conventions, they do not want to take part in
the nomination process.
I would immediately say to that that the problem is not that
women do not want to participate, but rather that they often do
not want to be part of a system that was established by men for
men. Women are not used to fighting with each other for a
position. They are used to getting a position because of their
skills.
When they go to a convention or a nomination meeting and
see everybody bickering on the floor, they are very
uncomfortable. That is why there are not too many women in
politics.
I just wanted to add this observation to explain that it is often
for that reason that, unfortunately, there are not more women in
this House.
[English]
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (Secretary of State (Training
and Youth), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank opposition members for
bringing forward this debate. I rise in the House today to express
my deep pride in the government's record in promoting social
justice and economic parity for the women of Canada.
I am encouraged by the interest shown by the hon. member of
the opposition in the issues of women's economic equality, for
what could be more important to Canada than the welfare of
more than half its population. I believe it is 52 per cent. It is only
when women and families thrive that our country will be
renewed.
(1050)
I welcome the invitation to demonstrate to my colleagues that
the federal government can be counted on to keep its promises.
We said we would and we are reshaping the country, making it
economically strong, socially just and proud of the rich
diversity of its people.
Our plan for Canada outlined in ``Creating Opportunity'' is
firmly anchored in the principle that governing is about people.
The motion before the House raises an important question: What
has the track record of the government been on issues that affect
the economic status of women? The short answer is that the
government has done a great deal. The government made
commitments in the last election campaign and is living up to
them.
In the few minutes available to me today I want to discuss the
actions we have taken in the important area of employment
programs. I want to look briefly at the record in unemployment
insurance and I want to talk about the child care issue. I will
finish with some comments on the government's proposal for
changes to the Employment Equity Act. The document is an
empowering document not just for women but for the disabled,
for aboriginals and for visible minorities.
First let me establish the context. It has become a truism that
the best social program is a job. That point has been made by
people from both the right and left of the political spectrum.
Therefore well over 400,000 people can say that they have taken
part in the greatest social program of all since the government
took office in October 1993. There is every evidence that the
record will continue strongly and that these are predominantly
good jobs and full time work. Women are claiming their full
share of the growth.
Let me give a personal view of what it is to be a woman and
what it is to be a woman in an area that used to be exclusively
male in the number of areas I have occupied in my career. I was
in the civil service for many years before I entered politics. My
experience was that I never had a problem working with men
because those were the people to whom I had the most exposure
in the levels I occupied in senior management. It gave me a great
deal of opportunity to build human relationships that had a
certain dynamic and express co-operation and a bit of a positive
attitude about working with other people.
However the real experience I have as a woman comes from
the fact that the most influential people in my life have been
women. My grandmother was a medicine woman. She was an
orator. She was the anchor in my family. She was the leader in
my family. There are many strong men in my family. The women
in my family are very strong women. They see the opportunity
for greatness in almost every opportunity that comes their way.
Another most influential woman in my life has been my
stepmother who adopted me when I was three months old. She
took the opportunity to teach me good things. I cannot think of a
thing women have gained that has just been given to them. I
cannot see an empowerment process that women have not fought
hard for. Women are truly the instrument of their own
empowerment. We are 52 per cent of the population. If women
use that
10581
instrument, if women use that power device sincerely, it will be
the essence of how great our accomplishment can be.
I have travelled around the world. I have seen other societies,
other groups across different nations. It sort of sets a stage for
what we have in Canada. In our party we have the whole idea of
equality of opportunity and I really believe in it. It is interesting
when we think about people like Eleanor Roosevelt, the wife of a
former president of the United States, who said: ``No one can
make you feel inferior without your consent''. I feel that way
about being a woman.
(1055)
I feel that women have certain natural talents. That does not
make us better than men. It just makes us as good as we can be. It
gives us the capacity for nurturing, the capacity for
co-operation, the capacity for vision, and the capacity for
sharing. We are not keeping the power to ourselves but we are
sharing the power. The use of a power in a very positive way is a
dynamic that women bring to politics, to business and to social
development. It is a different style. It is not better. It does not
create inequity. It creates the greatest opportunity for women.
If we look back through history to when women in Canada
received the right to vote, no one handed it to them. No one made
us persons without the struggle of women. Women themselves
went out and put up the fight to gain that right, to gain that
recognition. We have fought some big battles. They are not
battles between the sexes. They are battles for human dignity.
They are battles of the individual fitting in society in a way that
expresses true human rights and dignity: the right to work, the
right to raise children in an environment that is safe and clean,
and the right to raise our heads among others without feeling
shame or disgrace even when there are problems. That is the
kind of country we live in. That is the kind of democracy for
which people fight and in fact in some countries for which
people have died.
I come from a family in which women play a very
predominate role. The men play an equal role in their own area,
but I am talking about women today. I am not saying it is just our
day. In fact all the men here today can have the honour of being
honorary women if they so desire.
The whole issue of economic empowerment is a different
dynamic. Many would say that business is a man's world. That is
changing. We no longer have a single income society. We have a
double income society. People are working, partnering and
sharing. There are children to look after and there are
competitive forces that impact on families, communities,
regions and the country as a whole. Women are major
contributors. Not only do women see the necessity of their
positive participation. Men also see the positive contributions
made by women. It is necessary. It is absolutely necessary.
Women make up 52 per cent of the population. I was in
Copenhagen. Empowerment to me is reaching out and having
the human experience of realizing the differences, of building
tolerance, of building acceptance and of approving of people's
differences linguistically, culturally, socially and economically.
We are all people.
I was empowered by seeing other women. I had the
opportunity to listen to female leaders and male leaders from
around the world. On International Women's Day there was
much mention that despite the fact women make up 52 per cent
of the population they account for 70 per cent of the world's
poor. If women account for 70 per cent of the world's poor,
implicit in that is that children are involved. There are more
women in female centred living circumstances or families than
there are males.
We realize the imperative of empowering women. For
instance, the government in making its appointments to boards
and commissions is constantly vigilant and balancing the
number of women appointed to boards and commissions, as are
other members of this caucus and other members of the House.
There is a balance. It is definitely a commitment of the Prime
Minister and the cabinet.
(1100)
There is still a greater opportunity for us to look at some of the
most economically related boards, to look at the financial
institutions and to be able to appoint women. There are women
who are qualified, woman who have years of experience. I have
met them, as have other members of the House. They are women
with a lot of experience and equality of education, who have two
or three degrees. They are women who are not bilingual, but
multilingual.
They are multi-faceted women who have a whole range of
talents to bring forward to the process, not only empowering
their families and themselves but their communities and this
country. There is definitely a role for ensuring that women get to
the top in partnership with men. It is not either/or. It is better
when they work together.
We also understand the right to be recognized as persons was
not conferred on us by a special men's club that thought it was
time to make women persons. That did not happen. Women took
up the fight. Women won that right.
It is a powerful feeling on Persons day every year watching
the women being recognized, outstanding citizens in this
country, who have contributed not only to themselves but to
their communities and to their country and maybe to the world in
a sense by setting an example.
The right to vote was not conferred on women because
someone decided. It was a hard fought battle. It was something
women felt strongly about and they finally won the right to vote.
10582
Around the world democratic rights is one of the most
powerful tools. Look at South Africa. It is a prime example.
The right to vote, the right of assembly, the right to speak, the
right of mobility are things women have to make work for
themselves. That is the basis of a firm foundation on which to
build economic empowerment. That makes it a powerful tool.
At this time the government is aware economic growth by
itself is not enough. Women still remain clustered in
traditionally female occupations such as teaching, nursing,
clerical or sales and service work.
I was so pleased when I went to Montreal two months ago and
met with a group of young girls in a classroom dedicated to
teaching math and sciences to these young women. I want to see
these young girls 20 years form now. I want to see them when
they are in high school and university. I told one young girl her
seat is waiting for her in the House of Commons.
An hon. member: Look out world.
Ms. Blondin-Andrew: Look out world is right. Those young
people are going to be a huge factor not in just the empowerment
of their specific gender, but of this country. If we use that 52 per
cent resource to its maximum, we can help to abate a lot of the
social problems. We can help to abate a lot of the economic woes
that befall our communities.
In this country we are so good at building infrastructure. If we
need a road, we build it. If we need a hospital, we build it. If we
need banks, we build them. If we need airports, we build them.
The one thing that is critical and has not happened over different
levels of successive governments is building that firm human
foundation, that firm human infrastructure that is spiritual,
social, cultural and linguistic which will result in children
staying in school and will not drop out.
That is not always the result because we have a
disempowerment somewhere along this infrastructure path we
have taken. I am not saying that we should not have
infrastructure. I am saying that if we have it, it should work for
us. It should give us the results we need.
(1105 )
We should be producing. We have skating rinks and curling
rinks. We have these other kinds of institutions and
infrastructure. They should be producing better athletes. They
should be producing children who will be able to set their goals
and reach them with their families and their instructors.
Somehow we have to get back to the basics of making those
things work for people, not just women, all people in this
country. We need to say real empowerment is not the
empowerment of one individual. Real empowerment is the
empowerment of our families, of our children, of our
communities and of our country.
A country is not about one person. A country is about a
collective, all the people who live here, all the people who come
here from other parts of the world who believe we still have the
best country in the world. I certainly believe that.
I am not turning a blind eye and saying we do not have
problems. We have problems, but at least we have the
democratic right, the equality of opportunity to be able to deal
with those problems, to make a better tomorrow for ourselves
and for our children.
If all the government did was rely on the market, as some in
the House would prefer, we would see only a glacial change in
the labour force situation of women. This government believes
it can do better. It recognizes the continuing need to help women
move into new growth areas. It recognizes its own programs and
services can help to bring us closer to that goal. That is
important in terms of the government's employment programs.
Hon. members will be aware of many of the programs and
services provided by Human Resources Development Canada. I
am sure almost all of us have Employment Canada centres in our
ridings. These offices have made real efforts to reach out to
women, to make programs and services more accessible, to
break down the stereotypes and the barriers to full participation
by women.
In the last full fiscal year, 1993-94, more than one-quarter of
a million Canadian women, 262,392, participated in HRDC
employment programs and services of all kinds. That figure was
fully 28,555 more than in the previous year. This is so absolutely
important.
There is a lot of technical information I have here which I
have not shared with the House. It takes co-operation. It takes
true partnership. It takes true dignity and respect to really
empower the individual and to empower a community, a family,
a country. It can be done by respecting and recognizing the
power and the real empowerment of women.
[Translation]
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague
opposite made some interesting comments. She mentioned
points regarding the status of women that certainly raise some
questions. I am criticizing my hon. colleague for her
government's lack of concrete action.
Both she and her colleagues on the government side point to
certain situations, but they have yet to put forward any concrete
measures, like a day care system; instead, we get budget cuts
hitting community agencies and groups that provide assistance
to women, and we get UI benefits based on family income. What
does the government intend to do to help women?
They point to certain things, and say that they are aware of the
situation, of violence against women, but what have they done to
the budget dealing with violence against women? In two weeks
there will be no more money for that, and we know very well that
the government has not stated what it intends to do about it. As
recently as yesterday, the secretary of state let it be known, on
10583
the sly, without consulting women's groups, and in a crude
fashion that the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of
Women would be shut down. She said, among other things, that
the council had been set up by a movement that was in its
infancy.
(1110)
Should we conclude from those remarks that the women's
movement has reached its full development? I do not think so. I
think that progress has, indeed, been made, but the movement
has not reached maturity.
I would like to get specific indications from my colleague. I
too can wax poetic about the status of women. I too had to fight
to make my way and be elected to this House, and it was not
easy. Structures are frequently barriers that are not easily
overcome. I agree with my colleague opposite about that, but I
would like to have specific facts.
It is no secret that the Axworthy exercise was rather vague as
far as the status of women is concerned. The same holds true in
other sectors as well, like justice. I would like to hear what
concrete action the government will take within a certain time
frame and how much money it will spend. With the cuts recently
announced, the CACSW will lose 30 per cent of its budget.
Women's groups are being told that they are now on a solid
footing. Such a statement is dangerous because it is not true.
Some groups may be on a solid footing, but discrimination will
occur.
How will the minister responsible for the status of women
decide which group is to get grants? How will that decision be
made? There is a vacuum here and we are left wondering
whether there is a real will to help women. In 1995, more than
ever before, women will need help because, when we go through
a severe economic crisis, violence escalates and women are
more than ever in need of help.
[English]
Ms. Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, I agree that they are
confused. On the one hand in dealing with the opposition we find
that every time we raise an issue, no matter what it is, women,
employment or child care, we are told it is in the purview of
provincial jurisdiction, that we have to confer with our
provincial counterparts.
The hon. member is suggesting that I make suggestions about
specific projects, specific initiatives even though she knows full
well we have not had the opportunity to discuss such issues as
child care with the provinces, which Quebec feels very strongly
about.
There is not a vacuum. The government has undertaken a
number of initiatives. Program review and evaluation is one of
them. Under that guise we have also looked at women's
programs. Change is not a bad thing. What is wrong with change
in the name of effectiveness and efficiency? That is what the
country wants. Canadians are telling us it is not how much we
have, it is what we do with it. They are also telling us change is
not such a bad thing. To make change in the name of efficiency
and effectiveness is a good thing for this country as a whole, not
just women.
It is true we are consolidating the women's programs but it is
all in the name of removing duplication, eliminating a number
of unnecessary allocations. We need to do that to make it more
cost effective and to deliver services to the individual rather
than build administrative bureaucracies.
[Translation]
Mrs. Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, it is true that we are asking for
money, we are asking for transfers to provinces so that Quebec
can finally get the amount of money that it needs to create its
own programs. That certainly does not mean that we want the
federal government to create the programs. We should not play
on words either.
I will quote my colleague, the secretary of state, who was
saying just yesterday that she had two good news. These two
good news are bad news for the provinces. First of all, there are
no tax increases. What does that mean? It means that the
provinces will have to increase taxes in order to fill that gap and
to pay for programs which will be created in the different
provinces.
Second, tax loopholes have been eliminated; the budget
makes our tax system more equitable. Which tax loopholes? The
ones for big business, for family trusts or the ones for the middle
class and the poorest people? That is the question that I am
asking my colleague.
1115
[English]
Ms. Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, there is no way I would
expect this hon. member and the opposition to come forward and
endorse and kiss the budget that we presented. I do not believe
that.
However, she suggests that in the budget we put forward the
provinces have no responsibility. I dare say not. The province
she is from is preparing a budget that will have an impact. She is
fearful that it will not all be good.
These are tough times and we have taken the directions we
believe are necessary in order to get our house in order. We are
doing what we feel we do best and we are leaving to others what
we feel they can do better. That is the way in which we are
conducting our business.
There are different levels of taxation. I cannot speak to all of
them but clearly there is a responsibility. We have made our
move and the next step is up to the provinces.
10584
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I want to put a question to the minister about
another aspect of her speech. She says Canada is the best country
in the world to live in and anyone can enjoy it. As far as I am
concerned, I see things differently. Overall, it is true that Canada
is well positioned among western countries, but there are groups
in our society which are less fortunate than others and the
government should try to improve their situation.
I would like to draw your attention to the aboriginal people.
Given the statistics on suicide, alcoholism and various other
social problems, I wonder if the best way to help aboriginal
women would not be to thoroughly examine the relationship
between the natives and the federal government and to review,
or discard altogether, the Indian Act, in order to put an end to the
shameful way Canada has been treating native peoples over the
last century.
[English]
Ms. Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, I am really quite
pleasantly surprised to hear the member opposite speaking
about the rights of aboriginal people.
It is no secret that I have been very outspoken on the rights of
aboriginal people. I am also quite pleased, as was the rest of the
country and the House, that the only department that is
experiencing growth, even though it is not enough to meet the
increase in demand and need, is the Department of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development.
I am also quite pleased, on behalf of the Minister of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development, to note that there is a major
devolution and dismantling process under way. Something is
definitely happening. As an example, an agreement was signed
in Manitoba. That is just one area but there are other sources of
self-empowerment.
The government has a whole section on self-government.
There have been major comprehensive land claim deals signed
with the Yukon, a number in the Northwest Territories and also
in the province of Quebec. Those are the real empowering
sources on which the government has taken an initiative. It is not
just this government but other governments as well.
We are not turning away from the people who are the most
vulnerable, at risk and disadvantaged. We are there for those
people.
We understand that we can do business in a much more
effective and efficient way. The Canadian public agrees and is
ready for that. In a sense, we are catching up with public
thinking on this. I am sure the hon. member will recognize that
in doing so we will not turn our back on the people who really
need our help.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, first
of all, I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Québec for
having introduced this most important motion in the House this
morning. I expecially like the part of the motion which refers to:
``-inaction regarding the adoption of concrete measures to
promote the economic equality of women in federal areas of
jurisdiction.''
Would the Secretary of State for Training and Youth be
prepared to make a commitment before the House this morning
that she will take steps at the highest levels of her party to ensure
that women will not be affected more than men by the 45 000 job
downsizing over the next three years?
(1120)
She said earlier that women accounted for 52 per cent of the
Canadian population. Will the ratio be higher than 52 per cent
when those 45 000 civil servants lose their jobs? Will there be
many more women than men among those people?
[English]
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (Secretary of State (Training
and Youth), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the President of the Treasury
Board is the minister who has that responsibility. I feel he has an
eye and an ear to all of the dynamics of balancing on gender the
concerns of the people who will be reduced from the work force
there. He is considering all the dynamics. I would not even try to
improve on the excellent job the minister has done.
I am sure he has a special concern about the view that
government has toward the role of women in everything we do.
Of course I have support for women in all areas, not just this
area, as my colleagues do, some of whom are male.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is a pleasure to rise to speak to this issue today. I wish to preface
my remarks by saying that although I will not be in complete
agreement with my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois, I believe
it is important for all of us in the House to have the opportunity
to debate.
It is through debate and discussion that ideas evolve to make
for a more effective environment, especially when we are
looking at this whole area of the ongoing evolution and
devolution, shall we say, of those issues that are particularly
important to women as they become more a part of society.
I would like to compliment the minister for youth and training
for the philosophical eloquence with which she addressed this
issue. My approach is going to be somewhat different because
we were asked to assess the impact of the Liberal budget on the
whole of society and that, of course, includes women.
10585
The rhetoric that has been used to promote the evaluation of
issues pertaining to women has been in my view for far too long
framed in the term women's issues. This narrowly defined focus
ignores the economic reality and the impact that is felt, not just
by women but also by men, our families and Canadian society
in general.
The Liberal budget is a good example of this cross-cutting
effect, across lines of race, religion, gender, even age. Today I
will address three areas on which the budget has a negative
impact as these are related to women. I chose to be very specific.
I am glad that I did because it does provide a challenge to
government, not necessarily in a negative way, but perhaps to
challenge its thinking and approach to many of these issues.
The first element I want to focus on is women and their
autonomy. I will use the example of a national day care program,
highlighting another broken Liberal promise, as well providing
a dialogue for discussion from the Reform perspective. It is an
opportunity to which I have long looked forward.
The second area for discussion evolves around opportunities
for women in Canada and the hollow ring of support provided in
the Liberal budget. The focus for this aspect of my discussion is
on the department of the status of women. We know that
common sense speaks against the notion of social engineering.
There is no strength in a tradition that keeps the issues of women
from being addressed in a manner deserving of swift action.
Last, this address will look at creative productivity, meaning
jobs, jobs, jobs. Does that not have a familiar ring? The Liberals
ran on this strong platform plank but have abandoned it in search
of a savvy transparent advantage: the need to be liked by an
electorate becoming increasingly frustrated by political
posturing that does nothing more than foster dependency
through the status quo. We will talk about women in business in
that section.
(1125)
Given the economic situation in Canada, the government
simply cannot afford expenditures in the area of social
programs. Yet the government and the previous one made
extravagant promises to Canadians for a national day care
system. For financial reasons, the Conservative government
broke its promise in 1992-93 and the Liberal government has
promised national day care if the economy grows.
The reality is that it is easy for government to continue to
make a promise it cannot keep and has no intention of keeping.
The Reform Party prefers not to make promises on policies for
which it cannot realistically expect to deliver.
As a matter of social policy, the Reform Party believes that
the sole responsibility for the care of children lies with parents
and that the federal government should not interfere with that
responsibility through economic incentives that promote one
form of child care over another nor promote subsidized day care
facilities.
By advocating universal day care, the Liberal and former Tory
governments are both saying that the responsibility for the care
of our children lies with the state and not with the parents.
Reform will only support a system that keeps the state out of the
homes of Canadians and maintains the freedom and
responsibility of parents to care for children while providing
some form of assistance to only those parents and children truly
in need.
The federal government should concern itself exclusively
with matters that fall within its jurisdiction such as fiscal and
monetary matters. High taxes, unemployment and rising interest
rates are by far the major reasons why Canadians have no choice
but to work while balancing homes and child care
responsibilities. If the government would balance its budget,
thereby giving Canadians the leverage to balance their own, not
only would options open up for Canadian parents but the number
of single mothers and children living in poverty would decrease.
Financial problems are a major contributor to family
breakdown and divorce. By alleviating some of these financial
hardships, the government will indirectly strengthen the family.
That is this country's richest resource and economic foundation.
The debt and deficit situation no longer provides any leverage
to the federal government in terms of lost revenues or further
expenditures. The government's hands have become tied as far
as new programs or financial incentives are concerned to allow
the choice for parents to stay home or go to work.
The Reform Party believes that there are various avenues to
pursue in anticipation of long term tax relief for Canadians. We
continue our work in these areas as demonstrated by the
Reform's taxpayers' budget thereby increasing disposable
household income and allowing for choice when it comes to
caring for children.
From a taxation perspective, we recommend that the
government discontinue the child care expense deduction to
level out the playing field between stay at home and working
parents. It should pursue tax avenues that are not unfairly
balanced in favour of one lifestyle or family composition over
another.
However, before it does so, it must determine whether federal
responsibilities extend to providing child care to Canadian
children because current expenditures including the following:
the child tax benefit, the child care expense deduction,
equivalent to married tax deduction, GST credit, CPP survivor
benefits, UI maternity and parental benefits, social assistance
and transfer payments to provinces under CAP. These
effectively put it in the day care business and directly into the
homes of Canadians.
10586
This jurisdiction is one for which it currently has no control.
The provinces and territories are primarily responsible for the
issue of child care. As provinces enact their own child care
legislation and establish the accompanying regulations
regarding the number of attendants per child, physical
requirements of child care settings and training levels, all
important criteria, dwindling transfer payments to the
provinces become an even greater issue. How can this
government justify downloading more responsibility to already
cash strapped provinces?
(1130)
What I have explained here would introduce a level playing
field for both work and stay at home parents and would have far
reaching positive economic implications. The potential for
single income families could mean a drastic decrease in
unemployment. For each person vacating the workforce a job
opens up for the unemployed. The parent who chooses to be at
home would have the opportunity and time to volunteer at
schools, hospitals or local community centres, relieving some of
the financial pressures currently facing these organizations
which rely on government funding. It becomes a circle for
success.
We are advocating in favour of the family and those measures
which will help Canadian families remain the social and
economic building blocks of this country. These are the issues
which affect and concern all of us, women and men. The issues
of child care and the choice to work or stay at home
predominately affect women.
The Liberal budget demonstrates a lack of understanding and
commitment to this fundamental reality. Reform's vision of
social policy overall includes the decentralization of spending
authority to the levels of government closest to the people, an
improved framework of co-operative national standards, the
empowerment of families and individuals, and a reinvigorated
charitable sector.
It is my belief that complete equality has come to reflect the
core values of what I call the new feminism. I see any attempt
for change in this regard caught up in the social engineering
process as sustained and subsidized by Status of Women
Canada.
The Liberal budget did nothing to move us away from a
tradition that perpetuates an old style of issues management,
review, consult, discuss, a never ending circle of policy
development going nowhere. Women want action on these
issues which are so important to them.
When the Minister of Finance tabled his budget he announced
he was transferring to Status of Women a women's program
from Human Resources Development. When he undertook this
move he transferred $11.3 million to Status of Women, $8.6
million of it for straight grants to special interest groups, and
$2.7 million for the administration and distribution of those
grants. That amounts to an administrative overdose of close to
30 per cent. No business can afford to operate like this. No
family country can afford to operate like this. No household can
afford to operate like this. How can our government?
The move was followed this week by another announcement
from the Secretary of State for the Status of Women. As of April
1, 1995 the National Advisory Council on the Status of Women
will be disbanded. Yet there was no mention in the budget of an
amalgamation of the NACSW with Status of Women Canada.
The secretary of state allowed the estimates for the advisory
council on the status of women to be commissioned, estimates
which were published and released. They were of no value, for
not one month later the announcement was made that the
advisory council on the status of women would cease to exist.
The secretary of state permitted an expenditure of tens of
thousands of dollars in consulting fees to produce part III of the
estimates when she knew all the information contained therein
would not be used. It would not be needed. What kind of
leadership is this?
Not only do we have a department failing to disclose, we have
wasted taxpayers money in order to further an unknown agenda
at this point with respect to the budget. It is this kind of politics
which has caused Canadians to find politicians less than
forthright.
On the issue of this department change, it is a tentative step in
the right direction in terms of reducing the size of government. I
acknowledge that. However, in terms of cost reduction it really
is tokenism. A saving of $1 million cast against an exploding
debt is cold comfort to Canadians waiting for an improved fiscal
climate.
(1135)
We need a dismantling of Status of Women altogether. I say
this for two reasons. It would remove the stigma of special
interest groups from women who are seeking to make positive
change socially, economically and politically. Canadians would
view this with favour as we strive to reach true equality without
subsidized funding supporting these groups. It is a divisive
practice creating us versus them.
We would see government moving away from the cycle of
reviewing, consulting and discussing with no action. The issues
important to women would be more readily addressed and
quickly if it were moved into the various departments for which
there would be authority for action. Violence against women
could be dealt with by the Department of Justice. The whole
issue of breast cancer and research would move to the
Department of Health. The finance department could have the
opportu-
10587
nity to address realistically the whole issue of poverty within
single parent families which are usually led by the mother.
Last year in her budget speech the secretary of state was very
proud to announce that the government recognizes there are
inequities in our tax system and income system detrimental to
woman. She suggested there would be a review-another
review-to address things such as support payments for women.
She suggested the government would improve this situation.
Here we are a year later and absolutely nothing has been done
in this area. When a bill was presented by my colleague from
Calgary Centre to redress this inequity the Liberal government
refused to support it.
One questions the partisanship of the House when sound
fiscal proposals are introduced. What is the government's
position regarding the interest of women, if only to score
political points?
Through effective and non-government subsidized efforts
litigation and the simple exercise of expression through votes
women do wield a lot of clout. When government officials,
politicians, lawyers and judges get on side this will facilitate a
powerful dynamic for change. In any quest for solutions the best
models are partnerships of public and private resources.
Resources mean more than money. Governments cannot act
alone. They have neither the know how nor the money.
What I speak of has been a long time coming. Our daughters,
my daughters and my grandchildren, granddaughters I hope,
will view the years prior to the 1970s as the dark ages. Male
domestic violence went unchecked. Divorced women were
denied a share of family property. Pregnant women were
discriminated against in the job market. Rape could be easily
laughed out of court by smart lawyers. Women were expected to
declare they would love, honour and obey when they took their
marriage vows. In fact 27 years ago I said ``obey'' and thought
nothing of it, but how times have changed.
The world was perceived from a male prism, from the use of
language to the raised issues that have altered the course of
those issues most important to women. Cases on equal
employment opportunities, spousal support, fair pensions and
equal pay, as well as sexual assault, sexual harassment, rape,
pregnancy discrimination and violence against women have
been benchmarks for women in the last decade. Remarkable
efforts from remarkable men and women have resulted now in a
very different world view.
The best models for change are built on the partnerships found
in the public and private sectors. This is even more apparent as
we move to discuss women in business. Governments provide
the environment in which business will thrive. Governments are
there to cope with infrastructure development while the private
sector seeks to thrive in a competitive and free market.
This leads to my discussion of women in business. Women are
starting businesses at three times the rate of men. Of these, 75
per cent start their businesses during the peak child bearing
years, placing additional responsibility on the family structure.
These, women like most small business people, work long
hours, from 50 to 70 hours a week, and earn on average less than
$30,000 a year.
(1140)
I would like to throw out a challenge to those government
institutions that become obstructionists to the phenomenon of
women entrepreneurs. Women who create employment as small
business owners are not a passing fad, but have become a basic
trend.
However, there is still discrimination by financial institutions
against women who own and operate businesses. This
discrimination was detailed in a study released last week by the
Canadian Federation of Independent Business and takes the
form of higher interest rates and a higher refusal rate for
financing requests for women than for men. This discrimination
was identified despite the fact that the characteristics used for
the study were the same, irrespective of gender.
The characteristics were the age of the business, the sector of
activity, the number of employees, the sales performance, the
number of credit managers, provincial and financial
institutions. Externally it would appear that women are
participating on a level playing field.
What possible conclusion could be drawn when women
business owners operating with the same parameters as male
business owners are either refused their financing requests or
are forced to pay a premium rate to compete on this so-called
level playing field? The cost of financing is therefore unequal
for men and women who own and operate businesses. This is the
kind of equality that needs to be challenged and changed
because it is not equality at all.
The report concluded by making eight recommendations. I
find it shocking that the recommendations suggest financial
institutions should change their approach toward women
business owners, that financial institutions should investigate
ways of better understanding the particular situation of small
and medium size businesses, especially women owners.
These kinds of recommendations do nothing to encourage
responsible business decisions to be made by our financial
institutions based on competency and merit. Instead, although
identifying that women business owners are treated unfairly by
our institutions, it concludes the fault is that of the women rather
than gender bias.
The finance minister stated in his budget speech: ``There is so
much more that we would like to be able to do for the millions of
10588
Canadians who care little about the world of dividends and
derivatives and simply worry about making ends meet''.
It is time for this government to worry about making ends
meet. A crippling debt and continual deficit stifling the growth
of the nation will not lead us to prosperity. Removal of barriers
through proper allocation of tax dollars enabling less social
dependency and a more self-confident and trained workforce,
empowerment if you will, will ensure that prosperous future for
all of us, men and women.
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville-Milton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
will take a moment to compliment the mover of the motion, the
member for Quebec.
In her motion she expresses the feelings a lot of us have, that
we would all like to do more at this time to enhance our
civilization, the civility of our country, and we would like to
encourage those women's groups which have over time spoken
out so eloquently and which have demanded more equity in their
lives as Canadian citizens.
From that perspective I am in agreement. At the same time, as
the government responsible for the fiscal balance of this
country, we have had to cut back and it is not just on the backs of
women, although that is the focus of today's discussion.
It is rather pretty well in every facet of our society, whether it
is a businessman who used to get a grant or a women's group that
used to get a grant. It is possible that neither may get a grant
now. That does not mean we should leave our ideals behind. The
member's motion helps us to keep those ideals in the forefront
as we struggle through this period.
(1145 )
As for the last speaker, the member for Calgary Southeast, I
find it somewhat difficult to follow her logic. She described the
1970s as the dark ages for women. She used some good
examples to describe the days when women were less equal than
they are today. At the same time she seemed to agree with the
closing down of the council on the status of women and, if I am
correct, she suggested that we should close Status of Women
Canada.
Does the member feel there has been some progress over the
last number of years in the way in which women can participate
in our society today in civilian life, in the military and in
Parliament? How does she think we got here in 1995? Was it not
the work of volunteer women's groups, government funded
women's groups, and governments of the past that put budgets
together for Status of Women Canada to pursue the issues
outlined by women as needing to be improved to improve
women's lives?
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast): Mr. Speaker, I thank the
hon. member for her question. There is no denying that women
have moved a very long way. If it had not been for the efforts of
the feminists, if we are to use that term here, there would not be
the level of awareness of many of the issues I cited in my text. If
they had not spoken out change would not have occurred.
We have entered a different era. In my text I was trying to
move us beyond the status quo. It is a challenge to government
in terms of what I said to find ways to look at equality on the
basis of just that with no conditions attached.
We will have to come to terms with the economic reality that
the government has very few dollars to spend and start to rely
more on volunteer groups as she suggested and those avenues I
mentioned in my text to pursue and continue the evolutionary
change.
I talked about effective and non-government subsidized
efforts. I talked about litigation. I talked about the simple
exercise of expression through our right to vote, putting people
in the House of Commons. Hopefully that means women and
men who will continue to press for change and pursue the
opportunities we can without having to rely heavily on
governments to fund initiatives. The issue of the dismantling of
status of women is an attempt to move us beyond that point.
The government's budget was a startling shift to a different
spectrum on the continuum of left to right. The ideology of
social liberalism seems to have changed. They too have
embraced more of an economic pragmatic approach to how we
deal with issues. I am trying to seek different ways of
encouraging women as well as men to find alternatives rather
than the status quo approach of going to government for money
to undertake another policy review or to produce another report
with little action.
I appreciate the member's questions and look forward to
further discussion with her at some other time.
Mr. Tony Ianno (Trinity-Spadina, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
was very interesting to listen to the hon. member and her
approach to the government's budget.
Independence is very important to women and to all
Canadians. The budget is taking a first step toward encouraging
more independence. Child care is an important aspect of that. It
is not just a lifestyle, as the hon. member has indicated, but a
need to allow single women especially to get back into the
workforce, which gives them and their families dignity. They
can then act as role models for their children and contribute in a
very meaningful way to Canadian society. Their children will
have the independence to do the things they want to do.
(1150 )
One aspect of the budget of the Minister of Finance concerned
small business. We should take into account the statistics the
10589
hon. member has stated regarding the increase of women
entrepreneurs in the system. That should be commended
because it will spur the country to become self-sufficient and
reduce the overall debt. We should take into account the one way
in which small business people can get money to improve and
enhance their business opportunities is through the source of
capital from banks.
As the minister stated, through the budget the banks have to
be encouraged to sit down with government to find ways to lend
more money to small businesses. Considering that small
businesses run by women are becoming more and more a factor,
it is in the right direction to give them the tools they need to help
our economy get stronger.
We should take into account the benchmark to which the
minister was alluding. We should take into account that some
banks are lending small businesses less than one-third of all
their corporate loans. One recommendation I put forward was
that the government should encourage banks to lend to small
businesses at least one-third of the amount lent to all corporate
donors. Then we would find an increase in loans to small
businesses from $33 billion to $49 billion, or a 50 per cent
increase. That would encourage many small businesses to
expand and give women more tools to do much better.
Would the hon. member agree that would be a good step by the
Minister of Finance?
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast): Mr. Speaker, I thank the
member for his question.
I would ask the member perhaps at another time to explain
exactly what he means by government encouragement. I do not
have a clear understanding of what he means by encouragement.
However I would support government working with the banks to
encourage a plan for action such as the hon. member suggested.
I talked about the whole matter of financial institutions
lending to women. I was taken aback by the report undertaken by
the Federal Business Development Bank regarding the gender
bias that appears to be apparent with respect to women and how
women have access to money to foster and create businesses that
will thrive. That is the point I would like to make here. It was
concern for gender bias. Women do not appear to be treated
fairly by financial institutions, given the nature of the report I
cited in my text.
From the Reform Party perspective we encourage and
recommend competition in banking provided to entrepreneurs
such as service to customers and delivery of quality products.
We also recommend an independent ombudsman to adjudicate
problems such as the ones I have mentioned. That is a form of
problem resolution without having to go to government for
further money to resolve the problem.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I think it is interesting to see there is some
agreement on the relevance of the motion presented by the hon.
member for Québec. I am not saying that members will agree on
every single word or that the government or the other opposition
party will be in complete agreement, but there seems to be a
common concern about the way women will be treated in the
future, considering the changes that are taking place.
I will read the motion again:
That this House denounce the government for its insensitivity and its inaction
regarding the adoption of concrete measures to promote the economic equality of
women in federal areas of jurisdiction.
(1155)
I think the operative words in this motion are ``the adoption of
concrete measures'', because policies on the status of women
have been discussed for many years. However, I think
governments should be judged on what they have actually done
in this respect.
Perhaps I may take an example from every day life. Take, for
instance, Marie-Hélène, a young student who intends to go to
university next September. How does she see her future as a
woman? What kind of future can she expect?
Well, as a result of social programs reform, she can expect to
be in debt to a far greater extent during the next few years. If she
decides to go for a university degree, she will end up with twice
or three times the debt she would have if she were completing
her schooling now. Which means that a young woman who wants
a career and considers what her future will be is going to say:
Well, maybe it is not such a good idea to go all out to develop my
potential because of the increased debt load I can expect.
It is very surprising that she should think so under a Liberal
government that, in the sixties and seventies, tried to do some
interesting things to promote equal opportunity. Today, the
government makes it very difficult for people to take advantage
of such opportunities by telling them that when they go to
university, they will have to carry a much heavier debt load. As a
result, only wealthy families will be able to send their children
to university, and we are thus reverting to a model we had 25 or
30 years ago, which no one wanted and where equal opportunity
for education did not really exist.
So that is an example of a lack of concrete measures from this
government, a negative action that will turn the clock back 20 or
30 years and give many women cause for concern.
Let us get back to our student. She has finished her education
and would like to start a business. She decides that she wants to
get into new technologies. Unfortunately, she is not covered by
unemployment insurance because she has never worked a
sufficient number of weeks to be eligible, and she cannot apply
for
10590
welfare if her spouse has a job. In other words, she is not eligible
for any government program.
I took this particular example because women are more likely
to find themselves in this kind of situation. As a result of what I
would call systemic measures that are counterproductive, a
situation has been created where women who want to start a
business will be less likely than men to have access to various
types of assistance. This is unfortunate, because the government
could have included a number of measures in the current budget
to deal with this, but it did not.
I will continue with my example of a young woman looking at
her future, making plans and trying to decide how she will go
about it.
When she read the red book of the Liberal Party, during the
electoral campaign, she might have felt that, whenever she
decided to enter a new career, she would be able to take
advantage of adequate day care services for her children,
allowing her enough time to pursue a career while ensuring that
her children receive a proper education and adequate support
during their formative years. Now I am not saying that men do
not have any responsibilities regarding the education of their
children, clearly we have the same responsibilities as women,
but the truth is that in the real world we very often ask women to
be what we call superwomen, that is to say women able to juggle
family, professional and social lives, and more often that not,
without much help.
The government could have taken a number of concrete
measures, since the Liberal Party had promised during the
election campaign that if the gross domestic product was to
increase by 3 per cent it would create 60,000 new spaces in day
care centers. Recently, we have seen an increase in the gross
domestic product, but no increase in the number of day care
spaces which would benefit women, except for native people.
Thus the commitment which has been made regularly to Quebec
and Canada has now been rejected.
(1200)
The previous Conservative government did not live up to this
commitment. The Liberals, who were elected on the promise to
bring about changes, in this area as well as others, are following
in their predecessors' footsteps. We can see why there is still a
great deal of dissatisfaction and why the lack of concrete
measures on the part of the government can be denounced.
As a result, a young female student graduating with a heavier
debt load and the knowledge that adequate day care services will
not be available sees no hope of improvement in her situation.
When she learns, at the same time, that the bodies acting as
watchdogs for the status of women are going to be axed, she has
every right to wonder what is in store for her. This young woman
is full of vitality, very enterprising, and wants to go places.
I will now give you the example of another woman also full of
vitality, but maybe not as lucky. For the sake of this exercice, let
us call her Helen. Helen, a single parent with two children, stays
at home. Housing consumes 40, 50, 60 per cent of her income.
When she is told that the government is committed to reducing
poverty, the first thing she expects is to spend a more reasonable
proportion of her income on housing, somewhere around 25 to
30 per cent.
But nowadays, people often spend 50 to 60 per cent of their
income on housing. This means that, with a welfare cheque,
when you spend between 50 and 60 per cent of it on rent, you
have to be a miracle worker in order to feed two children
properly and, in the end, prevent them from becoming trapped
themselves in the vicious circle of being poor children. Could
the Liberal government not have set aside additional money for
direct assistance to public housing, following the tour by the
Standing Committee on Human Resources Development on the
reform of social programs?
Oh, no. On the contrary. A press release by the minister
responsible for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation
on February 28, 1995 made a very simple announcement-no
fanfare. Nowhere else was this casual approach taken, except
with the Advisory Council on the Status of Women, yesterday.
Its demise was announced quite simply, without any fuss, during
debate. The effect of this approach is just as hidden as in a press
release. The press release in question announced a cut in the
overall public housing budget of $270 million over three years.
What does this say to Helen, the woman I was just talking about,
who has a housing unit to pay for and must perform miracles just
to survive? What does she understand when she is told the public
housing budget is going to be cut by $270 million? So much for
the light at the end of the tunnel.
This is a criticism that may be made of the present
government. It fails to take solid measures designed not so much
as acts of charity but rather to put people in a position to be able
to get out of their present situations. The same example applies
with respect to the government's continual attempt to use the
American model in assisting poor families. The current
approach of the government is to say what the Americans have
done, basically. The government says it will help poor families,
but with the money it currently gives the middle class.
Do you know what the effect of this is? More and more middle
class families will become poor families. Then the government
can crow over the fact that it sends them a cheque as a poor
family. However, the approach in the past in Canada, and the one
that worked, was to fight poverty by allowing the people just
above the poverty line to continue to hope that their situation
will improve and by giving poor families the means to improve
10591
their situation as well. But it will not come about by running in
the opposite direction, by helping those in greatest need in order
to bolster the government's image, while withdrawing
assistance from those in the middle class and driving them into
the ranks of the poor.
I think that we have here another example of the present
government's failure to act that must not be allowed to go
unchallenged. To accompany all these examples I am going to
read you an extract from a speech given by the Minister of
Human Resources Development before the World Summit on
Social Development, just to show you what little connection
there is between the speech and reality.
The Minister of Human Resources Development said: ``Our
programs must increasingly be backed up by concrete measures
to get people back to work, rather than focussing uniquely on
income support''. What are there in the way of measures to
allow female entrepreneurs to assume their roles in the market
place? There is nothing which corresponds to what was said in
Copenhagen.
(1205)
Second, he also says that affordable day care must be
available so that heads of single parent families, especially
women, can work outside the home. How can a minister give
such a speech in Copenhagen, and on the other hand be a
minister in a government that has tabled the budget we have just
seen? I think that this proves that the motion by the member for
Québec is very relevant and we hope that the government will
devote the necessary attention to correcting these major
shortcomings in the present budget.
Mrs. Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
very relevant comments. I appreciate his way of making
concrete proposals to the government regarding economic and
wage equality, as well as other issues.
The purpose of the motion is to have the government speak up,
not about intentions, but about concrete actions which it might
take to improve the situation of women. The secretary of state
made a comment to the effect that the Canadian Advisory
Council on the Status of Women was established because
women had a lot of claims.
She argued that the situation of women has since improved
within the government. Women have, indeed, made progress, in
education, business, university and in other sectors. But these
women are part of an elite group and not all women had the same
opportunities in terms of access to such traditionally male
occupations.
I wonder if the hon. member could again show, in concrete
terms, how the government often takes credit for measures
geared to an elite group, while forgetting poor people, women,
single mothers and the young who are faced with shrinking job
opportunities. What concrete action could the government take?
The government says it wants to stimulate businesses run by
women, but again we are talking about an elite. This is fine, but a
large percentage of women are left to fend for themselves and
the government does not seem to have any concrete plan to help
them.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, in my short experience as a member of Parliament,
one of the things that struck me most is how women's groups, in
my own riding and other regions, manage to do so much with so
little. On very limited budgets, they find innovative ways to help
women and their families, and they get concrete results despite
their limited resources.
I suggest that we start by listening to these organizations and
by giving them the resources to do their jobs without being in a
constant state of crisis. There should be a three-year or
five-year plan that would make it possible for organizations,
that represent women and help to develop women's goals, to
continue their work.
(1210)
In the course of the hearings held by the human resources
development committee, we heard testimony from dozens of
women across Canada who talked about their experiences and
who wanted to provide a better future for their daughters who
today are 5, 10 or 15 years old. They want to ensure that 15 or 20
years from now, special programs will no longer be necessary,
because every woman will have a chance to develop her
potential and equal opportunity will have become a way of life
in our society.
The most important thing is to have confidence in women.
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
naturally in favour of the motion tabled by the hon. member for
Québec, which asks:
That this House denounce the government for its insensitivity and its inaction
regarding the adoption of concrete measures to promote the economic equality
of women in federal areas of jurisdiction.
I therefore denounce the government's insensitivity to the
situation of women. I would like to take this opportunity to
address one aspect, old age pensions, and to show that the
present government, despite all the action it has taken in this
area, is not preventing an increasing number of older women
from falling below the poverty line. The 1995 budget is
definitely sounding the knell of the universality of social
programs, including public old age security plans.
By way of example, the ceiling on pension benefits based on
the previous year's income puts an end to universality. Even
though few seniors have incomes over $53,000 a year, seniors
far from being rich often may earn higher family incomes in one
10592
year by liquidating assets they have accumulated over the years,
withdrawing RRSPs or transferring the latter.
This provision of the budget will affect them directly the
following year by reducing their pension benefits. It is a known
fact that the old age security programs to which seniors have
contributed have virtually stopped being universal since 1989.
I have a hard time understanding why the Liberal government
keeps going after this sector of the population, who, we must not
forget, built this country. They are the government's preferred
target, the one is bent on destroying by imposing unacceptable
measures year after year, budget after budget, on these, society's
most disadvantaged.
People then wonder why Quebecers want to throw off this
federalism and become sovereign. The various old age security
programs and the guaranteed income supplement are the
principal sources of income of people over 65 years of age.
These people, especially women, are much poorer than the
population as a whole.
Is there anyone in this House who does not know that seniors
are more disadvantaged because they are on pension and have
lower incomes if they have not worked outside the home. This is
the case of our mothers.
Their work at home was not paid nor used to calculate their
retirement pension. Their only income therefore in the years to
come will be the Canada pension cheque. And for how many
years to come?
(1215)
It is an injustice and the government amplifies it by declaring
that old age security pensions will be based on family income in
the future. This measure will force a great number of seniors,
most of them women, to hand back their pensions.
According to Quebec's minister for the status of women, this
measure would set women back 50 years. During that time, they
have succeeded in being recognized by society as individuals,
but now, because of budget cuts, they will see themselves forced
to be viewed in relation to their spouses and to family income,
once they retire.
We can justifiably wonder in what direction the federal
government is headed when it comes to women's rights. My
colleague from the government of Quebec is right when she adds
that the principle of family income completely transforms the
retirement income security program, replacing what was an
insurance program by a social assistance program for needy
families.
Canada made very clear public commitments in favour of
gender equality and also took statutory measures to reach this
objective. I refer to a Canadian document on violence against
women. Section E.61 of its action plan states that Canada is
committed to analyzing all of the proposed amendments to the
tax system in order to expose all of the discriminatory or
negative effects that they will have on women. This principle
has now been shelved.
Section E.66 of the same document states that Canada is
committed to raising and ensuring full indexation of the
threshold at which old age security benefits start being clawed
back. Once again, this commitment has not been met.
Canada's commitment is very clear in this document: We are
supposed to take all of the necessary measures, in particular
legislative measures, to amend or abolish acts, regulations,
customs and practices which discriminate against women. Is
this what the government delivers in its budget? No. It has
thrown all of its principles out the window.
The Minister of Finance offhandedly casts aside studies
which have cost taxpayers a great deal of money and ignores
basic principles in the name of deficit reduction. On the
contrary, instead of going forward and giving seniors, in
particular women, the means to attain these standards, the
budget places these standards further out of their reach.
Let us be serious. I understand very well that everything has a
price and that there is a cost associated with this initiative.
However, why not hit banks, tax havens and family trusts and
leave seniors in peace. They have sweat blood and tears to build
this country which, today, is rejecting them. Is this federalism?
Have seniors not already given enough by working all of their
lives and paying their taxes? Who else do you think filled the
government's coffers?
In conclusion, I would like to remind you that Quebec's
sovereignty does not jeopardize senior's incomes. The threat to
old age pensions comes from the federal government. That is the
price to be paid for maintaining the status quo, the price to be
paid for voting no in the upcoming referendum.
In a sovereign Quebec, a matter like the one mentioned at the
beginning of this speech, namely the government's insensitivity
to the situation of women, will not even be an issue. Equity will
be the order of the day.
(1220)
Mr. Mac Harb (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am quite amazed to
see this motion by the opposition. I would have wished for a
preamble which could have read as follows: ``That this House
commend the government for all the measures it has taken to
date to create opportunities for women''.
My hon. colleague is forgetting that, in our 1994 budget, we
reiterated our commitment at the federal level to provide $100
million to the emergency repair program. We also reinstated the
court challenges program which provides funding for cases
10593
relating to the provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms that guarantee equality rights.
I want to stress that these programs have expanded
jurisprudence relating to positive economic action for women.
Also, our government announced the establishment of the
Canadian Race Relations Foundation, another major initiative
on behalf of women facing discrimination both on the grounds
of sex and race.
I could cite at least 15 to 18 different initiatives this
government has taken to date to create opportunities for
Canadian women. Therefore, I am surprised to hear the
opposition parties attack the government like this. I would like
to tell my hon. colleagues that one year after taking office, we
have accomplished a lot for women, when compared to the
record of the previous government over ten years. I wonder why
my hon. colleague does not rise to commend the government.
Mr. Fillion: Mr. Speaker, I have trouble commending this
government when the status of women just keeps deteriorating.
Women, whether young, middle aged or seniors, see their
standard of living going down continually.
Take the freeze on student loans for young people who want to
further their education, for example. The point was made earlier
that, by the time they get out of school, university graduates will
be in debt over their heads. That is what Canada has to offer. It
was also clearly demonstrated, with figures to back this up, that
no new day care spaces will be opened to allow women to
re-enter the labour force.
Again, that is what this government has to offer. Furthermore,
there is no indication anywhere that something will be done
about social housing. Cuts, cuts, cuts. I say this is a disgrace. In
the red book, which in my view has turned black, there is
nothing, absolutely nothing, in terms of positive measures
concerning the status of women.
Of course, one can argue that the government does have a
Secretary of State for the Status of Women. But what does she
have left besides her title since the advisory council has been
abolished? What can she do? With no budget, she cannot go very
far now. So, let us eliminate this title, which does more to pay lip
service to the government's intentions than to further the cause
of women.
[English]
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak on this motion today. Although I have to
profess at the very beginning that I do not agree with the motion
that has been put forward, I am pleased the member for Quebec
has put it forward so that some of the positive moves this
government has taken since it was first elected can come to
light.
(1225 )
It is important that individuals and particularly
parliamentarians are periodically forced to think about issues
such as equality, be it between gender, or people of different
races or colour, immigrants versus second and third generation
Canadians or our aboriginal people.
We come to this place to debate the issues of the day. It is
important for us to understand that unfortunately our society is
not one that can claim with any purity to practise equality in
nearly any aspect of life as Canadians. It is unfortunate that as a
tolerant society there is still a tremendous amount of
intolerance. It is unfortunate that as a progressive society there
is still a tremendous amount of bigotry, a tremendous amount of
isolationism and a tremendous amount of hate toward those who
are different from us, whoever us is in any particular case.
It is important that we try to put this debate into some context.
The Government of Canada, my party, has campaigned for many
years on platform of equality. The record and sincerity of the
statements of a party or political institution, of a parliament or a
government, should be judged by its actions.
The actions we have taken over the last 18 months have been
fairly significant. That is not to say they are the only actions that
need to be taken. It is quite the contrary. When we are dealing
with things like inequality, bigotry and racism we must be
eternally vigilant. It has a habit of creeping up and when we take
one step forward, unless we are very, very vigilant somebody
will push us two or three steps backward.
I suspect this motion came about as a result of some of the
budgetary measures. I suspect that some people are concerned,
perhaps for good reason, about some of the changes that have
taken place because of the fiscal realities of rising deficits and
debts and the requirement to try to get our economy moving
again.
I suspect that the member for Quebec was concerned that the
National Advisory Council on the Status of Women is going to
be wound up. I too was concerned when this first became a
subject of public debate and consternation.
I note the government has taken the women's program which
used to be with human resources development and has folded it
in with Status of Women Canada. This is a very significant move
by the Government of Canada for two reasons.
In the past when governments thought we had money, when it
was thought we had more borrowing authority than we should
have had, many times dollars were given to special interest
groups. They would be given the money and told to go and
represent women in society. That was a terrible thing if we think
about it. What was the real intent behind that? Was it to try to say
that women's issues were not worthy of perpetual vigilance by
10594
parliamentarians? Did it mean they were to be pushed down to
become the purview of a ``special interest group''?
I have always had trouble with the way governments have
funded special interest groups. Government funds me as a
member of Parliament to represent the interests of my
constituents. Repeatedly over the years it has become an
accepted practice that parliamentarians can hide behind the fact
that there are other groups to do this. We use taxpayers' money
to front and support interests we are supposed to be raising and
protecting in our duties as members of Parliament, as members
of legislatures and as members of city councils right across
Canada.
I do note this government has a good record with respect to the
initiatives it has taken to promote equality, not just within areas
of the federal purview. Governments must lead by example.
In my view this government has taken one of the most
articulate, forceful and believable individuals in this Parliament
and made her the Secretary of State for the Status of Women.
Any independent observer would be hard pressed to find an
individual in the last two Parliaments who has so consistently,
forcefully and sincerely put forward the concerns of women and
made it imperative that those concerns be dealt with by
governments. It was not a fluke of cabinet roulette when it was
decided that the member for Mount Royal would be the
Secretary of State for the Status of Women.
(1230 )
Most women, most activists and most feminists in Canada,
male and female, would agree that the choice of the member for
Mount Royal as the Secretary of State for the Status of Women
was clearly an indication of the seriousness with which the new
government viewed these affairs.
However there have been other things such as Bill C-64, the
Employment Equity Act. We came in and strengthened that act.
It was one of the acts I have been extremely critical of in the
past. I am withholding my praise to see how the recent
amendments will play out in actual fact. It is fine to have a piece
of legislation, but unless there is overwhelming and compelling
reasons for the reporting mechanisms to be adhered to and some
enforcement powers behind it we find it can be hollow words on
very shallow paper. At least it is a step in the right direction.
The 1995 budget measures had some provisions to try to
increase access to capital for small and medium size businesses.
As everybody knows about 40 per cent of new entrepreneurs are
women. Anybody who has been involved with public life,
particularly as a member of Parliament, would know that women
are doubly disadvantaged if they go to a bank or a financial
institution looking for a loan. They are usually disadvantaged
because it will be a small business proposal and the banks do not
seem terribly keen on lending money for small business. They
should be chastised and at times condemned for that. There is
also sexism at play. Sometimes it is systemic, not overt. Women
do not seem to be able to access capital in the same way as men.
More needs to be done. During the pre-election period we
talked about establishing special programs for women
entrepreneurs. The committee on industry has looked at it. I
would encourage members of the committee, with all of the
work they have on their desks, to recognize that women are
doubly disadvantaged as entrepreneurs. That is one promise
made in the red book during the campaign that must be fast
tracked. We must find ways to set up women's entrepreneurial
institutes and make sure there is real access to working capital
for women entrepreneurs.
Anybody who has followed the social policy review, if in
favour of it or opposed to it, will know that one of the main
components was to try to address women and children in poverty
and whether or not the current vehicles, the social programs, are
addressing the real tragedy out there of women and children
living in poverty.
The proposals put forward in the green book clearly addressed
those issues. The proposals were meant to cause debate among
the Canadian public about whether or not we had the
wherewithal, the courage and the foresight to change social
policy programs to ensure that some people who are missed,
mostly single parent families headed by females, are no longer
doomed to a life of hell and poverty for both themselves and
their children. I hope some of the good measures in the green
book will come to fruition and we will be able to address the real
tragedy of women living in poverty and well over a million
children living in poverty in Canada.
The red book commitment on the Canada Race Relations
Foundation was fulfilled. Some individuals in the House believe
with the fullness of their hearts that it was a waste of money to
establish the Race Relations Foundation. All they have to do is
go into any minority community in Canada, any black or
immigrant community, to find out that the sting of racism still
exists in Canada and that unfortunately its sting is no less
painful today than it was years ago.
The Race Relations Foundation established by the
government is aimed not just at minorities in Canada but at the
triple disadvantaged in Canada who in many cases are women.
Black women and native women are some of the most
discriminated individuals in Canadian society. The Canadian
Race Relations Foundation is a tangible example of the
government's commitment to focusing government effort and
attention to solving the real problems.
There are other matters that I will mention quickly. One is the
task force on prostitution. I cannot think of a more violent and
abhorrent crime against women than prostitution. The
government, through the Minister of Justice, has indicated that
we are prepared to take tough and decisive action to stop this
heinous crime against society, against women, against our
daughters and
10595
against our grand-daughters. We are serious about it. Tough
action will be taken either by the minister or people like me
putting private members' bills forward in the House.
(1235 )
On the firearms legislation, 50 per cent of women who are
killed are killed in domestic disputes by firearms that are kept in
the home. We have taken tough and decisive measures.
In conclusion, the debate should not be only about money. It
should be about attitude. When I look around this place and I see
the quality of members of Parliament, and the quality of female
members of Parliament, I know we have come a long way but we
have yet a long way to go.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I see
that my colleague opposite has also come up with many findings
on the status of women. However, the measures he has described
are mostly social in nature. They are very worthwhile measures
but today's motion deals with the economic measures intended
to promote women's equality.
In this regard, I would like to ask the hon. member opposite
what he thinks of the proposed labour code reform. I know that
in 1993, Bloc members proposed an amendment to harmonize
with Quebec's occupational health and safety commission the
benefits paid to pregnant women withdrawn from work for
precautionary reasons. I know that an internal document is
circulating, which totally ignores the motion proposed by Bloc
members, even though it was supported by their Liberal
colleagues.
Today is a day of action, a day on which we are asking the
government to take concrete measures favouring women. In this
matter, we see that there are two classes of female workers.
Federal public servants who become pregnant and must be
withdrawn from work for precautionary reasons earn less than
their Quebec counterparts-I think they receive 60 per cent of
their salary compared with 95 per cent in Quebec.
Why are they not taking this into account in the proposed
reform of precautionary withdrawal?
[English]
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the simple answer is that I do
not know why more attention was not given to that measure. I
have to be quite honest. I am not entirely up to date on the
Quebec legislation about which the member spoke.
However I listened intently and I can tell the hon. member for
Québec that I applaud her efforts to bring issues before the
Parliament of Canada, the proper venue for such issues to be
discussed.
As a member who is here for his second term, let me say that
unfortunately far too often good proposals from opposition
members are almost treated with dismissal by others in this
place. When we are dealing with issues of fairness and equality,
particularly issues that affect over 50 per cent of our population,
partisanship has to be removed. When good proposals are put
forward the government should look at them.
I look forward to getting more information on the matter.
However, if it is a progressive measure which seeks to equalize
the role of women not just in Quebec but across Canada, it would
be the type of measure I would support regardless of the official
position taken by my party.
The hon. member for Québec talked about the fact that the
debate was on economic equality. The reality is that social
equality and economic equality are intertwined. We cannot deny
one and expect the other to be a consequence. Clearly we have to
move in tandem to take measures, both in legislation and by
example as a federal government and as legislators, to ensure
that society moves toward not just perceived but real equality
socially as well as economically. To deny one is to ensure that
the consequences of the second will be that there will not be the
equality that is necessary.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Québec has only
30 seconds left if she wishes to ask another question or make a
comment.
Mrs. Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member
opposite that economic reality is linked to social reality. But I
would point out that they have cut the budgets of community
organizations which operate in different areas and put forward
social programs designed to help the most disadvantaged in our
society.
(1240)
I agree with the hon. member. What I would like is a concrete
fiscal measure that will also support these community
organizations' social initiatives.
For the information of the hon. member opposite, an internal
document on the proposed reform of precautionary withdrawal
is now circulating, which does not mention the motion adopted
by the Liberals.
[English]
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
her comment. I will certainly look at that.
10596
The reality is that the best equality is a job, as the member
for Western Arctic said. Unfortunately women in our economy
do not participate to the fullness of their potential. It is only
when we break down those barriers that we will have true
equality.
I look forward to working with the member for Québec. I
applaud her for her tenacity in raising these issues on the floor of
the House. I am sure there are others, such as the member for
Etobicoke-Lakeshore who has worked tirelessly on behalf of
minority women and women in society, who would be prepared
to work with her to ensure that these things come about.
Ms. Jean Augustine (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise with considerable
confidence to speak in rebuttal to the hon. member's motion.
I am proud to be a member of a government and party with a
heritage of unprecedented sensitivity and action on real and
practical measures to promote the economic equality of women.
I will deal with the question of our history and the economic
reality of women.
The strength and vitality of the women's movement in Canada
today can be traced back to the moment of clarity and power
experienced 25 years ago. The occasion was the 1970 landmark
report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women.
At that moment women in Canada realized that equality of
opportunity had become achievable. It was not just a Liberal
government establishing the royal commission against all odds
in 1967. It was also the will of women to make it happen. It was
the alacrity with which the Liberal government of 1970 moved
to respond to the commission's recommendations that inspired
women to redouble their efforts to advance their status.
I think the member will agree with me that a Liberal
government appointed Canada's first minister responsible for
the status of women and the work that took place in 1971. A
Liberal government established the office of the co-ordinator of
the status of women in 1971 which has now become Status of
Women Canada, the federal government's lead agency for
government policy co-ordination related to women's equality.
A Liberal government created the women's program in 1973 to
provide financial and technical assistance to women's
organizations and other voluntary groups working to promote
the equality of women. The member knows the rich heritage and
history of Liberals and their commitment to women's issues.
With the support of the Liberal government today women
have succeeded in making the workplace more family friendly.
Women are obtaining the support they need to balance work and
family responsibilities for young children, for aging parents or
for both.
Today with the support of the Liberal government women
have also put issues like sexual harassment, pay equity, et
cetera, on the workplace agenda. With the support of the Liberal
government women are convincing other areas in society that
these kinds of employment issues are not just women's issues.
They are societal issues and they belong to all of us, men and
women.
With the support of the Liberal government record numbers of
women have started their own companies. In Canada today
women operate 39 per cent of small businesses. According to the
most recent survey undertaken by the Canadian Federation of
Independent Business women entrepreneurs are doing very
well.
Small and medium sized businesses are the major engine
driving our economy, creating 85 per cent of all new jobs in
Canada. According to my math, that makes women the major
players in job creation in Canada today.
(1245)
What is particularly encouraging is the increasingly dominant
role younger women are playing in the creation of new
businesses. As Le Devoir noted last week, 51.4 per cent of
Canadian business proprietors under age 25 are women.
According to 1991 figures complied by the CFIB, this compares
to a 1981 figure of 30.6 per cent.
This is a good record and one that speaks highly of the
government's support of the economic equality of women. This
is the substance of the motion. All indications are that the
growing prominence of women in small business will prove to
be a major factor in our country's future growth.
I am pleased to note that the small business sector was the
focus of several important commitments made in the budget of
February 27. The finance minister declared the government is
determined to remove barriers to the success of small business.
We are equally determined to provide practical assistance to
help Canada's small business survive and grow. It is essential
that small businesses have access to the financing they need in
order to continue being our number one creator of jobs.
To add to this the government will be working with the banks
over the coming months to hammer out meaningful benchmarks
for small business financing. One of the things we will be
looking for is hard data on the success rate of women owned
businesses so that banks can come to see that opening their doors
and their pockets to women makes good business sense.
The budget also announced that we are substantially reducing
government subsidies to business. In today's economy these
subsidies are simply not cost effective in terms of job creation,
productivity or growth. Nobody knows that case more strongly
than business itself.
The government has decided to concentrate on the key
engines of economic growth, as I mentioned, looking at the
areas of science and technology and trade development. In fact,
the government is working to create a policy environment that
will
10597
encourage and reward the innovation and flexibility needed to
pursue the opportunities of the new global marketplace.
The potential is clearly there. The government recognizes that
the women of our country have the imagination and
determination to fully participate in the growing world
economy.
It is important for the member who is speaking so eloquently
on the gaps in the meeting of our specific and individual needs to
note that the government and the members on this side of the
House recognize the way in which we need to work and the
progress we need to make in order to meet all of the
requirements in the provision of the quality of life for women
and their families.
In terms of the economic question and the motion on the floor,
this motion needs to be rebutted. The Liberal government is
fully aware of the commitments we need to make to the
economic situation of women.
[Translation]
Mrs. Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, I am in agreement with my hon.
colleague when she says that issues surrounding the status of
women in 1995 are also societal issues. I agree with her.
However, are there not still many women burdened with the
responsibility of picking up their children at day care, and then
going home to do another shift?
I would ask the hon. member if she is going to be able to get
her colleagues to take action on day care facilities, because
50,000 spaces a year were promised and we are short 35,000
spaces in Quebec.
(1250)
Will the transfer to the provinces take place? We have reached
3 per cent of GDP. It is time the Liberal government delivered on
this promise, which was one of the promises in its red book.
I would like to know if we can count on our colleague with
respect to this issue, which is a particularly thorny one for
women. Without day care facilities, women will not be able to
enter the labour market if the government waits too long. There
are 2 million day care spaces Canada wide, with a shortage of
35,000 in Quebec.
What we in Quebec want to see is not the enforcement of
national standards by the federal government, but the
implementation of transfers to the provinces so that the
government of Quebec can better respond to a great demand
from the women of Quebec.
Furthermore, during the consultations on the future of
Quebec, several women's groups asked for this assistance so
that women can break into the labour market.
[English]
Ms. Augustine: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member across
the way that in order for women to fully participate in the
economic life of the country, it is important that we begin to
address issues such as women as child givers, women as care
givers and women who participate in the care of elders in a
specific way.
It is also important to note that we have made some
commitments. We made a commitment to increase the number
of child spaces when we reach a certain percentage of the GDP.
That promise is still on the books. We have not reversed our
position on our commitment to child care or the commitments
we made to ensuring employment equity and the whole series of
issues and commitments we made to women.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member, who is also the Prime Minister's
parliamentary secretary, is probably familiar with numerous
issues, particularly those which concern the status of women. A
document is currently circulating regarding the Labour Code
reform.
I remember that when the last such reform took place, in May
of 1992 if I am not mistaken, I proposed an amendment so that
the same conditions would apply under both the federal and
provincial labour codes, regarding precautionary withdrawal of
work for pregnant women. The Quebec Labour Code provides
that women get paid 95 per cent of their salaries, compared to 60
per cent under the federal code.
That was a housekeeping amendment which, of course,
reflected the notion of flexible federalism, and the Liberals,
then in opposition, supported that proposal. Consequently, my
question to the hon. member is: Now that the Liberals are in
office, why is that amendment not included in the proposed
Labour Code reform which the government will table in the next
few weeks?
[English]
Ms. Augustine: Mr. Speaker, we need the collaboration and
co-operation of the members across the way to do a whole series
of things. Just as the member is asking for our co-operation in
this respect, there are certain ways in which we also should be
asking for his collaboration as we move forward.
The issue of the status of women is not just a Quebec issue. It
is not just an issue outside Quebec. It is an issue for all women.
Therefore we each need to be concerned about the status of
women in Canada, to speak about the status of women in Canada
and to work for the laws, regulations, policies, equity issues that
would bring about the quality of life for all women.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I will
share my speaking time with the hon. member for Laurentides.
It is always an honour and a privilege to rise in this House, and
members should always remember that when they do, they
represent those who elected them.
10598
(1255)
Today, I am doing exactly that, and I am thinking more
specifically of the 52 per cent of the residents of Shefford who
are women.
The federal budget for 1995 tabled by the Minister of Finance
totally ignored the social contract between the government and
the majority of taxpayers in Quebec and Canada. The budget
brought down by the hon. member for Lasalle-Émard ignores
the economic and social realities facing the middle class and the
less well-off groups in our society.
This budget denies women the right to a fairer and more
equitable society. In fact, the budget is just a smoke screen to
hide the real problems.
Left out of the budget altogether are measures to ensure that
women get equal pay for equal work and a better standard of
living. Last year, the Liberals voted in favour of measures that
would be fairer and more equitable. Today, those promises have
evaporated.
In fact, in the key sectors of health care, social assistance and
post-secondary education, the Liberal government actually
decided to make the worst, not the best but the worst of a bad
situation. The first to suffer as a result of cuts in transfer
payments to the provinces will be women and children.
The federal government has offloaded its financial problems
on the provinces and on, Quebec, without considering the
impact these cuts will have on women.
In addition, Ottawa has decided to launch a second attack on
women who are senior citizens by calculating the amount of
their old age security cheque according to the income of their
spouses. This reduction comes in addition to the reduction in the
age tax credit announced last year.
I deplore the fact that the federal government has offloaded its
problems on the provinces instead of eliminating overlap and
dismantling tax shelters that deprive the government of
hundreds of millions of dollars annually.
The government's priorities are not in the right place and lack
vision. You would think Ottawa was managed by a bunch of
brokers looking for a good deal and speculating on the short
term market with other people's money.
I do not mean to criticize the profession as such, but this is not
what we need here in Ottawa. Those who govern us should be
responsible people who are prepared to listen to the majority of
taxpayers who are sick and tired of being squeezed.
Take, for instance, the Canada Assistance Plan, also known as
CAP. Despite the provisions in the assistance plan regarding
subsidized day care services, the shortage of adequate and
affordable services remains a significant problem for a very
large number of families with one or more children.
The lack of day care spaces is a fundamental concern for low
and middle income parents.
This is a deep social concern, a concern which was expressed
in the red book, this famous red book of the Liberal Party, which
we might have thought would lead to some action plan.
We can read on page 38 of the red book, and I quote:
``Canadians with young families need a support system that
enables parents to participate fully in an economic life for the
country- Recent research by the National Council of Welfare
indicates that the single best predictor of whether a family has
adequate economic resources is whether it has two wage
earners. A growing majority of Canadian families need two
wage earners to achieve a reasonable standard of living. The
availability of good quality child care at an affordable cost
makes the difference between a family living at the edge of
poverty and a family living with a moderate standard of living''.
(1300)
This is straight out of the red book. A good child care system,
affordable for all, is an economic advantage. It allows poor
parents to re-enter the work force instead of having to continue
to rely on social assistance and food banks. It also creates jobs,
especially for women, since on average one job is created for
every five children in day care.
Therefore, the Liberal principle of a service allowing access
to financial independence remains a promise, it has been
shelved, like all the nice sounding election promises which will
be conveniently forgotten before the next election campaign.
According to the Liberal red book, in each year following a
year of 3 per cent economic growth, a Liberal government will
create 50,000 new child care spaces. We have reached this rate
of economic growth this year. Since child care which is funded
by governments is funded 50/50 by the federal and provincial
governments, what will become of the spaces promised by the
Liberals, if the government cuts transfer payments to Quebec by
$350 million?
What will become of the 40 per cent of the costs of new child
care spaces to be assumed by the federal government, which is
evaluated at $120 million in 1995-96, $240 million in 1996-97,
and $360 million in 1997-98, amounting to $720 million over
three years? These figures come from the red book. It has been a
long time since the red book, the Liberal bible, has been
mentioned. What happened to all the nice Liberal promises?
Let us now talk about social housing. As a whole, the 1995-96
budget puts an end to any new initiative in this area. Since close
to 17 per cent of Quebec families and 16 per cent of Canadian
tenants spend more than 50 per cent of their income on rent, it is
10599
easy to understand why social housing needs are so huge and
why offloading will have enormous long term consequences.
Women, who represent an important clientele, or 57 per cent of
social housing, will be the hardest hit by these cuts.
The 1995-96 budget also means that the 40,000 people on the
co-op housing waiting list of the CMHC-The Canada
Mortgage and Housing Corporation-will have to wait months,
even years, before a unit is available. There is no longer any
hope of building new ones.
CMHC will close 20 branches across Canada. In Quebec, the
Longueuil office will close while in Sept-Îles, Rimouski,
Val-d'Or and Trois-Rivières, only one person will remain on
duty, working at home. Successive decommitments by Ottawa
clearly demonstrate the limitations of administrative
agreements between Quebec and Ottawa in cases of unilateral
withdrawal.
Today, Quebec is caught off guard by the extent of Ottawa's
financial pull out in the social housing sector, because it counted
on the federal government as the major source of funds in the
agreement. Unable to compensate for this unilateral withdrawal,
Quebec must review its plans and cancel the construction of new
low rent housing units that had been promised to municipalities.
Because of the community help readily available there and the
low cost of housing, the co-op formula was an interesting option
for single parent families, which are headed mainly by women.
(1305)
Community help such as child care is a very influential factor
and explains why a much greater number of single parents living
in co-operatives are in the workforce. If we do not respond-
The Deputy Speaker: Unfortunately, the member's time is
up. If there is unanimous consent, the member may continue. Is
there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Leroux (Shefford): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will be
careful in my closing remarks.
Access to affordable, quality housing is recognized as a
pre-requisite to the fulfilment of other needs, such as education,
health, labour force productivity and social security.
In this period of budgetary restraint, Quebec and Canadian
society are giving priority to the housing needs of less fortunate
Quebecers and Canadians. These are the people who interest us,
the less fortunate. Social housing has a particular role to play in
meeting these needs. The federal government must continue to
give top priority to funding social housing. By maintaining this
program as a priority today, we will avoid higher costs in other
areas down the road.
The government has no right to sacrifice so many families, so
many women and so many years of hard work in an attempt to
maintain harmony in a society that prides itself on being just and
fair.
Mr. Mac Harb (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, how can we ever
please our Bloc Quebecois colleagues? One day, they want
certain federal responsibilities to be delegated to the provinces
and, the next thing you know, they say these responsibilities
should remain with the federal government.
Housing is obviously an area of provincial responsibility. But
if my hon. colleague is suggesting that the federal government
should assume more responsibilities than the provinces, I am
prepared to join him in making representations because I agree
with him that the federal government often does a better job than
the provinces in certain areas.
The hon. member mentioned day care. I want to point out to
him that, last spring, the federal government announced the
establishment of a task force on the tax treatment of child
support. As my hon. colleague knows, this task force was
presided by the secretary of State responsible for women's
issues. The task force held public hearings and travelled across
the country to seek the opinion of the provincial and territorial
governments.
I am sure that, if my hon. colleague gives this government just
a little more time, he will see that we can put in place legislation
that will meet this need. Just bear with us.
Mr. Leroux (Shefford): Mr. Speaker, first of all, I will say to
my colleague that our top priority in coming to Ottawa was to
defend Quebecers' interests. That is what we are doing. Second,
we hope to set up our own country. Unfortunately, the hon.
member did not understand this.
In response to his question, I remember last year's debate on
child poverty. However, it must be understood that if there are
poor children, it is because there are also poor parents. Children
are not living in poverty by themselves. The poorest members of
our society are women, and that is what I am saying today.
They are often single parents with sole responsibility for
raising their children. As you know, poor children cannot do
well in school. If they do not have what they need at home, they
cannot succeed and hope to find a way out. It is important to
keep this in mind.
(1310)
As you know, Mr. Speaker, when the Liberals were on this
side of the House, they delivered some great speeches. Now that
they have crossed the floor-normally, a party, once elected to
govern, has a tendency to sit pat-they have not been sitting pat,
they have been lying down on the job. What they should do first
10600
is look at their social policy. As we remember, under Trudeau,
they spoke of a just society, an extraordinary society. I think
that today's Liberals put all that aside and are now worse than
the Tories.
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, once
again, it is with great pride that I rise during an opposition day
totally dedicated to the situation of women, and more
specifically their economic equality.
For the second consecutive year, the Bloc Quebecois, through
the hon. member for Québec, tables a motion dealing
exclusively with the situation of women. Special days like this
one are essential, since they provide us with an opportunity to
take a look at our place in society and, hopefully, further our
cause.
Today's motion reads:
That this House denounce the government for its insensitivity and its inaction
regarding the adoption of concrete measures to promote the economic equality of
women in federal areas of jurisdiction.
First, I want to denounce a recent decision made by the
Liberals which clearly shows the relevancy of our motion. I am
referring to the merging, as of April 1st, of three women
organizations. Indeed, the Secretary of State for the Status of
Women announced that she will lump together the Canadian
Advisory Council on the Status of Women, the womens'
programs of the Department of Human Resources Development,
as well as Status of Women Canada.
That announcement made by a woman is very disappointing.
It clearly shows a lack of seriousness and respect for women.
The secretary of state should be ashamed and go into hiding for
making that decision.
By grouping these services under Status of Women Canada,
the Liberal government abolishes the Canadian Advisory
Council on the Status of Women. This is yet another centralizing
measure of the Liberals, who do not know any better.
By merging the CACSW, the government is depriving women
of an independent organization which conducted research and
promoted education for women, not for the government. The
independence of the council was essential to allow it to fulfill its
mandate. The council could exert pressure on the government. It
could point a finger and denounce the government's inaction
regarding the situation of women.
As of April 1st, this so-called Liberal government will have
total control over that organization. Women will be gagged.
April 1 will be a sad day for women. I trust that Liberal
women will stand up in turn to denounce this decision.
Solidarity among women is much more crucial than solidarity at
a political party level.
I will not say more about this anti-women decision.
As for unemployment, according to the February 1995
statistics, 642,000 women were unemployed in Canada, or 9.5
per cent. In Quebec, the rate was up to 11.6 per cent, or 187,000
women. There were also 280,082 women on welfare in Quebec.
What is the federal government doing to lower the
unemployment rate among women? Nothing. It sits tight and
puts its trust in the economic recovery. It has adopted a laissez
faire strategy.
Where are the jobs that Liberals kept promising? Where are
all the training and upgrading programs for women? Where are
the services promoting women's presence in the labour market?
None of these promises have been kept. The only measure touted
by Liberals as contributing significantly to job creation is the
infrastructure program which was to create 45,000 temporary
jobs over a three year period.
(1315)
The Liberals bragged about this so-called beneficial
program. They said it would help men and women get back to
work.
The results have been rather disappointing. Seasonal
temporary jobs. This program only provided short-term jobs to
people already in the labour force and did nothing to create new
jobs for the unemployed.
This program completely ignored women on unemployment.
Indeed, women's groups had asked the minister concerned to
establish certain rules that would allow women to have access to
some of these mostly non-traditional jobs.
To my knowledge, the minister did not grant what seemed to
be a legitimate request.
Despite all the promises made by the Liberals, we still have
women on unemployment, women who work for a while on
some project or program, then go back on unemployment and
end up on welfare. These women are caught in this vicious circle
and will never be able to get out of this difficult situation for
good.
The federal government is not helping women, worse, I really
think it is harming them. The federal employment, training,
upgrading and unemployment programs are not up-to-date,
they are not flexible nor creative. The programs, services and
conditions have been the same for years now, even though the
labour market is constantly changing.
The results of this rigid system are terribly disappointing.
Women cannot meet the needs of the labour market rapidly and
effectively.
I would like to give you a very concrete example which
demonstrates how inefficient the federal system is. A few
months ago, I met in my riding office a woman who is a single
parent living on a meagre $170 a week unemployment insurance
benefit.
10601
To get out of this difficult situation, she wanted to attend
classes in bureautics offered by her regional school board. This
much vaunted program, which offered interesting work
prospects, lasted 18 months. The federal government does not
pay for 18-month courses. In fact, it only recognizes programs
where students graduate after 12 months.
As a result, this woman continued to receive her meagre
benefits till the end.
Once her benefits had expired, she enroled in a program
entitled ``Introduction to non-traditional trades''. Thirteen
women registered for this 14-week training course leading to a
job. According to the information I have gathered so far-since
this program is on now-this program clearly does not work.
Non-traditional trades are not that common and job
opportunities in these areas are practically non-existent in a
tourist area like mine.
Then, why is the federal government offering this program?
Why does it spend money in vain? Could it not carry out some
studies to see if the labour market in my region is accessible to
these women and if job opportunities are really there? If not,
what good does it do to direct these women towards this training
program?
Unfortunately, it seems this program is simply offered for the
fun of it.
And these women can see after a few weeks that they are
involved in something that leads nowhere. And yet, they were
ready to invest their efforts and energies in this program to see
the light at the end of the tunnel, that is, to find a job.
Instead, they are offered a strangely structured program
where they are told about self-esteem and about the need to take
their future in their own hands, to go for it. They are almost
handed a mirror and told: ``Look, you are the only one to blame
if you do not work. So, do something about it!''
These women do not want that kind of therapy. They want
something concrete, something real. They want to learn
something that will help them find a job.
As I see there is only one minute left, I will conclude rather
quickly.
Women are worth as much as men. Our society, our lifestyles
and our values were such that women were not appreciated for
their true worth. It is now time to correct this, and fast.
In light of some of its actions, it is clear that the Liberal
government is not ready to take big steps in that direction. In
spite of all the promises that were made to women in several
areas, the federal government is very hard on women. The
announced reform in the unemployment insurance program and
old age pension does not augur well.
Thus, I encourage all the women in Quebec to say no to an
increasingly threatening federal system.
(1320)
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member opposite has made some remarks that I find very
curious coming from her.
Firstly, she talks about solidarity and she belongs to a party
that does not promote solidarity among all Canadians, including
women. Secondly, with regard to solidarity, we have, on this
side of the House, all the women who represent the government
who have proven that they are in favour of solidarity. For
example, on March 8 of last year, we opened a debate to all
women on both sides of the House.
Now, I would like to ask a question of the hon. member. She
gave the example of a woman who had come to her office
complaining that she did not have access to government
programs. Does the member not know that our budget provides
for transfers to the provinces so that they can assume
responsibility for these programs? They will be the ones who
will be delivering these programs. That is what the member's
party asked for and that is what we are doing. We both know that
when women achieve economic equality, they will have equality
in all areas. My question to the hon. member is this: Does she
agree with me with regard to transfers?
Mrs. Guay: Mr. Speaker, the government says that it will
transfer more powers to the provinces so that we can have our
own programs tailored to our particular needs, but it should also
consider giving us the money that we need to deliver these
programs.
The federal government is getting ready to transfer to the
provinces powers or, rather, responsibilities that we cannot
afford to exercise. I think it is a very serious problem that we
will have to face in the coming years. Imagine! At least Quebec
has a good structure, but in some other provinces, particularly
the smaller ones, it will be a big problem.
Secondly, when the hon. member talks about solidarity and
says that the government cannot count on the Bloc Quebecois, I
will remind her that, last year, we introduced a bill on
unemployment insurance for women. I do not know if the
member remembers that, but we asked women in this House to
show some solidarity with regard to this bill so that women who
work with their husbands would not be penalized under the
unemployment insurance program. The member's party voted
against our bill that would have been beneficial to women. We
called for solidarity among women. I will tell you one thing: as
long as this solidarity among women does not exist, regardless
of their political affiliation-and it certainly does not exist in
this House at this moment-women will never get anywhere.
Yet, we account for 52 per cent of the population. The hon.
member has nothing to teach me and I think it is time she got her
act together. When she sees a bill like the one we have
introduced in this House, she should think twice before voting
against it.
10602
Mrs. Bakopanos: Mr. Speaker, I am working for solidarity
among all Canadians and, on this side of the House, we have
shown that we encourage women to run for elections and get
elected. Look at the number of women in the two opposition
parties.
But I have a question to ask. We talk about solidarity with
regard to legislation. The government recently introduced Bill
C-64, an Act respecting employment equity. We asked for the
support of the members opposite. I believe that this bill will give
women new opportunities to achieve economic equality. Why
did the other parties refuse us their support?
Mrs. Guay: Mr. Speaker, I think that the hon. member is
wrong. I could show her a bill that was exclusively for women.
The bill she referred to is not legislation for women, it is very
wide in scope. We will not support a bill just because the hon.
member says to.
The bill we talked about dealt exclusively with protecting and
helping women. So, when she talks about solidarity, I am sorry,
but I beg to differ. She also mentioned her political party, where
there is a fair number of women, a party that encouraged women.
I can say that in the Bloc Québécois, we as women had to fight
on the same terms as men and I am very proud of having been
elected here, not because I was chosen by my leader, but because
I fought and won in a nomination convention, like everybody
else.
(1325)
Hon. Roger Simmons (Burin-St. George's, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank my friend the hon.
member for Québec for raising an issue that is both important
and relevant. Her motion reads as follows:
That this House denounce the government for its insensitivity and its inaction
regarding the adoption of concrete measures to promote the economic equality
in federal areas of jurisdiction.
That assessment does not seem accurate to me.
[English]
The motion gives us an opportunity, I say to my friend from
Frontenac, to discuss an important issue but the wording of the
motion is a bit dishonest. To put it more bluntly, it is just not
true. During the next few minutes let us examine the record,
because it is not true. I am very proud to be here because I take
real pride in the government's record in promoting social justice
and economic parity for the women of this country.
I am encouraged that the member would put forward the
motion on the issue of women's economic equality because what
could be more important to Canada than the well-being of more
than half its population? It is only when women and our families
thrive that our country will be truly renewed.
The motion before us raises an important question. What has
been the track record of this government on issues that affect the
economic status of women? The short answer is that this
government has done a great deal in a relatively short time. The
government made commitments in the election campaign and
the government is living up to those commitments. Before we
get on to specific ways in which the government has honoured
its commitment, let us look at the context for all of this.
It has become a truism that the best social program is a job.
That point has been made by people from both the right and the
left of the political spectrum. Well over 400,000 people can say
they have taken part in the greatest social program of all since
this government took office in October 1993. There is evidence
that record will continue strongly. These are predominantly
good, full time jobs. Women are claiming their full share of this
growth. At the same time, the government is aware that
economic growth by itself is not enough.
Women still remain clustered in traditionally female
occupations such as teaching and nursing, clerical, sales and
service work. If all the government did was to rely on the market
as some in this House would prefer to do, we would see only a
glacial, painfully slow change in the labour situation as it relates
to women.
This government can do better. We must do better to
recognize as the government does the continuing need to help
women move into new growth areas. It recognizes that its own
programs and services can help bring us closer to that goal.
The federal side has a number of innovative projects aimed
specifically at addressing the needs of women. Since it is the
hon. member for the riding of Quebec whose motion we are
discussing, let me talk briefly about a couple of projects for
women that are under way in her own province of Quebec.
Since last October, Rimouski has been home to an
entrepreneurial training project. Women of all ages with
business creation projects have been receiving the skills they
need to create successful small businesses. The project has
focused on the needs of women without sources of income.
(1330)
What is equally important is the team that has pulled this
project together. The local Canada employment centre, the
CEGEP de Rimouski and the group Ficelles, whose purpose is to
ensure women's access to work, have all co-operated to make
this dream a reality. It is consistent with our interest in
encouraging self-employment as the way toward economic
self-sufficiency.
In Montreal there have been a couple of projects. In one,
women who are on unemployment have been receiving modern
technological training and support to help them move back into
10603
the workforce and into more highly skilled jobs. In the other,
recent female immigrants have been trained as fibreglass mill
operators.
These are examples in one province. There are many more in
that province and there are many more all across the country.
Our new programs for youth share this commitment to the needs
of women. Youth Service Canada has been a real success story.
In the lead site projects, the ones that tested the concepts beyond
Youth Service Canada, 54 per cent of the participants are
female.
Some projects were focused on issues of particular interest to
women. For example, the Regina family service bureau ran a
project that helped 10 young single mothers.
Employment programs and services are only one element of
our work for women. Unemployment insurance is a program that
continues to play an important role as we move toward a more
active labour market policy. There are some elements of UI such
as maternity and parental benefits that respond to the labour
market reality faced by female workers.
To my friend from Yorkton-Melville and my friend from
Edmonton Southwest, despite their professed beliefs it is
important we have programs that help women respond to the
labour market reality, programs such as maternity and parental
benefits.
We do not have to go far back in time to find how this program
has been adapted to the needs of women. We need only go back
one year to 1994. The government decided to scale back UI
benefits. However, in doing so it took into account the situation
of people on low incomes. Almost 60 per cent of single parent
families with children under 18 live on low incomes. Far too
many are single mothers struggling to make ends meet.
It is that situation that caused the government to create the
special 60 per cent dependency benefit rate for people who are
supporting dependents on the basis of low income. This year
people who earn an average $408 a week or less and who's
spouses get the child tax benefit or who support a dependent are
eligible for this additional UI support. That provision makes a
real difference for a single mother. Since the implementation of
the dependency benefit rate over 192,000 claimants have
qualified. The great majority, 148,000, were women.
The government recognizes the labour market needs of
women extend well beyond the traditional programs and
services, no matter how sensitive these services and programs.
The National Association of Women and the Law stated in its
appearance before the Standing Committee on Human resources
Development a year ago: ``We recognize the growing
importance of women in the labour force, but fail to recognize
that women have children and women are primarily responsible
for their care''.
Child care is important. It was a concern of ours during the
1993 campaign. It is a need that we are addressing on three
separate fronts.
(1335)
The government is moving ahead on its First Nations and Inuit
child care initiative. The goal is to increase the level of services
in those communities. There is so much more. A second front is
a research and development component to give us more
information in this critical area of child care.
I have pages of programs the government is working on. We
are not there yet. We are working at it and I believe when we get
there the women of this country and therefore this country as a
whole will be the better and the richer for it.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
distinguished colleague from Burin-St. George's is an
outstanding parliamentarian, and he regularly demonstrates his
skills when he takes the floor.
The thing I disapprove of is that his party and, to a certain
extent, the hon. member for Burin-St. George's himself, talk
out of both sides of their mouth. I would like to give an example,
that of the Canada Labour Code reform and precautionary
withdrawal from work.
I do not need to remind you, Mr. Speaker, that the family unit
is the most valuable asset of any country. In May 1994, the Bloc
Quebecois tabled a motion supported by the governing party, the
Liberal Party of Canada, in order to raise the compensation for
pregnant women to the 95 per cent level provided by the Quebec
CSST. Right now, it stands at 60 per cent.
A discussion paper on the Canada Labour Code reform is
being circulated at this time, and the Liberal Party of Canada did
not include that motion, which it supported in May 1994, to give
substantial assistance to pregnant women who must ask for
precautionary withdrawal from work in order to carry their
pregnancy to term and protect their unborn baby.
Like the rest of us, the hon. member for Burin-St. George's
is certainly aware of the importance of the family unit, that is a
wife, husband and children-the complet unit. The children will
be the work force of tomorrow and will pay for our pensions.
That natural asset of our country is now declining.
We moved a motion that the hon. member's party supported,
but what we see and hear in the House today is just a lack of
courage, and double talk, Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately, the hon.
member for Burin-St. George's is the one who will have to
clarify his party's position. I hope he will set the record straight,
because this is an important motion on the equality of women.
10604
[English]
Mr. Simmons: Mr. Speaker, my French is so rusty these days
that I will do the wise thing and talk to him in a language that I
know a bit about. I will make a promise to him that I will get
back to my long neglected French.
I thank him for his kind comments about my speech. I share
very much his views on the importance of the family unit. I
thought he articulated it very eloquently a moment ago and I
salute him for that.
As to the motion he was talking about, I plead ignorance. I do
not remember the details of it and I will not pretend that I do. He
put his finger, and rightly so, on one of the many areas in which
this government needs to move.
(1340 )
I have always been appalled that remuneration has been on the
basis of sex; that females have been getting lower wages for
performing the same services. There are thousands of examples
of that. I have been appalled that people are paid differently
because they live in one region versus another. Two wrongs do
not make a right. These disparities have to be corrected.
We are on the matter of women's issues today. I do not like the
term. They are all our issues, but I know what is meant by the
term.
The member flagged an issue that I pursue and will continue
to pursue. The matter of the disparity of wages is untenable and
we have to move to correct it as soon as possible.
Mrs. Jane Stewart (Brant, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, while I do not
appreciate or accept the tenor of the motion presented for debate
by the hon. member for Quebec, I recognize and thank her for
giving us the opportunity to talk about such an important aspect
as the quality of the connection that Canadian women have to the
social and economic infrastructure of Canadian society.
It is a critical topic. As one of the 50 some women elected to
the House it is incumbent on me to do whatever I can to
encourage our governments and our legislature to understand
where that connection is and make it better.
In her motion the hon. member focuses specifically on the
economic connection, the economic side of the connection that
we as women have to Canadian society. We have to speak about
both the economic and social support that we as women need if
we are to participate fully and completely in Canadian society
and offer a bettering of the society through skills, abilities and
qualities we bring as women.
In understanding the connection between social and economic
development I turn to September of last year when I had the
opportunity as a member of the parliamentary delegation to the
United Nations conference on population and development to
understand quite fully the impact development has on
population.
We did a lot of very good work at the conferences that were
the preliminary to those debates in Cairo to encourage an
understanding of the impact development has on population
management, more specifically to understand that when we talk
about development we do and must talk about both social and
economic development.
We played a very significant role in helping the world
understand that it is the strong connections that women must
have to both the social and economic supports that exist in a
society that will in turn improve the development and the
productivity of a nation and then in turn enhance and help
manage population control.
We were essentially talking about development in developing
nations. As I worked with and talked to colleagues from around
the world I realized this debate is still going on in all developed
nations. Canada is at a different level because of the hard and
dedicated work of many Canadian women. When we think of the
women who work so hard to get us recognized as persons not so
very long ago, they helped move us to the position we are in now.
(1345)
I think of some of my friends. Doris Anderson worked outside
the government sector with non-governmental organizations
and as a publisher of a well-known women's magazine. I think
of the work she has done. I think of Lucie Pépin, a friend and
colleague, a former member of Parliament who has worked so
hard on behalf of women's issues. All these women have
brought us, as a developed nation, to a point that is different
from those of the developing nations.
The conversations we had in Cairo focused on the need for
women to commit, with development on the social side, to very
basic things when it comes to health: access to tetanus, polio and
tuberculosis cures and shots, access to clean water. Basic health
measures are what they need.
When we were talking about education we were talking about
access to primary school education. When we were talking about
access to economic support we were talking about the basic
notion that it was okay for women to work outside the confines
of the defined home as we know it.
For us in the developed nation of Canada, we are talking about
things of a different sort at a different level. It is not so much
basic health issues but issues of research for women and the
impact of breast cancer and the impact of heart disease.
When we are talking about education we are encouraging our
young women to complete high school and post-secondary
education. When we are thinking about other social aspects such
as safety and comfort, not only in our streets but in our own
homes, we are having to understand family violence and to
10605
accept that it is not in any way, shape or form something that we
want to be part of our society.
When we think specifically about our connections with the
economic levers we are talking about women having access to
financial supports. The government is looking at these things
and working on them all. For the Bloc Quebecois to say that we
are not is really a falsehood.
When we go back and think about safety and the need for
women to have confidence they are supported in our society, we
look at the measures the Minister of Justice has undertaken. Just
recently he tabled a bill that will no longer allow drunkenness to
be a defence, particularly in cases of rape. We will see tabled
soon I am sure, considering the importance of support payments
to single parents, most often women, some changes in that
regard and those will be tabled in the near future.
Today, as we debate Bill C-41 in committee, I will be tabling
an amendment to the bill that will ask, under the section where
we are discussing restitution, that the courts turn their head to
the loss of income and support that can occur in cases of family
violence. It should recognize that restitution should be paid to
women who have to leave their homes as a result of family
violence and perhaps incur costs related to transportation,
alternate forms of housing and day care, drug and dental
requirements. I hope that members of the Bloc on the committee
will support me on that amendment.
These are things the government is doing to make sure that
Canadian women are connected and supported on the social
side.
I know the Minister of Health is working very hard and
diligently and has implemented a fresh start program for
aboriginal communities which is very important.
When we think about education, by and large a provincial
jurisdiction, as individual members of Parliament, women in
particular, we have a strong role to play in making sure that our
young women do and are encouraged to carry on to high school,
college and university and to set their sights as far ahead of
themselves as they possibly can so they do not get stuck in
female ghettos, in typically female occupations.
One of the most important parts of my job is to meet with
young people in my community, in the public schools and high
schools, and talk to them about what a woman can be in our
country.
(1350 )
Very recently I attended the Daughters of Invention, where
grade seven girls came together and spent a couple of days
talking about science and research. As we were discussing role
models and women, I asked them: ``Back in 1867 when
Confederation was discussed, do you think your grandmothers
would have voted for Canada or against Confederation?'' They
put their hands up, some yes and some no. I said: ``Do you know
what girls? Your grandmothers could not vote back then. They
were not even considered persons''. There was an embarrassing
ah-ha. They did not realize that.
It was at that point I realized that my job as a member of
Parliament is to make sure that optimism, I suppose to a certain
extent that naivete, cannot continue, that they know that as
females there are restrictions on them but that they can
participate fully and equitably in our society.
When it comes to the economic side, there are many things we
have to do. I can only say how strongly I support the
employment equity legislation that encourages Canadian
businesses to recognize the importance of having a broad mix of
people in their organizations. We are not talking about quotas.
We are talking about recognizing people for the skills and
abilities they have and that they bring to an environment. It is
legislation we are improving and that I strongly support.
With that, I see that my time has gone. There are so many
things we can talk about. Again I thank the hon. member for
giving us the opportunity to debate and share our ideas in this
regard.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague, who probably
knows, whether there is a different treatment for pregnant
women in a situation of precautionary withdrawal of work.
The Bloc Quebecois had proposed an amendment at the time
of the last Labour Code revision in 1992 to authorize the federal
government to make administrative agreements with any
province that had a system providing better conditions than
those provided for for women in the Canada Labour Code, in
cases of precautionary withdrawal of work.
The Liberal Party, then in the opposition, had supported the
amendment put forward by the Bloc. Now, we are about to revise
the Labour Code. There is a paper from the Department of
Labour circulating, but there is no provision in that paper for
administrative agreements between the federal government and
any province. That is what the amendment was all about; we
were not referring to Quebec but to any province whatsoever,
and those administrative agreements were along the lines of
flexible federalism, I would imagine.
I would like to know if the hon. member will undertake to ask
her government to include in the legislation provisions dealing
with precautionary withdrawal of pregnant women in order to
enable the federal government to make administrative
agreements with any province that has better conditions than
those provided for in the Canada Labour Code, since at least in
the case of Quebec they are not as good as those provided for in
the
10606
Quebec Labour Code. Is she agreeable to such a request and will
she approach her government's labour minister about that?
[English]
Mrs. Stewart (Brant): Mr. Speaker, I am not completely
familiar with the amendment to which the hon. member is
referring. I will apprise myself of it.
I would agree and say that we have not come to the point
where the salaries paid to women in the workplace are equal to
those to men. That is something we are always conscious of,
working toward and committed to.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have
a question for my colleague. I saw her applaud the
announcement made yesterday by the Secretary of State for the
Status of Women regarding the elimination of the Canadian
Advisory Council on the Status of Women.
I would like to ask the member how civil servants can ensure
the transparency which, I think, the Council now provides. How
can she guarantee that civil servants will implement without any
bias the different policies which will be put forward? How, in
fact, can the department act as both judge and jury? I would like
her to explain this because it seemed to delight her yesterday.
(1355 )
[English]
Mrs. Stewart (Brant): Mr. Speaker, I know a number of the
women who for many years have participated on the Advisory
Council for the Status of Women and say that we have
appreciated the work they have done over the last number of
years.
I believe that the announcement made by the minister was a
good one. It essentially brings together disparate sectors that
have been focusing on improving the status of women in the
country in a consolidated effort. In a consolidated way we will
be able to make significant progress in effort and on behalf of
women with her announcement.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am happy to speak today to the motion introduced by my hon.
colleague from Quebec. I commend her for introducing into the
House a good discussion on the whole issue of equality. It is an
issue that has a lot of interest in the country, one that a lot of
people are concerned about.
One of the lessons of history is that personal struggle and
achievement go hand in hand. In fact, I know that is true for
many of us here. Sometimes the Canadian public feels that
members of the House do not know what personal struggle is
about. I know from speaking to many of my colleagues, and
from personal experience, that we do have personal histories of
struggle and achievement.
It is important for many of us to realize that these issues are
not just something to be debated in the House, but they are issues
which all of humankind have struggled with for many years.
I would like to outline to my colleagues some of my personal
background in this area. I am the oldest of seven children. My
parents were not well off, I think poor would probably be an
accurate word. If I wanted money I always had to earn it. I have
worked since I was very young in the summers and weekends to
have the money I wanted.
The day I left home when I was 18, my mother came home
with my youngest brother and so the family kind of went on even
though I was going on with my life. My parents were not able to
help me with my education. I put myself through two university
degrees. I was also widowed in my thirties. My husband died
very suddenly, leaving me a single parent and sole support of the
family.
I became a professional person, a lawyer, before there was any
affirmative action and before there were any nice government
programs to help women achieve equality. Many people who I
know are very proud and very happy to have been able to make
the achievements in their life on their own merit.
The subject of this debate today is how we can best achieve
the kind of results we want from our life-
The Speaker: The hon. member, of course, will know that
immediately following question period, we will return to debate
and she will be given the floor.
It being 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30(5), the House
will now proceed to Statements by Members, pursuant to
Standing Order 31.
_____________________________________________
10606
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise in the House today with pride and some dismay.
I am proud of the Minister of Finance who has proposed in this
year's budget the most dramatic comprehensive changes in
government since World War II.
I am proud to be part of a government that has met, and will
continue to meet, the objectives necessary to wrestle the deficit
and debt that are damaging the country to the ground.
My dismay has mounted over the past several weeks while I
listen to the members of the third party refuse to join us on this
10607
side of the House, however grudgingly, and working for the
future prosperity of this beautiful country.
They ran on the concept of a new type of politics that does not
follow the old partisan ritual and dogma. Why then are they
voting no to the challenge we now face?
Why is their leader currently communing with the spiritual
leader of the new right wing of the United States, being tutored
in barbaric doctrines which slash seniors pensions and allow
orphans to be institutionalized? Why is the leader of the third
party not participating in this country's rebirth instead of
observing the machinations of an evil, bitter monster to the
south?
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
taxpayers in Quebec and Canada have lost confidence in the
Canadian tax system. The underground economy is spreading.
Tax accounts outstanding exceed $6 billion, and in the case of
the GST, $1.3 billion.
Furthermore, the tax system is full of holes. Wealthy
taxpayers and large corporations can afford to pay tax experts
for advice on how to take advantage of tax loopholes. For
instance, they can take advantage of the fact that Canada has
signed at least 16 tax treaties with countries considered to be tax
havens. Every year, ten of thousands of profitable businesses
pay no taxes at all. Meanwhile, the Minister of Finance is letting
individuals pay 65 per cent of the tax increases in his last
budget, while family trusts will have to wait until 1999.
In spite of all this, the Minister of Finance still refuses to
proceed with a complete overhaul of the tax system that would
eliminate fiscal inequities.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, in 1991 Mount Allison University in Sackville,
New Brunswick was in a financial mess. It had a deficit of $2.5
million and a debt of $10 million. Like the federal government it
desperately needed to get its financial house in order. The
current president of the university, Ian Newbould, was recently
quoted in
Maclean's magazine as saying: ``If we were a
corporation we would have been in receivership''.
In over three years that university has eliminated its debt and
created a surplus of $13 million. Clearly the goal of the
university president was not to achieve a smaller deficit.
Instead, satisfaction would only come with no deficit and zero
debt. The goal was achieved through responsible control.
The finance minister stood in this House and expected praise
for a deficit prediction of $25 billion. Some provinces, and
universities such as Mount Allison, have become the national
standard of fiscal responsibility. The minister needs to take a
hard look at how the real world manages its finances and reflect
on how he failed to measure up to the Canadian standard.
* * *
Mrs. Marlene Cowling (Dauphin-Swan River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, farming is not a nine to five business. It involves early
mornings, late nights and weekends, which most child care
operations do not accommodate. As a result parents are forced to
leave their children alone or take them along when they work
with heavy machinery or livestock.
For every six deaths resulting from farm accidents, one of
those victims is a child. Fifteen per cent of those hospitalized as
a result of farm accidents are children under 16 years of age.
Last week was National Farm Safety Week. I would like to
recognize the people and organizations who are working to find
flexible, accessible and affordable solutions for rural child care,
namely: the National Coalition for Rural Child Care; the
Women's Institute; the Rural Development Institute of Brandon,
Manitoba; and many others. I applaud their commitment and
dedication to the safety of farm children.
* * *
Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I speak today on behalf of our friends and colleagues of
the federal public service. Several members of that employment
sector are now entering a period of significant change and
transition. As the governing body in this House we must fulfil
our commitment to ensuring sensitivity, compassion and caring
during this passage.
We have asked so much of our people and they will rise to the
challenge. However, we must empower decision makers at the
local level so they can do their jobs right to ensure that those
affected by this change are treated fairly and with dignity and
that the best possible course of action is determined one by one,
according to the needs of each individual.
Those at the local level are the ones best able to determine
how the changes we have asked for can be brought into effect.
We must all do our part. I know this government will honour its
commitment to ensuring fairness, compassion and flexibility at
the local level for the betterment of our people and our nation.
10608
(1405 )
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Waterloo, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today
we celebrate the 50th anniversary of Canada's unbroken
diplomatic relationship with Cuba.
Canada and Cuba maintain a friendly and diverse relationship
which includes political diplomacy, trade and commerce,
scientific and economic co-operation, and tourism. In the area
of fisheries, Cuba has supported our view on the need for
measures to end high seas overfishing.
Cuba is a nation that is now in transition to a market economy,
a nation with which we have significant trade, an area that we
can and should expand upon. To enable Canadian businesses to
compete for new economic opportunities in Cuba, I urge the
Minister for International Trade to reinstate the $30 million line
of credit to Cuba so that Canadian companies can take advantage
of it to increase Canada-Cuban trade.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
three years after the auditor general drew the attention of the
government to what it costs taxpayers in Canada and Quebec to
train a member of the armed forces reserve-90 per cent of what
it costs to train a regular soldier-no steps have been taken to
stop this wasteful spending.
In fact, the Canadian Reserve whose training is ineffective
and inadequate, is the most expensive in the world after the one
in Switzerland, which has no army. It will cost us a billion
dollars again this year.
Ironically, the government decided to quietly get rid of the
Advisory Council on the Status of Women and save a paltry one
million dollars, while the National Defence budget, which totals
more than $11 billion, was cut by less than 5 per cent this year.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the people of Quesnel, British Columbia are outraged
by our so-called justice system.
Last Sunday, Quesnel RCMP arrested a 19-year old man who,
according to witnesses, dragged an elderly woman into his hotel
room, held a knife to her throat and brutally raped her. When the
woman's husband entered the scene, the rapist chased him down
the hall and threatened him at knifepoint. The community hoped
that justice would be served.
The elderly woman who is in what are supposed to be her
golden years is in trauma therapy. The loving couple has been
scarred forever. Imagine the shock Quesnel residents felt when
this rapist was allowed back into the community on a petty
$1,000 bond.
Canadians deserve better. While our criminals are given free
college tuition or are let go on token bonds to roam the streets,
shattered lives are left to heal on their own. Meanwhile, the
public continues to ask who the justice system works for, the
victim or the criminal?
Will the justice minister please stop wasting time on pet
projects and start working to put justice back into the justice
system?
* * *
Mrs. Bonnie Hickey (St. John's East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there are 50,000 people out of work in Atlantic Canada because
of the collapse of our fishery. These 50,000 people were forced
to turn to government assistance to help put food on the table.
During the election campaign, Liberals pledged that our
government would support its fishermen, deal with foreign
overfishing and help preserve the remaining fish stock. Over the
past week, our government has come through on this
commitment 100 per cent.
On behalf of my constituents, I commend our minister of
fisheries for taking a strong stand against foreign overfishing,
ensuring that the turbot does not go the way of the cod. Over the
past week I have received faxes, phone calls, petitions and
letters of support for the minister of fisheries. That support has
been well founded.
Today foreign ships are no longer fishing on the nose and tail
of the Grand Banks. We are on the verge of negotiating stricter
international rules.
Today I challenge all MPs to stand behind the minister as he
continues to fight to protect and preserve the Canadian fishery.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais (Madawaska-Victoria,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Bloc member for
Rimouski-Témiscouata and critic for the Department of
Canadian Heritage toured the country to tell francophone
communities that the Bloc was with them all the way.
But Tuesday, the honeymoon was over when she accused the
francophones of this country of being sell-outs.
10609
How embarrassing for the Bloc to have one of its members
make such accusations. Talk about double talk. At last the Bloc
is showing its true colours to francophone communities.
But when Paul Piché and Laurence Jalbert made it clear they
were separatists, after receiving financial assistance from
Canadian Heritage for the production of records and videos, did
you hear any federalists insulting them?
(1410)
Not at all, and it goes to show how open-minded federalists
are, and we expected Bloc members would show the same
respect for the opinions of others.
On behalf of the francophones of this country, I ask that the
member of the Bloc withdraw, in this House, the slanderous
term she used.
* * *
[
English]
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke-Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, last evening I had the pleasure of meeting many
participants of the Forum for Young Canadians. This yearly
forum has once again brought together high school students
from all across the country to learn firsthand the workings of our
federal Parliament.
This year Etobicoke-Lakeshore is well represented by
Melissa Jenkins of Bishop Allen Academy and Raphael
Pacquing of Father John Redmond High School. These two
students travelled to Ottawa to exchange ideas and explore their
interests in the process of government, the media and the role of
members of Parliament.
I commend the efforts of all who have contributed to the
success of this year's forum. May these youths return to their
communities across Canada with the knowledge this
government is working hard to ensure a strong and prosperous
country for future generations.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, the English speaking Canadian intelligentsia
met yesterday in Toronto, at the invitation of the C.D. Howe
Institute, and indulged in a fit of Quebec-bashing the likes of
which have seldom been seen.
These great democrats, full of Canadian patriotism,
suggested that Quebecers be made to suffer in order to prevent a
vote in favour of sovereignty. This idea was not only sanctioned
but added to by political science expert Stéphane Dion, who
suggested that ``the more it will hurt, the more support for
sovereignty will weaken''.
Since Stéphane Dion is now a freelancer working as an
advisor to the Prime Minister of Canada, Quebecers gather that
his statement reflects the position of the federal government.
I trust that Quebecers will, as they have done throughout their
history, stand tall and defend their right to exist to the face of the
world.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker:
The red book full of promises
That we could count upon
If Liberals were elected
All our problems would be gone.
There'd be a kinder Parliament
With Liberals at the helm
And social programs all survive
We'd have no fears from them.
The budget's now behind us
And plain for all to see
That promises don't mean a lot
Without integrity.
Integrity you cannot buy
There is not much that's dearer
For each and every Liberal
Must look into the mirror.
But one lonely Liberal
Could not have said it better
Liberals have taken the famous red book
And stuffed it in the shredder!
The Speaker: I would appeal to all hon. members not to use
props or to rip up props during the statements.
* * *
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
information acquired through access to information reveals that
federal deputy ministers are receiving special retirement
allowances of up to $30,000 per year on top of their regular
pensions.
The Treasury Board document points out this additional
benefit to federal deputy ministers is equal to 2 per cent of the
retiree's average salary during their six best years. This bonus is
multiplied by the number of years a deputy minister works to a
maximum of 10 years. The document states: ``There is no
minimum vesting period and no contributions are required from
the deputy ministers''.
The government has just cut 45,000 public servants from the
payroll. There are also substantial cuts to agriculture and social
programs. In view of these facts, will the finance minister and
his Liberal government immediately rescind this abominable
perk, this golden parachute enjoyed by richly paid deputy
ministers? Or, will the highest paid civil servants continue to be
protected and insulated by the Liberals from the harsh realities
others in Canada with lesser incomes are now facing?
10610
(1415)
[Translation]
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome-Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the leader of the Parti Action Démocratique in Quebec
had announced that his party would participate in the regional
commissions by saying, and I quote: ``We can only rejoice over
the fact that our conditions have been agreed to. We are happy to
contribute to an improvement of the process. We are taking a
constructive approach. We hope that many people will take part
in the consultation''.
Three months later, he said and I quote: ``I think that it is not
necessarily clear in the minds of all the citizens who came to
participate, because if they had been told at the beginning of the
consultation that they were wasting their time and that
everything had been decided in advance, there might not have
been 55,000 participants''. The leader of the Parti Action
Démocratique is experiencing a rude political awakening. He
has realized, but too late, that he has been manipulated by the
Parti Quebecois and the Bloc Quebecois.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Essex-Kent, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was
amazed to read in the Toronto
Star that Ontario Tories are
turning to the want ads to find candidates to run in this year's
provincial election. The add which ran in at least three Ontario
newspapers is seeking Conservatives with common sense.
Over the past several months Mike Harris has been touring
Ontario, promising to cut personal income tax by 30 per cent,
promissing to bring a balanced budget in four years and not to
touch policing, education or health care. Everyone knows with
any common sense that the numbers do not add up.
Mark Mullins, Harris' chief number cruncher, stated: ``I'm
not a member of the Conservative Party. The last thing I need is
for anyone to say here is the guru behind the package''.
Is it possible that Mike Harris' policies are so far out that not
even Conservatives with common sense can support them?
10610
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday at a forum in Toronto hosted by the C.D. Howe
Institute and attended by the chairman of Quebec's No
committee, Michel Bélanger, one of the Prime Minister's
constitutional advisors, Stéphane Dion, said that the worse the
economic situation gets, the more Quebecers will change their
minds and reject sovereignty.
My question is for the Prime Minister. How can the Prime
Minister let one of his constitutional advisors, namely Stéphane
Dion, say that the more it hurts, the less support there will be for
sovereignty?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Mr. Dion is not a constitutional advisor. Furthermore,
as everyone knows, I do not spend a lot of time discussing the
constitution these days. I am trying to address the economic
problems in Canada and Quebec.
I got elected by telling people that I did not want to talk about
the constitution. I certainly do not have a constitutional advisor;
I do not want to talk about it. I read in the newspaper that he
wants to give the Privy Council advice on other things.
Personally, I hope that the question will be asked clearly and
very soon so that we can stop talking about this and deal with the
real problems affecting the population.
I read this article that speculates on what I should do if the Yes
side wins in Quebec. We do not even know when the referendum
will be held or what the question will be. I am confident that they
will lose, so I will not waste my time talking about this.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
surprising, to say the least, that the Prime Minister, who claims
not to be interested in constitutional issues, allocated an
additional $7 million or so to his own office so it could set up an
operational unit to talk about the constitution during the Quebec
referendum.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Gauthier: As a preamble to my second question, I will
simply remind him that Stéphane Dion is still under contract to
his office until March 31. I hope that he at least knows what is
going on in his own office.
How can the Prime Minister reconcile the comments made by
his advisor, Stéphane Dion, with his own statement that he
would respect Quebecers' democratic decision on their political
future?
10611
(1420)
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the people in my office do not talk about the
constitution but about how to prevent separation. It is not the
same thing. And, in order to prevent separation, all we are
asking the Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois is to finally
make a decision and ask the population a clear question: Do you
want to separate from Canada? And Quebecers will say No.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since
the Prime Minister refuses to dissociate himself from Mr.
Dion's comments, I must conclude that he endorses them.
I ask the following: Since he refuses to publicly dissociate
himself from Stéphane Dion's comments, are we to understand
that the Prime Minister's referendum strategy has gone from
scaring Quebecers into saying No in 1980 to hurting them into
saying No in 1995?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on the contrary, what we are doing is telling Quebecers
that, with a very good federal government, they will stay in
Canada. That is why we tabled, for example, a budget that was
very well received by Quebecers. We hope that the Quebec
government will stop talking about separation and committees,
deal with Quebecers' real problems such as economic problems
and job creation, and bring down a budget which addresses
Quebecers' real problems, as a government must do.
* * *
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
The official opposition questioned the heritage minister on
several occasions to find out how much will actually be cut from
the CBC's budget over the next three years. Only two weeks ago,
the minister was still denying that any decisions had been made
concerning the corporation's financing.
How can the Minister of Canadian Heritage reconcile his
statement with what the Vice-President of Radio-Canada
television, Michèle Fortin, said yesterday when she announced
that 750 positions would have to be slashed in the CBC's French
network to accommodate the cuts totalling $350 million over
three years, imposed by the heritage minister?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I checked the information the hon. member
is referring to. Radio-Canada, my source, confirmed that no
cuts were announced. I assume this means no staff cuts or
layoffs have been decided. It is only natural for Ms. Fortin to
share her concerns with union reps when she meets with them,
but no layoffs have been announced by Radio-Canada.
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as my
philosophy professor used to say when he got a flimsy answer
like this to a sensible and pertinent question: ``Swine have no
appreciation for pearls''.
My second question-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Speaker: My hon. colleagues, we have all had good
professors in our school days, but I do not think they should be
quoted so literally in this place. I would ask the hon. member to
please withdraw his last sentence at least.
Mr. Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, I will gladly comply with your
request and withdraw my statement.
My second question is for the same minister. How can he
explain the scope of the alleged cuts to the CBC's French
network, when it is so successful that its viewing shares can be
as much as three times larger than those of the English network?
Is it the minister's new cultural policy to penalize those who
succeed?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I gather that our colleague did not like my
answer. I am just stating the facts, as provided and confirmed by
Radio-Canada, but he refuses to hear the truth. I too had good
masters and good professors. My grandfather, who was born in
Sainte-Flore, Quebec, used to say: ``When you let the ewe out of
the barn, it comes and relieves itself on your doorstep''.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
(1425)
The Speaker: Now that we have heard quotes from
Shakespeare, a professor and a grandfather, I hope we can hear
the hon. members speak for themselves.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, last night in Saskatoon the Prime Minister made
several inconsistent statements concerning the national health
system.
He said the government would maintain current medicare
standards and yet federal funding would be tied to economic
growth and would drop as a percentage of GDP.
There is no way current standards can be maintained under
this plan, especially since the OECD estimates that Canada's
health care costs will double over the next 20 years.
How does he explain this inconsistency and how will current
standards be maintained given increased demand and reduced
federal funding?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if the hon. member had read the whole speech, I
indicated growth in health expenditures has stopped in the last
two years and there is already a start in reduction.
10612
The policies we are developing with the provinces at this time
are doing exactly what we had hoped, to stop the growth of
expenditures. With the growth in the economy of 4.5 per cent
last year and about 3 per cent this year, eventually we will
reduce it from around 10 per cent to around 9 per cent, where
we were before.
That will be very competitive. It is a sign that we can have
comprehensive and universal health care, meeting the five
conditions of the Canada Health Act in a reasonable fashion. We
will achieve our goal. We will keep medicare. We will not scrap
medicare like the Reform Party suggests.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, wherever costs are lower it is because the standards
are not being met right now. It is a sign of things to come.
Experts tell us health care costs are rising by about 50 per cent
and the economy is only growing by 4 per cent. The federal
government is planning to reduce funding from 10 per cent of
GDP to 8 per cent. That means less federal money for medicare,
no matter how you look at it.
I have seen the confusion created at the provincial level in
Saskatchewan when governments said one thing and did
another.
Is the government planning to offload medicare funding on to
the provinces by putting a cap on Canada social transfers?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are planning to make sure that in working with the
provinces we will control the cost of medicare so that we can
keep universal free medicare for all Canadians.
As indicated, the collaboration between the Government of
Canada and the provinces has already seen the result that the
public side of health care did not increase last year. It has started
to decrease. If we all use the discipline needed we will go back to
9 per cent of GDP and we will still have the best medicare.
We will not be trapped in the private sector nets that exist in
the United States, where it spends 15 per cent of its GDP. In
Canada it is universal, free, costing around 10 per cent now.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, we should ask a taxpayer whether it is free.
The Prime Minister speaks in glowing terms about preserving
our national health care standards. I will tell the Prime Minister
what is really happening.
In Manitoba there is a waiting period of 61.7 weeks, way over
one year, for hip replacement surgery. The national standard is
11.3 weeks. Where is the performance? How are we meeting our
current commitments? What good are national standards if the
provinces cannot deliver on them?
Is the government prepared to bring the Canada Health Act in
line with the 1990s and give the provinces real control over
medicine delivery and health care financing?
(1430 )
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, unfortunately there are problems in some provinces.
The performance is not the same everywhere. In our system
medicare-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): It is administered by the
provincial governments. If they had a better government in
Manitoba perhaps they could do better on that score.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
The federal government decided on the sly to dissolve the
Advisory Council on the Status of Women, an organization that
has always been recognized for its independence of the
government and its strong stands in advancing the cause of
women.
How can the Prime Minister justify the government's decision
to abolish the Advisory Council on the Status of Women by
handing over its responsibilities to women's organizations that
are already in difficulty?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, women's councils
across the country were telling us that they were in a better
position to do political analyses than people appointed by order
in council.
We hear the Parti Quebecois and the Bloc Quebecois say that
the Advisory Council on the Status of Women, which was
appointed by the government, is less objective than
organizations such as FRAPPE or other organizations not
working directly under an order in council. This is why we
changed the system.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this is
not the opinion of women's groups in Quebec. At least not what I
heard yesterday.
My supplementary question is again for the Prime Minister.
How can the government claim that the Advisory Council on the
Status of Women was meeting needs that no longer exist, when
women continue to be the heads of the poorest families in
Canada, when they earn less than a man for equal work, when
they are the primary victims of violence and when they are
always in the most vulnerable jobs?
10613
[English]
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what the government
decided to do was to abolish the order in council positions that
are traditionally characterized as patronage positions.
As the hon. member will know, the Advisory Council on the
Status of Women named people by order in council. There was a
question put by women's groups across the country to which we
responded. That question was: How can a person on the advisory
council be at arm's length from the government when they are in
fact appointed by the government?
It is for that reason we have taken the research funds and the
funds that were previously paid to finance the order in council
appointments and have ploughed that money back into research,
which will be made available to women's groups across the
country so that they can set their priorities instead of having
them set by order in council appointees.
* * *
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Jeffries report identified critical leadership
shortfalls in the Canadian forces. Nowhere is this more obvious
than in the report's lament that soldiers are constantly asked to
``do more, with less for less''.
General Jeffries has been honest and courageous in saying
what the minister seems ready to ignore: that he and his officials
demand more but give less.
Will the minister acknowledge that it is the responsibility of
good leadership, including himself, to allocate priorities and
commitments according to resources, and that this
responsibility has been neglected?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, after
question period yesterday I received a copy of the memorandum
General Jeffries had sent out and I went through it rather
meticulously. Most of the contents of that memorandum
paralleled the recommendations and the commentary of the
special joint committee on defence to which the hon. member
was a signatory.
On page 49 of the parliamentary report the committee said
that morale was not a problem because of poor leadership. The
hon. member now wants us to believe that the opinion he had
with all the rest of the members some four months ago has
somehow been changed.
The fact of the matter is that the committee of which he was a
prominent member made a lot of recommendations. All those
recommendations have been accepted and all the questions that
General Jeffries raised are being dealt with in a full and
consistent manner.
(1435)
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I beg to differ with the minister that all the
recommendations have been accepted. Quite a number have not
been accepted or instituted.
General Jeffries noted:
The difference between what is necessary and what is affordable is made up by
people, people who are required to deploy more frequently, perform more
taskings, work longer hours, take more risks.
He concluded that operational capability-
The Speaker: Order. I find today that the questions are really
a little long and so are the answers. Would the hon. member
please put his question directly.
Mr. Frazer: Mr. Speaker, having received this advice, will
the minister ignore it, as he did in the case of the airborne
regiment, or take action now to avoid what the report referred to
as ``a hollow army and burnt out soldiers?''
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not
want to impinge on the goodwill of the House by reading yet
another section from the same memorandum but I feel
compelled to do so.
General Jeffries states in the memorandum that despite some
of the formidable list of dissatisfiers, morale remains for the
most part high. He goes on to embellish that. I think that is good
enough.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Justice. On January 18, the
minister, in reply to a request made by his counterpart in
Quebec, refused to explicitly prohibit female circumcision and
other genital mutilation, under the pretext that the current
provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada sufficed.
Why has the Minister of Justice refused to explicitly add
female circumcision and other genital mutilation to the
Criminal Code of Canada, as requested by Quebec's justice
minister, Quebec's human rights commission and all of the
experts in the field?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would first like to
point out that opinions on this controversial issue are divided. In
fact, according to an article in today's Le Devoir, Quebec's
council on the status of women does not necessarily agree with
the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women on this
issue.
The Quebec council believes that amending the Criminal
Code could inadvertently drive the practice even further
underground and the federal government agrees. We are more in
favour of trying to heighten awareness in communities with a
10614
tradition of performing female circumcisions and genital
mutilation.
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
how can the Minister of Justice continue to delude himself that
the Criminal Code, as it stands, suffices when a gynecologist,
Claude Fortin, states that he had to perform surgery on nine
Canadian women to treat genital mutilations and that no lawsuit
was ever filed against those who committed these barbarous
acts?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, fewer than two weeks
ago in Toronto I met with the advisory council created by the
Attorney General of Ontario on this subject.
Twenty-five women from the communities most affected by
the issue are preparing a report on the question with specific
recommendations on the issue of criminalization. Their present
view is that an amendment to the Criminal Code is not
appropriate because it will drive the practice further
underground and make it more difficult for us to punish it when
it is found.
I cannot emphasize strongly enough the commitment of the
government to prosecute and punish this criminal misconduct
when it is uncovered. However, I must say there are people very
familiar with the issue who believe very strongly that it is not in
the interest of that cause to make amendments to the Criminal
Code as suggested.
* * *
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, during the election campaign in Manitoba, the Prime
Minister said: ``The little guy from Shawinigan will look after
the interests of the little guy in Canada''.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Hoeppner: I have a constituent who has a shipment of
over $200,000 worth of sunflower seeds in jeopardy due to the
Montreal dock workers strike.
(1440 )
Now that he is the big guy in Ottawa, what immediate action
will the Prime Minister take to provide transportation for this
product to Halifax so that this little processor will not be forced
into bankruptcy?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Parliament acted very rapidly yesterday in the case of
the port of Vancouver. The port was completely closed.
The problem in Montreal is of a different nature. It does not
call for legislation at this time and the Minister of Labour is
looking into the matter.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): That
answer will not put food on the little processor's table, Mr.
Speaker.
Negotiations in the railways are a disaster in waiting. Once
again farmers may be called upon to-
Mr. Speaker: I ask colleagues on a supplementary question
for perhaps a sentence and then to put the question.
Mr. Hoeppner: Will the Prime Minister immediately ask for
a mandatory mediation-arbitration process with binding final
offer arbitration as a last resort?
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday we had the opportunity to explain very
clearly the difference between these labour disputes. We also
took a first step, with the support of the opposition parties,
towards the settlement of the conflict affecting west coast ports.
As for railways, negotiations are taking place today with
Canadian Pacific. The situation at the Montreal harbour is
completely different and I proposed a mediator to the two sides.
As I said yesterday, each situation must be reviewed on its
own merits to ensure that an appropriate solution is found. As a
government, our goal is to have the two sides agree to negotiate.
* * *
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Canadian Heritage just indicated to the
House that no cuts had been announced at Radio-Canada.
Will the minister confirm his earlier answer to the effect that
no cuts will be made to Radio-Canada next year?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's logic is astounding. To
say that I have no confirmation of any cuts is not at all the same
as saying that there will be no cuts.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I have a second very logical question. How does the
Minister of Canadian Heritage explain the fact that
Radio-Canada announced yesterday that 750 jobs would be
eliminated? I suppose that was mere speculation.
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member may be discreet, but he did
not listen to my last answer. I already answered that question a
few minutes ago. I explained that discussions had taken place at
Radio-Canada, but that there was no-
10615
Should I quote another proverb to keep the hon. members
quiet?
Some hon. members: Yes, let us hear about the grandfather.
Mr. Dupuy: My grandfather, who was born in Sainte-Flore-
Some hon. members: Ha! Ha!
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance.
I see the budget and all the changes that flow from it as a
necessary but risky exercise. We inherited a government
weakened by debt and we have to further downsize it in order to
get rid of that debt.
Could the minister assure us that the downsized government
and its programs will contain the seeds, the foundations for
strong federal government in the future?
(1445 )
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Absolutely, Mr. Speaker. In
fact, I would like to congratulate the member for the way in
which he has articulated his question. The budget sought to deal
with those weaknesses in what is otherwise a very strong
economy.
As a result, we increased substantially the fairness of the tax
system. We are restructuring government to make it smaller and
smarter. We are putting the deficit on a permanent downward
track. We have reaffirmed our inflation targets. We have given
the government credibility. For the first time a Canadian
government has hit its targets and we have put the debt to GDP
ratio on a permanent downward target.
* * *
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday
my question regarding the Pérez affair was brushed off because
it was deemed to be a matter of the previous administration.
We must remember that this involves two individuals who are
currently members of the other place as well as the president and
chairman of Canada Post so the issue is very current.
The government promised openness and honesty. I cannot for
the life of me figure out why the Prime Minister would not ask
the ethics commissioner to clear the air. Why will he not?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the problem is that it is not within the jurisdiction of
the ethics counsellor. We had asked a committee of the House to
look into the question of lobbying and so on. It made its report
today with amendments. It will be given to another committee of
the House to look at the code of conduct for members of
Parliament and senators.
This has to be decided by the members themselves, not by the
government, because this affects the conduct of the members of
the Senate and the members of the House of Commons. It is not
for the government to dictate to members of Parliament what to
do. Members of Parliament are mature and competent enough to
give themselves guidelines. The member will be invited to
participate if he has views to share.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this is now the
third time that we have asked for a response or a study or an
investigation by the ethics counsellor. The answer we have
received each time is: ``No, no, no''.
If the Prime Minister will only authorize the ethics counsellor
to investigate when it is safe, when and who is going to
investigate controversial issues like this one for which
Canadians demand an answer?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I said at the beginning, it is in relation to a situation
that occurred when we were not in government. I also said that
the question of the conduct of members of Parliament is a matter
that is vested with the House of Commons. We will be asking a
committee of the House to report on that and the hon. member
can deal with this problem.
The government of today does not have to respond to what
happened in previous administrations.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of the Environment. The minister
told us yesterday, with regard to the hull of the
Irving Whale,
and I quote: ``-we did have an electronic inspection done last
June''. Our information, however, is that the inspection was a
sonar side scan. This inspection permitted only a partial check
of the hull using an inaccurate procedure. A real electronic
inspection would have revealed the solidity of the welding and
the state of structural cracks in the barge.
Is the minister going to be satisfied with a partial study, which
does not permit any conclusions to be drawn on the real solidity
of the hull and is she prepared to assume responsibility for any
spill that may occur during refloating?
10616
[English]
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with the agreement of
the House, I would like to table the Irving Whale sidescan sonar
survey which was conducted between the June 12 and 15, 1994.
Yesterday the member claimed that no survey had been done.
In fact, last night at 5.30 we sent a copy of the survey to her
office. I would like to read a portion of the survey to her.
The sidescan sonar portion of the survey was performed by the Environmental
Marine Geology Subdivision of the Atlantic Geoscience Centre, Geological
Survey of Canada using a Simrad MS992 dual frequency (120 and 330 kHz)
sidescan sonar; and a GeoAcoustics SE880-
(1450)
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, once
again, we already have this study, this report. The system is not
accurate.
Will the minister acknowledge, finally, that there is some
controversy surrounding her decision, with, contrary to what she
claims, a number of people, including four experts in ship
salvage and a scientific expert from her own department
expressing serious doubts about her decision?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, following the requests
by members who have made a number of unfounded accusations
up to now, it was I who provided her yesterday with the results of
the three-day study.
I am not a scientist, but I have much greater faith in the
Geological Survey of Canada than in the politics of the hon.
member across the floor, who, to date, has not read any report or
accepted any analysis and has even refused to read the
documents I provided the House on this matter last year.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, farmers
need clarification from the minister of agriculture as to who the
Crow phase out payment is intended to benefit. Is it intended to
benefit landowners or is it intended to benefit farmers?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the
minister of agriculture who is presently out west talking to a
wide number of farm organizations, I will take the hon.
member's questions as notice.
The package that was announced in the budget to provide
assistance to farmers with the phase out of the WGTA is
designed to ensure that the investment can continue to be made
for developing a new agricultural industry in western Canada. In
this way agriculture can diversify and provide more value added
products. That is the criteria the minister of agriculture will use.
As he always does, he will use good judgment and good common
sense.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on
February 27, 1995 a departmental paper said the phase out
money would go to landowners to help compensate for the loss
of land value.
The next day the agriculture minister was quoted as saying
that he was open to the possibility of encouraging provincial
governments to pass the payment on to land renters.
The minister seems confused. Is the payment meant to
compensate for the loss in land value or to help compensate for
the extra freight cost? Farmers need an answer on this.
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the hon.
member's question is a little bit confused.
As I just explained, the minister of agriculture indicated that
he is going to discuss this with a wide variety of farm
organizations, which is what he is doing today, and to provide
those kinds of answers. He made his position very clear.
We want to ensure that the compensation package is used in
the most effective way possible to enhance the development and
the reorganization of western agriculture so it can continue to
offer a major base of economic growth in western Canada.
* * *
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Don Valley North, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry. Ernst
Zundel, a convicted Nazi holocaust denier, and other Zundels of
the world, intend to use Internet technology to spread direct
propaganda.
What action can the minister take, first, to regulate the
Internet from being used to spread hate propaganda, and second,
will Internet users be made accountable?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first of all, the propaganda perpetrated by people like
Ernst Zundel is as unacceptable on the Internet medium as it is in
any other.
We deplore the fact that this kind of material exists in our
society. The Information Highway Advisory Council is current-
10617
ly studying whether our existing laws are adequate to deal with
problems such as those that arise under the Internet.
(1455 )
We will be consulting officials of the Department of Justice. I
expect their recommendations will guide us in making
determinations on what additional legislative action, if any, is
required.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of the Environment.
On December 14, in reply to a question about some land in
Vancouver belonging to the Squamish band which the federal
government has been leasing, the minister said the following: ``I
made arrangements to inform the band that future payments
after this fiscal year should cease and desist''.
Will the minister confirm that the lease payments which
already cost Canadian taxpayers $26 million have in fact
``ceased and desisted'', as she promised us on December 14,
since officials from her own department say the opposite is true?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): I can assure the hon. member that,
when I answered that question, we had informed the band in
question that, after the end of the calendar year, we would not
pay them one penny more. And our position on this issue is firm.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, accountants in Canada are in an uproar. The budget
proposes to make all professional income statements due at the
end of December rather than throughout the year. Accounting
costs will skyrocket because of the need for overtime and extra
staff at year end. These extra costs will be passed on to the
professionals.
Had the Minister of Finance consulted with accountants and
professionals on this matter?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, over the course of
the last year we had consulted with many Canadians on all of the
issues that were in the budget.
The hon. member undoubtedly knows that provided
professionals the opportunity to defer, for one full year, income
otherwise taxable. It gave them a substantial advantage over
other Canadians.
Given the government's commitment to making sure that the
taxation system is fair and that all Canadians pay their fair
share, we closed that loophole.
The Speaker: Now to single questions. The hon. member for
Sherbrooke.
* * *
[
Translation]
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development
or for anyone who would be willing to give me an answer. It
concerns the Stay in School job program which was introduced
five years ago for the benefit of young people still in school. Its
goal is to directly discourage young people from dropping out of
school. Groups which are interested in this issue and which try
to encourage young people heard recently that the program
would be discontinued.
I would like to hear from the government itself whether it is
true that the program will be dropped.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources Development has
just left the House. He will return in a few minutes, and could
perhaps answer the hon. member at three o'clock or the next
time he is in the House.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister, who
yesterday was in Saskatchewan talking about medicare.
At the same time in Saskatchewan, members of the medicare
community who had been involved in the fight to implement it
over 30 years ago, including former Premier Allan Blakeney,
were sounding warning bells for Canadians. Mr. Blakeney in
particular said that by eliminating specific funding to the
provinces in favour of reduced block transfers with few strings
attached will result in a patchwork medical insurance system
with different standards in different provinces.
How can the government continue to claim it is defending the
principles of medicare when four of the sculptures of medicare
are telling us these reforms are going to lead to a patchwork?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if these four sculptures, as he called them, had waited
10618
until this morning, they would not have had to hold a press
conference because I stated very clearly that medicare will
remain as it is.
* * *
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
In light of recent press reports, both domestically and
internationally, reporting favourably on Canada's economy,
could the minister tell the House why the economic indicators
are looking so good?
(1500 )
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the member
undoubtedly knows because she follows this very closely, our
growth is up. We are leading the G-7. Our productivity record is
superb. Our inflation is very low.
Undoubtedly she is referring to more recent indicators. The
composite leading indicator in February was up by 0.5 per cent.
In January it was up by 0.6 per cent. Undoubtedly she was
referring to the fact that our manufacturing shipments in
January were up by 28 per cent over last year.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I nearly
forgot to ask this important question. I would like the hon.
government House leader to tell us about the business planned
for the next few days.
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on Friday, as announced earlier, we will have an
opposition day.
On Monday the House will consider Bill C-73 respecting
borrowing authority followed by Bill C-68 respecting firearms.
Tuesday will be an opposition day again.
On Wednesday the House will consider second reading of Bill
C-72 regarding intoxication and when this is completed we will
return to the business of Monday at the point it was left off.
Thursday will be another opposition day, the last in the
present supply period, which means the House will be asked at
the end of the day to vote on final supplementary estimates and
interim supply.
On Friday we will begin the second reading stage of the
budget implementation bill which we had intended to introduce
today but whose introduction has been delayed for technical
reasons.
I would like to express thanks to the opposition parties for
their co-operation in facilitating discussion and decision last
night on the bill to enable work to resume at the port of
Vancouver. This attitude on their part is certainly appreciated.
* * *
[
Translation]
The Speaker: My colleagues, yesterday, March 15, the hon.
Leader of the Opposition rose on a question of privilege relating
to an exchange that had occurred March 14 during question
period between him and the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment. Having heard from both parties, the Chair
undertook to review the situation and the records of the original
exchange and to return to the House. I am now ready to rule on
the matter.
[English]
I have carefully reviewed the comments from both hon.
members. I thank them for their interventions. With regard to
the basic differences of opinion that exist between them I must
conclude this is a dispute as to facts or interpretation of facts. As
such, it is a matter of debate and does not constitute a prima
facie case of privilege.
However, on careful review of the records of the original
exchange, the Chair has found some troubling anomalies. As I
see it, it is these anomalies to which the hon. Leader of the
Opposition takes exception and it is here that the Chair must
take action to grant him redress.
[Translation]
Let me review the sequence of events which leads me to this
conclusion. The original exchange on March 14 took place in
French. It was taped and transcribed; the transcription was
edited; the edited transcript was, as usual, distributed to the
intervenors for review. The Office of the Deputy Premier
Minister reviewed the transcript as usual and submitted, as is its
right, two suggested changes to the blues. However, in the view
of the Chair, these suggested changes ought not to have been
accepted nor printed as the official record for they constitute a
substantive difference to the original spoken words of the hon.
member. To further complicate matters, these changes appear in
the French Hansard but are not reflected in the English version
which is, instead, a literal translation of the original spoken
word.
10619
(1505)
Therefore, to correct these anomalies, I have instructed my
officials to print a corrigendum in today's Hansard so that both
the French and the English version of the March 14 exchange
will faithfully reflect the original spoken words of the hon.
Deputy Prime Minister.
[English]
I have asked the Clerk of the House to ensure that the editors
of Hansard adhere strictly to the long established criteria in
determining what changes are accepted when members submit
suggestions for changes when they return their blues.
I trust this remedial action will close this matter.
_____________________________________________
10619
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Resuming debate. The
hon. member for Calgary North.
I would ask the hon. member for Roberval to withdraw what
he said.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
wish you would tell me what you want me to withdraw. I did not
have the impression I made an intervention.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I can check the blues,
but I also heard you here, when you used a word we are not in the
habit of using in this House.
Mr. Gauthier: Madam Speaker, I was simply making a
reference, strictly off mike, to the Deputy Prime Minister.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I can check the blues. If
the words do not appear, I will apologize.
Mr. Gauthier: Madam Speaker, I would appreciate it if you
would check the blues.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, when you check the blues of the proceedings,
perhaps I may suggest two points the Chair may wish to
consider. First of all, when a parliamentarian says that another
parliamentarian has, and I quote: ``the right to lie'', this reflects
on the parliamentarians who, if this is true, did in fact lie, and of
course we do not have the right to accuse a parliamentarian of
doing so.
However, this also challenges the decision made earlier by the
Chair with respect to a difference of opinion that existed,
because saying that another parliamentarian allegedly had the
right to lie implies that he or she had been given that right by
someone else. In this case, the person who ruled on the matter
happens to be the Speaker of this House, so the hon. member
opposite has in fact challenged the decision of the Speaker.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The blues will be
checked, and I will get back to you as soon as they are available.
The hon. Opposition Whip, on a point of order.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Madam
Speaker, since you are going to check the blues, perhaps you
could check yesterday's blues as well, since the Deputy Prime
Minister stated here in the House that she had not suggested any
corrections in Hansard, and this did not appear in today's
Hansard. I assume everyone heard her, since the Minister of
Transport even applauded and expressed his support. Some
things appear in the blues and some do not. This is appalling.
Sometimes it is enough to give you the blues, Madam Speaker.
(1510 )
[English]
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, this has to be one of the most interrupted speeches that
I have ever had the pleasure of giving. This speech actually
started over an hour ago and I had about two minutes to begin, so
it is kind of hard to get a flow of thought when one is off again,
on again. Perhaps I could start from the top and get through it
this time without any interruptions.
The lesson of history is one of personal struggle leading to
achievement. This has been very true for many of us in the
House. I know of a member opposite who came from another
country, did not know any English, started out by waiting tables
and now is a member of the House. There are many such stories.
I shared a bit earlier the kind of struggles I have gone through.
Many of us have become contributing members of society,
business and professional people, helping others making a life
for ourselves. Many of us have done this before, these kinds of
affirmative action programs, these kinds of let us give people
equality movements even started.
Canadians are able and willing to make it on their own merits.
We have a very high level of merit. There are many unsung
heroes. We will not see them on public platforms. They will not
be getting any awards but they have been decent, honest, hard
working citizens caring for each other, above and beyond the
call of duty to hold out a hand of help and encouragement to
others. We need to start judging success on the standards by
which many Canadians judge themselves. Many Canadians
judge success on what they have been able to give as individuals,
not what they have been able to get.
Canadians have figured out what most of us figured out a long
time ago, that life is not fair. There is a saying that if you would
10620
only accept the fact that life is hard it would be so much easier
for you. We continually have people who should know better
standing up in the House and saying we have to make things
easier for people. We have to make things fairer. Canadians
know life is what we make it.
We are talking today about the notion of equality. Equality is
essentially fairness and impartiality. That is what the dictionary
says. Government cannot make life fair. Parliament cannot
create fairness any more than it can legislate goodness or
compassion.
Calvin Coolidge, a former president of the United States,
said: ``The people cannot look to legislation generally for
success. Industry, thrift and character are not conferred by act or
resolve. Government cannot relieve from toil. It can provide no
substitute for the rewards of service. It can of course care for the
defective and recognize distinguished merit. The normal must
care for themselves. Self-government means self-support''.
Does this mean we should find unfairness and discrimination
acceptable? Of course not, and we do not. It is not government
that helps us to act fairly and impartially. This must come from
an act of decision by ourselves as individuals.
Government is really just us. Government is part of us. It is
something we create as a society. It is a reflection especially in a
democracy of what we want for ourselves. That is why we
choose representatives from us to carry out our wishes.
Somehow there is a feeling that government should create the
kind of ethic that is not otherwise present.
(1515)
There are things we can and should do as individuals to act
more fairly and more impartially. We should do those but it is
not something that can be legislated.
Canadians want to see people treated as individuals. We are
significant in and of ourselves because we are us, so to speak.
We do not have to gain significance because of how we relate in
a group. We are significant as ourselves, not as something that is
labelled, not because we are women or because we are vertically
challenged or because we have more pigment in our skins than
some other people. Those things are not relevant.
What is relevant is what is in our hearts, what we are capable
of, how we strive to achieve the things that are important to us.
That is what is significant. We need to realize that is the sort of
self-reliance and desire for excellence that should be promoted.
There seems to be a feeling in this country that somehow
somebody owes us something, that we are entitled to the things
that for centuries we have struggled to achieve. Now they are
owed to us and must be delivered to us. This is not practical. It is
not common sense. It flies in the face of every experience in
human history.
Some of these notions have been tried in other countries. In
the United States, this sort of movement to deliver so-called
equality to different groups has not succeeded. The
disadvantages have outweighed the very real good that was
thought to be promoted by these kinds of programs. It is not that
the intention behind these programs was not good; it was very
good. We all want fairness. We all want people to achieve their
full potential.
I would submit this is not something that can be delivered to
people. It is only something we can work for and earn. We can
ensure that people have the best opportunities to succeed in
those goals by treating them as individuals, by allowing them to
have equality of opportunity but letting the result of that
opportunity rest with the individual.
Abraham Lincoln said that if you have what it takes, the world
will take what you have. I believe that is true. We do not and
should not be splitting the world into groups. We should be
working together as valuable members of society, as individuals
with full potential.
It is important that each one of us make a commitment in our
dealings with each other to be fair and impartial, both publicly
and privately. It is something we need, but not as something
legislated, not as something that is owed to us. It should be
something we work and strive together to achieve. It cannot be
legislated. It would destroy what we want to have in the spirit of
individuals to act otherwise.
I think we each applaud the notion of the hon. member's
motion. We want to have equality of opportunity. Our charter of
rights says we are equal before and under the laws of this
country and that must be maintained. However, to give special
preference and special assistance to people is to deny them the
right to meet their goals on their own merit with their own
achievements. We should not be moving in the direction of this
motion.
(1520 )
Ms. Maria Minna (Beaches-Woodbine, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I found the member's speech interesting. She was
talking about individualism as if we stand alone and do not need
anything else around us.
What I hear her saying is that this country has never had and
does not have today any sexism or racism that we need to worry
about, that there is no stereotyping of the disabled and the
physically challenged. She very well knows those very people
came before us and told us that of them, something like 2 per
cent or less have university educations. Two per cent or less
have proper jobs because they do not and cannot access jobs
because of stereotyping. This is just the physically challenged. I
am not even talking about the racial situation.
10621
The hon. member was talking about individualism and being
able to stand alone, being able to make our decisions alone
without any laws, rules, collective understandings or
agreements of any sort. There was a time when that did exist.
At that time there was also child labour and slavery in the world
without any of these laws. I do not believe she is suggesting
that we go back to those times.
The hon. member is also forgetting that women had to fight.
There is the Person's case. Why do we even celebrate Person's
day now? Did we forget that we had to fight for the rights to be
considered as people and persons? It was not that long ago and a
lot of things are still happening.
We saw in the paper just recently where women in business
cannot get loans and have to pay higher interest. They stand
alone but it does not seem to help. Being individuals does not
seem to help.
Yes, we have a charter. Why do we constantly have to go to the
Supreme Court with charter challenges in order to get the rights
under that charter? They do not automatically happen just
because there is a charter. How did we get the rights under that
charter? It was by fighting tooth and nail because they were not
in the original draft of the charter.
How does the member expect to stand alone, individually
isolated and through osmosis each of us will do the right thing
only because we want to and because it has never happened
before?
Mrs. Ablonczy: Madam Speaker, it is very important to
understand that because we are each responsible for our own
future and our own achievements does not mean we are in
isolation. Nobody with common sense would even suggest that a
society which is a corporate word would want to isolate anyone.
I do not recall ever using such a word. Yet, this hon. member is
so concerned about branding people and putting them into
groups that the word isolation stands out in her mind if you even
dare to oppose such a concept.
We must help each other. That is the whole point of society.
Everybody has read the poem ``No Man is an Island''. We know
that to be true. What is really important to understand is that
struggle is part of the human experience.
Yes, the struggles she talked about were important. Those
struggles are going on today and will continue, but the important
thing is that we become responsible for what we make of
ourselves. If we are delivering results to people and delivering
the things they need, then where is the achievement and the
merit? It is owed to us and it becomes ours by matter of right. We
do not have to work for it.
Discrimination cannot be redressed even though
discrimination is a terrible thing. If I had been alive at the time
when women could not vote, I would have been up there
hollering and screaming as loudly, as articulately and as
passionately as anyone else. Discrimination cannot be
redressed by more discrimination which is exactly what we are
going to get if we are not careful.
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Parliamentary Secretary to
President of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
happen to be one of those people who believes we do not do
enough research in Canada and probably throughout the world
on people issues, the questions of poverty, racial discrimination,
et cetera.
(1525 )
I am particularly concerned with the following. Is it the hon.
member's opinion that we undertake enough research on people
issues in Canada, obviously including issues that are directly
related to women in society in general. I refer specifically to
equal pay for work of equal value. Do we undertake enough
research on other issues are particularly relevant to women, for
example in the field of health? Do we undertake enough research
in redressing some of the financial injustices women suffer in
society?
Mrs. Ablonczy: Madam Speaker, the point I am trying to
make is that all members of society are equally important. Why
are we singling out a particular group as needing special help?
All of us need to be treated fairly and impartially in this society,
not just some of us. There is no reason to suggest that some of us
are more entitled to fairness and impartiality than others. That is
just not sensible.
We need to be concerned about each other. We need to help
each other. Throughout the centuries the people of good ethics,
solid citizens, the people who were respected were those who
cared for the disadvantaged, the poor, the needy, those without a
voice, those who were without anyone to fight for them. We
must continue to do that.
The only point I am making is that kind of caring cannot be
legislated. It must be done on an individual basis. It must be
done by working with people. It is not done by creating some
scheme where results are guaranteed, but where opportunities
are fought for, where people are valued and where their
achievements and aspirations can be freely met. It is a far
different thing from meeting those aspirations for them. It gives
them the opportunity to meet them.
We need to discuss the distinctions in this important area
because it is a critical area. We have to care about each other and
we do. What is the most caring thing, to give people gifts or to
allow them the opportunity to get what they want in life through
their own merits, their own struggles and their own efforts?
An illustration is often given of a butterfly that struggles and
struggles out of the chrysalis. A chick tries to struggle out of an
egg. Both are long and exhausting processes. However if you
10622
tear open that chrysalis or that egg, the new creation that comes
out of it is weak because it has not had to struggle.
We need to be there for each other. We need to care about each
other's struggles. We need to make sure there is fairness and
impartiality. We cannot deliver things to people that they can
best benefit from by achieving them themselves. That is a very
important point in this debate. I hope that satisfies my hon.
friend about what I mean in that regard.
Ms. Judy Bethel (Edmonton East, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
yesterday the Canadian Federation of Independent Business had
a press release. It said that women in new businesses are refused
small business loans 20 per cent more often than men in new
businesses. It also said that women in business pay 1 per cent
more above prime than men in business do. I would like the
member to respond to how we as a society should deal with these
kinds of inequities.
Mrs. Ablonczy: Madam Speaker, this is an important point.
On the face of it, these kinds of statistics look like nothing more
than discrimination.
The question must be asked: Are the banks which are clearly
in the business of making money simply refusing women loans
because they do not like women? If that is the reason, then they
should be hammered over the head. It is stupid.
What difference does it make if you are a man or a woman in
business? The point is, is there a good business reason as to why
this decision is being made? If there is a good business reason,
then as a business woman I am going to make sure that I meet the
concerns of the bank and qualify for the loan I need. I am going
to satisfy the bank that it would be very well advised to give me
the needed money because I am a good risk. That is the kind of
initiative we need.
(1530 )
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Secretary of State
(Multiculturalism) (Status of Women), Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the discussion today. I am
delighted that the concerns pertaining to 52 per cent of society
are being addressed in a thoughtful manner based on the
political observations of people.
Politics makes strange bed fellows, if I could put it that way.
Each of us chooses the political party that best suits our interests
and concerns. Perhaps the way we view society is reflected by
the choice of where we sit in the House. We have been listening
to a very interesting approach. Much of it reflects the values I
consider important. Some of it is totally outrageous and some of
it is strictly political partisanship of the weakest form of politics
I could possibly think of.
Notwithstanding, it is vital that we enter into this kind of
discussion. I am very pleased to respond to the motion of the
opposition member regarding federal action to achieve women's
economic equality.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her
motion. She is asking this House to affirm a principle that is also
dear to my heart, the economic equality between men and
women. It is not easy to achieve, but it merits discussion,
particularly after the speech by the hon. member for the Reform
Party.
Our government is firmly committed to helping women attain
equality. There is no doubt that the equality of women, fairness
and justice for all hinge on economic independence.
We also know that economic equality is fundamental to the
well-being of women and indicative of the status of women in
our society. Being affluent and having a good job make it easier
to stand up for your interests. If you are at the bottom of the
scale, if you are a divorced women, if your parents have lived a
life of confrontation accompanied by physical abuse, your life
will not be quite the same. Equality will be lacking. I believe it is
up to society, men and women together, to take an interest in
these vital issues.
In my view, women must be able to take part in the workplace,
to receive equal pay for work of equal value, and to contribute
equitably to our collective wealth. I must tell you that, as a
mother who had sons, would I not have wanted the same
treatment, the same equality of opportunity for my
daughters-had I been blessed with some-as for my sons, and
as for my daughters-in-law today? If they have the same
education, the same ability and the same experience, why do
they not deserve the same treatment? I have never understood
why we cannot ensure that our sons and our daughters live their
lives on an equal footing. This situation can change if women
decide to have children, and this must be taken into
consideration as well.
I feel that it is very important to find a way of ensuring that the
equitable contribution to our collective wealth benefits
everyone, all members of our society, women as well as men.
(1535 )
[English]
I am pleased to be part of a government that is determined to
accelerate the advancement of economic opportunity for women
not only in the marketplace but also in their daily lives if they
choose to work in their homes. I am honoured to serve under a
Prime Minister who is committed to exactly the same goal.
The goal of the Liberal Party has not changed. Times have
changed. What we saw as necessary many years ago has changed
in the new reality of today's world, whether it is the technology
10623
that has changed, the organization of society that has changed or
the role and place of women in society that has changed.
We can look at the House and at the number of women who
have been able to win ``gagner leurs épaulettes au niveau
politique, elles siègent ici''.
An hon. member: On their own initiative.
Mrs. Finestone: Not on their own initiative, I say to my
colleague across the floor. From a lot of work by women like me
and plenty of others.
The Liberal Party has brought into force a Human Rights Act,
a Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and a royal
commission on economic equality, all structures of society that
express our will to ensure equality for women and that give us
the legislative mandate and the tools we need that were not in
place when the Royal Commission on the Status of Women first
held its hearings.
I appeared before the Royal Commission on the Status
Women. I appeared about child care. I appeared about latchkey
children. I appeared on the role of the volunteer in society, the
needs of the volunteer and the need for recognition for unpaid
work. The women here today gained many opportunities right
back to the Lavalee case and right through the history of the
development of equality and opportunity for women.
The women who think today that there is nothing we need to
be concerned about, that violence against women is not a reality,
that it is not something society should deal with, and that the
Minister of Justice who has been doing a fine job addressing
many of the issues should not be doing it, have missed the point
that 52 per cent of the population require attention. All those
issues in society need to be addressed.
I thought it would be worthwhile to address some of the points
raised in my absence this morning. I was attending other duties
and could not get back to the House on time. I gathered from
what colleagues in the Reform Party said concerning women's
equality and the consolidation of the federal government's
organizations for women that they accused the government of
not taking enough action on equality. They referred to us as a
special interest group. They talked about us as a particular
bunch in society.
Quite frankly this bunch in society, this gender called women,
females, wives, mothers and grandmothers, happen to make up
52 per cent of the population. They are not a special interest
group. The gun lobby is a special interest group. The banking
institutions are a special interest group. Certainly women are
not a special interest group. They are an integral part of society.
Their concerns need to be addressed through research, through
public meetings, and through advancing their concerns on the
floor of the House.
Members of the House should make sure they consult their
ridings to find out the concerns of women, their husbands and
children. They might be more reflective of real society and stop
worrying about the peculiarities of a just society from their
perspective which seems to want to throw everybody in jail and
throw away the key.
They have called for the government to get out of child care,
that women should stay at home and look after children. If all
women in the workforce stayed at home over 20 per cent more of
the population would be living under the poverty line.
They do not recognize that women go to work not only
because they like to and not only because they have confidence
and want to but because they need to in order to keep their
families above the poverty line. I do not expect the Reform Party
to understand that.
(1540)
They also talked about the question of the lack of need for any
special action. There is plenty of need for special action so that
the women of the country will be ensured of special action.
[Translation]
I would now like to talk about the project to merge these
institutions, a project I have just tabled, and the action the
government has undertaken with respect to the three groups
serving the interests of women, because I think it a bit
unfortunate that this was not well understood. Perhaps the
opposition party, the Bloc, did not have an opportunity to
carefully read the document I tabled and the time perhaps to read
what I said in the House. In this regard, I would like to draw their
attention to certain facts.
Through in-depth research undertaken by this government to
ensure that it gives careful attention to fiscal matters-and, with
all sorts of new things in our society, and with the need to be
careful with the deficit as well, we must manage our society very
carefully-as part of my mandate with respect to the status of
women, I looked at the three major institutions, government
institutions. This has nothing to do with the private sector and
the organizations in the private sector, which have their own sets
of problems. That is another issue. It was not the issue I dealt
with; I tried to ensure that they operated better and in a way that
would see to their interests from the grass roots right up to
Cabinet and from Cabinet back down with the information
required.
It was discovered that everything was in triplicate. We had
three separate administrations and three levels of duplication,
and I took those steps to streamline all these resources, to
concentrate our efforts and to reinforce our capacity to achieve
equality.
By merging the three groups, we will eliminate confusion and
facilitate access to government. This initiative will also provide
a more direct link with women organizations at the local,
regional and national levels as well as with non-governmental
organizations and universities. What is more important is that I
get to keep the $700,000 so that-yes, the Bloc member is
10624
surprised, but I want him to have peace of mind, I do not want
him to worry-the money previously earmarked for the
Advisory Council on the Status of Women will be reallocated to
research conducted by Status of Women Canada and by women's
groups, universities and other organizations.
We are going to see what happens, and we are going to consult
on the reallocation, but the money for independent research will
be-and this is a commitment I made yesterday-given to arm's
length institutions and the results will be published in the
interest of women, for women, and will not be touched by the
government.
I needed that. Did you think I was going to take this money
away from women's organizations? No, you started this for
petty political purposes. I must say that this kind of system will
be much more efficient. I also find strange that my opposition
colleague would criticize the action of the federal government
when the Province of Quebec recently restructured its own
department on women's equality and she did not say a word.
This demonstrates, on her part, a great interest in the status of
women in Canada and I commend her for that.
I should make it clear that by consolidating all women's
programs into Status of Women Canada we are working in the
best interests of all women.
(1545)
I know that some women are concerned that merging the
advisory council with my department would essentially mean
that the government could help itself to its funding. Far from it. I
will not be a minister all my life. I have worked long enough not
to want to pull the rug out from under women's feet, regardless
of the government. I worked for ten years on the other side of
this House and know how women can be misled and their
interests forgotten. Such policies, they are smoke and mirrors;
and they did not serve us well. This is not the type of policies
this government wants to implement.
This government relies on the public, on women's
organizations, to monitor our work and to tell us what they think
of our performance. I must say that since my appointment, I
have travelled a lot, I have met lots of women all over Canada,
more than a hundred or so organizations. I chaired the working
group on child care. I listened. This government listens. In
Cabinet, we talk about women's interests and we will continue
to do so.
We now have a very diversified, very competent network of
people who are able to appear before us, whether it be on issues
of violence or others. The Minister of Justice and I organized a
round table on that subject. Forty groups participated. Some 70
persons came. The government, not the advisory council, paid
for these consultations.
When the Minister of Human Resources Development held
his consultations, a task force was set up. This cost money, but I
insisted on it. No later that three hours after the presentation of
the budget, I received a phone call requesting permission to hold
consultations across Canada.
As a result of this change, we will no longer have a large office
in Ottawa, Montreal and Vancouver. The appointment of women
by order in council has become a thing of the past. These offices
will be closed, but in each region of Canada, in each city, there
are women working closely with the people, who know who
should get funded and who should not. They are able to organize
gatherings, as they have been doing for me up to now, allowing
me to meet people.
I just met with the Quebec women's federation, RESO,
Charlotte Thibeault's coalition. These women mentioned that
they research the issues they bring forward, but that otherwise
they are not involved in research; they complained a lot about
the way research is being carried out. I said that, from now on,
research will be done according to the needs identified by
women's groups and academics, that the choice of who will do it
will be theirs, and that results will be published.
You do not like it? Too bad. I believe it is the way it should be
done. We will consult women's groups as to the process. It may
not be what you want, but I believe that it is the best way for
women. Judging by the work women did in preparation for the
Beijing meeting, I know that we are making progress. There are
still a lot of problems, but we are making progress. Women on
this committee held consultations with 2,500 women across
Canada. They drafted answers and helped Status of Women to
make improvements to the draft working paper.
I believe that the links, the co-operation and the mutual
respect we established in many ways are in the interest of
everyone.
(1550)
In this way we are going to improve research and get more out
of our consultations. We will be much more direct. We will use a
``one-stop shopping'' concept, research will be conducted by
outside sources, independently, and all aspects of the library,
etc, will also be reviewed, as well as distribution, because we
will begin using all kinds of new technology. Women are quite
advanced in this area.
I know that some people believe that we have stifled the voice
of an important women's association and even silenced it. This
is not true. This statement only confuses matters. The
organization which was closed down was financed 100 per cent
by the federal government.
10625
The federal government will transfer close to $2 million for
the status of women. I think this is a very good approach and
I am very proud of what we just did because there comes a time
when we have to turn over a new leaf. The 1970s were different
from 1995. We had to closely examine what we were doing, and
in doing so, we found a better way to handle women's issues.
Madam Speaker, thank you and I still acknowledge the
importance of the role of women. Our political party will
persevere, in our interests and in the interests of women-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I regret that I must
interrupt the hon. minister, but her time is up. We will now
proceed to the question and comments period.
The hon. member for St. Boniface has the floor.
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Parliamentary Secretary to
President of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
have listened with interest to the minister's speech and I would
like to ask her a question.
Like her, I realize that the government is doing a number of
things for the women of Canada.
[English]
For example, we have come forward with an agreement for
equal pay for work of equal value. We have the gun control
legislation that is being supported by women. We have the
prenatal nutrition program. We have the court challenges
program that has been reinstituted, centres of excellence on
women's health and a number of others.
There is simply a larger proportion of women who are poor, a
larger proportion of women in society who are victims of
violence and abuse, and a larger proportion of women who are
single parents. Women still earn less than men.
Despite various initiatives that have been undertaken by
government and because of certain decisions that have been
taken-my colleague has addressed one of them-are we
assured that we will continue to make progress on these fronts?
I tried to raise a question previously with respect to the
importance of research on those fronts. I have a bias, I must
admit. I think research on those issues is of critical importance
to ensure that we continue to move forward because there are
serious problems in society that affect women
disproportionately.
Mrs. Finestone: Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague
for his question. I have visited Winnipeg and I have met with
both English and French women's groups in the area as well as
with multicultural groups. I can assure him I am more than ever
convinced the research that needs to be done is proactive
research as well as reactive research.
In the proactive field of research today, which we did not have
in 1972 with the advisory council's arrival on the scene, there
are women chairs of study across the land. Within the
universities there is capacity to look at many of the problems
such as the problems of poverty, the problems of inequality in
terms of education and training, the whole area of change in the
percentages of men and women in various institutions, and the
need for the diversity of Canadians to be better reflected in the
House.
A university study was done on the integration of women and
visible minorities into the marketplace. When we see the
disparity at least once it is put into concrete terms through
research at the university level, or at SHRC for that matter, and
we are in a position to be able to speak out and effect change on
government policy.
I listened to some of the remarks of members of the Reform
Party which I do not share. They say that government cannot
make life fairer.
(1555 )
If we did not do research through the Canadian Federation for
Independent Business, would we know that women who have an
excellent record with respect to the creation of jobs in small and
medium size businesses are far more effective and far more
efficient or that over 40 per cent of the jobs are created by the
small businesses in which women are the most successful after
five years?
That research was done by the private sector, the CFIB in this
instance, not by a university. It indicated that despite their
success 20 per cent more women were refused loans at our banks
and institutions than men and that when women obtained loans,
95 per cent of them had to pay higher rates with more difficult
terms.
That research was extremely pertinent. I am very glad the
member asked the question. It is a solid answer to the Reform
member on whether or not we need to be doing work on equality
for women in the fields of employment and earnings. Yes, we
need to reach economic equality. The question was very
pertinent. It allows me to thank the member very much.
There is room for research at all levels: through the private
sector, through the public sector and through the universities
with their great expertise.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
would like to put a question to the Secretary of State for the
Status of Women. I understand the government's new policy,
which led to yesterday afternoon's decision that that would be
the best way to operate.
I do not think that there is unanimity among women's groups
or that it is as obvious as the minister would have us think. There
is concern about the probable lack of transparency there would
be in the department when public servants in this department are
10626
called upon to promote the department's policies. The role of
the advisory council was precisely to criticize government
inertia and to suggest possible solutions regarding the various
policies of the government concerning the status of women.
Take day care facilities, for example. We know that the 3 per
cent of GDP has been reached and that 50,000 day care spaces
have been promised. This does not come from the government.
We hear about pay equity, while women are still earning 72 per
cent of what men earn, and there are other decisions that the
government is dragging its feet on. I think that enough has been
said today about the various possible solutions that the
government could adopt to bring about a considerable
improvement in the economic situation of women.
What concerns me is the lack of transparency that might result
from this new direction. I am also concerned about the choice we
would have to make.
The minister said yesterday in her speech on the budget in the
House that the various women's groups were very strong, very
effective. I think that some of them are but that others are not so
strong and do not have the Canadian Advisory Council's
analysis capacity. Without this analysis capacity, how will they
manage?
Women living in the outlying regions will have to negotiate
with the federal government, to travel, to defend their priorities.
The minister may be very positive, but I do not know what the
outcome will be in the long term. I do not think, however, that
this way of looking at things will be an end in itself.
She seemed to be saying that the women's movement was
born of various concerns and that it was in its infancy when the
council was created. I would say that, on the contrary, we have
not yet reached maturity.
In 1920, women were earning 50 per cent less than men; in
1995, women are making only 72 per cent of what men make. We
have clearly lost ground.
(1600)
Given the economic situation, we know full well that women
will be the hardest hit. This afternoon in the House, the Deputy
Prime Minister replied to a question I asked on the dismantling
of the advisory council-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sorry to interrupt
the hon. member, but her time is up. The secretary of state, for a
brief reply.
Mrs. Finestone: Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague.
I am aware of her keen interest for women's issues. I know she
speaks from the heart and I respect her for that. While I
understand her interest for women's issues, I wish she would
reply when Reform members make statements in this House,
because it is quite frustrating to hear them sometimes.
I must say that, indeed, the advisory council had a role to play,
and it played it well. Perhaps it even took a mother-hen
approach at times. As I see it, the council was the driving force
behind many activities and initiatives. You cannot say that, over
the years, the Fédération des femmes du Québec, the National
Action Committee on the Status of Women-the similarity of
certain names causes some confusion, I know- the National
Council of Women and others-there are a dozen organizations
out there that I could name, have not been able to make
representations and have not done so. And, through independent
research, we will make sure that they can decide for themselves
what their priorities will be regarding all the women's groups; I
will not interfere. I think it will be in their best interest.
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
am pleased to participate in the debate on the motion tabled by
the hon. member for Québec, which deals with the economic
equality of women. In spite of all the attention generated by the
status of women in Canada, and by a number of legislative
measures and policies designed to correct the inequalities of
which they are victims, the situation of women remains very
different from that of men, and there is still a lot to be done
before they can enjoy the same benefits as their male
counterparts.
As the member for Drummond, I first want to express my
friendship and my support to women in my riding, particularly
those who work in organizations dedicated to improving the
situation of women in our riding. As the opposition critic on
health issues, this is also an opportunity to stress the urgency of
establishing a health care system for women.
The moneys allocated to research on women's health issues
remain largely inadequate. There are insufficiencies in various
sectors such as breast cancer research, gynaecology and
obstetrics, chronic and degenerative diseases, mental health,
violence, occupational diseases, specific needs of immigrant
women of ethnic origin and native women, teenagers, elderly
women, and so on.
At the beginning of her mandate, 15 months ago, the Minister
of Health told us how she was going to promote women's health.
She explained the programs that her government was going to
implement, so as to correct the inequalities which affect women
in the health care system. The reality, however, is completely
different.
Since the Liberals took office, the funds allocated to health
care keep diminishing. This government maintained the freeze
on transfer payments to the provinces, thus creating a shortfall
for provincial health care systems, including Quebec's. The
government goes even farther in its last budget by cutting $70
million in the health department's budget, which is a 3.8 per cent
reduction. But nothing is done to correct the imbalance between
men and women.
10627
Let me tell you about breast cancer. Canada has the world's
highest rate of breast cancer.
(1605)
Finally, the incidence of this terrible disease has constantly
increased since the 1960s. Each year, 15,000 new cases of breast
cancer are diagnosed, and 5,000 women will die of it this year,
that is, one every two hours.
In Quebec alone, 1,500 women will die of this terrible
disease. In Canada and in Quebec, a woman has one chance out
of ten to develop breast cancer.
A national study, which was published last Thursday, shows
that 41 per cent of women in Canada and in Quebec consider
breast cancer to be the main threat to their lives.
I think it is about time that we decide to overcome this
disease. To do this, we must have a breast screening strategy
taking into account both genetics and environmental factors.
This is exactly what emerged from the final report tabled last
fall by the national forum on breast cancer in which the health
minister took part. This report recommended that national
practice directives be adopted immediately to enlighten doctors
and promote research and job training. So far, nothing has been
undertaken by the government in office.
There is also cardiovascular diseases, which are the main
cause of death among women. Indeed, 40 per cent of women will
die of cardiac arrest or of cardiovascular complications. Despite
these alarming figures, the last budget resulted in cuts to the
Tobacco Demand Reduction Strategy.
Resources allotted to this program will decrease from $185
million to $81 million. At the very least, this represents a $104
million reduction, even though the number of smokers continues
to rise, especially among women. We know that smoking
increases the risks of cardiovascular complications. However,
members will remember that tobacco control once was the
health minister's favourite theme.
There were reports recently, and again today, in the media
about the terrible problem relating to genital mutilation which is
wreaking havoc in several countries around the world and is
even practised here, in our society. The government is not
addressing this crucial issue and we are wondering what it is
waiting for.
Quebec has already showed leadership by announcing that it
will criminalize this action and sue everyone guilty of genital
mutilation. The federal government refuses to clearly add
genital mutilation in the Criminal Code, despite the repeated
requests made by the official opposition and the government of
Quebec and the fact that several European countries and states in
the U.S. have already taken such measures.
When can we expect a truly good health system for women? I
still remember when birth control was not well known and was
hard to get. I remember when women's diseases were considered
a normal part of women's lives and their imaginary disorders. I
remember when knives were used way too often. We only have
to think about all the unnecessary hysterectomies that were
performed.
Of course you will tell me that times have changed, that
today's policies stress the importance of addressing social and
economic problems recognized as being directly related to
health. But how are words translated into action? Far from
improving, the status of women is even deteriorating.
For years, women's health centres in Quebec have been
repeating that the social and economic conditions of women,
poverty, the double workload, violence and discrimination are
all problems that a pill will not solve.
The solution for women is to eliminate poverty because there
is a direct link between poverty and health. Statistics have
clearly shown that low income people are sick more often than
others.
(1610)
In this year of tolerance, the International Women's Day that
we celebrated last week compels us to have greater respect for
ourselves and for others. Women have demonstrated throughout
history that they have this extraordinary capacity to obtain a
consensus. Our modern societies, whose only values now seem
to be those generated by the globalization of economic and
cultural markets, need more than ever the involvement of
women as mediators.
In the name of profitability, our societies exclude more and
more people and fuel the rise of several forms of
fundamentalism. Because they are the very ones with the
sensitivity and the ability to do it, women will have to assert
themselves to lead a successful battle against poverty and
radicalization.
I will close my remarks by addressing the women of Quebec,
to whom I want to deliver this message. In a few months, we will
have a crucial decision to make, a decision that will have a
lasting impact on our future. My wish would be to see the
women of Quebec taking part actively in this historic moment
because no country can be built without the voice, the will and
the consent of women. And the new society that we see rising on
the horizon must include the women of Quebec.
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Secretary of State
(Multiculturalism) (Status of Women), Lib.): Madam
Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank the hon. member for
being very realistic about the role of women in the political life
of a society. They say that when men go into education it is for
themselves, whereas women do it for their family, in other
words, society.
10628
I am convinced that women, when they see what is happening
in Quebec, will certainly get involved in order to maintain their
quality of life at an appropriate level and ensure better
opportunities for the future in case Quebec separates and
becomes independent.
We have travelled the same path. Women respect each other.
Redefining borders will not help in any way. It will create a
situation where poverty will be worse for women and their
families.
I would like to ask a question of my colleague. When she says
that we must follow up on what is happening in Quebec because
it just ruled that the mutilation of female genital organs is a
crime, I wonder if she was absent from the House when the
Minister of Justice and myself ruled that our federal legislation
would also consider such mutilation to be a criminal act? If we
are presented with a case involving such an act, it will be tried
and judged according to Canadian laws since it is a criminal act.
I am very happy to see that the Court of Quebec, or rather the
Human Rights Commission, has ruled on that issue. I am also
happy to see they agree with us on a point that has already been
ruled on in the Canadian laws.
There is no need for lengthy analysis to find out that such a
practice goes against Canadian values, that it is unacceptable to
mutilate female genital organs and that people have to abide by
our rules and standards, period. Certainly, for all women,
whether they live in Quebec or in Ontario, whether they are from
Nova Scotia or Newfoundland or Vancouver, British Columbia,
this act of mutilation is unacceptable.
I am asking the hon. member a second question concerning
the health issue. In order to eliminate poverty, we took some
measures in favour of pregnant women. We also undertook some
research on breast cancer, on heart diseases in women and on
their prevention. Considering her great interest in that matter, I
am convinced that, given her great interest for these matters, if
she has other ideas to bring out at one time or another, she will
assist the health committee of the House of Commons by
making her comments, which will be greatly appreciated.
Is she ready to bring us other suggestions on this?
(1615)
Mrs. Picard: Madam Speaker, regarding sexual organ
mutilation, we note that it is not mentioned that this practice is
criminal. Why does this practice still exist? As was noted earlier
today, a physician had to perform surgery on young women.
How is this still possible? He had to do nine operations. What
can we do to stop that? The individuals who performed these
barbarous acts on those young women are still running free. This
practice is being performed in many places.
When people arrive in Canada, they do not know it is illegal in
our country. They should be told, and the fact should be public
knowledge. Steps must be taken to prevent that practice. This is
happening here in Canada. In 1995, it is unbelievable that we
still hear about those practices. In Toronto, a physician told me
that he gets calls regularly from women who ask him to perform
these operations on the sexual organs of their children. The
Criminal Code must either be strengthened or other measures
must be enacted because this situation is really alarming.
As far as-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sorry to interrupt
the hon. member, but her time is up. The hon. member for Laval
Centre has the floor.
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ):
Madam Speaker, allotted days on a motion of the official
opposition provide special moments in this House, because, by
making it possible to ask government about the real issues, they
force parliamentarians to consider certain unavoidable realities.
The reality we are currently considering concerns more than
half the population, since, today, we are assessing the
government's action, or, rather, its inaction with respect to
women.
On March 8, 1994, International Women's Day, the Bloc
Quebecois tabled the following motion in the House on an
opposition day:
That this House urge the government to recognize the principle of economic
equality between women and men and to implement measures, in areas of federal
jurisdiction, to guarantee women equity in employment, wages and living
conditions.
What has become of this a year later? Women in Canada and
Quebec agree: for this government, it is a long way from the cup
to the lips. There was not a hint of the grand principle of equity
in the budget tabled by the Minister of Finance. And yet women
here need real action.
It therefore makes sense for the opposition critic on the status
of women to table a motion denouncing the federal government
for its inaction in its areas of jurisdiction through its failure to
adopt concrete measures to promote the equality of women.
The Bloc Quebecois notes that the Liberal government has
failed to keep the commitments it made with regard to
promoting equality for women. One has only to look at the
situation in various areas of social concern, including child care
services, public housing and the struggle to prevent violence
against women.
The Liberal government's latest decision to abolish the
Advisory Council on the Status of Women is a clear indication of
the cabinet's concern about women.
It appears that the government is no longer interested in
hearing a voice independent of political power express the
rightful claims of women. The council's credibility with various
10629
women's organizations was commonly recognized. It is not
easy to answer to one's conscience when the will to act is
lacking.
It would seem that the activities of this organization will be
transferred to Status of Women Canada. What activities are we
talking about, however, since $1 million in funding will be cut?
(1620)
The equal opportunities for women program will also be
transferred to Status of Women Canada, but with a budget
reduced by five per cent. They say that, for the moment, this cut
will not affect grants to volunteer organizations working on the
status of women issue. What we really want to know is how long
will this moment last.
Of all of the issues regarding the status of women, violence
against women is probably the most devastating, as much
physically as it is psychologically and it also saps morale.
Despite the efforts of groups working to stop violence against
women, the incidence of violence has increased at an alarming
rate. Can we fight so rampant a social ill with only sentiment and
good intentions as weapons? No, Madam Speaker.
The violence that often stems from economic inequality could
be eliminated if the government would only assume a strong
leadership role in society, put equality high on the list of
priorities and channel the appropriate resources to the cause.
Governments do not have the right to expose the pursuit of
economic equality for women to the whims of the tax system and
budgets. Such behaviour is tantamount to subsidizing economic
inequality.
More than ever, fighting violence against women must be a
priority. Is it acceptable in 1995 that women and families still
have to face violence day after day? In January 1994, Statistics
Canada publicized the results of a vast survey in which 12,300
women participated. It brought to bear some disquieting facts.
It revealed that 51 per cent of all women have been victims of
at least one act of physical or sexual violence. One in five were
hurt and one in four were hurt so badly that they required
medical attention. In 25 per cent of all cases, the husband or
common-law spouse was the perpetrator. What is even more
serious is that children witnessed the violence 4 times out of 10.
These figures jive, by the way, with the statistical data
contained in a 1991 report called ``The War Against Women''.
The report found that between 63 and 83 per cent of the victims
of physical abuse knew the men who abused them. One woman
in ten is assaulted by her spouse and, on the average, victims are
abused 30 times before they call the police.
The Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women
published its own figures, which have quite a story to tell about
the treatment women receive. It found that one in four Canadian
women were sexually exploited at one point of their lives. In
half of the cases, these women were not even 17.
Considering these disturbing facts, how can the government
justify its decision to reduce subsidies to organizations against
violence towards women when the need is more pressing?
Women will not feel secure before there is true equality
between men and women. How much injustice, inequity,
inequality, and violence will the women of Canada and Quebec
have to endure before the government commits itself to act in a
concrete way and proceed with the necessary social and
economic changes to achieve equality?
The Liberal government with its current budgetary measures
in the area of unemployment insurance, with its determination
to cut transfer payments to the provinces in the areas of health,
education and social services is working towards a pull-out of
the central government in these matters.
The so-called reform of social programs, postponed until
1997, announced a dark future for young people, the
unemployed, senior citizens and, of course, women.
(1625)
Indeed, there is no doubt that women will be the first victims
of the changes to eligibility criteria for unemployment
insurance, in a large part because it will be based on family
income. We can assume that women could be denied access to
the plan because of the high salaries of their husbands. What
about other payments, in particular old age security?
The same logic seems to apply, since the budget of the
Minister of Finance is starting to open a breach into old age
security. ``If your family income exceeds a certain threshold,
Madam, you will no longer get your monthly cheque.'' For many
women, this cheque is tangible proof of a certain financial
autonomy, very often the first they ever had. We cannot deny
that some aspects of women's reality have been overlooked by
decision-makers. But an oversight can be corrected, if only the
will to be fair is strong enough for us to admit that we were
wrong.
The economic security and equality of women can only be
achieved if women are economically independent. In turn,
economic independence is tied to the creation of lasting full
time and adequately paid jobs. However, in 1993, women
accounted for 69 per cent of part time workers in Canada. This
ratio is unacceptable. Job insecurity is replacing economic
security and equality for women. This is second rate equity.
Instead of jeopardizing the scant efforts made over the past
decades to try to provide women in Canada and Quebec with
economic equality, the government should recognize that only a
10630
sharp directional change in employment strategies will
guarantee the women of this country the economic security
necessary for individuals to find their balance, for families to be
healthy, and for people to enjoy respect. This government has its
work cut out, but it remains to be seen if it will have the courage
to get down to business.
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Secretary of State
(Multiculturalism) (Status of Women), Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I would like to add a few comments and make some
observations. First, it is not the credibility of the Canadian
Advisory Council on the Status of Women which is being
questioned here, but the operating costs, the duplication costs.
We are talking about a third of the budget being used for three
full time employees, the president and two vice-presidents, and
some thirty former part-time employees appointed by order in
council. I must say that one third is too much. For the rest of the
money that we will keep, that the Canadian Council will keep,
we will make a review and consult women to determine how to
put that money to good use. I believe this is a better way to
ensure that many of the questions you raised on certain points,
some important questions, will get at least a technical answer.
That is another story.
To conclude on your colleague's speech on health issues, my
other mandate, that of multiculturalism, has showed me that we
should deal with that shameful and hateful issue of genital
organs mutilation through education and not only through a
judicial and criminal approach. It is through education that we
can reach multicultural groups and various ethnic communities
and start an information process. We are making a film on that
subject for doctors, nurses, families and centres, and I hope this
will also help.
Finally, I would like to bring to your attention the fact that it is
not the Advisory Council which studied the issues and data on
violence which you mentioned several times in your comments.
That research was done by a group on violence appointed and
paid by the government. It is also Statistics Canada which
conducted a comprehensive research effort, known world-wide,
and studied the treatment of women in the context of criminal
law. These are the people who brought that to our attention.
(1630)
And it is I, as the minister for the Status of Women, who
brought these data here, with my team. Do not create confusion
for society at large. What was the role of the Advisory Council
on the status of women? What is the role of the status of women,
which I am in charge of? What are the roles of various groups in
society at large?
I think that some answers to these questions could clarify
things a little bit, so that we will know that equality of women
will finally be coming. We know that a strong economy and the
participation of women are the key to their independence. That
independence is very important. Do you not think that, in the
future, if we cannot be treated as equals, if we do not have the
right to equal salaries, if we do not have the chance to be equal in
society, we could be the victims of violence?
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Madam Speaker, I just want to
direct a comment to the hon. secretary of state. She talks about
very high administration costs, saying that some women were
paid outrageous salaries. When will highly paid men see their
positions cut, too?
We are talking about education and communications. Since
the hon. secretary of state maintains that the council's
credibility was recognized, I wonder if the members of the
Council on the Status of Women were consulted on the best way
to review the overall handling of women's issues.
Women are being short-changed, in terms of equality. In the
1994 budget, there was the whole infrastructure program. I
would like to know how many women got jobs in connection
with the infrastructure program? And, if some of them did, it
would still have been part time jobs.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
thank my colleague for supporting my motion and for giving us
an overview of the various areas in which the government is
being criticized for its inaction. As far as day care centres are
concerned, Quebec receives $35,000; and day care needs in
Canada are said to amount to $2 million. As far as pay equity is
concerned, women earn 72 per cent of what men earn.
I thank my colleague, and I would like to ask her if she agrees
with the hon. secretary of state's comments during this week's
budget debate. She said that-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sorry to interrupt.
The time is up, but I will give you 30 seconds to answer.
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Madam Speaker, I have a slight
problem. She said that-Not having heard the end, I cannot
answer. Since you wanted to give me the time to respond, please
allow her to complete her sentence.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I would like to give the
hon. member for Québec a short explanation on what is
happening, because I see that she was slightly annoyed. When a
member of the opposition has the floor, I must also give the
other parties the opportunity to respond. If none of them rises to
ask a question, I can recognize one of your colleagues.
Resuming debate.
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I would like to start by commending the hon. member
for Québec for giving the elected members of this House an
opportunity to debate a most important and relevant issue, in my
opinion.
10631
In my capacity as member of Parliament, I would like to draw
attention to the fine job done by several organizations in my
riding, non-governmental organizations of course, who work
with women. I have already done so at a brunch to which I
invited them on Friday to mark progress toward equality.
In light of the theme for the next world conference on women
for equality-there certainly was some discussion on the
subject-I would like to congratulate them again, as I did on
Monday.
Last week, on International Women's Day, the Prime Minister
summed up quite eloquently the role and contribution of
Canadian women. I think it is important that all members of this
House, both men and women, know what he said in essence.
(1635)
``Today, said the Prime Minister, more women work in a
broader variety of areas in which they have more influence on
the decision-making process than at any other time in our
history. And we have every reason to be thrilled about this. As
we approach full gender equality, we are strengthening our
society and opening new horizons for all Canadians. In Canada,
women are making progress toward economic equality. Relying
on their own means and abilities, women help shape the future of
this country.'' Not only that of one province, I might add. ``As
for the Canadian government, it is meeting the challenge.
Women's equality is not a matter of special interests or rights,
but rather a matter of social and economic justice, a matter of
good government''.
This message is an inspiration to each and every one of us. It
sets the role and contribution of Canadian women in the right
perspective.
It is undeniable that we have made progress, by dint of hard
work and often courage. But this progress does not benefit only
women. It benefits the whole of our society.
[English]
This is because women's issues are everyone's issues. They
are societal issues. They touch every single citizen.
We need to leave behind the cliché battle of the sexes where
women's gains are interpreted as men's losses. We have to
accept that when women advance toward equality everyone
benefits. It is purely mathematical. When women, who make up
52 per cent of the population, are able to make a full contribution
to society, 100 per cent of the population benefits.
[Translation]
What surprises me is the motion tabled this morning by the
Bloc Quebecois member. The hon. member obviously does not
realize that the best way to help women is first to be a good
government.
She should know that by creating 433,000 jobs in one year, the
Canadian government makes a concrete contribution to
women's economic equality. The member should also know that
by putting our fiscal house in order, we protect our prosperity,
our social programs and our quality of life, something which
equally benefits Canadian women and men.
[English]
The motion we are debating today talks about concrete action.
Here are some examples of specific actions taken by this
government. The job training and illiteracy programs provide
women with some of the tools for greater economic
independence. By combining these tools with job creation the
government can help women access a full range of choices in
their lives.
Our initiatives for small business, including improved access
to capital, will help women entrepreneurs and create a climate
more conducive to the creation of jobs for both women and men.
The Employment Equity Act improves the employment
opportunities for women. Youth Service Canada, a new strategic
measure, helps to put out of school and unemployed young
people of both sexes back to work. The infrastructure program
has funded projects such as the rehabilitation of a children's
centre, the construction of community health centres, libraries,
municipal day care centres and shelters. All of these are very
concrete initiatives to help women achieve economic equality.
[Translation]
To be a good government also means adjusting our structures
to make them simpler and more efficient.
This is why my colleague, the Secretary of State for the Status
of Women, announced earlier this week the merging of three
organizations dedicated to promoting women's equality.
As part of its program review process, the government
examined the role of Status of Women Canada, of the Equal
Opportunities for Women Program at the Department of Human
Resources Development, and of the Canadian Advisory Council
on the Status of Women.
It became clear that these three structures promote women's
equality and, to various degrees, conduct research and work in
close co-operation with women's groups.
Consequently, the government concluded that the best way to
improve efficiency was to consolidate its initiatives to promote
women's equality under the structure of Status of Women
Canada.
This means that the Equal Opportunities for Women Program
will be transferred to Status of Women Canada.
(1640)
As well, the research, communication and public information
functions of the advisory council will become part of the routine
operations of Status of Women Canada. This transfer will enable
us to better manage the human and financial resources involved,
eliminate duplication, and put an end to political appointments.
These are all measures which the Bloc Quebecois keep asking us
to take as a government.
10632
This will help us create a ``one-stop shopping'' operation;
to eliminate confusion and improve access to the government;
to improve research, communications and public information
services; to strengthen links with local, regional and national
women's groups, NGOs and universities; to ensure that funding
for independent research is available; and to allow the federal
government to focus its efforts toward promoting equality for
women. These are tangible actions, not only words. This is a
series of dynamic and realistic initiatives, which, put together,
help Canadian women to progress towards social and economic
equality.
Also, I want to mention that this government managed to take
measures when it elected-or appointed, as the opposition
would say-qualified women to positions in this House. I think
significant progress was made when more women were elected
to this House. This is one of many ways to ensure that women are
on the road to economic and social equality.
[English]
Ms. Maria Minna (Beaches-Woodbine, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague for her well
presented thoughts.
The commitment of the government to women as well as my
commitment and that of my colleague is quite evident. Given
that we are talking about women's economic equality, would it
help and enhance women's economic equality much faster in all
parts of Canada, including Quebec, if we were to get past and get
over as quickly as possible this issue of separation which is in
effect holding back the whole country economically, not just
women?
Mrs. Bakopanos: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for her question. Definitely. I spent 15 years working with
Quebec politics and I see no progress for women if we
constantly talk about separation, if we constantly talk about
dissolving the country.
We have often said on this side of the House the worse way to
advance the cause of women is by focusing on the issue of
separation and not focusing on the issue at hand, assuring
economic and social equality to women.
It is very unusual that members on the other side of the House
talk about solidarity among women and yet they cannot talk
about solidarity of all Canadians. We have to start by being
united and have a united front to attack some of the problems
that face women and men.
Women's issues are not simply women's issues. They are
societal issues. We must work together in a united Canada to be
able to ensure that women progress both socially and
economically.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I was intrigued by earlier comments of members
concerning the recent report of the Canadian Federation of
Independent Business. It seemed to suggest there was a gender
bias of some description in lending.
With some experience in the CFIB mode of surveying, I
wonder if this is correct or if this is a reflection of the people
who responded.
(1645 )
I would like to put some interesting information on the record.
It is from a Statistics Canada national survey on the financing of
small business, dated November 1994. Statistics Canada found
that 18 per cent of small businesses owned by men who had
sought financing had been refused. For women the figure was 24
per cent.
StatsCan noticed that this difference may reflect an industry
preference rather than sex discrimination by the lenders. An
example that suggested this industry preference is the business
and personal services industry which is the largest share of
businesses owned by women. In fact, if there was a bias it had
more to do with the kinds of business women determined they
were going to try to open. It was not a gender bias.
The other was the question of whether or not there was a bias
based on interest rates. Research has shown there is not a gender
bias. It is strictly based on the credit worthiness of the business.
Mrs. Bakopanos: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased about
this question. At least we can stick to the facts about how far
women have come in terms of economic equality.
I want to bring to the attention of the member that Pierrette
Leroux, who is the executive vice-president of the CFIB, said
there is no doubt that women are penalized by banks and
financial institutions. In fact, she called it financial sexism.
As this government has said, unless we can take care of our
financial house, no one will be able to benefit from the resources
we have, including women. When we talk about interest rates,
we have proven by the budget we put forward, and the whole
economic community agrees with us, that Canada is on the right
track. Once we continue with the initiatives we have set forth in
the budget, then hopefully we will move even closer to
economic equality for women and all Canadians.
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to stand today to reaffirm the position of
this government. We are here to ensure that all Canadians,
10633
especially those who are most disfavoured, have equal access to
the tools necessary for them to lead a prosperous life. That is one
reason we are working so hard to get our house in order.
However, we are trying to do it in the most compassionate way
possible.
For women and all Canadians to lead an economically sound
life they also need to be healthy. One thing follows another. We
already know that more women than men who are poor tend to
have a lower level of health. Women's health is a priority for this
government. In the red book we promised to take action to
improve women's health. This is a promise I am determined to
fulfil. Canadian women deserve no less.
Canadians take pride in our health care system which is
considered by many to be the best in the world. If we scratch
beneath the surface, it is obvious that not everyone shares
equally in its benefits.
Women are the primary caregivers to our families, our friends
and our communities. Yet we overlook the factors that assure
those same women their health.
The traditional understanding of women's health has focused
primarily on reproductive concerns. Clearly, we need to look at
women's health not just in relationship to men. It is not enough
to simply compare life expectancy or the absence of disease as
indicators of health.
We have to ask why women are often mistreated or
overtreated by the medical system. We need to question why the
distinctive effects of chronic diseases on women, especially in
later life, have been overlooked. We have to ensure that diseases
exclusive to women are no longer ignored by the scientific
establishments.
[Translation]
Medical practitioners and decision makers are realizing more
and more that women's health is part of the social and economic
context of daily life.
(1650)
It is increasingly understood that the determinants of our
health-our individual and collective experiences as
women-are particular to each of us.
Women cannot be viewed as a homogeneous group. Our
health is affected not only by gender but by various other factors
such as age, race, social status, education and, yes, income.
We have to deal with larger issues such as poverty, violence,
racism and a host of other problems that are inextricably linked
to the health and welfare of women. Good health and welfare
certainly do not depend solely on health care.
Women keep saying-and society as a whole is beginning to
believe it-that health care must be based on an holistic
approach that encompasses our emotional, spiritual, cultural
and physical well-being.
To improve the health of women, we have to eliminate the
social and economic inequalities that hinder their personal
growth.
We do not want impersonal health care. We believe that we
should have a community-based continuous health care system
delivered by a wide range of auxiliary health workers and health
professionals. Midwives and nurses, among others, can often
offer women quality care tailored to their needs.
[English]
We are devoted to the principle of self-care respecting that
individuals know their own self-interests. We also hold that
individuals have responsible roles to play in their own
well-being.
Many of the dossiers I deal with are very difficult and demand
some very difficult choices. One of the dossiers I have under me
deals with breast cancer. It is a very difficult one and I must
admit one that governments have not particularly taken to heart
in the past. It is something I am working diligently at addressing
to ensure that adequate dollars are put forward for research, not
only in the treatment of breast cancer but also in the
dissemination of information and research into the causes of
breast cancer.
The recommendations brought forward by the National
Forum on Breast Cancer underscore the key roles women must
play in deciding their own regimen of care and treatment and in
determining the direction research should take into the causes of
the disease and its prevention.
Through collaborative efforts of Health Canada,
non-governmental organizations and industry, it is estimated
that approximately $45 million will be available for research
over the next few years to address breast cancer. Is this enough?
No, it is never enough. We are going to have to continue to work
diligently to increase the focus and the attention that is paid to
this very, very difficult disease, one which affects many women
in this country and has for many years.
We realize that initial prevention and avoidance of harm
rather than health intervention is essential if we are to secure
personal health and safety as well as economic equality. This is
particularly true when we talk about substance abuse and sexual
or physical violence. For this reason, harm reduction efforts of a
gender specific nature have been critical components of many of
our programs.
[Translation]
The women and tobacco initiative, an integral part of our
tobacco demand reduction strategy, is another specific program
for women.
Smoking is the first cause of premature death of Canadian
women. More than 15,000 Canadian women die from the
adverse health effects of tobacco.
10634
Thanks to programs specifically designed for women,
awareness campaigns, and research, we are now able to help
many women quit smoking for good.
In the same vein, we have launched a program to reduce
smoking and promote healthy lifestyles. That program is aimed
at low income women, undereducated women, single mothers,
young women and Native women.
Any investment in those sectors can be productive during a
lifetime, sometimes right from birth.
[English]
We are convinced that health promotion and disease
prevention are the best long term routes to good health. That is
why we believe it is better to invest in the Canada prenatal
nutrition program which assures healthier outcomes for both
mothers and babies than in high tech heroics to save infants at
risk.
(1655 )
We also share concerns about the efficacy of medical devices
as well as the ethics and social and health implications of new
reproductive technologies. We worry they have the power to
fundamentally alter the lives of our children and families
because they open the door to genetic technologies.
Expanding our vision of health; reducing our dependence on
technology; doing what works, involving a broader array of
health providers; self-responsibility; and a greater emphasis on
promotion: These same topics match the key priorities
identified as crucial to the renewal of Canada's health system
and ultimately to our national well-being. They are particularly
pertinent to women, but they are not just women's issues. They
are society's concerns.
[Translation]
To solve many of those problems, positive response to change
is required. I am convinced the health system reform offers the
best chance of success. We should also remember in political
discussions that we are here to serve the people, to serve
Canadian men and women, and not only governments.
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
would like to thank the minister for her remarkable speech. I
have seldom had the opportunity to listen to such a long speech
made by her and I want to congratulate her. Her speech is full of
good intentions and I can tell she knows this issue thoroughly.
I am not rising to blame anyone. Unfortunately, in spite of all
the policy statements and the good intentions expressed on both
sides of this House, on the government side, there seems to be a
distortion between what they say and what they do.
We have had many days like today where we discussed the
status of women. I remember last December 6 was one of those.
The women of the Liberal Party joined the Bloc Quebecois
women to denounce the sometimes tragic situation of women.
However, in our daily lives, in our bills, we seem to forget all
the promises, all the good intentions and we just brush
honourable thoughts under the carpet. For example, the Liberal
members and ministers, and perhaps even the minister who just
spoke whom I regard and respect highly, are not opposed to
measures like the one implemented in last year's budget, which
takes into account a husband's salary to determine if a woman
will be entitled to unemployment insurance benefits.
When we proposed other legislation, what did they do? Did
they fight for child care? I know they are all good human beings
and I respect them, but they are just not there when time comes
to keep promises, turn words into deed and principles into
actions. Unfortunately, they then often slip away.
I said at the beginning of my comments that I did not want to
criticize. On the contrary, I hope that, like the health minister,
women in the Liberal Party will be able to put pressure on their
male colleagues, who are the majority, so that they take some
actions in favour of women.
Do not be surprised if it is a man who is telling you this today.
I have three beautiful daughters whom I love as much as my son,
and I see that the future that we are preparing for them, the
environment that they will have to work in, is not always to their
advantage.
I am not asking for special privileges for women. I am simply
asking that they be treated the same way as men and, often, as
some minorities. In Canada, our women are not treated as well
as some minorities, and I feel that this is not right.
I thank the minister for her fine speech. We can tell that she
knows the subject and that her intentions are good. What I am
asking her is, does she intend to promote her ideas within her
own party?
(1700)
Ms. Marleau: Madam Speaker, I must say that it is absolutely
necessary to keep working together, not only in this party,
because here we really care about the status of women and the
status of minority groups. As you know, many women are
members of minority groups. My point is that we intend to do
everything we can, despite an economic situation that is still
pretty serious, to ensure that the dollars we have go directly to
those who need them most. These are sometimes difficult
decisions. We have groups that do good work, but the dollars we
give them do not go directly to those who really need them.
When I consider the spirit of co-operation we see today when
we talk about the status of women, especially poor women, and
when I consider that for years we have had constitutional
debates to decide which level of government should do what,
and all kinds of commissions, and all very expensive, I start
10635
thinking that if we had worked together and collected all those
dollars that were spent over the years and if we had all decided
that the best thing we could do for Canadians was to sit down and
do something about their economic situation, just imagine what
we could have accomplished. We could have a national day care
system. We would not have to fight about whether this is a
provincial or a federal area of jurisdiction or priority. It would
be wonderful if we could do that.
However, the fact is that we have provincial governments that
have certain responsibilities which they are not prepared to
relinquish. That is mine. Hands off. Even if what you want to do
is very good, do not interfere. This causes problems, delays and
a lot of frustration, especially for this minister, who realizes that
these are very difficult issues.
When we consider what we could do if, first of all, we
invested in our children, in children from infancy to 6 years of
age, if we could intervene at that level, we would not have to
build prisons, which we will have to do because we cannot
afford the luxury of helping our children. We will do what we
can. I would like to ask all those people who want the best for
our children, for women and the future of our country, to get
together and work on this and take the dollars we have to really
do something good for Canadians.
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Madam Speaker, on
March 8, we celebrated International Women's Day with all our
sisters and colleagues around the world. Let me tell you that our
day is no exception to those important days that we celebrate
over an eight-day period.
I consider however that a single day is not enough to allow us
to say that we have won the game. This day marks a time-out. It
lets us have a moment's reflection before going on with the task
at hand. On the last day of this octave, I am pleased to rise in this
House to draw attention to the substantial and hard-fought gains
made by women and set them in the perspective of future
initiatives and representations, particularly with regard to
Quebec women.
I also take this opportunity to salute all of Laval's women's
organizations devoted to the well-being of their fellow citizens.
Let us never forget that the courage, determination and
dedication that characterize earlier generations of women
before cannot be overstated. These qualities have revolutionized
the established order. In their quest for self-sufficiency, these
women broke new ground so that their daughters could enjoy
equal access to the right to vote, to higher education, the labour
market, financial independence, political power and the
corporate world.
(1705)
These past few years have also seen a number of firsts: first
woman in space, first woman Prime Minister of Canada, first
woman leader of a Republic, first women Supreme Court
justice, first women member of l'Académie française, and the
list goes on.
In fact, the statement issued following the recent world
summit on social development held in Copenhagen reiterated
ten commitments, including that of promoting absolute respect
for human dignity, ensuring fair and equal treatment of men and
women, recognizing and reinforcing the participation and role
of women in political, economic, social, cultural and everyday
life as well as development.
Where are we now? Today, women collectively ask
themselves: Where are we now? What is the result of our
efforts? What will be at stake the next time? We all know, from
personal experience, that some progress was made. But let us
not fool ourselves.
In spite of these improvements, major inequalities continue to
exist. In times of budget cuts and high unemployment, women
and the poor may well end up paying the price. Some realities
remain true: women still only earn 72 per cent of what men
make, the majority of them are in low paying jobs without any
security, daycare services are inadequate, elderly women are
poorer than their male counterparts, and so on.
What is the situation in Quebec? Many Bloc members
travelled across various regions of the province in recent weeks,
along with the regional commissions on Quebec's future. As you
know, the hearings held by the 18 Quebec commissions were a
true success. Over 50,000 Quebecers participated in these very
productive discussions, as part of the largest public consultation
exercise ever held in Quebec. People from every age group and
background came and told us what they expect from a sovereign
Quebec.
Once again, Quebecers showed that they can listen to each
other, understand each other and get along with each other. They
came and told the Quebec government about their hope for a
generous, united and responsible Quebec which will care about
women, children, workers, seniors and young people. Many
women's groups participated in the debate. I can tell you that
their vision of Quebec's future is not that of the current federal
government. Can the gap between the reality in Quebec and the
way the federal government is perceiving it be that wide? The
Secretary of State for the Status of Women and her Quebec
colleagues in the Liberal Party of Canada have missed a first rate
opportunity to get back in touch with Quebec's reality.
In any case, since Liberal members were absent, I will try to
convey to them what Quebecers told us. First of all, as I
mentioned before, women groups told us, as they did during the
10636
Bélanger-Campeau Commission hearings, that they want major
changes. These women want the federal government to stop
interfering in areas affecting them, such as work conditions,
family law, income security, day care and abortion.
The involvement of two levels of government in these areas,
they said, leads to administrative overlap, program and structure
duplication, a lack of harmony between provincial and federal
policies, hence a waste of public funds and the inability of the
Quebec government to initiate a coherent policy on women's
issues.
Do you want examples, Madam Speaker? Maternity leaves
are granted pursuant to the Act respecting Labour Standard
while compensation for lost income is paid pursuant to the
Unemployment Insurance Act, which makes it difficult for
Quebec to implement a coherent policy concerning parental
leaves.
(1710)
Let us deal with the preventive withdrawal of employees who
are nursing or pregnant. In Quebec these women are covered by
the Occupational Health and Safety Act, while federal
employees and women employed by federally regulated
businesses are covered by the Canada Labour Code. The level of
compensation is not the same, which has the effect of creating
two classes of female employees in Quebec.
Furthermore, federal intervention in family matters
illustrates the double jurisdiction that exists in matters of family
law. The federal Parliament has jurisdiction over marriage and
divorce; Quebec has the authority to legislate on the celebration
of marriage, matrimonial property, adoption and separation.
As the Council on the Status of Women said so succinctly,
women, depending on whether they get married, separate or get
a divorce may be provincially or federally regulated.
Furthermore, this double jurisdiction prevents Quebec from
creating a single family court.
I could go on and on and talk about the overlap in income
security, social services, day care and many other areas.
There is a lack of consistency that has often been criticized
and which women's groups brought up before the regional
commissions on the future of Quebec.
My colleagues have, throughout the day, reminded this House
of the government's failure to adopt concrete measures to
promote the economic equality of women. Bloc members also
condemned the drastic cuts in the latest federal budget and made
it clear that women may be severely affected. The government
claims it cannot afford to take steps to promote equality and
equity, but it is not doing a thing to stop the waste, duplication
and inconsistencies generated by overlapping federal and
provincial policies.
The federal government has proven it is incapable of
responding to the urgent needs and repeated requests of women
in Quebec. As I pointed out earlier, Quebec is more progressive
in a number of areas. All it needs is the tools to go even further
and pursue an integrated development process.
There is an English expression that says ``if you can't take the
heat, get out of the kitchen''. Women want the federal
government to take this to heart and let Quebec have sole
authority over areas connected with the status of women.
For all these reasons, I fully support the motion moved by the
hon. member for Québec, and I urge the federal government to
withdraw now from all areas under provincial jurisdiction.
[English]
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I thank my colleague for her remarks. I would like to
follow her lead and take the debate in a slightly different
direction. I ask her to remember that Quebec society of say 50
years ago was quite a different society than it is now.
It was a society that was very much oriented toward the
church and the family. Indeed, during the second world war the
francophone population of Quebec opted for the motto of the
Vichy French, that the family and home were the important
things rather than the traditional French motto of liberty and
equality.
After the second world war we moved into a period in which
there was the great liberation of Quebec socially. There have
been wonderful advances in Quebec in freeing up the
contribution of Quebec's women to the economy and culture of
the country-not only francophone but anglophone as well.
Does the member not feel this change-it is a profound
change that occurred in Quebec in the fifties and the
sixties-owes much not just to the forces within Quebec society
but also to Canada itself? I remind her that some very positive
initiatives were coming from the federal government,
particularly under Mr. Pearson and Mr. Louis St. Laurent which
led to the kind of society that she wishes to see in Quebec.
(1715)
[Translation]
Mrs. Debien: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon.
member for his question. Indeed, Quebec has changed a lot,
particularly since the fifties and the sixties, in the context of
what was called the ``quiet revolution''.
The hon. member tells me that there was a profound change,
and I was part of it; he also says that this profound change was
due to forces within Canada that accompanied with the forces
within Quebec. I would also like to ask a question to the hon.
member. I would like to know what these forces are, because he
10637
did not mention them. Saying that there were forces of change is
one thing, but we would like to know what they are.
In Quebec, we know what our forces of change were and what
contributed to these forces. We admit that there were also forces
in Canada, but I would like to know what were the forces of
change in Canada that might have had an effect on Quebec.
Personally, I do not see them. That is what I am now asking the
hon. member.
[English]
Mr. Bryden: Madam Speaker, far be it for me to instruct the
hon. member in the history of Quebec. There is no doubt that in
the fifties and sixties there was a great reaching out by the
federal government under Prime Ministers Louis St. Laurent
and Pearson. The history of the federal government did tend to
be a history of anglophones prior to the arrival of Mr. Louis St.
Laurent and Mr. Pearson and then we had Mr. Trudeau and so on.
We had an attempt, a very successful attempt, to involve
Quebec in the life of the nation at large. Quebec has contributed
enormously to Canada. I am surprised that my hon. colleague
does not appreciate this.
[Translation]
Mrs. Debien: Madam Speaker, I will answer the hon. member
by saying that we certainly did not take the same courses in the
history of Canada and of Quebec.
[English]
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it is a pleasure to spend a few minutes this afternoon on
this opposition motion. As I listened to the debate unfold this
afternoon, with people speaking with heartfelt conviction from
different political perspectives on the whole notion of women's
issues, it was interesting to reflect on it based on our own
personal experiences, our life experiences.
I thought of my mother and grandmother. My grandmother
was a war bride after the first world war. She came from a life of
some luxury in Scotland and arrived on the prairies in Vulcan,
Alberta to live in a sod hut. I thought of what she went through in
her life as they were breaking the prairies. I thought of how her
circumstances changed relative to the circumstances of my
mother who often said perhaps her life would have been a little
easier if she had been a man. I think that was because she did
many things which were not normally within the purview of
women. To be charitable, she would never rate all that highly on
a scale of one to ten regarding her interest in washing floors,
dishes, and that kind of thing.
(1720)
Interestingly she was the first women photographer ever in
the newspaper guild in Canada. She edited and wrote a
newspaper column for many years. I am very proud of her. She is
in her mid-70s. She always wanted to write a book so she wrote
a book. We are now getting it published.
In her lifetime and in the lifetime of many of the women and
men in the House, the role of women has changed dramatically
in our society. It has changed dramatically as a result of the
emancipation of both men and women. Perhaps the greatest
change that has taken place, at least to my thinking, is the
generational change between my parents' generation and my
generation, and the relationship we have with our daughters.
Most of us in this room who have daughters expect our
children to be treated with absolute impartiality, regardless of
their gender.
My wife and I have a daughter who is an engineer. She is a
very competent person. It used to drive her crazy every time a
male opened a door for her because she could do it on her own,
thank you very much. I said to her: ``Kate, there are times when
you just have to be a little gracious. Perhaps whoever is opening
the door for you is just being polite. It is not a statement meant in
any way to put you down''.
Perhaps one of the things that is missing in this great raging
debate between men and women is that every once in a while we
have to lighten up and not take ourselves so seriously.
We evolve as a people and as a nation. It is an evolutionary
change not revolutionary change. There are those who would say
that evolutionary change has a way of being better than
revolutionary change.
I believe the debate was worthwhile and placed in good faith
by the Bloc. It is worthy of mention that there are all kinds of
inequities in life, not just inequities of women. They may feel
for one reason or another that their potentials are not realized. It
is not just people of different ethnic backgrounds who feel that
maybe their potentials are not realized because of that
background. These things are not right and it is a value system
that we all share.
We recognize that people should not be restrained from the
opportunity of achievement because of any physical
characteristic, whether they are women or because of their
colour or because of their religion, or anything. It is the equality
of opportunity that everyone feels is a right in a free society.
Circumstance is earned. Provided we, as a society, ensure that
everyone; women, men, young and old, have equality of
opportunity, then we are on the right track.
Our challenge is to ensure equality of opportunity, that the
ladder between success and failure is climbed by the amount of
effort put into whatever opportunity is afforded.
I thank the House for the opportunity to put a few thoughts on
the record. If anyone has any further comments, I would be
delighted to entertain them.
10638
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am anxious to
comment on this debate because the whole question of women's
inequality and what it means for violence against women forms
very much a part of the work that I do as Minister of Justice
on behalf of the government. I am happy that this issue has been
put before the House today for discussion. I congratulate
members of the Bloc for devoting this opposition day to such
an important subject.
(1725)
By way of comment, may I make it clear to my colleagues that
the government is keenly aware of the findings of study after
study in recent years which have addressed the issue of violence
against women, and which have concluded almost invariably
that violence against women is connected directly to the
economic inequality of women. As a logical consequence, we
will never effectively address violence against women until we
come to grips with the causes of the economic inequality and
correct them. It is surely a matter of common sense.
Most of the unpaid work done in our society is done by
women, whether it is volunteer work or work in the home. There
is a body of work done by Marilyn Waring, a New Zealand
economist who has studied this phenomenon. She contends
persuasively that until we find a way to collect census data to
value the work done by women, we will never really have a true
picture of their contribution to the economy of our society.
We must also bear in mind that women have a
disproportionate responsibility for home and family. Despite the
social changes of recent decades, preponderantly it is the
woman who must take responsibility for the children and for
maintaining a stable home environment for the family. They do
so at an enormous cost to their professional aspirations, to their
economic and financial opportunities. It is a cost that is often
unfair, invariably beyond compensation. In the case of family
break-up often it is the cause of real financial hardship.
When women do work too often they are consigned to the pink
collar ghettos; clerical or secondary, supportive roles in the
workforce that deny them the opportunities for fulfilment in the
development and use of their full potential. We are told by those
who keep statistics that 80 per cent of the clerical positions in
the country are held by women. Even when they work in full
time positions women earn 72 cents for every dollar earned by
men in full time employment.
This ties directly to violence. Women are constrained to stay
in abusive relationships by economic necessity for themselves
and their children. Because they are in a disadvantaged category
in society they do not necessarily have access to means of help
to get out of those relationships, with tragic consequences for
themselves and for the children.
This issue is of such significance and breadth that I cannot do
justice to it in the few minutes allotted to me today. If there is
anything I would record for the House before I sit down, it is the
profound commitment of the government to do whatever it can
in the mandate that the people have given us to address the
issues we are discussing today.
In some small way we must start a process of broadening
people's understanding of the questions, of working toward
their resolution, of turning around the attitudes of people against
violence against women and the economic inequality of women
so that together, with a better understanding of the issue and a
common resolve to see it addressed, we can improve the
situation for the young women of Canada who will tomorrow
come into their own.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): It being 5.30 p.m., it is
my duty to inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order
81(19) proceedings on the motion have expired.
The House will now proceed to the consideration of Private
Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
10638
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
The House resumed from December 5, 1994 consideration of
the motion.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it gives me pleasure to address motion M-291
introduced by my leader earlier this year.
Today I would like to talk about education in the new
economy. I would like to address not just the details of the
income contingent loan repayment idea but how it fits into the
bigger picture of training and learning in the new economy and
what this means to younger Canadians.
The Journal Policy Options said last November:
The observation that Canadian universities in 1993 are in a state of serious
crisis is now commonplace. Nobody agrees more than administrations, faculty
and students. A preoccupation with underfunding pervades every campus.
Yet the demand for university education is skyrocketing. In
Saskatoon and Regina near my constituency it is becoming
increasingly difficult not only to get into the universities but to
get into the colleges that prepare students for university.
Thousands of students are being turned away and this is a
reflection of our changing economy.
Natural resources have always been part of our country's
greatest asset. Our economic and social progress was financed
10639
with beaver pelts and fish, with logs and grain, with minerals,
with oil and gas and with power generated by our rivers.
Times change. We are increasingly turning our raw natural
resources into manufactured goods, everything from cars and
snowmobiles to fish sticks and frozen french fries. It is a valued
added, information based economy today and those who would
tap into this new economy must have the know how and the
skills to compete with countries all over the world.
Canada's old economy, labour intensive based on natural
resources and basic manufacturing, is no longer able to pay for
all the things we want as a country and is no longer providing the
jobs we need.
The situation is not unique to Canada. The countries of the
developed world are experiencing the most important economic
shift since the industrial revolution, the shift to a knowledge
based economy in which the brain power of our citizens is our
most valuable natural resource.
Government can help to cultivate Canada's most important
natural resource, to develop our country's intellectual
infrastructure by helping young people get a quality education.
Two direct ways to do this are to invest public funds in
education, for example by distributing cash transfers through a
voucher system, and the other by enabling Canadians to invest in
their own education through an improved system of student
loans.
For the first time in 40 years and only after the Reform Party
brought up the idea, the Liberals are looking at the income
contingent loan repayments as a realistic way to help finance
post-secondary education.
Let us take a look at the proposals by the Minister of Human
Resources Development. The Liberal social policy discussion
paper points out that established program financing for
education is currently frozen. This funding consists of $3.5
billion in tax points on $2.6 billion in cash. The government says
the value of tax points will increase as the economy grows and
because of this the cash transfer will taper off to zero in about 10
years if nothing is done. His discussion paper proposes an
immediate elimination of the cash transfer and the
implementation of a student loan system where repayment of the
loans depends on income.
In question period some time ago the Minister of Human
Resources Development said the growth and value of tax points
represents an increase in education funding, but that is clearly
not the case. The reality is the cost of education will probably
grow at least as much as the value of the tax points and possibly
quite a bit more. All other things being equal, the elimination of
the cash portion of federal transfers would represent a funding
reduction of over 40 per cent.
(1735)
The government has recently figured out that we have a debt
problem. It is encouraging that the Liberals are finally coming
around to the Reform's way of thinking on income contingent
loan repayments. A lot of work needs to be done. The crushing
debt burden on Canadians, in particular the burden to young
Canadians, will force them into more difficulty in the future.
What have we done for our young people lately? There is
nothing more important to the future of our country than our
young people. This is something politicians say every time they
go to a campus or a high school, or otherwise make a political
pitch for the youth vote. I say it, the Liberals say it and members
of the Bloc say it. Talk is cheap.
Let us consider for a moment what we have done for our
young people lately. By creating the national debt we have
robbed from the next generation, our young people, to pay for
today's consumption. I have said this across the country as I
have travelled on the social program reform review. We have
loaded off a tremendous debt on to our young people.
The government has spent tax dollars our grandchildren have
not even earned yet. We have done something else. Through
high debt and high taxes government has aided and abetted the
decline of the Canadian job market. One result is that too many
young people with degrees are flipping hamburgers or working
as bartenders.
The spendthrift ways of our government have also crowded
out education funding, resulting in a decline in the quality of
education and higher tuition fees. Recently the Minister of
Human Resources Development proposed eliminating the cash
transfers in support of education altogether. Just a few months
ago we saw students protesting hikes in tuition fees on
Parliament Hill. As I said, talk is cheap.
We must realistically address the basic problems of the
student loan system. Just as if unemployment insurance
payments were reduced nationally, the welfare roles would
swell. As post-secondary education funding to the provinces
dwindled, tuitions rose and students turned more and more to
student loans. More and more of them default when they cannot
find jobs after university.
By 1992 loan defaults reached unprecedented levels. Almost
one-third of outstanding loans were in default. Only two-thirds
of those who had reached the repayment stage had begun to pay.
Since 1964 the value of defaulted student loans has reached
nearly $1 billion. The true cost of the student loan system to the
taxpayer is also unrepresented because the government charges
only simple interest on defaulted loans.
There is another problem with the present system which
works hardship on students. Under the present system students
must begin repaying student loans eight months after graduation
whether they have a job or not, whether they have a high paying
10640
job or not. This leads to an onerous burden on some students and
eventual loan defaults with collection costs, loan write-offs and
general increased costs to the taxpayer.
Under the income contingent system students would begin
repaying their student loan only after they had found a job with a
minimum level of income. The federal government would
collect the student loans back through the income tax system.
This would mean that students would declare their social
insurance number on their student loan forms.
If students were allowed the flexibility of repaying their loans
over a longer period of time through the income they earn in the
future, tuition fees could rise to allow an education of
continuing high quality. Students would be able to afford the
tuition fees as they could repay over a longer period of time.
An income contingent program would also allow fee
structures in universities to be more flexible, introducing a
greater element of supply and demand in the system. It would
squeeze out the irrelevant and useless courses from our
universities, which everyone agrees should be done. If students
must pay something more like market value for an education
they would choose courses more carefully and universities
would begin to supply what was demanded by the market.
I hope this will encourage parents and grandparents to save in
an RRSP type fund for their children and grandchildren because
of the onerous costs which will be involved.
(1740)
Mr. Tony Valeri (Lincoln, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am very
pleased to debate the hon. member's motion.
I know the hon. member appreciates the value of a good
education and wants to ensure all Canadian students are given
every opportunity to fulfil their education potential. On that
point I am sure all members of the House are in agreement.
Education is a provincial responsibility. It always has been
and always will be. Even though that is a given, the federal
government recognizes its role in helping to make the
post-secondary education system accessible to all Canadians
wishing to participate in it.
The government would be acting irresponsibly if it did not
consider support for post-secondary education in the context of
our fiscal framework.
I remind the leader of the Reform Party that when the
government began reviewing our social security system, we
made it clear federal support to post-secondary education would
have to be put to the best possible use because of limited
resources.
That is still the case. Nothing has changed in that regard. The
budget proposes to bring together transfers for health,
post-secondary education and social services into a single bloc
transfer.
This is a simple recognition of reality, not only the reality of
fulfilling the mandate Canadians have given us to bring down
our deficit but the reality that in the 1990s this will be a much
more effective way for the provinces to administer federal funds
that support social programs.
The government also supports post-secondary education
through the Canada student loans program. When the
government passed the Canada Students Financial Assistance
Act last June, it introduced significant reforms to the Canada
student loans program.
Intended to help students complete their post-secondary
studies without undue hardship, the act provides for the
repayment of student loans on an income contingent basis.
My colleagues from the Reform Party actively supported this
provision. As a result, I am confused why my hon. colleagues
are proposing such an amendment at this time.
Since the act was passed the government has consulted many
parties on the concept of linking repayment of loans to income
levels and that such a measure is still very much a possibility.
In its report to the House, the Standing Committee on Human
Resources Development said that during its nationwide hearings
it received energetic and concerned input from many educators
in colleges and universities.
We can get a good handle on the desires of Canadians
regarding federal support to post-secondary education by
examining the committee's findings. The committee's report
stated the fiscal situation of all governments precludes
additional public spending on higher education in Canada.
The committee pointed out that because the government is
reviewing its support for post-secondary education at a time
when educational institutions are under increasing pressures,
fiscal and otherwise, it must ensure scarce resources are used as
efficiently and effectively as possible.
The committee noted that in debating federal contributions to
PSE, it is essential to stress provincial jurisdictions over
policies governing colleges and universities. It is important to
help enhance the viability of colleges and universities while not
interfering with provincial jurisdiction.
The committee's report reflects the broad views of Canadians
on our post-secondary education system. I believe it is
reasonable to ascertain from its input that the direction in which
the government is moving has widespread support.
10641
There is another aspect that I do not believe the hon.
member's motion takes into consideration. Because of what I
mentioned regarding the provincial jurisdiction over
post-secondary education, the federal government, even if it
had unlimited funds, has no authority to tell the provinces how
they should spend current PSE dollars.
There is no equivalent to the Canada Health Act in this area. I
would therefore urge the hon. member to make his views on
improving the post-secondary education system known to
provincial education authorities.
I assure him we would certainly welcome the support of the
Reform Party and of all members in strengthening
post-secondary education.
Here is the new reality. Beginning in the 1996-97 fiscal year
we will consolidate the current transfers under the established
programs financing and the Canada assistance plan into a single
block fund to be known as the Canada social transfer.
(1745 )
In the first year the CST will be $26.9 billion. That is a drop of
$2.5 billion. If we also consider the equalization payment, total
major transfers will be only 4.4 per cent less than the current
total. However cuts in all other areas of federal spending will be
7.3 per cent compared to the current system. In other words the
government is doing what Canadians have asked us to do. We are
getting our own house in order.
Equalization payments are not affected by the budget. Hence
total cuts to those provinces with greater need will be less than
the average cuts to all provinces. While councils that distribute
research grants will be doing their share to help meet our deficit
reduction targets, universities will still benefit from research
grants totalling $900 million for research on medical issues,
science and technology and the social sciences and humanities.
The government appreciates that the hon. leader of the
Reform Party has brought forward the issue for debate. I assure
the hon. member that the Minister of Human Resources
Development will work in collaboration with the provinces to
establish the shared principles and objectives for CST.
Post-secondary education will not be shortchanged by us or
the provinces. We all recognize, as does the hon. member, that
colleges and universities play a vital role in training a highly
skilled workforce.
Therefore I would like to move an amendment to the motion:
That Motion M-291 be amended by deleting all the words after the word
``system''.
I urge the House to support the proposed amendment that
would endorse the continued investigation of the feasibility of
the ICR concept in the broader context of helping students cope
with the debts they incur by investing in their own future.
[Translation]
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to speak to the motion put forward by the hon. member
for Calgary Southwest to amend the Canada Student Financial
Assistance Act to include an income contingent loan repayment
system. I am aware that my colleague from the Liberal Party has
just moved an amendment but I do not think this will affect my
discussion of the main motion since the amendment is
consistent with the spirit of the motion by the hon. member for
Calgary Southwest.
The hon. member favours an income contingent loan
repayment system. We know that, under the current loan
repayment system, loans are guaranteed by the government. A
few months after graduation, the student starts repaying his or
her loan according to a schedule set by the bank and at regular
interest rates. In his first speech, the hon. member for Calgary
Southwest pointed out that about 20 per cent of students had
trouble repaying their debts under the current system.
Our Reform colleague's proposal links the annual amount and
repayment period of the loan to the student's annual income. It
also provides for debt collection through income tax.
(1750)
At first glance, the proposal may seem attractive in the sense
that it allows for some flexibility, which is a good thing for a
person in debt. It is important that the system be flexible enough
to allow for specific situations. Last week, the Quebec
ombudsman noted, while referring to young people who have
problems repaying their loans, that one of the main problems
was that the banks currently do not have the required flexibility
to take into account the situation of these young people, with the
result that several of them have no choice but to declare
bankruptcy. Obviously, some improvements could be made in
that regard.
Collecting debts by using the tax system is also interesting in
the sense that very few people can avoid the tax man. This would
ensure that the debts incurred by young people for their
education would be repaid.
However, when you think of it, that proposal is not as good as
it may seem. It is seriously flawed in a number of ways. First, it
is based on the principle that education is young people's
responsibility. It is up to them to pay for their education,
whether by holding a job or getting into debt. It becomes a case
of every man for himself. It is the law of the jungle. Society
admits to no responsibility toward anyone and leaves it up to
each individual to fend for himself.
This is not the principle which led to the establishment of the
current loan and scholarship program in Canada. It was felt that
education was a right and that society had to help young people
enjoy that right. It was also felt that education was a social
investment. Young people benefit from school training. Just
take a look at the figures on job placement and unemployment;
10642
they will confirm that. As well, all the personal development
and culture gained by young people will prove very useful
throughout their lives. But providing an education to young
people is also a social investment. The richest and most
advanced societies from a socio-economic point of view are
those where young people get the best education.
The loan and scholarship program in Canada was based on
these premises. The federal and provincial governments were
guided by the following principle when they got involved in
loans and scholarships: each young person has the right to an
education and that education is a social investment. This is why,
in Canada, we made sure to keep tuition fees rather low,
compared to what they are in some other countries. It is a
societal decision, a choice we made as a society because we
believe that our young people should get an education for their
own benefit and that of society as a whole.
Therefore, I cannot support the motion before us because the
hidden agenda seems to be to have students pay their own way. It
is particularly striking in the part of the motion that my
colleague from the Liberal Party wants to delete, the part that
talks about reducing the cost to taxpayers and charging
accumulated interest. Basically, the motion put forward by the
hon. member for Calgary Southwest arises from a concern to
save money for taxpayers and make sure that the government
withdraw as much as possible from education financing.
(1755)
I think that there is a danger for students in there too and that
is the danger of long-term indebtedness. Take for instance a
student who has accumulated a debt of $15,000, $20,000 or
$25,000 while in school. If this student has the misfortune to
have trouble finding a job, if he has the misfortune to be poor, he
is going to be in debt for a very long time. Perhaps 10 years,
maybe 15 or even 20. He will not have much of a chance to get
out of debt, especially if, as suggested by our colleague from the
Reform Party, we charge him accumulated interest on his debt.
I think that the danger for our young people is long term
indebtedness. This is also an indirect way of forcing us to go
along with the underlying spirit of minister Axworthy's reform,
i.e. shift the financial burden of education on to the students by
reducing government assistance in the form of scholarships and
asking students to go into debt to get an education.
I think that a proposal like this one could have a negative
effect on motivation to pursue their education. My experience as
a teacher tells me that positive reinforcement is important if we
want our young people to be motivated to get higher education
and I think that putting in place an adequate grants and loans
scheme plays a major part in this. So, this is why I shall vote
against the motion: because, in my opinion, it will
institutionalize long term indebtedness for young people and it
overlooks the need to maintain a scholarship system.
This motion also disregards the need to provide our young
people with incentives to graduate as soon as possible, so as to
keep government expenditures to a minimum. It is a matter of
completing one's education in good time. If it takes three years
to get a degree, take three years but not four, as some are
tempted to do because they have to work their way through
school.
To conclude, I think that what our young people need when
they graduate is to find a good job they can live on and pay their
school debts with, not to find themselves having to spend the
next 10 to 15 years paying off debts.
[English]
Mr. McClelland: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
believe we have 10 minutes left to speak to the motion as 40
minutes were allotted.
Would it be in order for me to speak to the motion?
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Right now I am dealing
with the amendment. The House has heard the terms of the
amendment.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: Madam Speaker, can you tell us exactly what is
going on with this amendment at this stage? Was it put to the
House?
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The amendment I have
here is admissible. I just read it and we will add it later on.
Mr. Laurin: Is the amendment likely to be put to the House?
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Yes.
(1800 )
[English]
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, let me begin by saying that as a government member I
am somewhat perplexed by the motion put forward by the leader
of the Reform Party.
A clear look at the changes and amendments we made in the
Canada Student Financial Assistance Act will show that we
included the concept and notion of an income contingent loan
repayment system. I would point out to members of the Reform
Party that subsection 15.0 of the Canada Student Financial
Assistance Act currently provides for the repayment of student
loans by borrowers on an income contingent basis.
10643
Having said this, the government would like to take this
opportunity to remind the House that thousands of students
require financial assistance right now. A number of measures
have been taken to help them in this regard.
It is important to remind the House that with the passage of
the new Canada Student Financial Assistance Act in June last
year, the government introduced important reforms to the
Canada student loans program intended to support
post-secondary education within a responsible fiscal
framework. A number of these reforms are being phased in
during the 1994-95 school year. The remainder will come into
effect once the new act has been proclaimed.
I believe it is appropriate to remind the leader of the Reform
Party and all hon. members about these measures which the
government has taken to help students complete their education
and become contributing members of Canadian society.
The loans limits had been frozen for 10 years, but they have
now been increased. The weekly loan limit for full time students
has moved from $105 to $165, an increase of approximately 57
per cent. The increase gives students up to $5,610 per school
year, rather than $3,570. We also raised the ceilings on loans for
part time students from $2,500 to $4,000. Part time students will
no longer be required to repay the principal of their loans while
they are studying. The changes give both young and mature
students greater opportunities to fulfil their education.
Through consultations with the provinces and student groups,
special opportunities grants for students with disabilities are
being phased in. The government has allocated approximately
$5 million in 1994-95 for these grants which will also be
available next year.
The government is also working with the provinces to explore
ways that would help ensure that students who must borrow the
most are not burdened with debt loads above what they can
repay. In so doing, the government wishes to provide an
incentive for success.
As well, low income borrowers may be eligible for interest
relief up to 18 months following completion of their studies.
This applies to workers who are not earning enough money to
meet their monthly student loan payments. Such a provision is
currently restricted to borrowers who are unemployed or
temporarily disabled. We are working with the provinces to
apply the Canada student loans program with greater
consistency and fairness.
Levels of assistance are being addressed according to the
individual student's needs. Changes are easing the financial
burden on low to middle income families whose children
deserve every opportunity to complete their education.
Specifically in this regard, the parental contribution table has
been revised to ease the burden on families.
Over the next five years, students will benefit from loans and
grants in excess of $6 billion. That is an increase of $2.5 billion
over the previous five years. This additional investment will
give more than 1.45 million students access to post-secondary
education during this same period which is an increase of
approximately 200,000 students compared to the last five years.
(1805)
These new arrangements will reduce defaults and give
students greater flexibility to repay and lower the costs for
Canadian taxpayers. Lenders will now have more incentive to
provide better services and offer income sensitive terms for
repayment.
A more equitable system must go hand in hand with measures
to reduce and control defaults. To that end, the program's
eligibility criteria is being revised to emphasize results. Simply
put, we will link financial assistance more closely to the
student's successful completion of his or her studies. This will
help to ensure the students who require financial assistance
receive it.
Another aspect is we are collaborating with the provinces to
develop consistent criteria for the educational institutions
participating in the Canada student loans program. This too will
ensure that aid is targeted wisely and costs are controlled.
The government is also carrying out discussions with lenders
on new financing arrangements. The goal is to set terms that are
realistic so borrowers will be able to repay their student loans
relative to their income. This will improve the situation with
respect to loan defaults, thus saving Canadians hard earned tax
dollars.
One of the important things as members of Parliament is to
relate the changes we make in this House to the community
level, to the real lives and the real challenges that Canadians
face. So that the people watching this debate have a clearer
understanding of the type of impact it will have on their
families, on the children and the students, I would like to give
some brief illustrations of the type of positive changes we have
introduced via the legislation cited earlier.
Let us take for example the case of Danielle who is attending
the Technical University of Nova Scotia in Halifax. Danielle
comes from a family of four whose annual income is $44,000.
Danielle's family cannot afford to contribute to her higher
education but she has managed to work during the summer and
save approximately $1,800.
Her total assessed educational need is $7,400. Under the old
method of assessing need, Danielle would qualify for only
$2,600 in maximum aid. Under the new provision of the Canada
student loans program, Danielle is now eligible for 60 per cent
of her assessed need which is $4,440. That is an increase of
$1,840. As for the remaining 40 per cent of assessed need,
Danielle can apply to the province for additional assistance.
10644
Or let us take the case of Greg, a student with a disability
who is attending the University of Guelph. Greg comes from
the city of Vaughan, Ontario where his family earns an annual
income of $60,000. Greg's summer job enables him to put
$2,700 toward his education and his parents are able to
contribute $3,000. That gives him total financial resources of
$5,700 and a total assessed need of $4,200.
Under the old system, Greg would qualify for a meagre $500
in aid, but under the new system at 60 per cent of assessed need
he would qualify for a maximum of $2,520. However, Greg's
disability means he is also eligible for a special opportunity
grant of up to $3,000.
These are positive changes that I am sure will improve the
quality of life for many students throughout Canada.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): It being 6.10 p.m. it is
my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put all questions
necessary to dispose of Motion M-291 now before the House.
Mr. McClelland: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
wonder if I might have the unanimous consent of the House to
speak to the bill for just a few moments.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The House has heard the
request. Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The member has two
minutes.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Thank
you very much, Madam Speaker, and colleagues in the House. I
would like to address two items concerning this motion. I think
it is of significant importance to get them on the books.
The first item is on the amendment to the motion. While it
appears fairly innocuous and since virtually everyone in the
House is onside on this, it is rather unseemly that it be
introduced so late. It does not bind the government anyway
because it is just a motion.
The other point I would like to raise concerns the income
contingent loan repayment. Information today in the Globe and
Mail says that Alberta, Ontario and New Brunswick have
decided they are not able to participate as it is presently written.
Therefore, whatever we do with the income contingent loan
repayment, which is a very good idea, the important element we
must bear in mind is to be flexible.
As my colleagues know, we are going into a very difficult
time financially. The future of our country depends on the
ability of our young generation to be educated so they can use
that education as a springboard for opportunity. Therefore, it is
important that we look at the income contingent loan repayment
in a very flexible, malleable manner if we have to change it. For
instance interest may not be chargeable and that might be
something we would look at.
I ask hon. colleagues to consider this.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is the House ready for
the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The first 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 Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those in favour of
the amendment will please say yea?
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): In my opinion the yeas
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Pursuant to order made
earlier today, the recorded division stands deferred until
Tuesday, March 21, 1995 at 5.30 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Pursuant to the order
made earlier today, the sitting is suspended to the call of the
Chair.
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 6.15 p.m.)
_______________
[
Translation]
The House resumed at 9.14 p.m.
10644
ROYAL ASSENT
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I have the honour to
inform the House that a communication has been received as
follows:
Rideau Hall Ottawa,
March 16, 1995
Madam Speaker,
I have the honour to inform you that the Hon. Beverley McLachlin, Puisne
Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in her capacity as Deputy Governor
General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 16th day of March, 1995,
at 9.10 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain bills.
Yours sincerely,
Judith A. LaRocque
Secretary to the Governor General
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the
Black Rod as follows:
10645
Madam Speaker, The Honourable the Deputy to the Governor General desires
the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the
honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, the Speaker with the House went up to the
Senate chamber.
(2125)
And being returned:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I have the honour to
inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate
Chamber the Deputy Governor General was pleased to give, in
Her Majesty's name, the Royal Assent to the following bills:
Bill C-46, an Act to establish the Department of Industry and to amend and
repeal certain other Acts-Chapter 1.
Bill C-74, an Act respecting the supervision of longshoring and related
operations at west coast ports-Chapter 2.
[
English]
It being 9.30 p.m., pursuant to orders made earlier this day,
the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant
to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 9.30 p.m.)