CONTENTS
Tuesday, March 8, 1994
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 1958
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 1959
(Motion moved and agreed to). 1960
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 1961
Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais 1973
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 1976
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 1982
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 1986
Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais 1990
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 1992
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 1993
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 1993
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 1993
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 1993
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 1993
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 1993
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 1993
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 1994
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 1995
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 1997
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 1998
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu) 2001
Consideration of the motion and the amendment resumed. 2001
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 2001
(Motions agreed to.) 2014
Mr. O'Brien (London-Middlesex) 2018
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 2020
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 2021
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 2022
Amendment negatived on division: Yeas, 49; Nays, 216 2029
Consideration resumed of budget motion, amendmentand amendment to amendment 2031
Bill C-14 Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading. 2032
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 162; Nays, 105 2032
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee.) 2033
1957
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, March 8, 1994
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General
transmitting supplementary estimates (B) for the financial year
ending March 31, 1994, was presented by the President of the
Treasury Board and read by the Speaker to the House.
(1005 )
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure): Madam
Speaker, accordingly I am tabling a copy of the supplementary
estimates for the current fiscal year ending March 31, 1994.
I have copies of the supplementary estimates to be distributed
to the Prime Minister, the leaders and Treasury Board critics of
the opposition parties.
* * *
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut.]
[English]
Under the provisions of Standing Order 32(2), I have the
honour to table, in both official languages, copies of the Sahtu,
Dene and Métis land claims agreements, volumes I and II.
The appropriate legislation to bring this agreement into force
will be introduced in the very near future.
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Secretary of State
(Multiculturalism) (Status of Women)): Madam Speaker, it is
so nice to see you in the chair as I make a statement on today,
International Women's Day.
It is a day to look back and celebrate how far women have
come and to look ahead to see what we still must do to achieve
equality.
On this day I hope all members of the House, women and men
alike, will take time to reaffirm their commitment to equality for
the women of Canada: equality in decision making, equality in
the workplace, equality in the economy and equality in the
home.
[Translation]
Canada is known as one of the world's leaders in promoting
women's equality. Canada helped obtain recognition of
women's rights as an inalienable, integral and indivisible
element of universal human rights at the World Conference on
Human Rights held in Vienna last year.
Canada has also shown it is in the forefront of efforts to
combat violence against women throughout the world. The
survey conducted by Statistics Canada and the report of the
Canadian Committee on Violence against Women, both
published last year, were the first of their kind.
Canada was also instrumental in preparing the United Nations
declaration on eliminating violence against women, adopted in
December 1993. Last week, the UN Human Rights Commission
announced that it would appoint a special reporter on violence
against women.
[English]
Later today I will be participating in an event with my
colleague, the Secretary of State for Latin America and Africa
and Canadian retailer, The Body Shop, as we continue our
partnering efforts in the country to put an end to violence against
women.
(1010 )
The daisy I am supposed to be wearing has not arrived yet. I
will be wearing it this afternoon as it will symbolize those
efforts today.
As The Body Shop says, in the name of love let us stop the
violence. That means violence against our sisters, our children,
1958
our mothers and our elderly grandmothers. However all the
words, the declarations and the research do not mean a thing if
they are not supported by consensus in society, a consensus for
change. The women of Canada have serious concerns about the
many continuing inequities in our country.
Since 1976 the women of Canada have comprised the majority
of the population, but we still represent less than 20 per cent of
the members of the House. It is a record number, yes, but still
not enough.
In 1975 we only averaged 60 per cent of men's full time
earnings. Almost 20 years later that figure is still at only 72 per
cent, largely because most women are still in low paying,
insecure jobs. The salaries of immigrant women are only about
80 per cent of that of the average woman's salary in Canada.
Women who are in the workforce should receive equal pay for
work of equal value.
In 1975 the poverty rate for families headed by women in
Canada was 40 per cent. Today that figure has increased to 62
per cent. The children, our future and theirs are at stake. I find
those figures really frightening. This is one of the major
challenges our social security review will have to address.
Another disturbing challenge we will address is breast cancer.
One in every nine Canadian women will get this disease. It is the
leading killer of women ages 35 to 54. Breast cancer, like other
women's health concerns, has long been neglected in terms of
research and prevention.
These few statistics speak volumes about women's inequality
in Canada today. How do we move forward toward the goal the
United Nations has set for equality by the year 2000? What we
need are changes in attitudes, priorities and values on the part of
individuals, communities, organizations and governments to
give the concerns of women the attention they deserve.
Within government we must realize that our decisions have
the potential to affect women very differently from men. From
tax law to legislation on dangerous offenders, from health
policies to immigration guidelines, the impact can be different
on women because of our different socioeconomic
circumstances.
I ask the members of the House to examine every issue, every
policy and every program as if they were wearing gender tinted
glasses, the rose tinted glass, looking at it from a woman's point
of view.
My goal is to ensure that all national legislation and policies
are developed with full consideration for women for their needs
and aspirations. I think there is the political will in the House to
do so. I am confident that the House could become a model
Parliament, demonstrating that a partnership between women
and men is the only way to address the issue of women's equality
right across the spectrum of political ideology.
Our government is developing and implementing policies
which are sensitive to the particular needs of women. I ask
everyone to work together with us as we put in place a more
equitable and just society for all Canadians.
Next year the world will be looking at our progress and at that
of other nations at the fourth UN conference on women in
Beijing, China. We should think of the consequences if we do
not work to improve the situation for women in Canada. What
will we say to our daughters and granddaughters who look to
their elected representatives to help lead the way in this process
for change? We cannot ask our daughters to hold back their
aspirations until we are ready for them.
[Translation]
Through our work in our constituencies, our communities and
our parliamentary committees, each and everyone of us can
make a difference.
Today, on International Women's Day, I am counting on each
and everyone of you to help me advance the cause of genuine
equality for Canadian women.
(1015)
In return, I can assure you that future generations of
Canadians will remember the 35th Parliament of Canada as the
one that made a difference, for the sake of our daughters and our
sons.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec): Madam Speaker,
International Women's Day indeed affords us a unique
opportunity to assess the progress made by women. Above all, it
allows us to evaluate the genuine will of our leaders.
In terms of statements and commitments, Canada is a world
leader in this area. However, the government's actions have
certainly not lived up to its promises. According to the United
Nations' human development index for 1993, Canada only ranks
eleventh in so far as the status of women is concerned, whereas
previously it was in eighth place.
As we can see, the actions of our government do not match the
promises made. Should the secretary of state get the idea of
responding that her party was not in power then, I would point
out to her right away that the present government's
commitments as contained in the throne speech and in the
budget show no change at all in the course previously set out. No
new initiatives whatsoever have been put forward.
Mention is made of salary disparities between men and
women. What does the present government intend to do to
address this situation? Between the throne speech and the
budget, I see no undertaking to correct the problem of wage
disparities between men and women, even among the federal
government's own employees.
1959
When the Secretary of State for the Status of Women speaks
of the poverty rate among women, she should draw a connection
between income and poverty and pursue this analysis, insisting
that her colleagues comply with court rulings ordering the
federal government to pay its employees a relatively modest
sum of money in order to close the wage gap between male and
female federal employees. No effort has been made in this
regard and none is planned. What about the government's
responsibility to address this serious injustice within its very
own institutions?
The secretary of state's goal is that in six years' time, policies
and laws will take into account the needs of women. Madam
Speaker, women need money, jobs, equitable salaries and
adequate working conditions. Everyone already knows that this
is what women need. How are we going to be any closer to this
goal in six years when this government has nothing concrete to
offer? How are we going to achieve this goal without daycares,
without job creation programs geared to women, without wage
equity, without occupational training, without a clear vision?
Madam Speaker, I fear that we will not. Six years is too short a
time frame given the pace at which the government is setting its
priorities.
I would be curious to know what kind of progress Canada will
claim to have made at the Beijing Conference. Will it be
announced that the women and men of this government have
agreed to take no action whatsoever? Will it be announced that
the Canadian government does not comply with the country's
laws and courts?
I would like to address the House for the first time in English
and say:
[English]
Put the money where it should be.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, I am prepared, as are all of my women
colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois, to work with our male
colleagues and even with those on the other side of the House. I
am prepared to put my money where my mouth is.
[English]
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast): Madam Speaker,
today is a special day, International Women's Day.
It is a day to acknowledge together the wonderful
opportunities that we have as Canadians as we strive to reach our
full potential regardless of race, language, culture, religion or
gender.
As I speak today I look to the vision and effort of the women
who preceded me in the House and in politics in general. There
were some courageous souls who toiled long and hard for the
betterment of this wonderful country. Nellie McClung and
Agnes Macphail are two of the more famous names that come to
mind. These are women of strong character, strong will and
moral integrity.
(1020)
With role models like these, it is not surprising that women
have aspired to accomplish great things. Women everywhere
should be proud of their roles as homemakers, lawyers, bankers,
university presidents, welders, prime ministers, hockey players,
pastors, members of Parliament and many more.
When we remember Nellie McClung we remember the
tireless effort to get women declared as persons, to get women
the vote, to get women elected to provincial legislatures. These
are the things we take for granted today but were hard fought for
a mere 70 years ago.
Agnes Macphail broke ground for us in the House of
Commons. She was a woman of vision who spoke for her
constituents passionately and effectively. Agnes Macphail did
not see issues as gender specific as she argued on behalf of all of
her constituents: children, women and the coal miners she
served.
There is no doubt that in our society women face numerous
serious social challenges. However, special consideration has a
weary habit of turning inward on itself. It does not guarantee
equality but rather may generate resentment and hostility
toward those who do make advancements, thereby diminishing
their true potential.
It is a fundamental Canadian belief that all persons should
have the right of equality of opportunity and the right to not be
discriminated against in the workplace or society at large. This
is not to negate the fact that women do face discriminatory
practices in the workplace, child care concerns and violence
within the family unit. The net effect of these concerns has
implications not only for women but for all of society and
therefore requires societal solutions.
Members of the House will notice that today the approach of
the Reform Party to women's issues is different from what we
will hear from others. We believe all Canadians, men and
women alike, are entitled to equal rights. We also believe that
the concerns of economic renewal, the deficit and job creation,
the major themes of the government, belong to all of us.
Instead of setting up barriers to equal opportunity by picking
out special interest groups, we should provide opportunities for
women, ethnic minorities and the disabled by improving
education, emphasizing individual achievement and
dismantling unfair systemic barriers to advancement.
In 1982 Pierre Trudeau did just that. He patriated the
Constitution to help eradicate injustices. Having done so, we
have been given the opportunity to look beyond gender.
1960
The secretary of state has cited the problems of poverty for
single parent families led by a woman. Resolving such a
difficult issue demands more than merely thinking there is a
political will for change. We need to get to the root problems and
take action.
It is time to look at our taxation system to see why it penalizes
family when one parent chooses to stay home to raise the
children. It is time to look at our judicial system to see why the
families of divorce and the children of single parents are living
in such abject poverty because of poor enforcement to secure
maintenance payments.
It is time to look at our criminal justice system to see why
abusers are permitted to continue to abuse rather than being
removed from that situation. It is time to look at our education
system to ensure that all students are given the same
encouragement and support to pursue their dreams and their
goals.
These issues, while most often affecting women, are not
issues that fall exclusively to women. The Constitution values
the importance of all Canadians and so should we as
parliamentarians. The secretary of state for the status of women
claimed that we are elected by the women of Canada to represent
their needs and concerns in all of our decision making. The
constituents of Calgary Southeast elected me to represent them
collectively, not just the women. In all the debates and for all the
issues that I will consider I will always consider all my
constituents in my riding. They expect nothing more from me
and nothing less. That is the point of difference in the 35th
Parliament.
* * *
(1025)
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure): Madam
Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 81(5) and
(6) I wish to introduce a motion concerning referral of the
estimates to the standing committees of the House. There is a
lengthy list associated with the motion and if it is agreeable to
the House I would ask that the list be printed in
Hansard as if it
has been read. Therefore I move:
That the supplementary estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1994,
laid upon the table on March 8, 1994, be referred to the several standing
committees of the House in accordance with the detailed allocation attached.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: List referred to above is as follows:]
To the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Votes 1b, 5b, 6b, 10b, 15b, L20b,
L25b and 35b.
To the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food
Agriculture, Votes 1b, 5b, 10b, 15b and 25b.
To the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage
Communications, Votes 1b, 10b, 15b, 35b and 100b.
Environment, Votes 20b, 21b and 25b.
Western Economic Diversification, Vote 15b.
To the Standing Committee on Government Operations
Governor General, Vote 1b.
Industry, Science and Technology, Vote 81b.
Privy Council, Vote 1b, 5b and 6b.
Public Works, Votes 2b, L21b and 26b.
Secretary of State, Vote 10b.
Supply and Services, Votes 1b, 2b and 5b.
To the Standing Committee on Natural Resources
Energy, Mines and Resources, Votes 1b, 3b and L33b.
Forestry, Vote 10b.
To the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development
Environment, Votes 1b, 5b and 15b.
To the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade
External Affairs, Votes 1b, 10b, 20b, 25b, 26b and 45b.
To the Standing Committee on Finance
Finance, Votes 1b and 40b.
National Revenue, Votes 5b, 10b and 20b.
To the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans
Fisheries and Oceans, Vote 10b.
To the Standing Committee on Health
National Health and Welfare, Votes 1b, 5b, 15b, 20b and 25b.
To the Standing Committee on Industry
Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Votes 1b and 2b.
Industry, Science and Technology, Votes 1b, 5b, 45b, 50b, 55b, 60b and 65b.
National Health and Welfare, Vote 35b.
Western Economic Diversification, Votes 1b and 5b.
To the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs
Justice, Votes 1b, 5b, 10b, 15b, 20b and 40b.
Solicitor General, Votes 1b, 10b, 15b, 25b, 30b and 35b.
To the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development
Employment and Immigration, Votes 1b, 5b, 6b, 10b, 15b and 20b.
Labour, Votes 1b, 10b and 15b.
To the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration
Multiculturalism and Citizenship, Vote 5b.
Secretary of State, Votes 1b and 5b.
To the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs
Parliament, Vote5b.
To the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs
National Defence, Vote 20b.
To the Standing Committee on Transport
Transport, Votes 1b, 5b, 10b, 25b, 42b, 43b, 45b and 60b.
1961
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent): Madam Speaker, once again it is
an honour to rise in the House pursuant to Standing Order 36 to
present a petition on the Young Offenders Act concerning a
private member's bill presented by the member for York South
and seconded by the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville.
I had the privilege this morning on CBC ``Newsworld'' to
debate the Young Offenders Act with the hon. member for
Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing.
The petition from constituents of my riding states that crimes
committed on society by young offenders are on a serious up rise
and young offenders go virtually unpunished due to protection
under the Young Offenders Act. They lack respect for the law
and fellow citizens. There is no remorse or shame on the part of
the young offender.
Therefore the undersigned your petitioners humbly pray and
call upon Parliament to review and revise their laws concerning
young offenders, empowering the courts to prosecute and punish
the young lawbreakers who are terrorizing our society by
releasing their names and lowering the age limit to allow
prosecution to meet with the severity of the crime.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I
ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Shall all questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
1961
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
(1030)
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec) moved:
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.
She said: Mr. Speaker, in 1967, the United Nations
proclaimed March 8 International Women's Day. Today, 17
years later, this day of thought remains essential to the
furtherance of the cause of women. While much progress has
been made, women continue to suffer social, economic and
cultural discrimination.
To make a progress report on the status of women as we
celebrate Women's Day would be a colossal task, a real feat,
especially considering that each and every woman in Quebec
and Canada is living her status as a woman in her own way.
Women have to fight for their rights and dignity in various ways
depending on their socio-cultural environment, values, age,
background and civil status.
At one end of the spectrum you have women who have chosen
to stay at home and at the other end, women who have decided to
combine career and family. In between, there is a large number
of women who have no other choice but to stay at home for lack
of adequate resources to get integrated in the labour market.
Future generations will not accept such constraints imposed by
outdated social patterns and attitudes, constraints which
overlook the legitimate needs of 52 per cent of the population.
Constraints put on women take many forms, but all describe
the same reality: inequity and disparities. My remarks today
will deal with inequity in employment, wage disparities,
inequity within the family, inequity in tax treatment. While the
status of every woman may be different, each has already
encountered this bottom line, inequity and disparities.
Countless speeches, reports, inquiries, petitions, briefs,
testimonies and statistics have been presented to this House in
support of women. All hon. members, past and present, have
been made aware of their problems. One can wonder how many
more economic inequities and acts of violence women will have
to suffer and how many more barriers to autonomy they will
have to encounter before the government takes concrete steps
and fulfil its social leadership responsibility. For justice to be
served, the government must pass proactive legislation to
guarantee equality between women and men, while fulfilling its
commitments to women.
Equality between women and men should first be assessed in
economic terms. This is very basic. As we know, the most
common source of income is employment earnings. Recent
statistics show a $11,000 gap between the average earnings of
women and those of men. This discrepancy is explained mainly
by the fact that the majority of women have low-paid jobs in
retail, clerical and service trades.
In 1992, part time jobs represented 16.8 per cent of all jobs in
this country and we know that more and more jobs are part time.
Seventy per cent of part time jobs are held by women. The fact of
the matter is that the main characteristics of these jobs, besides
meagre wages, are a lack of career opportunities and a lack of
training, as opposed to full time jobs. Also, it has been
established that working part time reduced chances of finding
1962
stable full-time employment after having been unemployed,
thus increasing considerably the risks of joining the ranks of the
non-working population.
In Quebec, in 1992, 24 per cent of working women worked
part time, as compared to 9 per cent of men. Given the
unavailability of full-time jobs, a certain portion of part-time
work could be considered as hidden unemployment and in
Quebec, for example, there are 113,000 women-twice as many
women as men-in that situation. If these women were
considered to be unemployed, their unemployment rate would
climb from 11.9 per cent to 19.5 per cent, while that of men
would increase from 13.4 per cent to 16.4 per cent.
(1035)
In its report made public in July 1993, the Canadian Advisory
Council on the Status of Women noted that, although the media
give more coverage to massive layoffs affecting men, women
are in a particularly disquieting situation. Those who lose their
jobs during a recession have less chance of finding new jobs
afterwards. Between 1981 and 1984, 25 per cent of laid-off
women did not return to the workforce, compared with 12 per
cent of laid-off men.
I emphasize today that the creation of full-time, long-lasting
and well-paid jobs must be among the Canadian government's
top priorities. In this regard, I find it deplorable that this
government's only concrete measure to create jobs is the
infrastructure program. This so-called godsend will in fact
contribute very little to the improvement of women's economic
situation. Is this how the government demonstrates its interest in
striking an equitable balance in job access? Let us be serious:
the only jobs, even short-term jobs, likely to be created are
almost exclusively in employment sectors traditionally
dominated by men such as construction, transport and primary
industry where heavy-machinery operators, road workers and
labourers are needed.
We must also underline and condemn the emphasis put by the
federal government on reducing labour costs. The freeze on
salaries and levels in the public service as well as personnel
reduction plans have had disastrous effects on the economic
situation of women, who account for 45 per cent of all federal
public servants. Between now and 1996, the government will
make cuts totalling around $1.5 billion. The Canadian Union of
Public Employees predicts that women will be hit harder, since
they are found in part-time jobs, even precarious, casual
part-time jobs, in the Canadian public service.
For example, while women hold 41 per cent of jobs in the
administrative and foreign service category, they accounted for
51 per cent of laid-off workers. In the technical category, 58 per
cent of laid-off workers are women, who only hold 15 per cent
of all jobs. Women lose their jobs more often than men and their
jobs do not pay as well.
We also learned that the government would close on March
31, 1994 the office of representation and employment
orientation for women created in 1983 under a government
strategy to increase women's representation at the management
level. This office will be closed because an assessment
conducted in 1993 indicated that the government had achieved
its goals. The Public Service Alliance of Canada has challenged
the conclusions of this assessment.
Allow me to express some reservations on these conclusions
and to question the long-term effects of closing this office. All
parents know how important role models are in teenagers'
development. We have a right to ask how young girls who need
such role models will be able to identify with successful career
women if we water down the measures to increase their numbers
in the public service.
It should be obvious that a responsible government must act to
remove barriers to women's full participation in the workforce.
To achieve this, the government should strive to eliminate job
segregation still alive today, which is the main obstacle to job
equity.
The need to act is all the more urgent, in job training for
instance, that the key sectors for job creation in the medium
term are identified as those traditionally dominated by men. In
Quebec, this amounts to 80 per cent of the jobs that will be
created in the next ten years.
(1040)
The government must show leadership and seek to increase
the presence of women in all fields of employment and at all
levels. It must continue to reduce wage gaps and encourage the
adoption of human resource management practices based on
equity. What does it say about our society when our own
government does not respect the measures and laws in place!
In 1992, the previous government ignored the
recommendations and rulings on pay equity rendered in 1991 by
the Human Rights Commission. In 1993, an inquiry by this
commission concluded that Canada Post paid its female
employees $2,500 less for duties, skills, responsibilities and
working conditions that were identical to those of men. The
Commission concluded that the Canadian Human Rights Act
was ineffective and not credible.
Furthermore, at a press conference in March 1993, the Chief
Commissioner pointed out that women in the Canadian Public
Service earned 30 per cent less than their male colleagues. He
also emphasized that economic disparities between men and
women in Canada were a flagrant contradiction of our country's
national and international commitments.I would remind you
that in 1981 Canada ratified the United Nations Convention on
the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women,
1963
and under this convention Canada promised to respect the
principle of equal pay for work of equal value.
At the United Nations World Conference on Women in Kenya
in 1985, Canada also adopted action strategies to promote
women, a project to ensure women's equality in UN member
countries by the year 2000. Where are we today with these
commitments? Is it not ironic that the theme chosen by Status of
Women Canada is women's equality-towards 1995!
In that organizations's pamphlet, we read that this is also the
time to ask what still remains to be done for women to become
full and equal partners in society.
I dare suggest that the government implement these fine
words with its own female employees. These women would
hardly be surprised to learn that the United Nations human
development index for 1993 puts Canada only in 11th place for
the status of women, compared to 8th place before.
Tax legislation is another reason for women's economic
inequality. Allowing alimony paid for children to be deductible
from income tax is systemic discrimination against women,
since women in most cases still have child custody. By taking
that approach, the law in a way rewards the ex-husband who
does not have custody of the children and penalizes and
impoverishes the former wife who has custody. By extension,
the children are also penalized. This law, which goes back to
1942, in no way reflects today's reality.
On behalf of all women, I call for the abolition of this tax
measure. I also ask for a thorough study of the unfairness of tax
legislation to families.
Having considered the economic conditions of working
women with children, I will now deal with the economic
situation of unemployed women.
The government's recent cuts and budget restrictions
affecting unemployment insurance will very clearly have a
negative impact on the living conditions of many low-income
women. The Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of
Women points out that many people affected by these
restrictions are single parents and that only the poorest people
will be entitled to have their UI benefits increased to 60 per cent
of their salary.
(1045)
To be eligible to this tiny increase, women will have to declare
their dependents and allow UI program officials free access to
personal information regarding their family. I denounce this
new form of interference in the private life of poor women. I
denounce this form of humiliation that the government wants to
impose upon them and which is tantamount to a violation of
their dignity.
Another form of violation of the dignity of women is the
violence to which they are subjected within the family. In its
recent report, the Canadian Panel on Violence Against Women
points out that this abuse is unlikely to stop, as long as women
are not treated equally. The government will have to take that
into consideration when it decides on the measures required to
put a stop to violence against women. Is there any need to
remind the House of the promises made in that regard? I have no
choice but to say that those promises were certainly not
implemented in the recent budget.
In this respect, we wonder about the impact of the 5 per cent
cuts to the funds allocated to various organizations. I am
thinking here of those 376 battered women's homes in Canada,
which form the main support network for women and whose
usefulness has been demonstrated. Women of all ages now speak
out and denounce the violence to which they are subjected. But
what good is that if the government makes cuts in the budgets
allocated to organizations which are in a position to provide
concrete help?
Police officers, judges and lawyers are also involved in the
issue of violence against women. Did the government meet its
commitment to allocate the necessary funds to train these people
and make them aware of the need for a different kind of
approach regarding these victims and their abusers?
In conclusion, I believe that the basic principle of economic
equality between women and men is far from being a priority for
this government. I am talking of course of real, not verbal
priority. Indeed, one wonders if the government has the will to
facilitate access to jobs for women and to help them keep
working. The Liberals made a nice promise to the effect that
they would create 150,000 day-care spaces. We now know that
this will not be the case. Indeed, by imposing as a condition a 3
per cent annual growth for the GDP, the government has put this
project on the back burner. Even the Minister of Finance
admitted in the House yesterday that such growth would not
occur for three years. Once again, the government shows how
little it cares about family needs, and particularly the needs of
women.
We must change the course of history which, unfortunately,
tells us that it is events such as wars and revolutions which best
promote the participation of women in the workforce. These
conflicts force the government to call upon women to replace
men at work. When this happens, women are offered training
sessions to become mechanics, welders or electricians. The
skills of women are then put to full use. Daycare centres are
created to make it easier for women to go to work. However,
once those conflicts end, the men come back and politicians
send the women home, offering them minimal compensation in
the form of allowances to encourage them to do so.
We want economic equality between women and men. We
want the recognition of the principle of equality but, more
importantly, we want the implementation of the necessary
measures to ensure that equality now.
1964
[English]
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Secretary of State
(Multiculturalism) (Status of Women)): Mr. Speaker, I
listened with a great deal of interest to my colleague's discourse.
Many of the issues with which she has indicated a serious
concern are priorities we have enunciated in the red book, in the
speech from the throne and will also be found in the budget.
I would particularly bring to her attention the explicit
undertaking by this government concerning child care spaces
which we also recognize as the primary building block. When 3
per cent of GNP is arrived at we will be investing another
$50,000 a year. We already subsidize over 633,000 child care
spaces.
(1050)
[Translation]
I want to thank the hon. member for Québec for her motion,
because in it she asks this House to support a principle which is
dear to my heart: economic equality between women and men.
I want her to know that I have been active in women's groups
for 30 years, and there is not a single objective we have pursued
with as much energy and dedication as that of economic equality
for women. The process is a slow one, and I believe there are
other women in this House who would agree and who have
fought these battles for many years. The process did not start
with this generation. It started much earlier.
The economic problems of the past ten years and the priorities
of our Conservative predecessors caused the circumstances of
many women to decline, often forcing them to live in poverty
and dependency.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order, please.
I would like to know whether the minister is taking part in the
period for questions and comments after the speech by the hon.
member for Québec.
[English]
Is the hon. minister speaking on debate?
Mrs. Finestone: On debate.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I am wondering if I could
oblige. Following the intervention by the hon. member for
Québec, there was a 10-minute period of questions and
comments.
[Translation]
Mrs. Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order, please. Today,
pursuant to Standing Order 81(22), all members have a
20-minute maximum and speeches are subject to a 10-minute
period of questions and comments.
A point of order was raised by the hon. member for
Rimouski-Témiscouata.
Mrs. Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, we were advised that since the
hon. member for Québec was the mover of the motion, there
would be no limit on her speaking time and no period for
questions and comments. Subsequently, the secretary of state
would be able to speak to the motion as well, and then other
members would have a 20-minute maximum, and so forth. That
is what we were told, if I am not mistaken.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): With respect, I was
simply following the Standing Orders. If the House agrees to
proceed in this way, the Chair will of course interpret this as
being the will of the House, and we will proceed accordingly.
Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I will now recognize the
secretary of state, and I apologize for interrupting.
[English]
Mrs. Finestone: I am sorry, I missed that.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I wanted to tell you that
the Chair was simply applying the applicable standing order. If
it is the wish of the House to continue as has been suggested by
the secretary of state and hon. members opposite, certainly the
Chair will adhere to that. On debate, the hon. secretary of state.
Mrs. Finestone: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this very
important day and the excellent choice of the opposition day
subject matter encourages us to allow as many people as
possible to speak in the House. Presumably that is why we went
ahead with what would seem to be a contradictory situation. I
thank you for your openness in accepting the decision of the
House.
[Translation]
I think the time has come to renew our commitment to
women's economic self-sufficiency and become even more
dedicated to achieving economic equality and equity in the
labour market.
(1055)
It is a fact that women's equality, and equity and justice for all
can only be achieved through economic independence. We are
also aware that economic equality is both the basis and the
measure of the status of women in our society.
Women must have a place in the job world, receive equal pay
for work of equal value and contribute their fair share to our
collective wealth.
1965
[English]
I feel privileged to be part of a government which is
determined to accelerate the advancement of economic
opportunities for women. I am honoured to serve under a Prime
Minister who is committed to that goal.
The Liberal philosophy has always been based on fairness,
equity and social justice. The Liberal tradition is rich in
accomplishments and success toward women's equality.
The last Liberal government brought us the Canadian Human
Rights Act, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and
initiated the Royal Commission on Equality in Employment in
1983. The same government appointed the first woman to the
Supreme Court of Canada, the first woman Speaker of the House
and the first woman Governor General of Canada.
Now in a little more than 100 days our Prime Minister has
appointed the first woman Deputy Prime Minister, the first
woman Government Leader in the Senate and the first woman
Clerk of the Privy Council.
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.
[Translation]
We are aware that women make a tremendous contribution to
our society and our economy. The economic disparities that
affect women however, are related to a number of factors.
First of all, women do much work that is not remunerated.
Whether they do volunteer work in the community or take care
of elderly parents, all women spend a significant part of their
lives helping others without payment, out of love and
dedication.
Second, women today still shoulder more than their share of
the responsibility for their families and their homes. I am often
amazed to see how young men, and especially young fathers,
share parental and household tasks. According to the statistics,
however, women still do most of the work.
The third disparity hinges on the kind of jobs where women
tend to be concentrated, the so-called pink ghettos. In
employment sectors like office work, sales or services, 80 per
cent or more of the employees are women. Generally speaking,
these jobs do not pay as well as jobs in sectors where men are
more numerous.
Finally, women face attitude problems. When they mention
cases of clearly discriminatory behaviour, the answer is often:
``I do not see what the problem is''. I am afraid people will have
to learn to see, and this is particularly true in cases of sexual
harassment and sometimes even in cases of violence against
women.
[English]
I hope that every member in the House realizes how important
it is for our country that women achieve economic equality. It is
a matter of fairness and justice but it is also a true economic
issue for all Canadians. In times of economic restructuring and
increased international competitiveness, we have to make use of
the full potential of all our citizens.
I wish my hon. colleague had included in her motion the other
designated categories of Canadians who are also struggling on
the road toward equality, both socially and economically. I am
referring to visible minorities, aboriginal peoples and persons
with disabilities. Those are areas where I must be an advocate at
all times and members will agree being an advocate for those
people is very important. In each one of these groups there are
women who must face double and sometimes triple factors of
discrimination. Women politicians have a particular
responsibility and a special opportunity to break down these
barriers.
(1100 )
We can reach out to other women. We can help level the
political playing field for them. We can call for action and get
action. It may not always be as fast as we would wish. We can do
this in partnership with men and we can do this from both our
riding perspective as well as the perspective of our province and
our country. That is our job. The total country is ours.
[Translation]
That brings me to the second part of the motion presented by
my friend from Quebec, who is asking the government to
implement measures, in areas of federal jurisdiction, to
guarantee women equity in employment, wages and living
conditions.
First, I would like to remind my colleague that, in our famous
red book, we made three definite commitments in that respect.
To start with, for the Employment Equity Act to be really
effective, it must apply to the largest number possible so as to
broaden its impact. I believe that members will agree with me on
that. Now, for my second point.
[English]
We will through our human rights legislation enlarge the
legislative authority to initiate investigations of employment
equity issues.
Third, federal contractors should be subject to mandatory
compliance with the principles of the Employment Equity Act.
I remember when that act came into the House. It had some
very big holes in it. I hope, as we put in a mandatory review
period which is coming up shortly, that we will have filled those
1966
holes with legislation before we even get to the review stage
because they were very obvious by their absence.
We believe that the federal contractors program presents a
good opportunity to demonstrate our commitment to the
principle of employment equity. The message is loud and clear.
If one wants to do business with the federal government, one
must implement employment equity in the workplace. That
means fair jobs based on merit and those based on merit will get
a first choice and open access to that job application.
As I have mentioned before in the House, this rule applies to
our infrastructure program as well. Our representatives at the
selection committee have all been instructed to look into the
employment equity aspect of every project and to take this into
account in their final recommendations.
I believe that this plan toward a more equitable working
environment for women answers my colleague's motion for the
most part. She knows, like every Canadian knows by now, that if
it is in the red book it will happen because we are now quickly
turning our promises into action.
[Translation]
I believe that the plan I just outlined directly answers the
request made by my colleague from Quebec in her motion.
However, I would like to add a couple of points. First of all, I
firmly believe that legislation, agreements, regulations and
policy statements are useful, if not essential, to bring us closer
to economic equality and social justice.
Nonetheless, I am convinced that without a reasonable
consensus among citizens and without the active participation
of all Canadians, we will progress at a snail's pace. However, if
we all strive towards the same end, in a joint effort, we will
progress by leaps and bounds.
Therefore, I would suggest to Canadians that they put this
International Women's Day to good use by drawing up a list of
initiatives we could take to improve the status of women in our
country.
[English]
Government cannot do it all. It takes everyone to participate,
men and women in all sectors of our society.
[Translation]
After seeing, these last few days, business and union leaders
jointly and severally approve a recommendation package aimed
at improving women's working and living conditions, I cannot
help thinking that there is light at the end of the tunnel. It is only
a matter of time.
[English]
My second thought deals with a degree of opportunities. I am
dedicated to pay equity and enhancing working conditions for
women, but first women have to be able to find a job. This is
where this government is being the most helpful to women. By
making job creation and growth its top priority, the government
is providing women with the basic essential opportunity to reach
out for economic independence and equality.
I have to point to the small and medium sized business
undertakings in which we are going to ensure access to capital,
where over 30 per cent of those businesses belong to women,
where they are twice as successful as men and where 85 per cent
of all new jobs are created in the country. This will indicate to
everyone that we have a strong commitment to women.
(1105 )
We on this side of the House believe that a strong economy is
the key to women's economic independence and we believe that
a strong economy is based upon the full and fair participation of
all our citizens. It is true that the greatest resource we have in the
country is grey matter, intellectual property, and 50 per cent of it
rests in the heads of women.
This government knows that for Canada to prosper it must
take full benefit of all the talents of all of our citizens and ensure
that all Canadians are treated with fairness and equity. This is
precisely what we intend to do.
On February 7, 1994 the leader of the government in the
House set forth the principle that the decision of this
government as to how to vote on any motion would be
determined on the basis of the merits of the motion. In
accordance with that principle, in accordance with openness and
right of obligations and actions in this House, and in keeping
with the spirit of parliamentary reform, I am happy to inform the
House that it is the intention of the government to support the
motion now before us.
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam): Mr.
Speaker, on behalf of the whip of the Reform Party, I would like
to advise the House that pursuant to Standing Order 43(2) our
speakers on the motion will be dividing their time.
In speaking on today's opposition day motion which
addresses the economic equality between men and women, I am
drawn back to my 30 years in the classroom where I hope I
successfully taught our young people that they did not deserve
special treatment because they were women or that the young
men did not deserve special treatment because they were men. I
hope I set high standards in my classroom. The only
qualifications for achievement were hard work, the ability to
respect all fellow students and the ability to accept
responsibility.
1967
By now it is obvious that while I hold women in high regard, I
also hold men in high regard. Part of this respect comes from my
father, a military man of four wars: the Irish rebellion, the first
world war, the Palestine uprising and the second world war.
I do not remember him telling any of his nine children, six of
them girls, that there were any restrictions on what they could do
with their lives. I only remember one strong message given to
each of his children: a man or a woman is worthy of their hire.
Do not be asking how much pay you are going to get. Work hard,
your employer will like your responsible attitude. If you treat
others as you wish to be treated, this usually holds true.
My mother never went out to work, enjoyed her home, raising
her children, president of the PTA, and encouraged all her
children to work hard. Although she never learned to drive, she
encouraged her children to, and her daughters to carry their own
weight in society. I remember while she was on the PTA our
school board served hot lunches every day to each student
through the help of volunteer parents and the community. The
government did not pay for these hot lunches.
Why am I saying all this? There are a lot of members in this
House who, like me, are over 50 and who can attest to these
strong teachings given to us by our parents of all cultures and all
nationalities. These parents if still alive are grandparents and
some great-grandparents. Many of us here today are
grandparents. 1994 is the year of the family and I can think of no
better way to celebrate International Women's Day than to pay
tribute to grandparents around the world.
In many cultures our senior citizens are treated with much
more respect than here in Canada. They are given a position of
honour and respect in the family. If we look at various cultures
around the world we see the importance of grandparents in
raising children. With the British Columbia Indians, for
example, traditionally the grandparents raise the young people.
Also in the Chinese culture and many other cultures around the
world.
Throughout the history of mankind societies throughout Asia,
Europe and North America, all of them, had concerns for the
children. Throughout all these societies, whether a modern
society or aboriginal people, there was always a place in the old
days where the elders were respected. The elders helped train
the children. They passed on tradition, culture and heritage. It
went way beyond that. It went to the point of giving the feeling
of security, the feeling of love and warmth.
(1110)
In today's world of broken marriages and single parents we
need the support and the stability of our grandparents more than
ever before.
In this year of the family there are no special interest groups.
Rather we must look at the whole family from the youngest to
the oldest. It is very significant that grandparents seem to have a
real natural regard and concern for grandchildren.
Not so long ago this subject was debated in the Alberta
legislature. Mrs. Hughes quoted a study by Jim Gladstone at the
University of Guelph. He conducted a study in 1986 that
reinforced the importance of grandparents to grandchildren. The
report concluded that when marriages break down grandmothers
have more contact with their grandchildren than perhaps ever
before. Gladstone believes that this means that grandparents
have an innate tendency to respond to the needs and the
emotional upheaval of their grandchildren and their children.
Previous research on children of divorces suggested that
young children have very little opportunity to talk about the
breakup.
Gladstone goes on to say that through the child's unique
relationship with the grandparents they can obtain the kind of
counselling, comfort, reassurance that they need providing they
have access, continuous access.
Therefore there is a necessity for creative legislation that
protects access for both grandparents. We can that see that
grandparents have a great deal to contribute to the life of these
children of broken marriages.
I understand that article 611 of Quebec Civil Code states:
In no case may the father or mother without serious cause place obstacles to
personal relationship between the child and grandparents.
This is in Quebec civil law. It is the only province thus far that
has enshrined it in law.
We also need to look at precedents in legislation. For example
50 states in the United States have similar types of legislation.
Last week I had the honour of meeting with Nancy Wooldridge,
president of Canadian Grandparents Rights Association, British
Columbia Branch, formed in 1986. Nancy Wooldridge
successfully defended her rights as a grandparent in the courts in
1984.
The purpose of the association is to promote, support, and
assist grandparents and their families in maintaining or
re-establishing family ties and family stability where the family
has been disrupted, especially those ties between grandparents
and grandchildren.
We could give many practical examples of how grandparents
have been obstructed through the court system from contacting
children when they could have had a very positive effect on
them. The Grandparents Rights Association has many
documented cases.
Again because of time we are not going to go into them today.
In many cases it is a personal tragedy for the grandparents but
more important for the grandchildren who are deprived of this
most important asset.
1968
Therefore it is important that we have legal protection for our
grandchildren. We can recognize that all grandparents are not
beneficial to grandchildren but there are times when they should
have direct access. However this can still be established by the
courts. We do not suggest we change this.
This would be a very positive step toward protection and
development of the child. It is something that lawmakers in
Canada could contribute to. I am asking the government in any
consideration of future legislation to consider including the
rights of grandparents in a fair and legitimate manner.
I would be remiss if I did not recognize the past efforts of
other parliamentarians who have brought to the House the
concerns of grandparents. The hon. member for Ottawa West,
one of our Liberal members, presented petitions and Stan
Wilbee of the last Parliament presented Bill C-332 to amend the
Divorce Act to protect the rights of grandparents as well as
grandchildren. Now is the time for all members of the House to
recognize the rights of the complete family in this 1994 year of
the family.
Tomorrow I will be presenting a petition containing over
3,000 names in continuing support for the complete family and
in support of our grandparents. At this hour I am awaiting news
from British Columbia that my seventh grandchild has been
born.
I would like at this time to move:
That the motion be amended by adding immediately after the word
``conditions'' the following:
``through measures that support equality of opportunity without resorting to gender
discrimination of any kind''
(1115)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I wonder if I could ask the
assistance of the member for Mission-Coquitlam to be assured
that I understood clearly the terms made by the secretary of state
regarding the agreement between parties on the intervention by
the member for Mission-Coquitlam. I believe the member for
Beaver River will have five minutes of questions and comments.
Is that in the next round?
Mrs. Jennings: That is correct, Mr. Speaker, five minutes
questions.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The amendment has been
deemed receivable.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River): Mr. Speaker, I know we
are not allowed to talk about who is not in the Chamber, but let
me flip that around and say that on this day of women's issues I
will make mention perhaps of who is in the Chamber. Before I
started I counted 16 men and five women. I am proud to say that
three of the women are Reformers here in this caucus. When we
talk about women being important, we think we are. We would
encourage all to be here and listen to this.
I grew up in a single parent family in the greater Vancouver
area. I would like to pay particular mention and tribute to my
mother who raised, probably by the scruff of the neck, four
daughters and one son. I pay tribute to her today because things
were difficult back in the sixties doing that. It was the anomaly
back then to be a single parent family. It almost seems like today
we are strange if we grow up in a two parent home.
In honour of my mother, Joyce Levy, I thank her for the job
she did of raising four girls and one boy in greater Vancouver in
the sixties when times were tough. It was difficult.
I believe that any success our family would experience was
because my mother said: ``You are special regardless''. She had
four girls and one boy, but we were all treated equally. The
success that any of us has experienced in our lives today is
because she said: ``If you think that you can do something, I
believe you are competent, I believe you are able, go for it''. It
was not: ``You are a girl, so we think you should have special
status''.
I am grateful for that. I am sure that all of us here who were
treated that way in a family when we were growing up are
grateful We are not here in the Chamber today because we are
women necessarily.
I can think of nothing sadder than my campaigning in Beaver
River, going door knocking and saying: ``Hello, my name is
Deborah Grey. I am your candidate for the Reform Party. Please
vote for me because I am a woman''. Nothing would be sadder
for any of us in this Chamber, whether male or female, than to be
able to appeal to the pity of someone to vote for us on those
grounds.
The secretary of state mentioned in her remarks that she was
elected by the women of Canada. We as women in this House
were not elected by the women in our ridings. I do not think
there would be enough to carry the vote, frankly. I live in rural
Alberta and I know that as many women as men voted for me.
I was not elected to the Chamber by women to talk only about
women's issues. I am here to talk about the economy, fiscal
restraint, farming, the oil industry and everything else that we
think is important in the constituency of Beaver River and all
across Canada.
Let us not continue to make these ridiculous delineations
between women's issues and men's issues. I suspect that some
guidelines and some division lines have been drawn.
(1120)
Let me refer a little more closely to what the Reform Party
feels about the traditional lines of women's issues. We believe
that our party's position is quite different from the traditional
parties' positions in that we do not maintain a separate
organization for women members. In the Reform Party women
are dedicated to the same goals as men. These goals are fiscal,
political and constitutional reform. I do not think there are any
1969
lines to be drawn between women and men when we look at the
things that are happening across the country.
Reformers prefer to work together on these issues, searching
for realistic solutions which are practical and acceptable within
the framework of a democratic, individualistic society.
Our party does not regard any political questions as being
purely women's issues. Child care is not gender exclusive. It is a
social, family and financial issue. Job and pay equity are not
gender, age or ethnic exclusive. They are employment issues
and should be dealt with as such.
If we see ourselves going down the road to talk about
affirmative action, pay equity, special status for some, we can
see where that road would lead us. Let us back up to the fork in
the road and say these are issues we need to deal with in terms of
absolute equality for all Canadians. It is a slippery slope that we
go down if we say child care, job and pay equity are specifically
women's issues.
What about sexual and domestic violence? They are not
gender, age or ethnic exclusive. They are purely criminal and
law enforcement issues and we should deal with them as such,
not just breaking them off as women's issues. Then we see that it
becomes a special interest group and dear knows we have
enough of those in the country. I am not part of a special interest
group. Let me make that very clear in Hansard forevermore.
The Reform Party believes that the issues of child care, job
and pay equity and family violence are of equal concern to the
majority of both men and women in society and we should start
treating them as such. The other federal parties prefer to
separate many important issues into specifically women's
issues. This approach has led to the segregation of women into a
special interest group.
I am not a special interest group. Let me say it again because I
feel that strongly about it. I am a woman and I am proud to be a
woman. First and foremost I am a Canadian and I would like
people to think in this Chamber as well as in Beaver River and
right across the country that perhaps I am here because of some
capabilities and some abilities and specific skills, not just
because of my gender. This place will sink when that happens.
I resent being told that because of my sex I am entitled to
special considerations. For what? It is demeaning. It is an insult
to my intelligence and a presumption that I am unable to
compete on my own abilities.
I would like to expand on my statement on child care. We
recognize that since only women bear children they often make
choices about their lives that are different than those of men. For
women who wish to devote their energy to child raising, a public
policy framework sympathetic to families is necessary. My
colleague talked about this being the international year of the
family.
Let us look at the family. The family is the basic unit of our
society, far more natural than it is to just hunker down with the
women and say that we will look at those issues specifically.
This should include generous maternity leave and re-entry
provisions to make it possible for women to combine a career
and family.
Our party supports child care programs that are based on
financial need, not the method of child care chosen; programs
that subsidize children and parents, not institutions and
professionals. Therefore when we are always labelled as being
anti-day care that is not the truth. We are in favour of child care
but let us target it to the people who need it most and to people,
not institutions and the professionals.
While some parents believe that day care is a viable option
others prefer to care for their children within their home. The
Reform Party advocates policies which permits parents to
decide how best to care for their own children. We believe they
should have that right.
For those unfortunate cases in which families break down,
and I realize that they break down and I alluded earlier to the fact
that I come from a single parent home, the federal government
should assist provinces in developing reciprocal arrangements
for enforcing realistic support payments from non-custodial
parents.
Initiatives in this direction would be in line with the Reform
philosophy of individual responsibility and would help reduce
the dependence of single mothers on family assistance.
I turn to the issue of women in the workforce as we are in the
Chamber, which for economic reasons includes a large majority
of Canadian women. The Reform Party advocates a free and
open labour market in which people are judged on their personal
achievements.
(1125)
Promotion on the basis of merits, not quotas, should govern
the advancement of both men and women. This quest for
statistical parity between men and women damages the very
fabric of our society by compromising the merit principle.
Let me say again that any woman who sits in the Chamber, at
the table, in the chair or in a seat as a member of Parliament
should be here on merit and not because of some hiring false
quota that says we will have so many women sitting in the
Chamber, at the table, in Hansard, in the translation booth or
whatever. We advocate enlightened personnel policies to end
condescension and harassment toward women and to develop
mutual respect in the workplace.
The Reform Party consistently supports the philosophy of
treating people according to their individual merits and
achieve-
1970
ments. Our goal is to maximize individual freedom for all
Canadians within the restraints of responsible citizenship.
I will say a few words with respect to sexual and domestic
violence in closing. The Reform Party believes these issues
should be dealt with by a legal system based on common law
principles in which sentencing is a more adequate penalty and
deterrent. We have spoken at length in the Chamber about what
inadequacies there are in the laws and regulations in our
country. We need to tighten those up so that there are really
serious deterrents for people who are tempted to go after
spouses and batter them or whatever.
We are looking forward to the day when all Canadians are
treated equally and able to strive for their fullest potential
regardless of race, language, culture or gender. Let us move
ahead. Let us not get hung up with terminology. Let us move
ahead to find real solutions to these issues that affect all of us,
men and women alike.
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough): Mr. Speaker, I have heard
a good deal with which I can agree but I became a little confused
with the amendment. I listened to it as carefully as I could.
Perhaps I did not get the full sense of it but any action we might
take with respect to the motion on the Order Paper today might
not involve gender bias. That is how I understood it.
The member was speaking of directing our efforts toward the
people who need our help most. It seems to me that when we talk
about child care, apart from the children, the people who need
help most are women. When we talk about single parents we
know the vast majority of single parents are women. Therefore
they are the ones who need support.
We think of some of the areas that the members opposite
mentioned in which women are moving and making progress but
in which they are still behind. An example would be in science
and technology, in colleges and universities and in the
workforce.
It seems to me that at the moment, although goodness knows
we do need improvements in science and technology and
education of all sorts, the people most in need are female
students. They have moved in other areas such as the arts and the
humanities but they have moved least in science and technology.
Similarly, if we look at the professional schools of all sorts,
we would discover that women are still in the minority. I realize
that there are other groups that need our support but women are
the people who need our assistance most.
In the general area of income, we can obviously break out all
sorts of groups that are in the below average income category.
However here is this mammoth group which is the majority in
the country, females, and the statistics all show that it is
significantly behind the other large group which is males as far
as income is concerned.
In my constituency, over two-thirds of women with children
of school age work at the present time. They represent a low
income group in my riding. I wonder if the member or the
members opposite would care to comment on this point. How do
we proceed on these matters without identifying women as
people who are at the present time in need of support so they can
move forward in these areas?
(1130 )
Miss Grey: Mr. Speaker, in the time remaining I want to
thank the member for his question but mostly for his comments.
In terms of our amendment we need to come up with what we
think is a sensible definition and in fact the interpretation of
employment equity.
Where I live in rural Alberta it is very difficult to find the
exact slots for people who are qualified, who have merit and
who have some personal achievement in some of these areas.
The minister referred earlier to the fact that in this whole
infrastructure program we need to make sure every category is
filled by employment equity. That is very difficult to do in many
parts of rural Canada. Therefore let us determine what our
interpretation is.
I disagree with the fact that we should have artificially
imposed quotas on employment equity right across the country.
The hon. member made reference in his comments to the
sciences. Let us make sure we realize that women are very
capable in the sciences.
Maybe we should have educational programs and teaching
faculties to say that women are very qualified to be engineers
and scientists. Let us make sure that is permeated through
society. I do not know the problem would be solved by saying
that we demand x number of women in those faculties. We in the
Chamber need to make sure our legislation and regulations are
sensitive to that, but I do not know that imposing artificial
quotas will go the distance in terms of finding real answers to it.
The member also commented on the fact that women are in
lower paying jobs generally. We have seen all the studies. We
have looked at both sides of the issues. Let me just sum this up
by saying the following. I am a high school teacher by trade. I
believe many women, myself included, choose to go into careers
that are more humanities oriented. Perhaps it is because of our
individual and special gifts we as women bring to a situation, the
idea of consensus building rather than confrontation.
Many of those are low paying jobs. Therefore we need to
realize that we do not just look at the numbers on these charts but
we look at some of the reasons behind it. Women as child bearers
obviously take a particular time out of the workforce. Maybe
they are not anxious to get into careers that have to come before
family, children and husbands. We need to pay particular
attention to that.
1971
Maybe that is one reason there are not as many women in the
House as some people would demand. It is very difficult to be
away from home. I know it is hard for every member but I find it
particularly difficult to get on the plane every week and come
here to Ottawa. I do not know if that is because I am a woman or
because I am a homebody or because I am a newlywed. Who
knows. I am finding it more and more difficult every week.
However we need to be careful about the reasons there are not as
many women in the Chamber rather than say we are going to fix
the problem from on high.
The problem needs to be solved with each of us in our home
communities. We need to encourage women to choose careers in
the sciences or perhaps politics, not because they are women but
because they are capable and have real abilities in those areas.
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam): Mr.
Speaker, I know it is unusual for me to answer after I have
spoken and someone else has spoken on debate after me, but I
understand the hon. member wanted to hear from both members.
Last year I listened to a woman with a career very high in the
workplace speak on women's issues and their importance in the
workforce. The item I picked up more than anything else is that
those figures are grossly distorted. The reason is that women
work part time in most cases. For many of them it is because
they have to and for others it is because they choose to stay in the
home and their only opportunity is to work part time. This pulls
us way down when looking at those statistics. They are way out
of whack and we have to look at them all carefully.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Before resuming debate, I
am going back to the earlier intervention by the member for
Mission-Coquitlam. I was touched when she shared with us
that at some time during the course of this day she might once
again be a grandmother. If I recall correctly it will be the seventh
time. I join members on both sides of the House in saying
congratulations and best wishes to mom and dad. We wish your
new granddaughter or grandson a long, happy and healthy life.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to take this opportunity to mention the presence in the gallery of
my wife Louise and two of my daughters, Marie-Hélène and
Marie-Christine. I should also add that my other daughter,
Isabelle, a student at McGill University, and my son
Jean-François join me in stressing the importance of this day for
all Canadian women.
(1135)
On this day, March 8, I would like to talk about an issue of
extreme importance to women and which we have to address if
we are to give a true meaning to the word equality. I am referring
to violence against women.
The very existence of this violence shows clearly that there is
a power relationship underlying a serious imbalance and the
absence of effective equality. Violence against women is an
integral part of our social structure.
The tragic massacre at the École Polytechnique on December
6, 1989 brought back to the fore a brutal and far reaching reality
and we are still torn apart by the whole thing.
This situation required action. In August 1991, the federal
government set up a Canadian committee on violence against
women. This committee was co-chaired by Mrs. Marthe
Vaillancourt, a respected person in the field and also the director
of the Centre d'aide aux victimes d'actes criminels in
Chicoutimi, and by Mrs. Pat Freeman Marshall.
The committee did a lot. Hearings were held all over Canada.
A final report was submitted in July 1993. From these hearings
in 139 communities across Canada, as well as submissions and
research documents, we gained a better picture of the situation
of women. The committee proposed 494 recommendations in a
500-page document.
A framework had to be established and the committee defined
violence against women as all forms of violence committed by
men, as opposed to marital and family violence.
Violence takes different forms. It can be psychological,
sexual, physical, financial and spiritual. Some aspects are
unfortunately more familiar than others. There is no hierarchy in
that list of various forms of violence; all forms of violence
against women are to be banned, whether they are threats, rape,
incest, unrequested sexual fondling, blows, withholding of
money, contemptuous attitude towards one's personal beliefs,
etc. Our tolerance of violence against women generates costs,
human, financial and social costs.
Let me quote the final report of the committee: ``A Quebec
study compared the health of a sample group of women and
children who had left a violent environment with women and
children of a comparable group who had not experienced
violence. It concluded that: The health of these women and their
children was distinctly different from that of the general
population, and they were affected first of all by problems of
mental health''.
We can see also that there are no case detection measures and
that diagnostics are often false. Financial costs impact on health
care and work-related costs and also on the judicial system. Let
me quote the report again: ``The costs of one sexual offence,
1972
where the offender serves three years in prison, can be very
conservatively estimated at more than $200,000''. The Final
Report of the Canadian Panel on Violence Against Women first
describes the problem and its various aspects and, in a second
part, presents a national action plan.
(1140)
That national action plan comprises an action plan for
equality and a zero tolerance policy. The action plan for equality
makes recommendations on two main aspects of the issue: on
the one hand, improve the economic status of women which is
directly related to violence against women and, on the other,
acknowledge and treat women as independent persons.
Emphasis is to be put on eight specific areas: right to equality,
equal access to the legal system, equal participation in politics
and the civil service, improvements to processus aimed at
promoting equality for women, economy, family, taxation and
transfer payments.
Finally, the zero tolerance policy involves a responsibility
structure for the implementation phases and an application
model. This policy is based on the premise that no form of
violence is acceptable and that sufficient resources must be
allocated to eliminate violence against women.
In my riding, according to the 1992-93 statistics released by
the Centre d'aide aux victimes d'actes criminels of Chicoutimi,
spousal abuse and sexual assaults make up close to half of all
complaints made pursuant to the Criminal Code. Note that 82.3
per cent of crimes are made against women.
At the national level, a comprehensive survey of 12,300
Canadian women conducted by Statistics Canada and made
public in November 1993 provided eloquent information about
violence against women. In Canada, more than one out of two
women suffered physical or sexual abuse at least once during her
adult life. In a great majority of cases, the assailant was known
to the victim. The definition of an act of violence which was
used refers to actions considered offences under the Criminal
Code of Canada.
According to Statistics Canada, physical assaults vary from
threats of imminent bodily injury to assaults causing serious
bodily harm, while sexual assaults vary from sexual
interference to violent sexual assaults causing serious injury to
the victim.
This survey also shows that one in four Canadian women
reported being abused by her current spouse or a previous one.
The most recent national survey conducted in 1980, which was
highly criticized for being speculative, indicated that one in ten
women had been physically abused by her spouse.
Most of the 10 per cent of women who declared being victims
of violence in the 12-month period preceding the survey were
young women, between the age of 18 and 24.
The survey also shows that men tend to be more violent if they
were witnesses to violence against their own mother.
(1145)
Alcohol plays a major role since, as the study indicated, the
assailant is intoxicated in more than 40 per cent of violence
cases. One in five acts of violence mentioned in the study was
severe enough to cause injuries, a quarter of which demanded
medical attention. It is also noted that nine out of ten assaults not
only caused physical injuries to the victim but left emotional
scars as well.
Fear is on the mind of a good number of women whose spouse
is violent. It is made worst by the prospect of finding themselves
in a potentially violent situation. Thus, 83 per cent of women
reported being afraid to enter alone an underground parking lot.
Seventy-six per cent are afraid to use public transportation at
night. Sixty per cent do not feel safe walking alone in their
neighbourhood at night. Only 14 per cent of violent acts and no
more than 6 per cent of sexual assaults were reported to police.
In only a third of the reported cases, charges were laid against
the assailant.
Further to this study, the Secretary of State responsible for the
Status of Women stated that her government would launch a
national campaign to heighten public awareness and take steps
to force the violent spouse to leave the marital home. She
promised in the same breath to better finance organizations for
battered women and their children. As we say, desperate times
call for desperate measures. One does not put a poultice on a
gaping wound. These figures are very revealing and we deplore
the fact that such a sad situation can exist in a country like
Canada.
The budget allocated to the Canadian Panel on Violence
Against Women was $10 million. A great deal of money and
energy has been invested in this initiative, and the situation as it
is depicted requires a follow-up on this report. Furthermore, the
survey conducted by Statistics Canada, at a cost of $1.9 million,
shows the extent of the problem.
Violence against women can now be measured. It is a serious
problem that we must address despite its complexity.
Community groups have shown us the way. At the moment,
there are 360 shelters for battered women across Canada, and
waiting lists to get in these shelters are often very long. The
services provided are sensitive to budget cuts. Eighty per cent of
these shelters were opened after 1980 and 95 per cent of them
have less than 20 beds.
In the vast majority of cases, the services provided are
short-term, as 70 per cent of the women remain in these shelters
less than 20 days on average.
1973
(1150)
Beyond emergency services, we must offer more to women.
We need to adopt a more reactive approach. The status of women
in our society is directly related to their economic situation,
among other things. Equality is also a matter of money. Let us
take, as an example, pay equity and access to housing.
Women deserve the same treatment as men, and the violence
that they have to suffer in our society clearly indicates that we
have a lot of work to do. We must not think that it is a
present-day problem. Let us remind ourselves of the
suffragettes who fought for the formal recognition of women's
political rights.
In 1931 and 1964, successive reforms to the Lower Canada
civil code guaranteed full legal capacity to the married woman.
In fact, in 1931, the introduction of reserved property allowed a
woman to administer the proceeds from her work because it was
said that many men would go off and drink their wife's savings.
Unfortunately, there are numerous examples and, not too long
ago, women had to fight for their rights.
The violence that they experience is a dramatic situation to
which we cannot remain indifferent. It is very tempting to be
legalistic, but we must go beyond that. To a systemic problem
we must bring systemic solutions.
In the 1994-95 Estimates, Status of Women Canada plans to
launch the following project: Co-ordination of the preparation
of the federal program concerning the equality and security of
women in co-operation with federal departments and other
partners. This will incorporate the government response to the
report of the Canadian Panel on Violence Against Women.
Status of Women Canada was given the mandate to produce
the government response to the panel. That response will be
submitted in the form of a federal program concerning gender
equality and women security.
Finally, the co-ordination of a national public information
campaign geared towards prevention will be pursued in order to
eliminate the circumstances that promote violence against
women. In view of the magnitude of the problem, the proposed
action only allow the government to make an act of faith.
We are no longer trying to prove that there is violence against
women; people are convinced that it exists. The consultation
exercise has taken place, the problems have been identified and
solutions have been suggested. What is the government waiting
for to implement the national action plan that was tabled here in
this House?
Mr. Bill Graham (Rosedale): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
congratulate the hon. member for Chicoutimi for his speech.
Surely I can say that all members here agree entirely with his
comments on violence against women and the measures we
should take to prevent such violence.
What I would like to tell the hon. member is this: I believe he
is right when he addresses the issue from a national perspective.
He referred to Canadian activities to lessen the problem. He did
not separate the women from his riding or his province from the
other Canadian women. What I would suggest to him is that the
women of his province or Canada should not be separated from
the world they live in. I come from a riding where there is a high
proportion of immigrants, and we know that the problem is
international as well as national or provincial.
(1155)
Therefore, my question to the hon. member is this: Given the
complexity of the problem and the fact that it is a national and an
international as well as a provincial issue, does he not agree that
the initiatives required to correct the situation and better protect
the women of Quebec and Canada should not be measures
co-ordinated at the provincial, national or international level,
but federal measures taken right here, together, because it is our
responsibility?
Mr. Fillion: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his
question and comment. I must stress that in my presentation on
the status of women, I have not taken a provincial political point
of view because some would have said that the Bloc Quebecois
wanted to use the issue to its advantage, that it wanted to score
some political points.
When I speak about the status of women, in my mind I know
that problem concerns the riding of Chicoutimi, the ridings of
my friends from the other side, all my colleagues' ridings, the
province of Quebec, all the provinces in Canada and Canada as a
whole. Given the amounts spent on the preparation of that report
dealing with many subjects, which was requested by the
Canadian government and cost $10 million, at a certain point we
should use that document as a basis for discussion and as a basis
for dealing equally everywhere with violence against women.
Now how should we go about addressing the issue for all of
Canada? What kind of committee could we create to make sure
we are more alert? I leave it to those who will speak on the issue
today to make some suggestions. I think that such a process is an
important one; it is important to find solutions to the problems
women are faced with.
Mrs. Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais
(Madawaska-Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a
few moments, not to ask questions, but rather to make a few
comments following the remarks I just listened to.
I would point out that the fact that these gentlemen rise and
talk about violence against women is proof that it is a societal
1974
issue and not a women's issue. In the eyes of any self-respecting
man or woman, this issue concerns us all and not only feminists.
I would also like to say how pleased I am to see the Bloc
member going beyond party lines when talking about abused
women. I do hope that in future debates on common issues, we
will be able to count on their support.
I would like to conclude by telling Canadian men that the
respect they feel for themselves automatically translates into
respect for us, women.
Mr. Fillion: I thank the member for her remarks. You can be
sure, Mr. Speaker, that what I said is not a one-day thing. I made
my career in teaching. I spent 34 years of my life with teenagers.
Through the years, I met a great number of parents who would
come and confide in me regarding the many different kinds of
problems their teenage daughters were experiencing and I
always listened very carefully to them. My job as a teacher
taught me that, beyond political partisanship, everybody must
join the fight against violence.
(1200)
In any case, I am grateful for a job which allowed me to
celebrate every day, 365 days a year, for 34 years, this event we
mark once a year, on March 8, Women's Day. Thus, I directly
carry this over into my family life, with my three daughters, my
wife and my son. As you can see, I am in very good company.
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough): Mr. Speaker, I have a
very short question to ask. I also want to congratulate the
member for Chicoutimi on his speech. I am very interested in
what he had to say, since I too have a daughter, who studied at
McGill University.
My question is about comments made by Reform Party
members. Does my colleague believe that the issue of violence
against women only implies a need for more or less organized
action, or that it is rather a matter of legislation and policies
giving the preference to women?
Mr. Fillion: Mr. Speaker, if I understood the question
correctly, I must say it is not a question of giving preference to
women in legislation, but simply of wishing to ensure their
equality with men in every sector of society. Then, whether we
are looking at wages, social housing or equity in employment,
the main thrust will be that our legistation must reflect the
equality of men and women once and for all. At some point, men
and women should be considered simply as human beings.
I want to mention in passing that I have relied heavily on data
prepared by Statistics Canada since some had criticized the
figures contained in the report on the status of women. These
figures were later adjusted, to a certain degree, to reflect today's
reality and the data available from Statistics Canada.
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure): Mr. Speaker, I
welcome the opportunity this motion gives me to salute
International Women's Day. It is important for the House to
mark this day and to recognize the significant progress that has
been made in Canada over the years toward greater equality of
women and men.
[Translation]
So, I am very grateful to have an opportunity to mark
International Women's Day.
[English]
I can assure hon. members of my government's commitment
to continued progress in the field of equality. That commitment
is clear from our red book ``Creating Opportunity''. Whether we
talk of women and health, or of streets that are safe for women,
or of day care, the underlying principle is one of equality
between women and men.
Basic to all progress is the prosperity of Canada, and pleased
is the minister responsible for infrastructure to be
implementing, in co-operation with other levels of government,
a program that will put many Canadians to work. Directly and
indirectly this program will contribute in the short term and
through long lasting benefits, to the economic growth which
will ensure the greater equality of men and women.
(1205 )
I want to talk today most especially about employment equity
within the federal public service and particularly about
employment equity and women.
[Translation]
In this context, I would like to pay tribute to a particular
woman, namely my parliamentary secretary.
[English]
Members of the House will be aware Treasury Board has
legislated responsibility for employment equity within the
public service because of the persistence of my parliamentary
secretary, the hon. member for Ottawa West. She was in very
large measure responsible for ensuring that the Public Service
Reform Act passed in December 1992 contained an amendment
providing specifically for employment equity.
This amendment is important in its own right because it will
advance employment equity throughout the public service. It
has however a further importance. The Government of Canada
has an obligation to serve, I would suggest, as an example in
such matters of great significance. The amendment conveys a
message to all Canadians, women and men, that equity in
employment is crucial to the full economic and social
development of Canada.
1975
The law sets out four designated groups that have encountered
employment barriers. These are women, aboriginal peoples,
persons with disabilities and visible minorities. Women are a
designated group in their own right, but they are about half of
those other three groups as well.
If we discuss employment equity for aboriginal peoples we
include aboriginal women. Progress for women as a whole must
also be progress for any group that is disadvantaged.
The point of employment equity in the public service is to
increase the representation of members of designated groups in
those jobs in which they are currently represented to a lesser
extent than their participation in the Canadian labour force.
It was a Liberal government that introduced one of the first
programs designed to achieve this goal within the public
service. The special measures program, as it is called, put in
place in 1983-84 has contributed in a major way to increasing
the number of women, and of men and women of the three other
designated groups within the public service. The special
measures program has continued over the years as a motor of the
employment equity program.
Last December I had the honour to preside over a meeting of
Treasury Board that approved the continuation of this program
over the course of the next four fiscal years. In total almost $70
million will be allocated to the new special measures initiative
program as it is now called.
[Translation]
I strongly believe that the renewed program will help to
ensure employment equity within the public service.
[English]
Two particular programs have been of importance to women.
First, the women's career counselling and referral bureau of the
Public Service Commission counsels women who have the
potential to rise into the executive ranks. It evaluates their
management skills and refers women to appropriate
competitions. The bureau cannot of course claim credit for all
the progress that has been made, but there has been a real and
notable increase of women in the executive group of the public
service.
In 1983 women were 5 per cent of the executive level. By
1988 women's representation had more than doubled to 12.3 per
cent. As of March 31, 1993 women were 17.6 per cent of the
executive group, including a good number at the second highest
level.
In addition there has been a steady increase in the number of
women in what is called the feeder groups, that is standing in the
wings and waiting to take over from the executives who will be
retiring in the coming years. The public service is providing
leadership in this area not just for the government but for the
whole country.
The second aspect of the special measures programs designed
especially for women is the OPTION program. The purpose of
this program is to encourage the recruitment of women for what
are called non-traditional occupations. A non-traditional
occupation is one where the representation of women is under 30
per cent. Again there has been encouraging progress. In all these
areas progress has been made but there is still is a lot more work
that needs to be done.
(1210)
The progress is not always measured by numbers alone. The
program has particular importance because through strategic
placements, the way is open for women to become employed in
areas that traditionally were almost closed to them. Let me give
an example of what can be done in the area of non-traditional
occupations.
In 1992 the former Department of Energy, Mines and
Resources received an employment equity award for its
achievement on the recruitment of women in the science sector.
Under its young scientists program that department has
increased the number of women scientists by 63 since 1989.
Various departments also have bridging programs for women.
Women occupy the vast majority of positions in the
administrative support category. However it has not
traditionally been an easy matter for a woman to move from the
position of a secretary to a junior administrative officer and so
on up the ladder. Bridging programs provide women with the
training and the skills necessary so they can compete for more
responsible positions.
[Translation]
It is essential that women be given access to the training
which will help them secure the advancement they deserve.
[English]
The renewed special measures initiatives program will
provide even greater encouragement to employment equity
within the public service. Programs that were successful in the
past such as the OPTION program are being continued. A new
flexibility has been introduced so that individual departments
can receive the assistance they require to carry out on their own
individually tailored programs to assist women and members of
all those other designated groups to achieve better
representation within the public service.
Employment equity is all of these things but it is more as well.
It is an attitude. It is a recognition that women and men are equal
and that each of them can in her or his own way provide high
quality service to the Canadian public as a member of the public
service. It means that a man can easily take orders from his boss,
a woman, that a woman has an absolute right not to be harassed
1976
in any circumstances, that a secretary could be a man and that all
women and men are treated with dignity.
We recognize that employment equity must be an integral part
of human resource management. It is not something separate to
be considered only after essential matters have been taken care
of.
Managers are being trained to understand that Canada today is
a diverse country. That is its strength and the public service must
reflect that diversity if it is to serve the Canadian people
intelligently and well.
For women there are other factors as well and legislation and
policies are in place to provide for them. For example, pension
provisions that discourage part time work and the taking of child
rearing leave have been repealed.
Flexible work arrangements are in place in recognition of the
fact that it is women who still carry the major burden of
household responsibilities. Telework may be of substantial help
to women whose situation makes it difficult for them to leave
the house for extended periods, for example.
Job sharing may provide for many women an opportunity to
participate in the public service that they otherwise would not be
able to do, or elsewhere in the economy that is not available to
them at this point.
Let me say that these are not concessions that are being made
to women or to any other members of any of the designated
groups in the employment equity program. Employment equity
implies that barriers to the employment of any member of
society have been dismantled and all can compete on an equal
footing.
(1215 )
With employment equity we in the federal government still
expect to recruit the best and the brightest, but we shall be
ensuring that the candidate pool is as diverse and as rich as
possible and reflects what this nation's composition is all about.
If some training is required to diversify and enrich the
candidate pool, we will provide it where we can. That is the
meaning of employment equity and of equality.
We will have other occasions in which to discuss the growing
role and equality of women in Canadian society and within the
public service. I want to assure the House today of my own
personal commitment, a commitment that goes back through the
years that I spent in municipal government, to the principles of
both equity and equality for women. I am pleased to have had the
opportunity to participate in this debate today.
[Translation]
Thus, I am very pleased to reiterate in the House my
commitment to employment equity, and equality between
women and men.
[English]
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast): Mr. Speaker, I
acknowledge the hon. minister's comments. I would like
clarification on one part of the hon. minister's analysis. To me
there seems to be something of a flaw.
The hon. minister related a whole host of impressive statistics
regarding the executive group of the public service from 1983 to
1993. They show an impressive movement for that executive
group. The minister went on to say that men and women are
equal. If we are equal I would like to ask the hon. minister why
we as women must be strategically placed. That does not
necessarily explain that enhanced equality of opportunity and
recognition based on merit is achieved through strategic
placement. I would like the hon. minister to comment on that
part of his discourse.
Mr. Eggleton: Mr. Speaker, I used those statistics to indicate
that we have advanced a fair bit. I also said at the point where I
gave those statistics to the House that we still have a long way to
go.
Obviously we want to put the most qualified people in all of
our jobs. We want to make sure that those who have experienced
barriers to those opportunities have those barriers removed in
order to provide the kind of training and preparation that is
necessary to give them every opportunity to be able to advance
into those ranks.
The statistics indicate that we have come a fair direction but
we still have a fair direction to go. I certainly would welcome
the hon. member and any other member of the House giving
suggestions and ideas about how we might better achieve that.
This has been a learning process for all of us over the years.
Perhaps it has been rather slow in appearance to many people,
perhaps these changes have been too slow to come about.
Certainly there is an increasing acceleration, as the statistics
indicate. On top of that, there is a greater awareness and desire
to find new mechanisms, new methods and new means of
training and preparation for providing, as I said in my remarks,
that pool of people from all of the different employment equity
groups-women, aboriginals, disabled and visible
minorities-in order to have a public service that better reflects
the composition of our population.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley): Mr.
Speaker, I just have a couple of comments.
First, as a member of the Reform Party caucus I am proud to
serve in Parliament alongside the women members of the
Reform Party, women who were elected as MPs to serve in
Parliament not because they are women but because of their
ability, determination and ambition. I feel very proud to say that
I regard the women members of the Reform caucus first as
members of Parliament and second as women. I appreciate them
very much.
1977
(1220)
In listening to the hon. member's comments I heard phrases
about employment equity, equality, et cetera. Really what I
heard was quotas. I heard affirmative action. I heard about
concessions.
I suggest that quotas have nothing to do with equality and
everything to do with political correctness. If the government
were serious about equality it would concentrate more on
breaking down the barriers wherever they exist and inviting
people of both genders, visible minorities, aboriginals and the
disabled, to apply for jobs based on their ability, merits and
qualifications for the job rather than talk about providing
specific training for members of these four groups the hon.
member mentioned so that they can be encouraged to fill some
sort of quota that the government may have in mind for the
public service.
I submit and suggest to the hon. member that the government
would be far better off to look solely at the abilities of people
when it comes to filling public service jobs rather than the
gender or cultural heritage or whether or not they are disabled.
That is what Canadians are all about, the equality of all, which is
understood to be a given. The thing that has been most
destructive in our country has been the separation into different
groups by governments past and caused dissension amount the
Canadian people.
I suggest that embarking on a path such as the hon. member
has suggested is a path that leads to affirmative action and
quotas in hiring. If we take a lesson from the United States we
can see what kind of social problems that has caused. I hope it
does not happen in our country.
Mr. Eggleton: Mr. Speaker, I am astounded at ``understood to
be a given'' that equality exists in the country. Unfortunately
there have been a lot of barriers for visible minorities, women
and disabled and aboriginal people. They have not had the
opportunities.
We have a composition in the public service that in past has
not represented the composition in the population. There have
been barriers to employment and barriers in terms of pay
opportunities. These are facts that do exist and have been
substantiated time and time again by many studies.
We are simply trying to break down those barriers. I never
said quotas. I never used the word quotas at all. I talked about
training. How do you equate training and quotas? Training is to
help people. Training is provided for all people, men, women
and all of the target groups I talked about today, training to help
prepare them for jobs that can help them to rise higher in the
service, to be able to perform to the best of their abilities.
Surely there is nothing wrong with that. How does the
member equate that to quotas? I never said anything about
quotas. We are trying to prepare people to do the best they can,
to be able to advance in the public service and to give them the
kind of training and support they need so that we will have an
even bigger talent pool to draw from when we need to advance
people. That surely is going to be to the benefit of the people of
the country in terms of the public service we would provide.
(1225)
[Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East): Mr. Speaker, first of all, I
would like to wish a wonderful International Women's Day to all
my female colleagues in this House.
I am proud of the solidarity which unites us today, in this
House, where we wanted to be elected because we believed we
could influence political decisions and protect the interest of the
population of Canada and of Quebec.
Women make up 52 per cent of our population. I firmly
believe that it is the duty of a responsible government and
members who were elected to represent their constituency to
respect and guarantee equal opportunities and equal rights for
men and women. The fact that there are not as many women in
this House as there could be, shows how difficult it is for women
to get into politics.
I am also very pleased to make my first speech during a debate
held on the International Women's Day. The status of women
has always been a main concern of mine and my involvement as
a founding member of the Centre des femmes de Laval gave me
the opportunity to better understand the daily problems and the
dramas some women have to deal with. Often, these women can
only rely on the community resources made available to them by
the women's groups to help them to take charge of their life to
become independent and more aware of their own situation.
Allow me, on this special day, to reiterate my support and
send my best wishes to all women in Laval, and especially to my
female constituents in Laval East. I would also like to mention
the wonderful work done by women organizations in Laval and
all the volunteers who care for the well-being of women in
Laval.
Like several other organizations, women's groups play a
primary role by advocating changes to improve the standards of
living of women.
I was able to appreciate the quality of services provided to
women in need, such as crisis centres, counselling services,
referral services, shelters, health services, training, emergency
services, and the list could go on and on.
It is also the first time in federal political history, that Laval
has female MPs. I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to
those women who work with such dedication at La Maison Le
Prélude, Le Centre des femmes, Le Centre d'accueil pour les
femmes victimes de violence, the AFEAS, Le Cercle des fer-
1978
mières, Le Club des femmes d'aujourd'hui, Laval au féminin,
Pause Carrefour-Santé, and other centres.
I want to thank the volunteers and the workers of those
various organizations which offer women a place where they can
feel a sense of belonging and solidarity.
The active contribution made by women to improve the
quality of life for Canadian and Quebec societies takes many
dimensions. In the past, women have shaped Quebec and
Canadian societies, whether by making an economic and social
contribution with their work at home or in the workplace, or
through their entrepreneurship, their initiative, their dedication
and their skills. Today, women are increasingly more present in
all sectors, thereby continuing to play a major and active role to
ensure the collective prosperity of our societies.
Throughout history, the movement to promote women's status
has always sought a greater recognition of the principle of
equality between men and women. If the status of women has
improved over the years, although a lot remains to be done, it is
because of the efforts and initiative of women's groups. Let us
not forget that women fought hard to have their rights
recognized.
Women often had to fight powerful religious and political
institutions, as well as the press of the time.
(1230)
Women's groups have been the driving force behind change in
the area of social, political and economic justice in our
societies.
The first women's organizations called for basic rights: the
right to a higher education, the right to equality before the law,
the right to vote. Great Canadian and Quebec women laid the
groundwork for equality and for the right of women to
participate in all spheres of activity. Their tenacity, commitment
and determination gave rise to new hopes, struggles and
victories. While some of these women's names are inscribed in
the history books, others still echo in this noble House,
reminding us of the ideal to uphold and encouraging us to
continue following in their footsteps.
At this time, I would like to recall several of the women's
groups and pioneers who, through their dedication, sense of
justice and fairness, were responsible for the emergence of
important women's rights movements. They include Thérèse
Casgrain of the League for Women's Rights, Marie
Gérin-Lajoie of the Provincial Franchise Committee for
Women's Suffrage, Carrie Derrik of the Montreal Suffrage
Association, Grace Ritchie England of the Local Council of
Women of Montreal, Idola Saint-Jean of the Alliance
canadienne pour le vote des femmes, Laura Sabia of the Voice of
Women, Léo Roback, the well-known feminist and activist,
Laurette Slone of the League of Women, Madeleine Parent of
the textile union, Azilda Marchand of AFEAS, the women's
association for education and social action, Nellie McClung
who fought for women's suffrage in Western Canada, Bessie
Starr and Emily Stowe who, as early as 1888, spearheaded the
drive for the recognition of women's rights, and, last but by no
means least, the celebrated Agnes Macphail.
However, the history of women quickly brings us back to
reality. Despite the major gains made, women's groups still
must fight today, in 1994, to maintain what they have achieved
and to have their rights recognized. Indeed, in the past few
years, under the guise of deficit and debt reduction, we have
witnessed an unprecedented conservative backlash and a move
to push women back, whereas they still have substantial gains to
make.
In their day-to-day lives, women are still confined to job
ghettos where, of course, they earn lower wages. According to
the report of the Canadian committee on the status of women,
one in seven women, or 71 per cent-works in one of five
professional categories: teaching, nursing and other health care
professions, office work, retail and the services sector. The
percentage of women working in non-traditional sectors such as
manufacturing, construction trades, transportation and
communications and handling in fact dropped from 13 per cent
in 1981 to 10 per cent in 1991.
This same report also mentions that 85 per cent of salaried
women work in service industries, as compared to 62 per cent of
men. Moreover, 14.8 per cent of the female labour force works
in production sectors. Not only are women confined to job
ghettos, but in cases where they perform similar work of equal
value to the work done by men, they are paid far less.
Another example of disparity is access to the job market. If
accessing the job market is difficult for men, it is even more so
for women. Among other things, the provisions aimed at
facilitating the entry of women into the labour force are
inadequate. For example, daycare services are inadequate and
there is a lack of alternative measures such as more flexible
work schedules, adapted career paths and family leave.
(1235)
The result of the difficulty for women to access the labour
market is dramatic: 55 per cent of the poor are women and,
among them, the poorest are single mothers. Statistics show that
one Canadian family in five is a single-parent family, 82 per
cent of which are headed by a woman and 61.9 per cent are living
under the poverty line.
Do you know, Madam Speaker, what the annual income of
unemployed single parents was in 1991? Scarcely $12,000,
which puts them well below the poverty line. These are
generally women like those you will find in shelters and
transition centres, who have to rely on support agencies.
Here is another fact. Our seniors who, through their hard
work, sacrifices and generosity, have helped build this country
find themselves in a similar situation. The report I quoted earlier
1979
indicates that nearly 50 per cent of women 65 years old and over
have less than minimum subsistence income. While 85 per cent
of older men receive pension benefits, only 50 per cent of
women in the same age group do.
The list of cases where women invariably come off the losers
is long: violence, inadequate job training, social housing
shortage, unfair taxation. Allow me to say just a few words on
the subject of taxation, as it speaks volumes.
We all know that actions are planned regarding tax women
have to pay on support payments which, sadly, they all too often
do not receive. On the other hand, their estranged spouses can
claim a deduction for all amounts paid in alimony. How can such
inequity be justified? We often hear that it is intended for men,
to induce them to obey alimony orders. I would like to remind
this House that about 75 per cent of estranged spouses still do
not pay.
With the recession, deficit and debt always looming in the
background, the dominant economic discourse would have us
believe that excessive costs associated with social needs are the
cause of all our problems. But this premise is incorrect. The cost
of our social programs has not increased in over ten years.
Social programs are not responsible for the skyrocketing deficit
and debt. The Canadian debt crisis was brought about by
government mismanagement. The deficit is growing because the
government refuses to put in place a fair taxation system,
because its monetary policy maintains interest rates artificially
high, thus making the debt service charges increase and creating
more unemployment, and because the government refuses to
reduce waste and overlap.
The women and women's groups mentioned earlier decided to
get organized and to act to get equal rights. They showed the
way. If women have been able to find help, comfort and justice,
it is thanks to other community groups that have since joined in.
As I said earlier, in 1994, women's groups still have to fight for
their survival. The budgets and attitudes of the previous
government, which seems to be the source of inspiration for this
Liberal government, jeopardize the very existence of such
groups. We have as evidence the 5 per cent cut announced by the
finance minister in various support programs, in addition to the
25 per cent reduction these groups have sustained since 1989.
Their budget was slashed from $12.5 million in 1985-86 to $10
million in 1993-94, and it will be even less if we believe the
Minister of Finance. This is unacceptable, as the initial funds
provided to these groups were already clearly insufficient.
(1240)
The 400-odd women's groups are active in many
areas-including physical and mental health, employment,
single parenthood, violence, and aging-which would cost a lot
more to manage if the government was directly responsible.
By pulling out and encouraging groups to get funding from
other groups, the government shows its ignorance of the
realities in these organizations. Most of the time, this forces
women to spend a lot of time and energy on fund-raising, when
this time and energy would be better spent on improving
women's living conditions and, in the end, the well-being and
quality of life of all Canadians and Quebecers.
True, the private sector sometimes supports women's groups
and associations, but only as long as they provide direct
assistance services to the population. But what about awareness
groups demanding economic equality, equity in employment
and wages, parental leave, preventative withdrawals, child care
services, in short, better living conditions for families? The
private sector rarely subsidizes lobby groups. By gradually
withdrawing their financing, the government once again
penalizes the most disadvantaged, a group where women are in
the majority.
Is it not important to question the cuts introduced by the
previous government, that the current government apparently
wants to maintain and even deepen? Is this not a disguised way
of muzzling women's groups that make claims and exert
pressure? Should we not question the gag method designed to
prevent them from criticizing government policies?
I would now like to make a comment about interest groups.
Contrary to what some people think, women's groups are not
interest groups. As the National Action Committee on the Status
of Women rightly stated, the interests of 52 per cent of the
population are not special interests but public interests. The
promotion of social, political and economic justice does not
have anything to do with the lobby for multinationals, banks,
family trusts and businesses that do not pay taxes.
In its throne speech of January 18, the government expressed
its intention to change its relations with lobbyists. Canadian and
Quebec women would like the government to clarify what is a
lobby and what is an interest group and who are their members.
Finally, I would like to say that the involvement of both levels
of government in the area of subsidies to women's groups and
organizations in Quebec, like in many other sectors affecting
women's lives, creates overlap and duplication in programs and
structures, leading to a waste of public funds.
I personally think that Quebec women's interests would be
better served if there were only one level making decisions and
distributing funds. It also makes it impossible for Quebec to
develop a consistent policy on the status of women.
1980
(1245)
For example, the dual jurisdiction in family law often leads to
inconsistencies. The federal Parliament has jurisdiction in
marriage and divorce matters, while Quebec can legislate on
solemnization of marriage and on property and civil rights.
Quebec cannot in these conditions initiate a reform process that
could give it a unified family court.
In closing, I hope that this day of reflection and debate on the
status of women will allow women to continue their long march
towards equality and independence.
[English]
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak on today's motion especially because it is
International Women's Day. All members should keep this very
important motion in mind.
I would like to make some comments today about the
economy and women's place in that economy, not the place that
is defined for us, but the place we define for ourselves. It is a
place that is equal, just and co-operative. It is one that gives us
choices and allows us to determine our own vision of who we are
and who we want to become as individuals in society. I want to
talk about what we can do as parliamentarians, as men and
women in the House to bring about the fundamental change
which is required if we are to make that vision a reality.
Many people get nervous when we talk about fundamental
change. It is very threatening to some. All kinds of excuses will
be put forth as to why we cannot bring about real change. Sure,
maybe there can be a program or two, a pay raise here or there,
but tamper with the big stuff, talk about structural change and
the alarm bells go off. Obviously someone has a good thing
going but it sure is not the women of Canada.
This is not to suggest we have not made extraordinary gains.
International Women's Day is about some of those gains.
Today we look at our universities with some satisfaction. Half
the undergraduate students are women. Forty-one per cent of
medical students are female; 48 per cent of law students are
women; and 47 per cent of business students are women.
One-third of all businesses started in Canada are started by
women. The success rate of those businesses is very high and
exceeds those started by men.
In all other areas however, women still lag far behind. Only 17
per cent of university professors are women. Only 18 per cent of
members of Parliament are women. Only 1 per cent of corporate
executives are women and one of them was so successful she
was named ``Man of the Year''. Women also continue to be
grossly underrepresented in engineering and in the sciences.
Sometimes people ask me why we need to have 50 per cent
female politicians, 50 per cent female engineers and so on. It is
just common sense to me, common social sense and common
economic sense. Our society can no longer afford to ignore the
expertise and knowledge of half of our population.
Women have always played a key role in the economy as
unpaid labour. This invisible cheap labour feeds and cares for
the family, for the male paid workforce and raises future
workers. It is called a labour of love. We know love is a part of it
but so is exploitation.
Money too often has been the measure of worth in our society
and because women's labour has not been paid it has been
historically undervalued. Because that work has been
undervalued, far too often women have not been valued. That
lack of worth has a whole array of consequences going beyond
our lower paycheques. Women still make 69 cents on the dollar
of men in our society.
(1250 )
We see it as well in the lack of commitment to women's health
care needs and the controversies over breast implants, breast
cancer and the overmedication of women. We see it in continued
violence against women, victims of abusers in a too often
abusive society. We see it when a woman cannot get the police to
enforce a peace bond against her violent partner, yet the laws are
always there to protect property in times of strikes. We see it in
the twisted notion that somehow rape is not a war crime. That is
changing to some extent but we recognize how much more there
is to do. We see it in sexual harassment being treated as a joke by
some.
That is the kind of thinking which has to be challenged and
changed. Who is making the rules? Who says it has to be this
way and who says it cannot be changed? Many people who have
profited from the way things are are the ones who are saying it
cannot be changed.
Some people will remember when slightly under 10 years ago
former member of Parliament Margaret Mitchell mentioned in
the House that one in ten women suffered from spousal assault
and many members laughed. We have a way to go. Today people
would not laugh. We have to go beyond the rhetoric to
implementing real programs and take the trend in attitudinal
change into real action. The reality is that the world has changed
in many ways. Society has changed. It is time for politics to
catch up.
We know child poverty is a tremendous problem and shame to
Canada. We have been sanctioned by the United Nations for
child poverty. Poor children have poor parents. In Canada unlike
many of our trading partners 58.4 per cent of single parents, the
vast majority of whom are women, still live in poverty.
Opportunities and choices are too often denied to them. It is not
because people say they do not value the family. It is because the
structural changes that would fundamentally attack these issues
in our society have not been made.
1981
There are three important ways to broaden these choices and
to expand those opportunities. They are pay equity, employment
equity and a national child care program.
I would like to deal with the issue of child care. No doubt there
is a link between the ability of women to participate in the
workforce and the availability of accessible, affordable child
care.
In a past career I worked for a children's aid society. After a
number of years I was struck by the view that our society is not a
very child loving one. We do not structure our society in a way
that values our children and our future. The lack of this
reasonably rich and resourceful country to come to terms with
the need for affordable, accessible child care is one example of
our failure to value families and children.
Child care is not a charity issue. In many ways it is not a social
issue. It is an economic issue. It must not be seen solely as a
woman's issue. Child care is the responsibility of everyone in
society. It is central to the functioning of our economy. Looking
at studies from other countries it is very easy to see the
correlation between the availability of child care and the ability
of women to participate in the workforce.
Other important steps can be taken to ensure women's
economic equality. Labour legislation can be passed making it
easier for workers to organize in sectors where women
predominate and where work is very often part time, casual or
temporary.
(1255 )
We can take it upon ourselves as legislators to see that part
time workers, whose numbers are increasing and a large
percentage of whom are women, receive adequate pensions and
other benefits to ensure a more stable future.
There can be labour standards with flexible and
comprehensive leave policies that recognize family
responsibilities and the rights of same sex couples.
We hear much from different parliaments, not just in Canada
but abroad as well on the question of family values. I ask each
person today to examine their consciences in terms of how our
actions show we care about families. If we really cared about
families we would have child care. We would have appropriate
labour legislation. We would ensure the family is valued not by
rhetoric and not by simply longing for the long past nuclear
family, if it ever existed, but by recognizing the situation as it is
today and valuing the choices people make and valuing our
children.
We can have a clear definition of sexual harassment in labour
legislation. The legislation can set clear policies for handling
complaints and discipline.
On the economic front we can make low interest rate loans
more readily available to co-operatives and small businesses,
many of which give women a greater say in their own economic
future.
We can find ways to value unpaid work. We can encourage
young women and girls to study math and science. We can
include women's studies as part of core curriculum and ensure
post secondary courses accommodate women's needs.
We can provide training programs to move women into trades
and technologies. Those programs can be made available to
women in both rural and urban areas.
I would like to say a word about the focus needed for women
in rural areas. The availability of training and educational
opportunities is often more difficult. It is something our society
has not really come to terms with. Our rural economy and the
needs of rural women must be a focus for members of the House.
We must ensure as well there are adequate old age security
and income supplements so that older women do not have to live
in poverty. Older women make up a disproportionately large
percentage of those living in poverty.
We can build more low cost housing so that women have a safe
place to call home. We can make sure that health care meets the
needs of women, not just those of drug companies. Women must
be given choices in those health care needs. That means more
funding for planned parenthood, more research into safe and
effective contraception and ensured access to abortion services
not just in urban hospitals but in community based clinics across
Canada.
True economic equality for women will come about only
through these and other initiatives. That economic equality will
go some way in addressing the imbalance of power between
women and men in our society, an imbalance that contributes to
violence against women.
We will not be safe, be respected, get child care, get equal pay
or get better health care unless we as women and men, as
parliamentarians and decision makers, take leadership on these
issues. Too often there has been a tendency for the House not to
take leadership on these issues.
I must say many men in this House have supported the kinds
of equality measures I am talking about. It gives me great hope
that together we can accomplish the kind of equality which will
enhance our society, our families and our country. Equality and
social justice require a true commitment not just from
governments, not just from parliamentarians but from society as
a whole. As parliamentarians we have a role to play. We help to
formulate legislation which very often not only addresses
inequities but leads the way. It takes more than that; zero
tolerance for violence in our society for example.
1982
(1300)
There is much we can do outside the House to support and
promote equality for women. As women, we have to value our
own experiences because sometimes we undervalue them, and
recognize that someone who runs a home can very likely run a
business or a country.
Second, I would say that those of us who have had some small
success in our careers have a responsibility to be mentors to
younger women who will follow us. It is by our example that we
can begin to redefine what is of worth in our society.
I have had the opportunity to speak over the last six years on
International Women's Day, both in the House and across the
country. We have seen many sad things in the House as well that
we have acknowledged having taken place. All of us remember
the Montreal massacre, and it was of credit to the House that
members supported December 7 as an official day of mourning.
These are important statements that have been made by
parliamentarians. Today is the day we should rededicate
ourselves, men and women, to use the power we have, in the
House and outside, to promote true equality.
I have been involved for many years in the women's
movement and I know that words do not change much, but the
language we use can change the way we think about things. We
have had some rather regrettable examples in the House of
Commons where people forgot that. It does matter what we say;
it does matter what we do.
I believe the issue of women's equality is inextricably linked
to the equality of everyone in our society-aboriginal people,
visible minorities, persons with handicaps-and that when we
tolerate structural inequality, as I believe we have at the moment
in our society, we are ignoring a very basic political fact. Today
we look at what is happening in South Africa where racial
injustice was not only ignored but was promoted for many years.
It affected every person in that society. It affected international
relations.
We do not necessarily have a sterling record on women's
equality internationally. Members will remember that last year
Canada was deemed the number one country by a United Nations
report, the best place to live under a whole series of criteria. It
also added that if the status of women was factored in we
dropped to eighth.
As the debate went on, I noticed that report was used to say,
quite rightly, that we are that kinder, gentler society that others
might long for. I rarely heard anyone mention the equality of
women and the second part of the report which made a very
negative observation about our society.
My party supports the motion put forward by the Official
Opposition. However we would like to see parliamentarians do
more than simply support it verbally by giving speeches, but by
what we do and what we undertake to do as individual members
of Parliament and as political parties.
People will recall that during the previous session of
Parliament some of the recommendations of the Electoral
Reform Commission were accepted. One section was not and I
would like to suggest to the government that it show its
commitment to equality. The Electoral Reform Commission
recommended that political parties receive a rebate based on the
number of women they nominated as candidates. That
acknowledged an acceptance of the fact that we do not have
sufficient numbers of women in political life.
(1305)
I would also like to see the government restore core funding to
women's centres that provide many of the services, often sadly
at a fairly low wage rate, to the communities across the country
which help to deal in preventive, educative and counselling
ways with the issues which most people here I am sure will say
they are concerned about: violence against women in our
society, poverty, and so on.
I would make a plea for the government not just to give a nice
speech today but to acknowledge the contribution of women:
women who run transition homes, women's centres, counselling
centres, and what that means to our society as a whole.
In conclusion, in supporting the motion I would like to say
that International Women's Day is not a day simply for women.
It is a day when we can recommit with actions, and in this forum
with legislation, that truly will work toward redressing the
imbalance between men and women in society.
We have seen positive changes over the years. I am pleased
that many men share the goals that we who have worked in the
women's movement for equality for many years have promoted.
Only together and through our role as parliamentarians can we
show the rest of the country that the leadership, the elected
members, take the motion seriously, will act on it and not just
support motions but support legislation when needed.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry): Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying to the
leader of the New Democratic Party that I support everything in
her remarks. I was listening to her speech in my office while
working on another issue and I came over here because I felt that
she, as always on this issue, is right on track.
I would like to comment on a particular part of the hon.
member's speech where she talks about women in business. In
the United States right now women owned or partnered
businesses employ more people than all the Fortune 500
companies combined. The emerging force is women as the real
leaders in entrepreneurship in North America, not just in words.
It is reality. The facts and statistics are there. It is one of the
reasons
1983
why the Minister of Human Resources Development is going to
be supporting momentarily the opening of Canada's first women
in business centre in downtown Toronto. We can see the
tremendous success that is emerging from women owned or
partnered businesses.
We are finding that one of the most difficult issues facing
women who are either starting a home based business or moving
from a home business into a larger business is that the financial
institutions, the banks, do not get it or cannot seem to read the
statistics of success. Canadian bankers will say that women
repay loans better than men. This is all statistically recorded.
Still we hear that women owned or partnered businesses have a
very difficult time in accessing capital.
(1310)
In the member's opinion or because of her experience, could
she give us some reasons why financial institutions are so
restrictive in their attitudes when they are loaning money to
women who want to start or expand their businesses?
Ms. McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I guess I could give a
psychological analysis as well as a financial one.
Part of it comes back to the fact that historically as well as to
some extent now, women's work is not valued. Some decision
makers in financial institutions, men or women, are having a bit
of trouble making the link that women can actually be successful
in a variety of areas. As my friend says, we know the statistics
about the success of women in business.
I have heard this from my constituents and had the experience
myself perhaps seven or eight years ago where I could not get a
credit card unless my spouse signed to say that I was a good
person, a good financial risk or something. The fact that I was
divorced seemed to be not understood by the people who were
asking.
It is attitudinal in our society. It is one of the attitudes we have
to address. I speak to may women across the country,
professional women, women who are moving from home base to
larger enterprises. They have a terrible time getting funding. It
is a very real problem.
I would say to my friend that there are many analyses I could
make but the best would be for the government which according
to the budget is going to be sitting down with financial
institutions to make sure that it raises this very important issue
for funding for women entrepreneurs. I am sure if my friend is
there he will do that. I ask that the government make this a
priority as well.
I was struck, and I mentioned it briefly in my comments, that
at the end of last year the Financial Post put out a magazine that
had 200 of Canada's top executives. We have to remember that
the most influential chief executive officers of the country
probably carry some political clout as well as business clout.
Two of them were women.
This is also illustrative of the business community as a whole,
not just the financial community. It has to recognize two things,
not just the value of women but the reorganization of the work
place that values-it would be of advantage to men as
well-family roles.
That would go equally for the House. We might think about
how schedules are arranged and those with family
responsibilities, men and women, can be assured that there is
more time to carry out family responsibilities by the very
schedule we set here ourselves.
I have spoken to many women who are concerned,
particularly in business and in politics, about taking senior
positions because of the kind of humanless work environment
that tends to be constructed in our society. That is a real issue for
the future which all of us might want to give some attention to if
we truly believe in involving more women in both of those
arenas.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to
address the opposition's motion encouraging the government to
recognize equality between men and women and to implement
necessary measures to ensure this in the area of federal
jurisdiction.
(1315 )
On this International Women's Day it is truly a privilege for
me to address such an important issue here in the House.
However before I begin I would like to thank my mother, Irene
Lemak, for deciding to have me, raising me, putting up with me,
looking after me and loving me. Thanks, Mom.
Back to the motion, it is our duty as members of Parliament to
address the problems of equality that women face in the
workforce, encourage co-operation and protect the rights of all
Canadians.
Economic equality can only exist between men and women
when employment in the country is truly based on individual
qualifications, experience, motivation and not gender. In this
system the individual who is best qualified for a job, male or
female, would get the job.
However the fact of the matter is that true equality in this form
remains an ideal in Canada and not a reality. It is time for women
in the country to be given the respect, the pay and the
opportunities they deserve. This means that as a government,
members of all parties should work to review the problems
associated with sexual harassment and discrimination in the
workplace and correct any wrongs that surface as they are
discovered.
We must explore the problems associated with maternity
leave and the difficulty that many women face in re-entering the
workforce. It must be a balanced approach with the needs of the
1984
employer also factored in. Currently the system that exists
seems to recognize the problems and it seems to work.
Before I became a member of Parliament I ran businesses for
25 years. A lot of times this problem surfaced and by allowing
the women to have maternity leave, have their baby and holding
their job open to them for a period time of three to five months to
make a decision as to whether they wanted to come back, this
seemed to work. Out of six such pregnancies I had four female
employees who decided to stay at home and two who came back.
Perhaps a system like this has improved.
We must examine the discriminatory problems associated
with child care and the rights of stay at home parents who are not
entitled to the same rights as those who pay for child care
outside the home. We must acknowledge the fact that there is a
social stigma attached to stay at home mothers which implies
that they are not on the same level as those who work outside the
home. We must recognize the value of the contribution of those
women who work at home and give them the opportunity to
pursue any direction they choose.
Having a child should not be directly influenced by the
government with various incentives through legislation. For
instance, Calgarians Jim and Laurie Boland were recently told
in Federal Court by a judge who had to make the decision that a
parent who chooses to be at home with their child is not entitled
to the same privileges as those who pay for child care.
The Income Tax Act admittedly denies the Bolands equal
benefit under the law, but because stay at home parents are not a
``a discrete and insular minority'', as used by the judge they are
not protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
This is legal discrimination and this must stop. If the motion
today is intended to address problems like these, I would
encourage the government to get on it right away and introduce
legislation to make a judge's ruling unnecessary in situations
like this one.
Parents should be free to choose the form of child care which
best suits their situation as opposed to having government
reward one choice over another.
In this International Year of the Family it is my intention
before the year is over to introduce a private member's bill on
the topic of equal financial assistance to all families regardless
of the type of child care arrangements that they have made.
Let us build a country in which taxation and the options for
employment are fair, a country in which opportunities flourish
for individuals and employment is based on qualifications,
experience and motivation, not gender.
If the motion suggests that affirmative action should be
legislated in the workplace as a fixed percentage then the
Reform Party opposes it. A lot of speakers earlier today pointed
this out.
(1320)
Women are not a special interest group. My caucus colleague
from Beaver River mentioned this number of times. She said it
twice and so I will follow her leadership and mention it twice as
well. Women are not a special interest group. Affirmative action
leads to reverse discrimination and not equality. Women are
people just like men and should be respected as such.
It is time that extremes, the extreme males who are called
male chauvinists and the extreme females who are called
feminists, come together and eliminate that hardness and that
extremism from both ends and come together and recognize
each other as human beings. Respect and understanding are key.
In conclusion, I believe that women in the home, in the
workplace and in general deserve more respect, not quotas.
Perhaps a good beginning would be, especially in this year of the
family, a definition of family in which we subscribe to some of
those values in an ever changing world that existed in prior years
when we had commitment and we had a sense of direction.
Perhaps a family could be defined as two people who are
related by blood or through marriage or through adoption. This
would cover a lot of the situations for single parents, for
marriages and other situations in which the parents are deceased
and siblings live together. These are the things I feel we should
address this year.
As my final words, I do not think we should gloss over the
problems that exist between men and women. I believe we
should recognize them, face them head on and try to resolve
them through respect and understanding, rather than through
legislation and affirmative action.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Before resuming debate I
wish to inform the House that, pursuant to Standing Order
33(2)(b), because of the ministerial statement Government
Orders will be extended by 18 minutes later this day.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod): Mr. Speaker, the motion in front
of the House today is one that someone may wonder about,
specifically why a male would stand on this issue at all, thinking
that it might be an issue only for women. I would like to state
initially that as a Reformer I believe in equality of opportunity
for every single Canadian but not equality of outcome.
I would like to comment on what qualifies me to speak on this
issue. First, I was raised by a wonderful mother. Second, I have a
sister whose love and affection I value. Third, I am a husband of
28 years, very happily married. Fourth, I am a father of seven
children, only one a daughter. I have six sons, an imbalance
1985
maybe in my life. Finally I have professional qualifications
which have allowed me to be close to women and their problems
for all my adult working life.
I would like to make some observations. One observation is
that women live seven years longer on average than men. I have
wondered in one sense why women would want to be equal to
men in that regard. We have a shorter lifespan than women.
The second thing I would like to comment on is an
observation that I have made from my time as a student in
university. In my initial class there were 106 of us, but 14 of my
classmates were women. I graduated back in 1968. I have
watched the enrolment in university in my faculty very
carefully. Today I find that the enrolment in the faculty is
virtually equal.
(1325 )
I have asked myself what the change has been since 1964
when I entered college and today. Has it been a legislative
change? Has there been a change in legislation that would
require the university to have men and women treated as equal?
There has not been such a legislative change at all. There has
been what I call an educative change, a change that has allowed
us to recognize that women's qualifications in the faculty that I
graduated from are absolutely equal.
Another observation I would like to make is in a sense a bit of
a myth exploder. I have heard figures bandied about that women
are paid much lower than men on average and that for equivalent
work they do not do as well as men. One thing that is missing
from this equation, however, is if we compare men who were
never married with women who were never married, the results
are virtually equal for pay and have been in that regard equal for
a long time. Those observations I would like to leave with the
House at the start of my comments today.
I would like to address what marriage does to the equation. I
look back to the days when my grandparents were raising their
family. It was a traditional, old time Canadian family. My
grandfather worked on a dairy farm, outside. My grandmother
was the housekeeper and worked inside. She did the gardening,
the housework, the cooking, the sewing, the yard chores, the
house renovations, gave piano lessons, prepared for church.
There are some who say that those duties were not at all equal.
There are some who say there was an equality there. I asked my
grandmother whether she felt there was any inequality there.
She said there was an inequality, my poor grandad had all the
hard work and she had all the enjoyable work.
In the modern family today things have changed dramatically.
There are often two working parents who have to leave the
home, go outside the household, and it is very difficult for a
mother to nurture the children and do that only. With those
working parents when they get married the most natural thing
that happens is that they decide to have children. When the
children come along there are certain negatives that relate to the
mother as far as the job situation is concerned. When she is
pregnant often morning sickness comes along and she has
difficulty even getting to work during that period of time. She
goes through childbirth and there is a period of time, some six
weeks plus, in which she is incapable of working. In many cases
there are mothers who decide that they will stay home and
nurture the baby, breast feed, care for in a way that only a mother
can care for the newborn baby.
There are cases in which there are medical problems that crop
up. High blood pressure can be a problem with the post-partum
period. There are other issues, problems with the placenta,
problems that require the mother to be out of the workforce for a
fairly long period of time.
When these issues ensue the mother automatically takes a
drop in income. The father generally goes out and may even find
extra work. The statistics I hear which say that men and women
are not equally treated in our society in some cases are
aberrations. I would rather have the statistics of never married
men and women compared to see if we have equality.
I hear from both the Liberals and the Bloc members a desire to
engineer socially, to move toward what I think are very well
meaning principles. I do not agree with the final result but I
know that the motives are good.
I want to bring up an example of a type of social engineering
that I came across which I think is wrong headed social
engineering.
(1330 )
With regard to social engineering, in the early 1900s there was
a small community in Alberta called Brule. This community was
based on coal mining and coal mining alone. It was a thriving
community. In fact when the first world war came along the
community boomed. People moved in, built homes, and had a
real solid community. They had enough access to humanity.
There was a theatre and a bowling alley.
The future of Brule looked very bright. However the coal
reserve ran out. The very fine seam of coal they had literally ran
out. It took six months until the community of Brule was
non-existent. Everyone had moved away. They sought
employment where employment was.
I wonder what would happen to Brule today if exactly the
same thing occurred. I imagine that Brule would have had an
influx of social workers who would come in to take care of the
problems of alcoholism that would ensue from unemployed
miners who wanted to stay exactly where they were because they
had nice homes and all the amenities. I am quite convinced we
would have a department of all kinds of things looking after the
social needs and concerns and worries of the people of Brule. We
would need somebody there for economic displacement,
somebody to make sure the post office was looked after and
some-
1986
body to make sure that the school had all the advantages of the
schools in the larger communities.
The social engineering that would keep Brule there today did
not keep Brule there when it died. The community of Brule
today is non-existent. Even the homes were taken down,
disassembled, and taken to a community fairly close by. Brule
was literally gone.
I think in our haste and great desire to do well that we
sometimes socially engineer ourselves into the corner.
I would conclude my comments by saying as I said at the start,
that I heartily support the equality of opportunity for everyone
in Canada. I do not support the equality of outcome. My desire is
to make sure that we do everything we can to prevent the
impediments that will prevent the equality of opportunity. That
goes for every single Canadian, man or woman.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South): Mr. Speaker, I listened
with great interest to the member's comments. I thought I would
suggest one initiative that Canadians might consider to see the
member's reaction.
Very typically when we have two spouses working and there
are dependent children which require day care the net income to
the second spouse entering the workplace after day care costs is
very nominal.
Given that the value of the net pay to that second spouse does
not generally reflect the value of the work provided in the
workplace, I wonder if the member would consider the merits of
an arrangement whereby a working spouse could either transfer
income or pay a salary to a spouse in the home who is managing
the family home and caring for dependent children. In that way
there would be earned income in the hands of that second
spouse, allowing them to have economic independence and the
ability to purchase RRSPs, et cetera. Also it would free up a job,
free up a day care spot and maybe recognize for the first time in
our Canadian society the value of a spouse in the home.
I wonder if the member might comment on the general merits
of recognizing the value of the woman in the home.
Mr. Hill (Macleod): Mr. Speaker, I would prefer, rather than
recognize the woman in the home or even in fact the man in the
home by paying or doing something of that nature, making sure
that the income tax system did not downplay the contribution of
the spouse in the home.
(1335 )
The Income Tax Act is discriminatory for those who have a
spouse at home. My preference would be to do this the least
legislative way as possible. In my mind the use of the Income
Tax Act in that way would be more appropriate. I thank the
member for the question.
[Translation]
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the hon. member of the Reform
Party. Did he actually say that men and women who never got
married and do the same job have equal pay?
Does the hon. member believe that male and female nurses get
the same wages, that female lawyers are paid just as much as
male lawyers in some firms, that female and male physicians
earn the same income, that female and male employees doing
the same clerical work are paid the same salary, that female and
male partners in a firm reap the same benefits? In short, does he
think male and female employees doing the same job have equal
pay throughout Canada?
[English]
Mr. Hill (Macleod): Mr. Speaker, never-married men and
never-married women statistically have exactly the same
earnings Canada-wide. The member is correct and that is what I
said.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry): Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have the opportunity
to participate in this opposition day debate on a motion that we
all support.
There is no question about the fact that we in this House are
constantly working at initiatives that bring knowledge and
sensitivity to providing economic equality between men and
women.
To begin with, I would like to talk about a personal experience
that I had in my riding about a year ago. A group of women from
the riding came to see me on a Saturday morning. Most of them
were on social assistance at that time. They were telling me, first
of all, that they were all educated but were victims of a rather
rough economy in the last few years. They had their own
strengths in terms of entrepreneurship and felt with a little bit of
assistance they could start their own business. They asked
whether our office could give them some help in starting their
own business.
I was not really equipped at that moment in time but said that I
would look into what the Federal Business Development Bank
did in terms of supporting women who wanted to start in
business. Within a month we set up a little conference, women in
business, on how to start one's own business.
We expected that at the first meeting perhaps 40 or 50 women
would show up, women who would be interested in starting their
own home based business, a corner store or a specific craft that
they wanted to market or sell.
About three days before the event we started getting letters,
applications and requests to come to this meeting. Over 500
women showed up for this women in business conference on
how to start a business. During the question and answer period I
listened to the frustration that women have in starting their own
business. Our educational system is not geared toward being
1987
sensitive on how to help women get into business. Our financial
institutions are not geared toward helping women who want to
start their own business.
(1340)
In the statistics in terms of women who are either leaders or at
the board level of our major businesses in Canada, as a country
we have really not supported women in senior positions in this
country.
This first meeting led to subsequent meetings where we
brought in executives from among the few women around our
city who were experienced in business. We asked them if they
would be mentors for others who wanted to start, who wanted to
learn, who wanted to advance or who wanted to upgrade their
skills. We developed a series. After about four or five of these
meetings, and I do not think we had a meeting with less than 300
women, we discovered that this need for a business centre for
women was absolutely essential if we were going to really give
this area of women's entrepreneurship a real solid footing.
The Minister of Human Resources Development in the last
couple of weeks has given us some tentative support for getting
this going. It is an example of a concrete initiative.
Right now women owned or partnered businesses employ
more people in the United States than all the Fortune 500
companies put together. When we are facing a period of deep
unemployment in our country I believe that by making sure that
the resources that will support women getting into business are
there will go a long way in getting people back to work.
We talked in the last budget about all the initiatives related to
small business. We have to be very specific when we go into
these various areas that we are sensitive to making sure that
whether it be in the banking area or whether it be in special
education or retraining that the whole area of women in business
is looked at.
As the leader of the New Democratic Party said earlier today,
this is an area where all of us are going to have to work at with a
little bit more focus. I do not think that there is any way that we
can be proud of the record in this area right now.
My remarks are going to be very short today. The message is
that we are going to do our best in our industry committee,
especially in the area with banks. We will make sure that all of
these issues that are related to small business have very special
focus, especially on the needs that women require in order to get
into the area of entrepreneurship.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops): Mr. Speaker, I listened with
interest, as I always do, to my hon. friend's comments. I find
myself once again agreeing with much of what he had to say. I
know that he is concerned, dedicated and very committed to the
points that he makes.
I wonder if I could make a suggestion. Part of the mandate of
the new government and perhaps the new Parliament is to review
the Federal Business Development Bank's operations and to ask
questions about the kind of job that it is doing, the kind of
emphasis that it places in terms of its lending portfolios. I think
a lot of us have concerns about the role that it is presently
playing and would like to see it in a whole new mandate.
(1345 )
I think one of the more positive initiatives is the CASE
program, the counsellor assistance program, where experienced
entrepreneurs, experienced business people, assist and lend
their expertise and talents to those starting up new ventures and
new businesses and the like.
Does the hon. member see a role for the FBDB to play in
providing support, particularly for women entering the world of
business and entrepreneurship, and could this be a leadership
role that that bank could take on that would then encourage the
other lending institutions of Canada to follow suit in one way or
another?
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): Mr. Speaker, I thank
the member for his question. He raises a good point.
The Federal Business Development Bank right now is doing
some work in the area of assisting women in business. I cited the
example that we had in the riding. They provide this service for
any member of Parliament who would like to have a town hall
meeting to assist women who want to start their own business.
The Federal Business Development Bank will assist any
member of Parliament who wants to take on that initiative.
Their counsellor assistance for small enterprise is a good
program, but the problem is that it has limited resources. Even
though the counsellor assistance for small enterprise charges the
business approximately $40 an hour to operate, it costs
approximately $80 an hour to manage this particular section of
the Federal Business Development Bank. With the budget
constraints, that program which is so vital is really restricted in
terms of its ability to serve the needs of small enterprise.
I believe, and I think this deals directly with the member's
question, that the Federal Business Development Bank's role
has been too restricted. I know that there are many members of
that bank who would like to be full-fledged competitors of the
major financial institutions in he country. We are certainly
going to listen to them in the industry committee over the next
60 days.
Whether it be the Federal Business Development Bank,
mutual funds, pension funds, le Fonds de solidarité, any funds
that can assist women in business, small business in general, any
1988
funds that can compete with the traditional financial institutions
in this country, I would support amending the legislation in a
way that would allow them to compete with the banks.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert): Mr. Speaker, all
judges of superior courts and courts of appeal in all Canadian
provinces and territories are appointed on the recommendation
of Cabinet. The Cabinet also designates the judges of the
Supreme Court, the Federal Court and the Tax Court of Canada.
The government therefore has the political responsibility for
appointments to courts of superior jurisdiction across the
country.
Today, there are 951 federally-appointed judges. Of that
number, 123, or less than 13 per cent, are women. Statistics
obtained from the Office of the Commissioner for Federal
Judicial Affairs reflect the level of egalitarian concern shown by
successive governments during the past 30 years. In the
Supreme Court of Canada, which rules on issues of national
importance, only two of the nine justices are women. In the
Federal Court of Canada, which was established to judge cases
involving federal legislation and federal responsibility, both in
first instance and on appeal, only five out of a grand total of 35
judges are women.
(1350)
In the Tax Court of Canada, which may be asked, for instance,
to rule whether a woman employed by her spouse is eligible for
unemployment insurance, only three of the 25 judges are
women. In the country's ten appeal courts, out of a total of 126
judges, the government appointed only 23 women.
In the case of the Quebec Superior Court, the Courts of
Queen's Bench of Alberta, Manitoba, New Brunswick and
Saskatchewan, the Supreme Courts of British Columbia, the
Northwest Territories and Yukon, and the trial divisions in
Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island and Ontario, the figures
are even more telling: out of 756 judges, only 90 are women.
There are no women on the New Brunswick and Prince
Edward Island Courts of Appeal. The five judges of the Superior
Courts of Yukon and the Northwest Territories are all men. In
New Brunswick again, only two out of the 32 judges on the
Court of Queen's Bench and the Appeal Court are women.
Even in Ontario, which has more than 25,000 lawyers, Liberal
and Conservative governments appointed only 34 women out of
a total of 277 judges of both courts.
One could say that judges are lawyers and that far more men
than women belong to the provincial bar associations. This was
indeed true in the fifties and sixties, but in any case I would say,
first of all, that male/female ratios among lawyers are not
relevant when appointments are supposed to reflect society as a
whole.
I would also say that this particular argument is becoming less
and less factual. The Barreau du Québec has 17,000 lawyers, of
whom 35 per cent are women, while the Ontario Bar Association
has more than 25,000 members, 20 per cent of whom are women,
the ratio increasing to more than 45 per cent among lawyers who
have practised law for less than 10 years.
In future, we could assume that the government should have
no trouble finding 100 women among the 42,000 lawyers in both
provinces for the positions that become available.
Mr. Speaker, the present profile of Canada's judiciary reflects
the intolerable discrimination suffered by women in the law
profession in this country. One wonders whether this
discrimination arises from a political will to keep women out of
the judiciary or simply from a mistaken conviction in our
society that women had no place in the courts.
In any case, the result is the same, and it is high time we
corrected this imbalance by systematically appointing women to
the positions that become available in the future.
Ontario was the first Canadian province to admit women to
the bar, when it passed special legislation for the benefit of Clara
Brett Martin on February 2, 1897.
Quebec was the last province to amend its statutes to admit
women to the bar in 1941. It is hard to imagine in 1994 that in
1940, it was perfectly normal and natural to exclude women
from social life. It was a time when discrimination was
institutionalized. Most women themselves felt it was necessary,
and the fact that they were excluded from important positions
was accepted as a matter of course.
We cannot explain the imbalance in the ratio of men and
women in the judiciary on the basis of their actual numbers
within the provincial bar associations. This argument is
irrelevant, because there are so few positions to fill that the
government can easily find suitable women among the
thousands of female lawyers.
(1355)
Who could argue that it would be impossible for the
government to find the right persons among the 6,500 female
lawyers in Ontario and the 5,000 in Quebec?
The role of higher Canadian courts is to sanction the laws, to
interpret the fundamental texts and very often to decide on
controversial issues in our society.
It is totally inconceivable and unacceptable that women
should be almost systematically excluded. I urge this House and
the government to recognize that time has come to correct this
historical aberration.
I urge the government to select and appoint at least 80 per cent
women to the positions which will become vacant in the
magistrature under federal jurisdiction over the next few years. I
am asking for a policy and a law that would facilitate access of
1989
women to the bench, in order to correct the imbalance that has
existed since Confederation.
I am only repeating a principle of our law: That justice be
rendered and that it appear to be rendered in the eyes of both men
and women of Canada.
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester): Mr.
Speaker, I rise with pleasure to congratulate the member for
Saint-Hubert on a speech for which she did a lot of research, a
speech which dealt with the number of judges in Ontario,
Quebec and throughout Canada. I commend her for her research
and I support her when she says that the federal government
should appoint more and more women judges so that justice is
done for everyone, women as well as men.
I congratulate the hon. member for Saint-Hubert.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mrs. Venne: Mr. Speaker, after so much praise, I must tell
you that I do not know what to say to my colleague. Of course, I
thank him. I think that he got the message.
Earlier, behind me, someone was whispering to me that I did
not talk about notaries, although I am a notary, quite simply
because now lawyers are appointed judges, but I could also ask
the Minister of Justice to appoint notaries-that would not
embarrass me at all.
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South): Mr. Speaker, I thank
the member for the comments. They were most interesting. In
my experience I have heard what can best be described as blatant
discrimination in terms of appointees with regard to the old boys
networks such as the legal profession and the appointment of
judges.
Would the member please comment on the realities of our
society? When I go into a bank the majority of tellers are
women. When I go into a corporation and look at the secretaries,
the majority are women. When I go into a supermarket and look
at who the clerks are, the majority are women. I suppose the
examples go on and on, classical stereotype positions that seem
to be prevalent in our society.
I wonder if the member feels that equity for women in our
society is something to be legislated or mandated on the basis of
a quota system or whether it should take into account primarily
the ability to do the job. Perhaps the member would comment on
that.
(1400)
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: Mr. Speaker, in some cases, like the one I
mentioned about judges, yes, I propose that in future at least 80
per cent of the judgeships that become open be filled by women.
You can call that a quota, although I hate the term, but it can
certainly be used.
In other cases, of course, if the same number of people apply
for a position, the qualifications of each applicant can certainly
be evaluated, as one should always do.
We have always been given the following objection: ``Oh, you
want to favour women, but you do not want them to be as
competent as men''. Unfortunately, I am often inclined to say
``as competent as males'', because I find using that kind of
argument very sexist. Of course women are as competent as
men, in all fields.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): It being two o'clock, the
House will now proceed to Statements by Members, pursuant to
Standing Order 31.
_____________________________________________
1989
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John): Madam Speaker, on this
International Women's Day I appreciate the opportunity to
recognize women from my riding who have contributed to the
success of their community.
Dr. Eileen Travis was the first president of the Saint John
Board of Trade; the Hon. Shirley Dysart, the first woman
Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick; Mrs.
Mary Munford, the first female Common Clerk of the first
incorporated city in Canada, Saint John, New Brunswick; and
Mrs. Anna Boyle, a woman with 12 children who works
tirelessly to improve the quality of life for persons with
disabilities. The Sisters of Charity of the Immaculate
Conception provides vital outreach and support for social
services.
As 1994 is the International Year of the Family it is important
that I mention the work of the Saint John Council of Women.
The council is constantly striving to improve the health and
well-being of families in Saint John.
Finally it gives me a great deal of pleasure to inform the
House that the first YWCA was established in Saint John, New
Brunswick, in 1870 by Agnes Blizard.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie): Madam
Speaker, day care services do not meet the growing needs of
families in Canada and Quebec.
The lack of day care spaces and the cost often prohibitive of
this essential service is causing a prejudice to women. In many
cases, they cannot work outside the home. Not only are they
deprived of their right to work, but also, for those who are single
parents, they are being condemned to poverty.
1990
However, I want to pay tribute to the courage and dedication
of the day care employees who do a tremendous job looking
after our children, and this for far less than adequate wages.
In this year of the family, it is high time that government acts
and invests in a day care network rather than keep saying it is
important.
* * *
[
English]
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley):
Madam Speaker, I would like to address an issue of concern to
all of society.
In British Columbia three recent murder trials have produced
a very disturbing trend. In each instance those accused were
acquitted or convicted of a lesser charge of manslaughter
because they had been under the influence of drugs or alcohol. In
at least one current murder trial this defence will likely be used.
Unfortunately, not only is the substance abuse defence in
vogue for current trials, but individuals already convicted of
murder are now appealing their conviction, citing this defence.
If this trend continues it will be difficult to get a murder
conviction in Canada.
While the legal profession may defend this trend as being in
step with the current law and legal precedence, the general
public is outraged.
If the government were serious about its promise to protect
women and children from violence it would change the law to
make people responsible for their actions.
* * *
Mrs. Bonnie Hickey (St. John's East): Madam Speaker, I
want to take this opportunity today, International Women's Day,
to speak on the future of young women in Canada.
(1405 )
Young women face the same pressures as their male
counterparts when they consider their future. They are
concerned about obtaining a quality education and about having
employment opportunities. However they face the added
pressures of being women in a society that is not always
receptive to their needs and is often hostile.
I urge the government to take into account the unique needs of
young Canadian women as it addresses the overall social and
economic needs for our society.
If we are ever to obtain full equality we must first obtain
economic independence. We must improve our education and
training opportunities for women and we must provide them
with employment opportunities.
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean): Madam Speaker, today is
International Women's Day. I would like my colleagues to join
with me in giving special prominence to the dedicated work
carried out by stay at home mothers.
Women at home with children must deal not only with the
isolation and stress of 24-hour a day child care responsibility,
but also with the invisibility of their work.
Stay at home mothers are dismissed by employment experts
as persons with no employment record, no history of promotion
and no record of job skills. They have no set hours, no holidays,
no sick leave, no pensions, no safety regulations and no rights to
negotiation.
Census statistics provide the data used by all levels of
government to develop policies and programs for society. Yet
unpaid work in the home and in the community is not included in
the national census.
As a result few community resources have been available for
women caring for children because such caring is neither
recognized nor understood as work.
Mothers at home clearly have rights and these rights must be
recognized.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais
(Madawaska-Victoria): Madam Speaker, I would like to take
this opportunity to salute all women and young girls who choose
to fulfil their potential.
I want to mention the presence in our gallery of my daughter,
Andrée-Julie, who, even at her young age, sees the future from a
different perspective than I or my mother did.
In 1994, we will be celebrating the 75th anniversary of the
right to vote for women in New Brunswick, a right they acquired
on April 17, 1919. Forty-eight years later, a woman was elected
for the first time in our province and 68 years later, two
francophone women were elected members of the New
Brunswick legislature.
I encourage women to participate in politics. There are no
women's issues, as there are no issues concerning only men;
there are only collective problems which must be addressed
collectively.
* * *
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Madam Speaker, on this
International Women's Day, the Bloc Quebecois members want
to acknowledge the exceptional work of all those who decided to
1991
help women and children victims of violence by establishing a
great network of shelters.
These women have given our society an absolutely essential
kind of resource and they continue to give generously of their
time and energy so that this network may really play its role in
supporting women and children who are victims of violence.
What a marvellous thing to devote one's talents and resources
to justice and human dignity. Hats off to all the women who give
of themselves to establish and operate these shelters for victims
of violence.
The members of the Bloc Quebecois want to assure you of
their total support in your efforts to reach your goals.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North): Madam Speaker, I
rise on the occasion of International Women's Day to express
my personal appreciation for the opportunity to live and work in
Canada, a country in which citizens have the freedom to pursue
personal and professional goals with few systemic barriers
based on distinctions such as gender or racial and linguistic
background.
Where our laws and the actions of our governments
discriminate against anyone today, let us change those laws and
actions and pursue the goal of equal treatment for all Canadians.
Our pursuit of fairness and open opportunities for all
Canadians should command our strong support and
commitment, not because we are women or men or happen to
have any other identifying characteristic, but because we are
Canadians.
(1410 )
I urge all members of our society to continue to work together
to move away from an emphasis on difference and special status.
It is my belief that our proudest moment will be when we as
Canadians can truly celebrate equality of citizens day.
* * *
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon): Madam Speaker, today
on International Women's Day I ask the House whether women
are truly advancing in our society.
I use three key measures through which we might decide the
answer to that question. The first one is with regard to poverty
and women. Latest statistics demonstrate that over 58 per cent
of female led single parent families live in poverty and over 45
per cent of unattached elderly women continue to live in
poverty.
The second measurement is violence against women. Every
17 minutes there is a sexual assault committed in Canada, 90 per
cent of those victims are women, the rest are children. That
means three assaults during the time of question period.
Finally turning to employment and women, women in full
time work still earn less than 70 per cent per hour of what men
earn. We must have, and I challenge the government to bring in,
a full national child care program to assist women and men in
our society and to put special emphasis on visible minority,
aboriginal and immigrant women who suffer double
discrimination in our society.
* * *
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East): Madam Speaker,
today on the occasion of International Women's Day we have in
the House Ms. Sheila Genaille, president of the Métis National
Council of Women.
Ms. Genaille is sixth generation Métis and a strong advocate
of Canada and aboriginal peoples. She has a long experience in
federal, provincial and Métis government processes.
The research director of the Métis Nation of Alberta, Ms.
Genaille has been instrumental in helping the Métis find their
proper place in history by managing the Métis Cultural Centre
and developing and collecting historical and cultural
information pertaining to the Métis.
Ms. Genaille has been the president of several organizations,
including the Louis Riel Historical Society and the Edmonton
branch of the Alberta Geological Society. Currently Ms.
Genaille is the Minister of the Status of Women and Minister of
Culture for the Métis Nation Provisional Government.
On International Women's Day it is an honour and a privilege
for me to pay tribute to a woman who has performed in an
outstanding manner not only for her peoples but for all
Canadians.
On behalf of all my colleagues in the House I wish to
congratulate and thank Ms. Genaille for her efforts and
commitment.
* * *
Mrs. Georgette Sheridan (Saskatoon-Humboldt):
Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to address the House on
International Women's Day on behalf of women in sport.
1992
Saskatchewan's Sandra Peterson served as my inspiration.
This past weekend Sandra's rink won the national women's
curling championship, the Scott Tournament of Hearts, for the
second consecutive year.
As the only female MP from Saskatchewan, it gives me great
pleasure to extend my congratulations to Sandra Peterson, Jan
Betker, Joan McCusker and Marcia Gudereit.
The Peterson victory made the front page of the Saskatoon
Star-Phoenix sports section in colour. Public recognition is
crucial to the advancement of women in sport to provide
self-validation for the individual and role models for our young
girls, to enhance public funding and economic opportunities for
women in professional sports.
* * *
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Madam
Speaker, today I would like to join my colleagues in stressing
the invaluable role women play in society and in our private
lives. Far from being a day to give men a clear conscience,
March 8 must go beyond symbols and remind us of how much
remains to be done for the women's cause.
It is fitting to stress achievements, but it is even more
important to renew our commitment to bring about this
long-awaited sex equality. Democracy, justice and humanism
require the implementation of economic and social conditions
which will enable women to reach their full potential and
reconcile their many roles.
This new awareness is even more important for us, MPs and
party leaders, in a House where only 18 per cent of seats are held
by women. Let us recognize in that figure a deficiency of our
democratic system and a serious political failure that must be
addressed urgently.
* * *
(1415)
[English]
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast): Madam Speaker, this
is written to acknowledge our collective responsibility to the
human good.
It is called:
And Sarajevo Makes Me Cry
Hatred is not a contradiction
But a gruesome paradox
Cultures squeezed together no longer benign but malignant
Enmeshed in the bloodied pulp of accusation,
The living and the dead.
After-burner eyes that hold such surprise
A brief shock of pain
The sweet breath of fire
Savage passions, indecent, finally expelled
Like torched paper
To blow apart in the wind
And emerge as blood-pools
This withered generation
Small sad voices.
Our world sits on its haunches
Watching Evil's root
Envelop the thin veneer of civilization
And the deadly seeds of war scatter our history
Conflict becomes a relationship of severed parts
choking on its grief.
Our world of relevance gone mad
Where even the onlookers
Fully misunderstand.
* * *
Ms. Judy Bethel (Edmonton East): Madam Speaker, during
International Women's Week it is important to recognize the
achievements of women who have come to Canada from
different parts of the world. The story of immigration in Canada
is the story of Changing Together, a centre for immigrant women
in Edmonton.
This year the centre will celebrate 10 years of service. It is a
place where immigrant women come together to help each other
realize their full potential through active participation in
Canadian life. It is women helping women through English
language classes, job training and search skills, information and
referral services and cross-cultural friendship.
* * *
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington): Madam Speaker, Canada
is on the cusp of change.
Increasingly Canadians are aware that our country must
evolve to the point where women are recognized and accepted as
full and equal partners. Raising awareness is the first step but
concrete action must follow for Canada to progress.
As a woman member of Parliament I encourage all of my
colleagues to recall the positive changes taking place as the
participation of women in this Chamber has increased.
I am awestruck when I think of our foremothers, Nellie
McClung, Agnes Macphail, Therese Casgrain, their work and
their sacrifices as they struggled to acquire the vote for all
Canadians, to have us recognized as persons within the Consti-
1993
tution and the challenges they faced as solitary women of
Parliament.
What has been achieved to date must not be forgotten. While
women are present at every level of government, I must remind
everyone that only 120 of the 3,771 MPs who have been elected
since Confederation have been women and 53 of us are here
today.
Today is International Women's Day and as members of
Parliament from every region let us work together for equality
for all Canadians.
_____________________________________________
1993
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata):
Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime
Minister.
Liberal unemployment insurance reforms will set us back 20
years, because to establish benefit levels, public servants will
have to determine the number of dependent children. This
means that women on low incomes will be the first to suffer as a
result of these reforms.
Would the Deputy Prime Minister agree that these changes
aggravate the injustice to women by putting the onus on them to
prove they have dependent children?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Madam Speaker, the reason why we are
increasing unemployment insurance benefits by 3 per cent for
low-income individuals is that many women who are single
parents should be getting more unemployment insurance
benefits. That is why the Minister of Human Resources has
increased disposable income for women, and especially for
single parents whose responsibilities are considerable.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata):
Madam Speaker, does the Deputy Prime Minister realize that her
reforms will reduce to 55 per cent, not raise to 60 per cent, the
level of benefits for unemployed women, since their incomes
are often the family's second income?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Madam Speaker, most women who are
single parents have only one income. That is why they are single
parents. And these women will receive 60 per cent.
(1420)
Before the election, they were getting only 57 per cent.
However, thanks to the Liberal Party's reforms, people on low
incomes will get an increase, and this is being done to help
women who are single parents and carry a considerable financial
burden because they are raising their children on their own.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata):
Madam Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister will agree there are
women in Canadian society who are not single parents. There
are also women on low incomes, or who are unemployed, in
households where the man is the sole bread winner. With this
reform, the government perpetuates the myth that a woman is
financially dependent on her spouse. Will the Deputy Prime
Minister admit it and say so, once and for all: yes or no?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Madam Speaker, the hon. member seems
to be talking out of both sides of her mouth. We have introduced
reforms that will increase amounts paid to people on low
incomes. People who have a second family income will get 55
per cent. But all individuals who are below the average, in other
words, most women now receiving unemployment insurance
benefits, will get an increase, thanks to Liberal reforms that
reflect the recognition that those who are less well off should get
more.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec): Madam Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance.
Not only does his budget attack the Unemployment Insurance
Program, but it is completely insensitive to unemployment and
job instability affecting women in particular. In March of 1993,
the actual rate of unemployment among women was over 20 per
cent.
Does the Minister of Finance not agree that his budget not
only reduces UI benefits to women but also contains no job
creation strategy to give them a glimmer of hope?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Québec): I want to take this opportunity, on
International Women's Day, to congratulate you, Madam
Speaker.
First of all, this budget does foresee job creation, and women
are certainly included. When you look at all the funds going to
training, the pilot projects often referred to by the minister and
the rollback of UI premium rate, which will foster job creation,
you can really see this budget truly creating employment, and
employment for women, Madam Speaker.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec): Madam Speaker, will
the minister stop burying his head in the sand and admit that his
infrastructure program, which is creating mostly temporary
employment, gives absolutely no hope to women seeking
employment?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Québec): On the contrary, Madam Speaker.
First of all, many women do find work in so-called conventional
infrastructure. And within the broader definition given by the
President of Treasury Board, if you think of the much broader
definition of
1994
infrastructure used with regard to Atlantic Canada for example,
there are many jobs open to women, in tourism for instance.
On the other hand, we must not forget that the majority of
businesses starting up, the small and medium-sized businesses,
are run by women and that they are more successful. So,
basically, in our budget, the emphasis is on small business
creating jobs for women.
* * *
[
English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River): Madam Speaker, my
question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Yesterday my colleague from Calgary Centre asked the Prime
Minister about the gold-plated pension plans for MPs. In his
response when the Prime Minister talked about salaries for MPs
and NHL hockey players, he failed to mention one important
difference: NHL hockey players do not have five-year no-cut
contracts.
(1425 )
The question was about pensions, not salaries. Does the
Deputy Prime Minister believe that after just six years of service
MPs deserve a pension for life?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Madam Speaker, I am really happy to
receive the question, in particular on International Women's
Day.
One of the things that makes the presence of women in the
House so unique this time is that we can use lots of analogies.
Hockey may be one we want to stay away from because many
hockey players get no-cut contracts.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River): Madam Speaker, we
have noticed that pension payments for members of Parliament
who served in the last Parliament have increased dramatically.
We need to come to terms with this regardless of how amusing it
may seem.
The Prime Minister often boasts of the swift action he took on
the EH-101 helicopters and the Pearson airport deal.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Miss Grey: When may we on this side of the House applaud
just as uproariously when the government acts swiftly on the
outrageous cash-for-life pension plan for MPs?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Madam Speaker, the public is rightly
concerned about the compensation of members of Parliament
and I in no way intend to diminish that debate. That is why the
very first action of the President of the Treasury Board was to set
up a parliamentary committee so all members could have input
into this most important issue.
However the member and the new members who are getting a
handle on the workload of this place do a disservice to the
Canadian public when they leave the impression that somehow
we are here because of a cash-for-life lottery.
If I wanted to make money, I would take my talents and brains
and apply them in lots of other places where I would not be
dependent on a pension but would be remunerated far more per
hour for the work than I do in this place.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River): A further
supplementary question, Madam Speaker. We are talking about
fairness of pension plans in the public sector as well as fairness
for members of Parliament. There is a huge difference.
Statistics Canada reports that a 30-year old working Canadian
may reach retirement and find there is no money left in the
Canada pension plan to offer him or her a secure retirement. Is
the Deputy Prime Minister prepared to stand in the House and
tell that 30-year old Canadian that untold millions of dollars
will be made available to MPs for gold-plated pensions but
there will not be enough for people who worked far more than
six years in other professions?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Madam Speaker, I have a six-year old
Canadian who I fully expect to be working outside the home for
most of her adult life. Obviously I and every other member of
Parliament want to make sure that she has the security she needs
and deserves. That is why we have promised to take a look at the
issue.
The hon. member is throwing around these figures about the
way we are making ourselves rich in Parliament. Obviously her
colleague right behind her is in receipt of two pensions and we
want to make sure that when we do parliamentary reform it is
fair. We want to involve all members in the discussion to ensure
that issues like double dipping are dealt with and make sure that
pension reform is fair. It is important to restore the public's faith
in the system.
We are not in this place to make a buck. I wish the Reform
Party members would start to understand that.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval-Centre):
Madam Speaker, my question is for the minister of defence.
1995
The government is using the fact that it must significantly cut
Canadian military expenditures to justify the closure of the
Collège militaire de Saint-Jean and the transfer of training
activities to Kingston.
(1430)
Does the Minister of National Defence not recognize that
budget cuts are no justification for the government's decision
since activities are not being eliminated, but merely transferred
from Saint-Jean to Kingston?
[English]
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs): Madam Speaker,
that is not quite accurate. The hon. member knows we have been
decreasing the size of the armed forces. In fact in the recent
budgetary statement the size of the armed forces will go from
about 76,000 at present to 66,700. It goes without saying there
will be a reduction in the number of officers required.
It is not true to say it is simply a rollover, taking the people
from St. Jean and putting them in Kingston. There is an overall
reduction. That is why we need to centralize in one particular
location.
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval-Centre):
Madam Speaker, can the minister tell us clearly what kind of
savings the current government intends to realize by
transferring activities from Saint-Jean to Kingston and can he
give us some figures?
[English]
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs): Madam Speaker, I
would be pleased to show the hon. member the figures if she
would come to the standing committee next Tuesday when I will
be appearing and defending the estimates for the Department of
National Defence. She can have all the answers she wants.
* * *
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam): Madam
Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board
and was inspired by a large group of women and men, the Armed
Forces Pensioners Association of Canada.
The issue facing them has been festering since October 1992.
That issue is the stonewalling of their many attempts to gain
approval from Treasury Board for a group dental plan paid for
by payroll deductions. This will not cost taxpayers one cent but
simply will allow these pensioners to have a better and more
efficient system.
In the 50th anniversary year of D-Day, is the President of the
Treasury Board prepared to implement this plan on behalf of
those who have served our country so well in the Canadian
Armed Forces?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure): Madam
Speaker, I thank the hon. member for advance notice of the
question.
Over the years in addition to statutory deductions made from
the payroll there have been numerous requests with respect to
charitable organizations, social recreation associations, credit
unions, et cetera, for deductions to be made at source. It is to the
point where it has stretched the limit of our personnel resources
to be able to cope with them.
My officials have undertaken a comprehensive review of
these deductions requested by third parties. That review is just
about complete and will be coming shortly to my attention. We
will certainly take into consideration the concerns of the
pensioners from the armed forces group and others who have
very worthwhile causes and terrific needs to be met on behalf of
former employees.
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam): Madam
Speaker, just as a reminder, the hon. minister's own colleague,
the Minister of Finance, stated in a letter dated January 25, 1994
that he too recognized the association's desire for a prompt
resolution and decision.
I would ask that the minister be specific as to when these
armed forces pensioners can expect to have an answer and their
plan implemented.
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure): Madam
Speaker, I expect we will be in a position to answer that question
in the very near future. As I indicated a few moments ago the
study is nearing completion. It will be examined shortly by
Treasury Board and we will give it every consideration.
I again thank the hon. member for the question.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond): Madam Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Justice. In a report published
today, the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women is
concerned about the considerable increase in applications for
excision in Canada, excision being the sexual mutilation of
girls.
Does the minister intend to follow up the recommendation of
the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women to ban
by law any genital mutilation of girls?
1996
(1435)
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Secretary of State
(Multiculturalism) (Status of Women)): Madam Speaker, any
act of violence against women is unacceptable in Canadian
society. We are committed to put an end to this form of
discrimination and violence against women. I assure you that we
read the report that was released and that we will educate women
in those communities through the Department of Health so that
they know what practices are acceptable and what practices are
not here in Canada. I hope that they will understand that it is not
acceptable, here in Canada or anywhere else in the world.
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond): Madam Speaker, does
the minister not think that a specific law criminalizing the
practice of excision would be more advisable?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Madam Speaker, it is the advice of the
Department of Justice and indeed my own initial view that the
present sections of the code are sufficient to prohibit the conduct
described and to render it criminal activity.
I agree with the hon. Secretary of State for Multiculturalism
and the Status of Women that our focus should perhaps be on
education and proactive steps to alert health care professionals
and others who see evidence of this conduct so that it is brought
to light, investigated, punished and thereby prevented.
May I say that in view of the statistics presented by the
council in its report released today and in view of the case that it
makes for a specific prohibition in the code, I am happy to take a
fresh look at the question. England has a specific prohibition
against such practices. I shall look at it afresh with the
Department of Justice.
I will be happy to let the hon. member know within the month
what position we take concerning the suggestion she has made.
* * *
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam): Madam
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
In view of the fact we are in the year of the family and the
roots of families who now have small children have begun with
grandparents, would the minister consider bringing in an
amendment to the Divorce Act which would require judges to
consider the access rights of grandparents to children in a
divorce action?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Madam Speaker, let me first express my
gratitude to the hon. member for Mission-Coquitlam for her
consideration in furnishing advance notice of the question.
I acknowledge the importance of the subject matter. Sadly,
given the incidence of dysfunctional families in this country
today it is often the grandparents who are the principal source of
stable and continuous guidance and care for children. That must
be recognized.
Last year the Department of Justice initiated a broad process
of consultation concerning the custody and access provisions in
the Divorce Act. That process ended on December 31 by which
time we had received hundreds of submissions. Among them
were submissions that went directly to the point raised by the
hon. member. We are now in the process of examining those
submissions.
There will be a federal-provincial-territorial meeting with
attorneys general and ministers of justice from the provinces
toward the end of March. This subject is on the agenda. We will
give it consideration. I am certainly open to the suggestion. I
will keep the hon. member abreast of the developments in
respect of the issues she has raised.
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam): Madam
Speaker, I will be presenting over 3,000 petitions tomorrow in
support of this.
Would the minister also consider a further amendment to the
Divorce Act that would give the grandparent who is granted
access the right to make inquiries and to be given information as
to the grandchild's health, education and welfare?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Madam Speaker, I will be happy to add
that to the matters under consideration. Again I will let the hon.
member know what it is we discuss with our colleagues at the
provincial level.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier): Madam Speaker, my
question is for the Minister responsible for Public Service
Renewal. One of the most important questions for Canadian
women is that of equal pay for work recognized to be of equal
value. There is even an act forbidding any discrimination of this
type in Canada. As an employer though, the federal government
does not abide by it. A study has clearly shown that more than
80,000 women in the public service are not receiving as much as
men for work of equal value.
(1440)
Is the government planning to give the proper example to
employers on the subject of pay equity by committing itself to
true wage parity between men and women working for the public
service?
1997
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure): Madam
Speaker, pay equity is a priority of this government. We want to
ensure that women in fact all people are paid in a fair and
equitable fashion according to the duties and responsibilities
they carry out. We are a pay equity employer.
There is a dispute on the extent of some of the back pay
required to bring some of the classifications up to date. That
matter is before a tribunal and also is the subject of some
examination at Treasury Board. It is hoped we can bring about a
settlement with the bargaining agents of our employees.
However we believe in and give priority to pay equity.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier): Madam Speaker, given
these conditions, does the minister recognize that in freezing all
government employee salaries by means of the budget, the
government is penalizing Canadian women even more because
it is thereby confirming imbalances that already exist within its
own compensation structure?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure): Madam
Speaker, when my colleague delivered the budget to the House
he indicated in bringing the deficit down it was necessary to
freeze salaries for a further two years.
We are anxious to bring that to an end sooner if at all possible
by finding efficiencies in the delivery of programs and services,
and to examine roles and responsibilities as my colleague to my
right is doing. Hopefully we will be joined in that exercise by
our employees and their bargaining agents so that we can at the
earliest possible time restore the opportunity for all of our
employees to enjoy salary increases.
I might add that over the last few years even though there has
been a salary freeze in three of the four years, because of the
incremental increases on average increases of about 3 per cent
have been going to our employees.
[Translation]
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil): Madam Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Public Works and Government
Services. In my riding, which has a population of 110,000, 80
per cent of whom are francophones, there is no emergency
shelter for abused women and children. For the moment,
battered women must seek refuge on the West Island, a mostly
English area, and far from the family environment.
[English]
I implore the minister to recognize that measures must be
taken to rectify this urgent matter. On this International
Women's Day will the minister assure the battered women of the
riding of Vaudreuil that they will obtain the necessary support
for the construction of a desperately needed women's shelter
with the shortest possible delay?
[Translation]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency): Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague
for his interest in this important issue.
[English]
The hon. member raises a fundamental question all members
of this House must confront. Canada Mortgage and Housing has
been at the forefront of providing financial assistance with
regard to emergency shelters as well as self-contained units. At
the present time we are in negotiations with the province of
Quebec regarding eight additional shelters. I would be happy to
take the hon. member's representations on notice.
I do want to say to all members of the House that as legislators
it is time for us to look at all possibilities in terms of those who
are the victims of family violence.
(1445 )
I find it passing strange that women and children must leave
the family unit while the spouse, the husband in most instances,
remains in the family unit. I think it ought to be the other way
around.
* * *
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast): Madam Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Agriculture. My concern is for the
small business sector, specifically the family farm.
The Farm Credit Corporation is designed to provide financial
assistance to Canadian farmers to help establish viable farm
enterprises. This purpose is strangely at odds with the
outrageous statistic that the Farm Credit Corporation, a crown
corporation, owns 1.250 million acres of indebted farmland.
Will the minister agree in the House today, based upon his
election promise, to immediately undertake the long awaited
review of the Farm Credit Corporation and put a stop order on
further evictions until the review is completed?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food): Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her
question and thank her for her courtesy in providing me with
advance notice of the question.
During the 1980s almost $1 billion in accumulated farm debt
in the Farm Credit Corporation was effectively written off by the
Government of Canada. This was followed by a policy review
beginning in 1989 which resulted in a new mandate for the Farm
Credit Corporation which was accepted I am told with broad
support in the House of Commons at that time and brought into
effect in the spring of 1993. That new mandate includes the
1998
enhancement of rural Canada by providing specialized financial
services that are related to farming.
In our election platform last fall, we proposed three new
financial instruments to assist farmers: an agricultural equity
development program, a vendor loan guarantee program and a
long term mortgage program, including certain protections
against interest rate fluctuations.
I am pleased to tell the hon. member that the Farm Credit
Corporation is now making substantial progress in devising the
details of these new instruments, as we had undertaken to do in
the fall of last year. I hope to be in a position to make some
specific announcements this spring.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast): Madam Speaker, I
thank the Minister of Agriculture. I have a further supplemental.
This is quite a specific issue.
Today in New Liskeard, Ontario, a family is living a
nightmare as they await eviction from their family farm on
Thursday, two days from now, March 10. This business
enterprise represents a perfect example of a system gone wrong
when 117 per cent of the farm's value has been offered but has
been refused by the Farm Credit Corporation and no reason has
been given for such a refusal.
Will the minister agree to an immediate cessation of any
further action on this particular eviction until a full review with
all of the parties present is held?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food): Madam Speaker, I am sure the hon. member will
appreciate that it would be inappropriate for me to comment on
specific FCC cases on the floor of the House of Commons.
I do want to assure her that I will insist that the Farm Credit
Corporation deal with all of its clients in a fair and balanced
way, taking into account the legitimate rights and interests of the
farmer clients involved and also taking into account the fiscal
integrity of the corporation which I am sure is important to the
hon. member in the Reform Party.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides): Madam Speaker, my
question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. In its recent budget,
the government imposed a five per cent cut on all Canadian
volunteer organizations. When she was in the opposition, the
Deputy Prime Minister vehemently opposed cuts imposed by the
previous government to volunteer agencies, including of course
to centres for women who are victims of violence.
Now that she sits on the other side of the House, does the
Deputy Prime Minister intend to fight with the same
determination the despicable cuts imposed by her government to
volunteer organizations in its last budget?
(1450)
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Madam Speaker, obviously when
Canadians ask the government to tighten its belt, it creates
problems. It was not easy to close military bases; it was not easy
to impose a salary freeze to federal civil servants, including
women who are at the bottom of the wage scale.
Our job is certainly not an easy one but we have to do it. If
Canadians have given us a mandate, it is because they want us to
make the right decisions, given the financial situation in which
we find ourselves right now.
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides): Madam Speaker, how
can the Deputy Prime Minister think she is credible when her
point of view and her attitude change completely, depending on
where she sits in the House?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Madam Speaker, if there is a woman who
has been defending the rights of women in this House it is
certainly not the one opposite who does not even want to be
there. I think it is important that we work together to ensure that
women have their place everywhere, including in the House of
Commons. This is what the Liberals fought for before the last
election, unlike the party opposite.
I might add that, thanks to the initiative of women such as the
hon. Secretary of State, no cuts will be made to budgets for
women's programs. Indeed, not one penny is taken out of the
budget allocated to the minister responsible for the status of
women, and I have this information directly from the minister
responsible, because women in our caucus do a good job.
* * *
[
English]
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley):
Madam Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General.
One provision of the government's budget was to eliminate
the incremental pay increases. While most people can accept
this for senior employees and managers, in some areas it hits
particularly hard.
One of the hardest hit groups will be the recent RCMP recruits
who when they leave Regina are paid approximately $30,000.
1999
Prior to this freeze incremental pay would see their salaries rise
every six months, recognizing their training so that at the end of
three years they would be making a first class constable's salary
of approximately $50,000. With this budget the new recruits
will be frozen at approximately $30,000 for two years.
Does the minister find it acceptable that this budget targets
the low salaries of junior members of the RCMP as an area to
save money?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Madam
Speaker, I do not accept the hon. member's premise that this
budget targets the salaries of RCMP constables. The budget
deals with a freeze of salaries of public servants generally while
maintaining their employment which is not the case for a lot of
people in the private sector, although we are working to create
jobs for Canadians generally.
I will be happy to review the situation with the President of
the Treasury Board.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley):
Madam Speaker, recently a 35-year veteran of the RCMP
described to me that this policy is the greatest attack on the
morale of the RCMP members that he has seen in his career.
Is the minister prepared to accept the inevitable drop in the
morale of Canada's police force as a result of this effort to save
money on the backs of those members who can least afford it?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Madam
Speaker, I again reject the premise of the hon. member's
question. The budget is not an attack on RCMP constables or any
group of public servants.
However, I will be happy to review this matter with the
President of the Treasury Board. I have greater confidence in the
morale of the RCMP than the member. I am sure that is the case
for all members on this side of the House.
* * *
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West): Madam Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health.
During the fall election campaign many members of the
Liberal Party campaigned on the creation of a network of centres
of excellence on women's health. We need to develop a women's
health curriculum, promote and conduct research on women's
health issues, develop health policies and recommend health
programs.
(1455 )
On behalf of the men and women of Canada I would like to ask
the Minister of Health what steps has she taken to date to
implement this very important agenda.
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker,
we are proceeding with the centre of excellence for women's
health as outlined in the red book.
Right now we are in the process of outlining specific criteria
and an application process. We expect to issue the call for
application by June and to select a successful applicant in the
fall. We would like the first centre to commence its work early in
1995.
One of the centre's initial tasks will be to determine the most
important health issues for women and then to undertake further
work on these issues. The ultimate objective of the centre is to
increase the responsiveness of the Canadian health system to the
health needs of women.
It is a known fact that only a small percentage of medical
research funding in Canada has been directed toward women's
health research. While the centre will address this problem, we
also want to work more closely with other research funding
bodies in order to encourage them to send money in the direction
of research as well in women's health.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert): Madam Speaker,
according to the Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial
Affairs, as of March 1, 1994, the federal government had
appointed 951 judges to Superior Courts and Courts of Appeal.
Of these 951 judges, only 123, less than 13 per cent, were
women. This situation shows a total lack of foresight within the
process used until now to select and appoint judges to the bench.
Mr. Young: That is terrible.
Mrs. Venne: Madam Speaker, I would like to be able to put
my question.
Mr. Bouchard: It is the Minister of Transport.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Order, please. The
Minister of Transport.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Order.
Mrs. Venne: Madam Speaker, my question is not for the
Minister of Transport, but for the Minister of Justice.
To what extent do the minister and the cabinet intend to
encourage from now on the appointment of women to the bench?
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I think the hon. member
knows she did something usually considered unacceptable.
I would ask the Minister of Justice to answer the question.
2000
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Madam Speaker, the question that has
been raised is important.
We are not going to preserve and maintain the confidence of
the public in the system of justice and the judiciary unless we
have a bench that is representative of Canada not only with
respect to gender but also with respect to the diversity of
Canada's society.
As the minister in this government responsible primarily for
bringing forward recommendations to cabinet for judicial
appointment, I shall make it my business to ensure that we bear
in mind the need for gender balance as well as the reflection of
diversity on the bench in Canada.
It is true to say that there are not enough women judges in the
federal courts today and that perhaps reflects the appointment
practices in the past. So far as this government is concerned we
are going to bear in mind the need for gender equality as well as
representativeness generally in appointing judges to the federal
bench.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert): Madam Speaker, the
gap is so significant that to fill it we would need to award all new
appointments to women, but I am not asking for that much.
Will the minister recommend that, for the next several years,
at least 80 per cent of all positions becoming vacant be filled by
women?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Madam Speaker, I do not think the answer
lies in attaching specific numerical or mathematical quotas in
terms of the appointment of judges and I do not propose to
approach it from that perspective.
(1500 )
I give the House my assurance that gender equality and
representativeness are important considerations that will be
brought to bear every time we make recommendations to
cabinet. May I invite the hon. member's attention to the
appointments made by the government to date. May I ask her to
observe that fully half of those appointed since we took office
are women.
* * *
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North): Madam Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
When an official news conference is held at one of our
embassies or high commissions is the display of the Canadian
flag discretionary at such an event?
[Translation]
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Madam
Speaker, it seems to me quite obvious that the Canadian flag
should be on display.
* * *
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East): Madam Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health.
The government has announced on several occasions-in the
red book, in statements by the minister and in the budget
speech-the creation of a centre of excellence for women's
health, without giving further details. A short while ago, she was
asked about this centre, but she could not provide a satisfactory
answer.
If the minister cannot talk about the mandate and priorities of
such a centre, could she tell us what its budget will be?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker,
we are presently preparing the criteria for the first centre of
excellence for women's health. It will only be the first of several
we want to establish in the near future, because it is essential
that we deal with the question of women's health.
* * *
[
English]
Ms. Margaret Bridgman (Surrey North): Madam Speaker,
my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
It is reported in the Globe and Mail today that Mitchell Sharp
is expected to be appointed as the government's first ethics
counsellor.
During last fall's campaign the party opposite promised to
consult with the opposition parties prior to appointing an ethics
counsellor. Can the Deputy Prime Minister inform the House if
there will be consultation with both opposition parties prior to
this appointment?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Absolutely, Madam Speaker.
* * *
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon): Madam Speaker, my
question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
On International Women's Day there are many things the
government could do to improve the equality of women but I
2001
want to propose to the Deputy Prime Minister that her
government undertake two very simple things that could be done
right now.
They concern two actions of the previous government. First,
would the government agree to withdraw the appeal of the
previous government on the ruling of the Canadian Human
Rights Commission that the federal government be ordered to
institute the pay equity settlement to female public sector
workers. Second, the previous government denied the right of
employees of members of Parliament to collectively bargain. A
large majority of those employees are women. Would the
government act on that issue as well?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Madam Speaker, first I would like to
congratulate the member who is the first woman leader of a
national political party. She has been a role model for all women
in Canada.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Ms. Copps: Second, on the issue of the specifics of the court
challenge we are exploring the possibility of discontinuing that
challenge. The matter is now before the President of the
Treasury Board.
On the issue of employee bargaining I can assure the hon.
member that each member of Parliament is free to address this
matter in his or her own way. In fact in the last Parliament the
assistant in my office was one of those who was very active in
the organizing process.
The member would agree that on the issue of freedom of a
member of Parliament's office I do not think it is the
responsibility of the government or a particular political party to
decide for the whole House but rather individual members of
Parliament have the right as any Canadian does for their
employees to seek to organize.
* * *
(1505)
[Translation]
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis): Madam Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. In
the red book, the Liberal Party of Canada committed itself to
extending refugee status to women persecuted on gender
grounds. Previously, women refugees victims of violence and
abuse in their country of origin were deported and forced to
return to this dangerous environment.
[English]
In the context of International Women's Day I wish to ask the
minister what the government is doing to fulfil its commitment
to refugee women.
[Translation]
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration): Madam Speaker, I would like, first of all, to
thank my colleague for Saint-Denis for her question and her
interest in immigration and refugee matters.
[English]
First, I am very proud that Canada is the only country with
guidelines in its refugee determination system that permit
women to make claims based on gender persecution. One
hundred and fifty women have made such claims. Over 70 per
cent have been accepted.
Second, since 1988 we have had a women at risk program that
allows us to select those women who are most at risk and most
vulnerable in their societies in our overseas selection of
refugees. The international community has much more work to
do because the majority of international refugees are women and
young children, while the majority of refugees selected by
countries are male. We have miles to go before we sleep.
* * *
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I wish to draw to
members' attention the presence in the gallery of Ms. Bettie
Hewes, Deputy Leader of the Opposition of the Legislative
Assembly of Alberta.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I would also like to
recognize the presence in the gallery of the Mayor of Edmonton,
Ms. Reimer.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
_____________________________________________
2001
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed consideration of the motion and the
amendment.
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval-Centre):
Madam Speaker, it is on March 8, 1911, that for the first time
ever, many countries decided to pay tribute to the courage and
tenacity of women.
This acknowledgement of women's role in our society did not
happen by chance; it was due to the relentless efforts of female
pioneers who had decided to fight the poverty, inequity, and
violence their sisters were faced with every day of their lives.
2002
I want to salute the relentless efforts of these women who
have been and are still fighting so that equality among human
beings, men and women alike, may one day be a reality.
I want to wish all Quebec and Canadian women, and
especially the women in my riding of Laval-Centre, a very
happy day. They can count on my unfailing commitment to
promote and fight for their rights. We still have a long way to go.
Women's economic situation, in Canada as well as in Quebec,
is tragic. They are the first ones to be affected by the ravages of
poverty, this scourge which has become rampant in our
so-called developed society.
(1510)
The situation is even more tragic for women who are single
parents. More than anybody else, they bear the brunt of the
present economic crisis.
We can only paint a rather dismal picture of the situation.
Statistics and columns of figures show the extent of the
problem. However, figures do not reflect the increasingly
desperate situation of these families, these women who are
fighting for their survival and their children's. Spurred on by the
economic crisis, the government goes to war, but instead of
targeting poverty, it targets the poor.
The latest budget speech and the planned reform of social
programs are blatant examples of this. The government seems to
remain insensitive to the plight of the hundreds of thousands of
women who are the sole support of their family and who do not
have a hope to make it without the government's help.
Very often, if they work outside their homes it is because
financially they have to. It is to be able to survive that these
women, who support their families, have to rely on the
government's assistance. According to the latest figures-
[English]
Mrs. Wayne: Madam Speaker, I am sorry to interrupt the hon.
member, but I would ask a question of Madam Speaker.
All through question period I waited to ask a question. I have
not been afforded an opportunity to ask a question in the House
since I was elected. You had said-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sorry, I do not find
this to be a point of order. I remind the hon. member that she was
on statements. She was eighth on the list for questioners and we
did not get to number eight. I tried everything I could to get as
many people on as I could today. We went over the time for
question period by almost five minutes. I am sorry but I did
everything I could. I do not think we should interrupt debate.
That could have waited until after the hon. member had finished.
[Translation]
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Madam Speaker, according to the
most recent statistics available, in 1991, there were 1,883,140
families in Quebec. Of that total, 268,000 were single parent
families and, of those, 82 per cent were headed, as you have
guessed, by women.
In Canada, the situation is similar; Statistics Canada data
indicate that one family out of seven is a single-parent one.
Women who are heads of single-parent families are more likely
to be poor than men or women living in any other types of
families: nearly 62 per cent of them live below the poverty line.
In 1990, female single parent families had the lowest income, on
average $26,906-gross income of course-compared to
$42,953 for single parent families headed by men. The
incidence of poverty in single parent families headed by women
is clear. Within a mere two years, the income of these families
has dropped by about $3,000.
Single mothers must often take on complete responsibility for
the physical, material and psychological well-being of their
children. Such a reality explains why the recent trend reveals
that some important changes have occurred in the social fabric
of Canada and Quebec.
(1515)
According to Statistics Canada, being a single parent usually
results from the failure of a marriage and from child care being
entrusted to the mother. These mothers are often younger and
their education level lower than that of fathers who head
single-parent families. These young mothers must work to
support their children and therefore, have to leave school. They
cannot acquire the necessary skills to get good quality jobs and
consequently, cannot hope for a better income. They find
themselves limited to low quality types of jobs.
According to the National Action Committee on the Status of
Women, a staggering number of unemployed single mothers
were living on a gross annual income of barely more than
$12,000. These are 1991 figures. Everyone will agree that this is
well below the poverty level.
Almost all the available income of these women came from
the state, in the form of family allowances, unemployment
insurance benefits, social assistance, retirement pensions and
other types of benefits.
Poverty is a vicious circle which is very difficult to break
without outside help, particularly if you are a woman who is a
single parent and who must work to ensure her survival and that
of her children. Yet these women are most likely to find
underpaid jobs. They are classic victims of the precariousness of
employment and the division of work, a modern calamity for a
society in constant evolution which strikes young workers and
women.
2003
Another economic burden supported by single mothers is the
excessive cost of housing. According to Statistics Canada, 54
per cent of single parent families were renting the dwelling in
which they lived. The rate is much lower for men who are heads
of single parent families, since it is around 37 per cent. What is
alarming is the fact that 56 per cent of single parents who are
women spend more than 30 per cent of their income on housing,
while, and so much the better, only 32 per cent of single parents
who are men spend the same proportion of their income on
housing.
Today, on March 8, we must acknowledge that the situation of
women is tragic. The era of collective impoverishment has very
much arrived and the question is how long it will last. In the
meantime, Canadian women are paying the price. Everyone in
this House agrees that poverty is a problem which must be
solved. We must go to the root of that problem right now. The
government has not only a political and administrative
responsibility, but also a moral responsibility towards
Canadians. Wishful thinking, white books, sham policies and
political programs which turn from red to blue with every
possible nuance no longer have their place in 1994.
This government can, if it wants and especially if it so
believes, show the way by facilitating access to education and
employment for single mothers, and that includes, among other
initiatives, the setting up of a national day care network which
would be primarily available to those families who need it the
most. And, Madam Speaker, as you know, these families are the
ones headed by women.
(1520)
Another measure could be taken to improve the financial
situation of single mothers. An increasing number of women are
being economically discriminated against because of a
provision of the Federal Income Tax Act concerning the taxation
of support payments made to the parents who are given custody
of the children and who are women for the most part, as we well
know. We will not have to mention it anymore, since it is
becoming so obvious. Right now, the tax reform undertaken by
the government does not address the issue.
The principle according to which any deductible amount for
the payer, that is the ex-husband, is added to the income of the
recipient, that is the single mother who has custody of the
children, dates back to the 1940s. At that time, Madam Speaker,
we were both quite young.
Everyone will agree that our society has changed significantly
during the last 50 years. The government must accept its
responsibilities and reconsider this principle which greatly
affects the financial security of single mothers. Those are only a
few of the measures which could improve the financial situation
of women, of their family and of all members of our society.
The wealth and the vitality of a society largely depends on its
concern for the young. Healthy kids make for healthy families.
The basic needs of an individual must be fulfilled for him or her
to grow. Our young people need to be well-fed, to be
well-housed, to have some place warm to go, and to be loved in
order to grow and become reliable and happy adults.
During the Year of the Family, I think it is the responsibility of
members of this House and of this government to do whatever
they can to ensure all families in Quebec and in Canada enjoy
the best health possible. I am convinced that on this day, March
8, our leaders have listened a bit more carefully to the needs of
our society.
Madam Speaker, what I should have told you earlier is that,
starting with my speech, our interventions will last ten minutes.
[English]
Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Parliamentary Secretary to
President of the Treasury Board): Madam Speaker, I am very
pleased today to join my colleagues in saluting International
Women's Day.
[Translation]
I am very pleased to join you today to celebrate the
International Women's Day, which gives us the opportunity to
acknowledge all the progress made by women as well as the
improvements yet to come. We are lucky to live in such a
prosperous country as Canada, but Canadian women still have a
long way to go to live in all the comfort enjoyed by Canadian
men.
[English]
While we celebrate the achievements of women and generate
new energy and co-operation for continued progress and
growth, our commitment to a goal of economic equality for
Canada and everywhere in the world must remain strong. We
want Canada to continue to be a world leader in the pursuit of
this goal.
Canada will continue to set an example for the world in its
defence and respect of the rights and freedoms of individuals.
The right of women to be treated equally with men without
discrimination is enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights
and Freedoms and specified in the Canadian Human Rights Act.
(1525 )
As we speak about equality, we speak often about social
equality and we speak often about political equality.
Increasingly however we as policy makers and we as women
realize that political and social equality will remain elusive
goals until we have economic equality.
In recent years, the pursuit of economic equality for women
has been linked to a simple but important concept, equal pay for
work of equal value. This concept goes beyond the notion that
2004
men and women should be paid the same when they are
performing the same work.
The reality is that men and women tend to do different kinds
of work, for whatever traditional reasons that has happened, that
is the reality. Whether they are performing the same or different
work, they deserve to be paid fairly. We need to find ways to
measure and compare the value of work that is significantly
different.
I have to ask a question. Why is a dog catcher paid twice as
much as a child care worker? How does the work performed by a
secretary compare to that performed by an electrician? Is it
worth more or is it worth less? We now have the tools required to
make that assessment and to ensure that when jobs are found to
be of equal value appropriate wages, equal wages, are provided.
The federal government is the largest employer of women in
this country. For that reason this government wants to show
employers across the country that it is simply good business to
pay men and women fairly and to pay them equally if they are
performing work of equal value.
After all, a fair wage will allow employers to recruit and
retain qualified workers who will contribute to the quality of
their service or product into their competitive edge. More
important perhaps, a fair wage will enable women to become
full partners in the economic growth of our country.
Women expect to receive fair wages for the work they
perform. They deserve to receive fair wages for that work and
this government is working toward that goal.
Since the proclamation of the Canadian Human Rights Act in
1978 that enacted and enshrined the principle of equal pay for
work of equal value or pay equity, the government, the Canadian
Human Rights Commission, unions and employees have worked
toward making it a reality.
Many complaints have been resolved co-operatively. Many
others and far too many others have been the subject of long and
bitter battles. This has been a period of learning, a period of trial
and error. This government wants to build on these experiences
and ensure that equal pay for work of equal value is achieved
through the joint efforts of all interested parties.
In 1985 in the public service a joint union-management study
on equal pay for work of equal value was undertaken in the
federal public service. Today the results of the study are being
contested in front of the Human Rights Tribunal. I do not need to
tell anybody who is familiar with the whole progress of that case
that it has indeed been long and contentious and that we sitting
on the other side of the House objected to the strategies and
tactics of the previous government in what we felt was delaying
the work of that tribunal.
However the Human Rights Commission does have the
responsibility to investigate all complaints of violations of the
Canadian Human Rights Act and to order corrective actions
where it concludes that violations have occurred.
This Liberal government fully endorses the important role of
the Human Rights Commission and of human rights tribunals in
protecting Canadians from discrimination and eliminating
discriminatory practices.
In spite of the continuing debate, a lot of good came from the
joint union-management initiative on equal pay. It was the first
time that a joint endeavour had been undertaken to implement
section 11 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.
A great deal was learned. Until now 70,000 employees in
predominantly female occupational groups received
approximately $317 million in retroactive equal pay
adjustments. Approximately $81 million is paid in ongoing
annual adjustments.
(1530)
Overall since the enactment of the federal equal pay
legislation over $500 million has been paid in equal pay
adjustments in the resolution of various complaints. Much has
been achieved and much has been learned. We as a government
continue to work toward a full resolution of the issue.
The achievement of equal pay for work of equal value
requires the use of a common tool to evaluate all jobs whether
they are performed predominantly by men or by women. That
tool must be gender neutral. It must not be based on the
traditional differences in what roles women have assumed and
what roles men have assumed. It must recognize the value of all
aspects of the work performed whether traditionally by men or
by women.
This is why this government will pursue efforts undertaking
to develop a universal classification standard in the federal
public service that is gender neutral. Many dedicated persons
have already committed their time and effort to this project. It is
not an easy task to revamp the whole job evaluation system of an
organization the size and complexity of the Public Service of
Canada.
We want to ensure that the universal classification standard is
the right tool to achieve our goals of simplicity, transparency
and fairness. When we are satisfied that it is, we will implement
it to ensure we have a durable basis for the resolution of pay
equity issues.
After the Canadian Human Rights Act was passed in 1978
many provinces followed suit and enacted legislation on equal
pay for work of equal value. The more recent provincial models
are more prescriptive and specific than the model we adopted
early on at the federal level.
As a result of the growing interest across the country in the
achievement of pay equity, there is a growing library of ideas,
experiences and jurisprudence in this field in Canada today.
2005
However, equal pay for work of equal value remains a field rife
with controversy. Parties in every part of the country debate
over the right evaluation tool or plan, the right job data, the right
wage comparison methodology.
I can assure hon. members today that this government is
interested in results. Government is looking for real, realistic
and realizable means of achieving this important goal for the
economic equality of Canadian women. We are continuing to
address equal pay for work of equal value complaints and issues
as they arise. We will use whatever creative means are necessary
to ensure that fairness and equity are achieved.
Already the President of Treasury Board has engaged in
dialogue with public service unions. We welcome their
suggestions on any matter that may enable us to reach a
definitive and co-operative solution to pay equity complaints.
[Translation]
Indeed, this government wants to establish ties of
co-operation and trust with union representatives in the federal
Public Service. We are going through hard economic times and
we must co-operate to minimize the impact on employees,
while continuing to provide quality service to all Canadians.
[English]
Some hon. members know the Canadian Human Rights Act
applies to employees of the federal government, crown
corporations and private companies under federal jurisdiction
such as banks and telephone companies. It covers approximately
300,000 women workers. I am confident the implementation of
equal pay for work of equal value in the federal public sector
will set a precedent for similar progress in industries across the
country. That is why it is so important we get it right.
On this important day I am pleased to play a part in the
resolution of the economic concerns of Canadian women. I am
determined to help make progress toward the economic equality
of women with their male co-workers. Equal pay for work of
equal value is only one step, albeit an important one in achieving
this economic equality.
(1535)
I have long been appalled by the wage gap reported in an
industrialized country as prosperous as ours. Full
implementation of equal pay for work of equal value will not
fully close that wage gap, but it will go a long way. Unequal
wages do not fully explain the wage gap.
One of the major problems is the concentration of women in
certain occupations which are usually low paying. Women
remain concentrated in traditionally female jobs. In 1991 over
50 per cent of women in Canada were concentrated in clerical,
sales and service jobs whereas just over 20 per cent of men were
in those occupations. Coincidentally these happen to be among
the lowest paid jobs in our society.
To achieve economic equality equal pay for work of equal
value programs need to be coupled with diversification in the
work choices available to women. Just as important is the need
to eliminate all types of employment discrimination so that
women have equal opportunities based on their ability to move
into management, to move into any kind of job that is suited to
their talents, their abilities and their interests.
We often hear and there have been comments to this effect in
this House today that employment equity is discriminatory.
Employment equity eliminates discrimination. Employment
equity ensures that only one's ability matters in whether one
gets hired or promoted or advances in employment.
[Translation]
Economic equality for women in Canada and elsewhere can
only be achieved with a combination of programs such as pay
equity and employment equity. I personally intend to play an
important role in these fields and to challenge all employers in
Canada to be models for the whole world of employers who treat
their female employees equally.
[English]
I thank you for your attention. I compliment all my colleagues
who participated in this debate today.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup): Madam
Speaker, I listened carefully to the hon. member's speech and I
was particularly interested in the whole issue of employment
equity for women because I have two daughters who will be in
the work force in a few years and, after the question period we
just had, I was wondering what message we were sending to
young people growing up when we say that the fight against the
deficit is preventing us from correcting pay inequities.
A moment ago, the deficit was given as a reason for not acting
and not correcting an unacceptable situation. Fifteen years ago,
other reasons were given and in ten years, still other reasons will
be given if we do not correct the situation immediately. So for
the sake of young women now in the education system who will
be on the labour market in the 21st century, could you not tell us
publicly that your government's present position should be
changed and corrected to put equity ahead of the deficit?
Mrs. Catterall: Madam Speaker, I have the pleasure to
inform the hon. member that I too have two daughters who work
in professional jobs and I hope that their future will be a little
more comfortable than what the previous generation had to put
up with. So we share an interest in women's future prosperity. I
think that the President of the Treasury Board clearly indicated
in this House that pay equity is not an option. There is no choice
between pay equity and fighting the deficit. The two are
separate. We are looking for ways to correct that. As I just said,
2006
we invited the unions to talk with us about finding a solution for
pay equity. I hope that they will come and meet with us to pursue
these discussions in order to come up with a solution finally. We
did not use the deficit as an excuse for not solving the problem.
(1540 )
[English]
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley): Madam
Speaker, I listened with great interest to the hon. member's
comments. For the most part I appreciate what she had to say.
I do have a concern in one area. It is when the hon. member
talks about pay equity for jobs of equal value. The government is
embarking on a formidable task. As I understand the proposal
the government is intending to defy decades upon decades of
experience where the marketplace has established the level of
wages to be paid in any particular occupation.
To give an example of this, my wife works part time in a ladies
fashion store in my home town of Prince George. She works very
hard and puts in long hours. In my opinion she gets paid about
one-third of what she is worth. Nevertheless she likes the work
so she does it. I believe she works every bit as hard as an
electrician for example who earns $25 an hour plus benefits.
The question is: Could that retail store afford to pay her $25
an hour if my opinion stands that she works as hard as an
electrician? The answer of course is no.
This idea of trying to equate the wages a tradesperson makes
with the wages of someone in a totally different job category
where the wages have been determined by years of market
experience is almost an impossible task. One cannot say a
secretary should make the same as a painter because they are
two different occupations and the level of the painter's wages
has been set by the market.
Another interesting point is it seems to me when all these
commissions come up with their findings they never ever say the
wages in a particular category are too high and should be
lowered. It is always the other way around. It is remarkable there
has never been an instance in my understanding where the pay
scale has been overvalued in a job and that pay scale should have
been brought down to match a job of equal value. It is always the
other way around and wages are raised.
I am not saying people should not earn as much as they
possibly can. As a matter of fact because of our tremendous
deficit and debt which has been incurred with the help of this
government and the previous government people have to earn
more money. The taxation levels are so darn high that the
disposable income is now hardly enough to get by.
(1545 )
It is not a question of high wages. We are talking about job
valuation. I believe the government is attempting to defy years
upon years of market driven levels. It is embarking on a
formidable task. I believe that it is going to be almost
impossible to come up with a plausible conclusion to this study.
I would like to ask the hon. member if her government intends
to try to defy all this history and come up with this new formula,
reinventing the wheel, so to speak.
Mrs. Catterall: Madam Speaker, perhaps I can give the hon.
member some specifics on this history that I think we intend to
defy. Since 1978, over a decade and a half, equal pay for work of
equal value has been the law in this country but it is still far from
the reality.
We intend to defy history. Why should this government be
exempt from legislation that applies to every other employer in
the country?
We intend to defy the tradition that has ensured that women
are poorer than men throughout the country; that has ensured
that women are concentrated in the lowest paying jobs in this
country; that has ensured that the largest percentage of single
parents, women, live in poverty as well as their children. We
intend to defy those traditions.
The member has commented that the market has determined
these things. He mentioned a personal example. It may be fine
for his wife, if he wants to bring her into the debate this
afternoon, to work for less than a living wage. It is not fine for a
woman who has to support her children.
Perhaps the member can tell me why a dogcatcher gets paid
more than somebody who looks after the welfare of children,
twice as much I might say. He might have a reasonable
explanation for that.
The fact is that we have traditionally had a society in which
men have done most of the money making work and in which
women have traditionally done most of the unpaid work. That
unfortunately has carried over into the labour market in which
the work most often performed by women is seen as less
valuable; in which the salaries of women have been seen as
peripheral to the economic well-being of the family. For many
families that is no longer the case. The exploitation of women
doing work of equal value for less pay is no longer acceptable. It
is not.
The market does not always establish fairness. It is up to a
society to take some leadership in establishing fairness.
2007
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides): On this International
Women's Day, it is with great pride that I take the floor in this
House. This day set aside for us is, in my opinion, essential and
it has the added advantage of providing an opportunity to reflect
on the situation of women in our society.
Those 24 hours devoted exclusively to women increase the
awareness of people and make us more aware of our
problems-those very real and numerous problems we are faced
with every day.
In a letter dated February 8 to the Prime Minister, the
Advisory Council on the Status of Women provides a list of 17
priorities requiring analyses and policies at all levels of
government in order to set up a framework based on equality.
Equality is the operative word that we should always keep in
mind when we are called upon to take a position, to make a
choice, to set policies or to initiate action.
(1550)
These 17 points proposed by the Council deal with well
known areas. However, when you group them in some ways or
when you try to relate them one to another, you realize that being
a woman in our society is a major handicap. Job creation, safety
at home and in the community, status of native women, women's
health and health care, income security, wage parity, daycare
services are areas where we suffer unfairness, iniquities and
indifference.
As a woman member, I consider myself privileged to have the
tools which allow me to protest on behalf of my sisters. Every
opportunity I get, I consider it my duty to draw the attention to
the situation of women. I believe all women members should do
the same. Moreover, our actions within our caucuses should
always be aimed at improving the condition of women.
Despite our demands and our actions, despite the efforts of
women's groups, the situation is not improving very fast. The
slow pace of reform and the lack of strong and specific measures
to deal with urgent problems clearly demonstrate that
decision-makers are very reluctant to promote women's causes.
What bothers me most with this passive and indifferent
position towards women is that we are failing to respond to the
legitimate expectations of 52 per cent of the population. Women
are a majority in our society. Given this 4 per cent majority over
men, I feel that we have an obligation to meet women's needs.
Alas, in actual fact, the reality is something else entirely.
This situation brings us to question the role of women in the
system. Power and representation, particularly at the political
level. Our presence in legislative bodies.
First finding: 53 out of 295 members of this Parliament are
women. Since 1980, our numbers have increased. We went from
17 female members of Parliament to 27 in 1984, 39 in 1988, and
53 today. It is an interesting increase but one that is clearly
insufficient.
While women make up 52 per cent of the population, we only
constitute 18 per cent of members in this House. On the other
hand, while 48 per cent of the population is composed of men,
our male colleagues account for 82 per cent of members in this
House. These figures show that the current Parliament and those
of the past-when numbers were even more
disproportionate-do not reflect at all the male-female ratio in
the population.
This underrepresentation clearly puts women at a
disadvantage. It also raises the whole issue of women's political
representation. Before going any further on this, I want to point
out that this imbalance also exists in the Cabinet. Only 6 out of
31 ministers and secretaries of state are women. This
underrepresentation also prevails in every major sector of
activity. Power is certainly not in the hands of women.
Faced with this statistical evidence, this Parliament is
certainly not a microcosm or miniature version of our society.
This numerical imbalance, combined with long-standing male
dominance, affects all women's issues. It has become
imperative for us women to show our feminist beliefs and to
politically represent women if we want our lot to improve.
Our male colleagues are rather reluctant to embrace the idea
of representing the female population.
(1555)
For the purposes of a study conducted in 1993 by Manon
Tremblay and Réjean Pelletier, 24 elected female
representatives and 24 elected male representatives were
interviewed. Sixteen of the 24 women, or 66.7 per cent, agreed
that they had a special or additional duty toward the female
population. As for the men, more than three in five, or 60.9 per
cent, felt that women representatives had no obligation to
maintain closer ties with women voters.
Since the majority of male representatives believe that we,
women elected representatives, should not give greater
consideration to women, we can only imagine how they must
view women in general. The status of women is surely not at the
top of their priority list. Far from it.
I also read with interest in the 1993 annual report of the
Lobbyists Registration Act that women's issues rank 42 out of
52 in terms of the number of times raised by lobbyists. In other
words, this issue is not very important to them. Women's issues
do not, therefore, benefit from this important access to the
government. While it may be true that women's groups do not
have vast financial resources, it is equally true that lobbying is a
predominantly male field.
2008
I will say no more about the ability and willingness of men to
espouse women's causes. I know that some of my colleagues are
not part of the statistics quoted here and are staunch supporters
of our cause. However, the fact remains that on a daily basis,
women are confronted with serious problems to which no
solutions are being advanced.
I have no doubt that if women held 52 per cent of the seats in
this House, things would be quite different. Some studies
indicate that women show more humanism and develop ethics of
responsibility in the performance of their duties. This concern
for the person is evident from the remarks of this female
member of Parliament who was quoted in the Tremblay and
Pelletier report as saying that: ``Our management of political
power relies much more on understanding and feeling for the
human element, the people, I would say, and we are more aware
of the consequences of our actions-We see things differently.
Our femininity comes into play and gives a much more humane
quality to politics''.
There should be more women in politics. It is becoming
imperative, if we are to see more humanism and feminism in
politics, with humanism setting the human being and human
values above everything else and feminism seeking
improvement of the condition of women in our societies.
When they look at the situation in their ridings, all the hon.
members of this House can see that the country is in dire need of
humanism and feminism. Poverty, misery, violence and
isolation affect an increasing number of people. They are
becoming pervasive and, if nothing is done, the process will
soon be irreversible. Soup kitchens, shelters for battered
women, child abuse centers, housing problems facing families,
street children as well as lonely and less and less cared for older
people speak loudly of unfeeling governments and their lack of
regard for human values.
These serious problems did not crop up overnight. They have
been around for far too long already. Lawmakers are aware of
them, yet they do not act on these inhuman conditions often,
actually very often, affecting the status of women. One day, it is
all going to blow up in our faces. And governments will reap
what they have sown.
Let us face it, and studies back up this statement, we would be
facing a very different situation if more women were and had
been in power. Let us have more women in power, by all means.
Imagine a Parliament, the make-up of which would be the
opposite of this one, a Parliament with 82 per cent women and
18 per cent men. Why not?
(1600)
The truth of the matter is that women continue to face
gender-based obstacles. That is why the Canadian Advisory
Council on the Status of Women recommended the reactivation
of the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party
Financing, with a mandate to review and report on matters
raised by women groups in their briefs to the Commission.
In closing, here lies a colossal challenge that we must take on.
Fundamental changes are required, and what better place than
Parliament to act upon society as a whole! It is up to us, men and
women who are not blinkered, to make it happen.
[English]
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke): Madam
Speaker, the hon. member who just spoke has obviously spoken
with a lot of personal passion as to her feelings on this matter.
Although there have been many inequities in the past and no
doubt some forms of discrimination, one cannot make that right
overnight. It has been suggested that 52 per cent of the
constituents in this country are women. Why do they need
special concessions in order to have the amount of elected
representatives proportionate to the number of people who are
out there if they have 52 per cent of the vote?
It seems that women get to make these choices as well. There
should be no obstacles placed in front of a candidate seeking
election, male or female. However, given that 52 per cent, the
majority of all the voters, are women why then do we have to
provide special incentives and special clauses for women in
order that they get elected?
There were some suggestions made that I heard a number of
times that one has to have more women as members of
Parliament since one cannot have representation for women
with men since men are not able to properly represent women's
issues. Does that suggest that wherever we have a riding with a
woman representative the men's issues are not looked after? I
think not and I would not agree with that any more than I agree
with the latter.
It was suggested that lobbying is a male occupation. Lobbying
is also something that is kind of looked down upon now and we
are trying to cut down on the number of people who are
lobbyists. Why would women want to get into a profession that
we have been trying to squeeze out and put down because it is
simply not one that is appropriate for this day and age of
Parliament?
I would suggest that the right way for us to go is to end
inequities, to give the same opportunity for all people. By all
means, women should have every right to reach whatever their
potential is. There is absolutely nothing that says in a free
society in which there is absolutely no discrimination that there
will be equal numbers of men and women in every occupation.
That is absolutely absurd.
There are things that women do better than men in some areas
and there are things that men do better than women in other areas
because of physical attributes or because of many other different
things in their make-up. I would suggest that what we have to do
is be equal, give them the same opportunities. Whatever is the
2009
proper proportion will evolve. We cannot change the system
overnight.
[Translation]
Mrs. Guay: Madam Speaker, I would not want to be the hon.
member's spouse because the relationship would not last very
long.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mrs. Guay: I have full proof that a lot remains to be done
before women can have their place in society, and particularly in
politics. This is the only comment I will make, but I do hope that
the hon. member has a wife who will teach him to respect
women.
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa): Mr. Speaker, on
International Women's Day, I want to offer my best wishes to all
women in Quebec and Canada, and also to the millions of
women throughout the world, and particularly in Latin America.
I especially want to pay tribute to women who are union
activists, who are immigrant in Quebec, and to the women in my
riding of Bourassa, in the north of Montreal, who are very
involved at all levels of the political, economic, cultural and
community fields.
(1605)
Last week, I visited several community organizations headed
by women, including the Centre d'action bénévole de
Montréal-Nord, which just celebrated its tenth anniversary. I
feel honoured to have been asked to preside the ceremonies as
honourary president and I want to congratulate the director of
that centre, Mrs. Josée Aubertin, for her excellent work.
I also met Mrs. Lise St-Jean and other officials representing
Halte-femmes in the north of Montreal, an organization helping
women who have been or who are victims of domestic violence.
Halte-femmes offers these women various activities and
services such as a hot line and meetings to discuss issues,
escorts to court or to visit professionals, awareness workshops
on violence against women, information meetings, a
documentation centre, outings, special activities for immigrant
women, etc.
I also want to salute the members of the Montréal-Nord
chamber of commerce who had the wisdom to elect Mrs.
Micheline Gervais as their president, thus benefitting from her
initiative and great skills.
Allow me to mention two more organizations which are doing
a remarkable job in my riding: first the Association
Entre-Parents, a support group for parents in the north of
Montreal, which has set up a day care centre and a community
kitchen, under the co-ordination of Mrs. Louise Cossette, and
second, the Impulsion-Travail Group, which under the direction
of Mrs. Johanne Joly, tries to help women with work-related
problems to find a job or return to the labour market.
I would also like to acknowledge the contribution of the FTQ,
its labour councils and affiliated unions, as well as its status of
women service. Last December, the FTQ held its biannual
convention in Montreal, where I had the opportunity to speak to
more than a thousand delegates.
During this convention, the FTQ approved a policy statement
on violence against women, in which it mentions that, as the
central labour body in Quebec, it is very concerned about the
increase of violence in today's society. More and more
tragedies, like the one which occured at the University of
Montreal's École Polytechnique, have forced us to realize that
we have to take action.
As opposition critic for citizenship and immigration, I would
like to mention the significant contribution of immigrant
women to the Quebec and the Canadian societies, especially
those women faced with three times the challenge since they are
women, workers and immigrants.
It is a well-known fact that, on average, women earn much
less than men. What is not so well known is that immigrant
women earn 80 per cent of the average wages paid to women in
our society.
There are about 20 millions refugees in the world and 80 per
cent of them are women and children. Recently, the whole world
was horrified to learn that rape had become a general practice in
Bosnia.
I want to take this opportunity to send a message of solidarity
and, inasmuch as I can, a message of hope to those women.
Today, I ask the Canadian government to be more compassionate
towards the women of Bosnia who are persecuted and create
special assistance programs in order to help them.
More specifically I ask the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration to accept a greater number of refugees from the
former Yugoslavia and to give special consideration to women
who were raped.
I would also like to bring to your attention the special problem
of women who request refugee status because they fear
persecution based on their gender. Unfortunately, in the Geneva
convention of 1951, gender is not mentioned as a specific reason
for fear of persecution justifying the granting of refugee status.
But in certain countries, women are in fact being harassed
simply because they transgressed some rule, regulation or
religious custom which is discriminatory towards women.
2010
(1610)
The religious precepts, social traditions or cultural standards
women are accused of not respecting vary greatly.
Canada must do more to guarantee better protection and
hospitality to those women, particularly women from countries
where such dramatic situations occur. I want to emphasize that
this effort should be inspired by the fact that the UN declared
1994 the International Year of the Family.
Finally, I would like to raise a very serious question
concerning the mutilation of women's genital organs. I strongly
support the request of the Canadian Advisory Council on the
Status of Women urging the federal government to show
leadership in ensuring that female genital mutilation does not
happen in Canada and to ensure assistance is available here to
women who suffer the long-term health effects of such a
practice.
Such violence against young girls and women must be
vigorously denounced. It is clearly a violation of their
fundamental right to physical integrity.
Several countries, including Sweden, Norway, Belgium,
Great Britain and certain American States, have already taken
steps to that effect, adopting policies to stop female genital
mutilation and passing legislation banning the practice on their
territory.
Between 1986 and 1991, nearly 40,000 people from East and
West Africa settled in Canada. In view of the fact that female
genital mutilation is widespread in these areas, the risk that this
cultural practice is being brought into Canada is very high.
On this issue, the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of
Women made several recommendations which I want to repeat
here, the most important of which is that the federal government
introduce a specific law banning female genital mutilation in
Canada.
As you can see, a lot remains to be done to redress injustices
against women. Therefore, I salute the courage and tenacity of
the women who are fighting this battle in Quebec and Canada
and I assure them of my support and solidarity.
[English]
Ms. Mary Clancy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration): Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to
take part in this debate today. I want to begin by complimenting
the movers of this motion from Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.
I want to say, however, that there are a few home truths that need
to be reiterated on the whole question of gender equality and the
topics that we are debating here today.
First of all, I want to say that in this party on this side of the
House there is a history of feminism. I speak that word proudly
and loudly, again and again. I think of members of this House
such as the Deputy Prime Minister, such as the Secretary of State
for the Status of Women, such as the Minister of Natural
Resources.
I think of members such as the hon. member for Ottawa West,
the member for Nepean, former members such as the member
for South West Nova who was here today. I think of the former
member for St. Paul, Aideen Nicholson, who was here visiting
with us today on International Women's Day. I think back to the
first woman Liberal to sit around the cabinet table, the Hon.
Judy LaMarsh, who gives her name to a fund that raises money
for women who run for public office in our party.
I am proud of the tradition of feminism in the Liberal Party. I
am proud of the women I have been fortunate enough to sit with
in the House for nearly the last six years. I am proud of the new
female members who have joined us this time. I am also proud of
my male colleagues, but today is a day to celebrate women and I
want to celebrate women. Women have not had a whole lot to
celebrate. The fact that we are making some small
breakthroughs should not, for even the shortest period of time,
allow anyone to stand in the House and suggest that the status of
women in this country has achieved equality because it has not.
(1615)
There are a number of us fortunate enough to be here today
who because of accidents at birth, hard work and education have
managed to make it here. There are thousands, millions of
women in the country who suffer every single day from abuse,
from poverty, from fear, from cold, from hunger, from things
that we should not accept. Every one of us, of whatever political
stripe, bears a responsibility for the fact that in a country like
Canada in the last decade of the 20th century, that is still
happening.
Equality will not exist until women can be free from fear; in
their own homes, in their neighbourhoods, in parking garages, in
the streets and in malls. Women are dying in those places.
Women are being abused, and beaten, and hurt, and left for dead.
There is an epidemic of violence against women that is beyond
the level of tolerance in a civilized country.
I heard the hon. member across the way-I am sorry I forget
her riding, but I know her spirit on this-speak eloquently about
Bosnia earlier today. Women in Bosnia are being raped and
beaten and degraded on a daily basis, but so are women in
Canada, so are women in the United States, so are women in
Britain and the European countries. It is a world-wide epidemic
and we are not immune.
It is a number of years-and thank God it will probably never
happen again-since men in this Chamber laughed when an hon.
member brought up the question of violence against women.
They laughed. I remember that. I suspect you remember it too,
Mr. Speaker. I was not here at the time but I think that perhaps
some of the reason for that laughter may have been nervous
tension. It may have been, I hope, a total misunderstanding of
the situation. That is what I as a feminist and as a member of
Parliament and as a woman think is at the root of the problem; a
2011
lack of comprehension by some men and some women. It is a
lack of comprehension.
For many good people of both sexes the idea of the abuse of
women, violence against women, sexual harassment, sexual
discrimination, all of the things that women deal with, if it does
not come up and face you, or your wife, or your daughter or your
sister on a daily basis, then perhaps it is hard to understand. It is
hard to know that it takes place.
Let each and every one of us who are women in this House tell
you that you must begin to understand it because it is there. It is
your responsibility, each and every one of you, through you, Mr.
Speaker, to do something about it, not to merely mouth
platitudes, not to merely say something like: ``Well, it can't be
true that we should have more women because men can't
represent women or women can't represent men'', or some such
balderdash which begs the question.
Until we have a significant, and by significant I means upward
of 50 per cent of women in all the legislatures in the country, we
do not have true representation. It does not mean that a man
cannot represent a woman or a woman cannot represent a man. It
means that the way our society reacts is that if women are not
there in sufficient numbers, then what is essentially a male
patriarchal society decides they are not to be listened to in any
louder a tone than their proportional representation allows.
(1620)
That is not happening by accident. That is not happening
because the women who sit in the House in all three parties want
it to happen. It is happening because of the way all of us have
been brought up. It is happening because of the way life has
evolved to this point in the latter part of the 20th century.
It does not mean that we put up with it, and it does not mean
that we accept it as the kind of situation that Canadians and those
people who we all represent feel is correct.
Men can represent women and do on both sides of the House.
Women can represent men and do on both sides of the House.
But until all of us take very seriously the whole question of
gender inequality, then those who do not take the question
seriously, those who do not comprehend it viscerally, are not
representing their constituents, male and female, to the very
best of their knowledge and ability. That is what every one of us
wants to do. We want to represent the people who put us here and
even the people who voted against us.
The question of pay equity, the question of employment
equity, the question of equality before the law, the question of
freedom from fear, freedom from violence, are so basic that
when I hear them discussed as debatable issues, if you will, I
become very angry. That may have shown itself from time to
time both in the House and outside once or twice.
The other day I was having lunch in my riding with a woman
activist who happens to be black. We were discussing an article
in a national magazine about racism and sexism. I said to her
that a young black woman activist in the United States said that
sexism made her angry but that racism enraged her. My friend
said that put it about as well as she had ever heard it. She said
that is how she felt. As a feminist, as a black woman, sexism
makes her angry but racism enrages her. I understand that too
but you take your battles and I guess you apportion your
passions where best you can fit your own beliefs.
We can all understand to some degree another person's pain
but I cannot truly understand, or truly experience,
anti-Semitism or racism, at least in the context in which we
know it in this country. I can and have and continue to
experience sexism.
The other isms, if you will, make me very angry but I guess for
me the most visceral is still sexism and sexism enrages me. It
enrages me because I know the abilities, the hard work, the
dedication of so many women who are voiceless; the women
who raise their children, run the volunteer organizations, the
churches, the PTAs, the home and school associations, the
United Way, the volunteer groups all across the country. Yet all
of them to some degree walk out of those volunteer offices and
suffer from discrimination in the workplace. Almost all of them
will suffer from discrimination in the workplace of one kind or
another. Over 50 per cent of them will experience some form of
violence, and 25 per cent of them will experience significant
violent behaviour, usually more than once in their lifetimes.
(1625)
We have a culture in this country of blaming the victim. We
have a culture in this country of wanting to sweep it under the
rug. We have a culture in this country of saying it is not as
serious, it did not happen, it could have been avoided if she had
behaved in a different way.
As with almost every evil under the sun, it is rooted in fear.
For some it is a fear of sharing power, for others it is a fear of job
loss, for a third group it is a fear of seeming to lose face, if you
will, in the power structure that is the family, as wonderful an
institution as it may be. In some the power structure becomes the
answer as opposed to the loving family that all of us believe in so
strongly.
2012
Essentially what we are discussing today is an issue of
fairness. What makes me so angry, what enrages me so much, is
that sexism, discrimination against women, is unfair and a
waste. It is a waste of talent, a waste of ability, and a waste of
women power that could be put to work to make this country so
much more than it is today.
I have been talking about this a lot in the last couple of weeks
to journalists, student groups and young people across my riding
and in other parts of the country. I have talked about the fact that
the increase in the number of women in this House has made it a
different Parliament. It is a different Parliament for a whole
variety of reasons and I have talked about a certain joie de vivre
among the women, certainly in my caucus, but I feel it across the
way as well. We have reached the numbers if you will, not
sufficient by any means, but we have reached at least a level
where I believe, Madam Speaker-and may I compliment you
on your first Question Period-that we have passed at least the
level of tokenism. It is still not enough, we still are not
representative, but we have passed the level of tokenism.
It was particularly edifying today to see you in the chair, to
see all women at the table, with no disrespect to the gentlemen
who occupy those seats right now, and to note that our pages in
front of the Speaker's chair were for the most part all female
during Question Period. It was interesting to note that with the
exception of one token gentleman on the government side, the
questioners on the opposition side and on our side were female.
Some people will say that is not necessary, or why do you
want to do that, or why do you only do that on International
Women's Day. I say, Madam Speaker, that we do that kind of
thing because symbols are very important. It is important
symbolically that women stand up on this day and speak for each
other in support of those things that matter to us. We know they
matter to men as well. But it is also important that we stand and
speak in our own voices without the necessity of speaking
through our male colleagues. It is important that young
people-and there were a number of little sisters in the House of
Commons today who were shadowing many of the women
MPs-see women use their voices on a whole variety of issues,
economic and social, today. Each one of us bears the
responsibility of communicating to the young women of this
country that this Chamber is their place too.
(1630)
Someone once told me that she did not get involved in politics
because it was not a very ladylike occupation. I agree that it is
not very ladylike. I guess I am fairly glad it is not.
I heard a laugh over there. Thank you. I am not quite sure what
it means but I can hazard a guess.
Mr. O'Brien: I support you, Mary.
Ms. Clancy: Thank you. We were born on the same day. That
is why he does that.
The importance of politics not being ladylike is that it must be
shown, however, that it is not unwomanly. This House is the
place for women. It is the place for as many women who have the
desire, the nerve and the ability to get here.
It is also important to note that it is the place for women who
hold a diversity of views. That is right also. Just as every man in
this House does not believe the same way as every other on a
variety of issues, neither does every woman and neither should
every woman.
There are members on the opposite side with whom I disagree
most vociferously on a variety of issues. There are members on
the opposite side with whom I might agree just as vociferously
on certain other issues. The point is that this is the House of our
nation's debate and the voices of women must be heard here and
they must be heard as strongly and as passionately and as
frequently as the voices of men.
If we do not pay more than lip service to this, if we do not
ensure that the pathways are open for women to get to this
House, then we are equally not making sure that the pathways
for women are open in all occupations and professions in this
country. The bottom line is that is what the resolution we are
speaking to is about.
I opened my remarks by saying that I was very proud of
women I have served with and continue to serve with in this
House. I am proud of my party's record on the status of women.
Most of all, I am proud of what we are going to do in a whole
variety of areas. I am proud of the blueprints in the speech from
the throne and in the budget. I am proud that my colleagues were
tough enough to make the hard decisions so that this country will
continue but it will also thrive and flourish because of policies.
I am most proud because I know that on this side of the House
with the wealth of support for women we will continue to ensure
that women are full partners because anything less is simply
unacceptable.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster):
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the hon. member
opposite. I was interested in her comments regarding the
involvement of more women in the House and the feeling of our
population, especially the female side, that they could
effectively operate within the atmosphere of this House.
I was involved with my party in the nomination process and in
the election process perhaps more than some others. I am happy
to report that the Reform Party was more successful in electing
their women candidates than they were their men candidates, if
one looks at the proportion nominated and the proportion
elected.
I was also involved with the recruitment of candidates. We
certainly encouraged women to seek a nomination in our party.
2013
(1635 )
I found that one of the factors that made women most hesitant
in seeking nominations for election to Parliament was the
dignity and decorum of the House itself. The member alluded to
the fact that perhaps the atmosphere was unladylike but that one
could be womanly in the House.
I found that many outstanding women candidates were very
reluctant to place themselves in a position where they would be
heckled, cat-called and the like in this Chamber. They felt that
they would rather assist and work for their country in other
avenues.
I wonder what the hon. member opposite would give me by
way of suggestion as to how we could improve the decorum of
the House so that we could reduce the number of cat calls. I
understand it is much better in this Parliament than it was the
last Parliament.
I know sitting on the opposition side we have been subjected
on occasions to a lot of hoots and hollering that even as a man I
find objectionable. I have heard from many women who also
find that atmosphere to be very objectionable. It has been a
hindrance to their involvement in politics.
Ms. Clancy: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
question.
Actually and this is only half in jest, wholly in earnest one of
the best things that we did for improving the tenor and behaviour
in the House was electing a new government
An hon. member: Hear, hear.
Ms. Clancy: Okay, a little response here from these benches.
Obviously the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands is not
paying attention.
Very seriously, there were some very serious breaches in the
last House, no question. I will not demean the honour of this
House by repeating them but most of the members know the
incidents that I refer to.
There were numerous sexist slurs and at least one very totally
unacceptable racial slur. It gave rise to a committee that sat in
the last Parliament and dealt with the questions of racism and
sexism. I am extremely hopeful that the recommendations of
that committee will be coming forward as part of a reform
package in the House of Commons.
I would like to make another point because I am a very strong
believer in the value of debate, of reasonable but not necessarily
totally cool debate. There is a place for passion in the
deliberations of a nation. If a member on the opposite side
makes me angry, I should display that anger, always within the
bounds of the decorum that this House deserves and needs.
I recall my good friend and colleague, the hon. Parliamentary
Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, saying at one
point in the last House that he would take any insult as long as it
was gender and race neutral. There is a tradition coming down to
us from the Mother of Parliaments and the tradition in this
House of salient debate, of back and forth between members that
can add to the whole tenor of the debate if you will. I agree with
the hon. member that cat calls and what I can only call dumb
stuff is not part of that.
However I would not for an instant want to see us so bland that
we would not respond with fairly strong language, not insulting,
never racist, never sexist, never pejorative, but there is a place
for saying that one thinks that is a pretty dumb thing to say and
that that member is going to therefore say it is a pretty dumb
thing to say. Maybe the word dumb is unparliamentary. I am not
certain.
Mr. Milliken: No, it is not.
Ms. Clancy: Thank you. Pious windbag-
Mr. Milliken: Oh no. That's not good.
Ms. Clancy: That is not good. I am just using these as
examples.
I would not want us to totally iron out our debate if you would.
There is a place for the proper use of the English and the French
languages in all their majesty in this House with their use of
insult as well. I think there is a place for that.
(1640 )
With regard to recruiting women, I was very involved in that
process in my party. I am delighted that we were so successful. I
think that the language was certainly part of what would have
precluded many women from thinking that they would run.
However, there is more to it than that. There is more to this being
user friendly for women than just the language in the House of
Commons.
Sometimes a devastating personal attack can take place in this
Chamber with language that one could use in the pulpit of any
church in this land. It is not merely what is said. It is how it is
said, who is saying it and how it is delivered. I guess I would say
that the women who sit in this House, be they Liberal, Bloc,
Reform or independent, are probably not frail flowers in the
long run. I would suggest to members that any one of us on either
side of the House could take anything thrown at us and probably
lob it back with pretty good response.
That is not what we should be about here. However, women
have to understand that it is incumbent upon them to be here to
ensure that the level of debate stays high and does not pander to
the kind of thing that we are talking about. If they do not come at
all it is never going to happen.
2014
[Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Madam Speaker,
I believe that there will be unanimous consent for passing two
motions.
[English]
I move:
That, if a division on the budget debate is demanded on Thursday, March 10,
1994, the vote on such motion shall be deferred until Wednesday, March 16, 1994
at 6.30 p.m.
Second, I move:
That, on Wednesday, March 9, 1994, the House shall continue to sit past the
ordinary hour of daily adjournment for the purpose of completing consideration
of report stage and third reading stage of Bill C-3, an act to amend the
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal Post-Secondary
Education and Health Contributions Act; and
That, if a recorded division at third reading be demanded, the same shall stand
deferred until Thursday, March 10, 1994 at 10 o'clock a.m. provided that the time
taken for the bells and the vote, if any, shall be added to the time provided for
government orders in the same sitting, and the ordinary hour of daily
adjournment shall be extended accordingly.
(Motions agreed to.)
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast): Madam Speaker, I
appreciate this opportunity to speak on International Women's
Day to a motion by my hon. colleague to the right which reflects
the decidedly left wing politics of Her Majesty's Official
Opposition. Despite the good wording of this motion and the
good intentions of my colleague, the implications of this
statement in public policy are not entirely positive.
For too long in this country debates over equal rights have
been confused with demands for special treatment. We have
seen emerge a special language of rights, a language which uses
the vocabulary of rights along with the good intentions of those
who began Canada's tradition of human rights, to further narrow
political interests.
While the intentions of people like my hon. colleague may be
good, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The words
rights and equality have been stripped of their old meanings.
Whereas one used to know that a right had been violated when,
for example, one was put in jail without cause, now many feel
that a right has been violated when two people with different
resumés, different lifestyles or different biologies do not earn
exactly the same income. Whereas the right of equality used to
mean the right to be subject to the same laws as, for example,
members of Parliament, now the right of equal treatment is
taken to mean that each Canadian should receive exactly the
same amount of government subsidizing.
(1645 )
While intentions of the social planners and the lobbyists who
push for changes in our political vocabulary and the alteration of
our political traditions do on the surface display a genuine
commitment to the common good, the net effect of their
political actions are limiting of freedom, the strangling of
private initiative and an attack on the very diversity that is
cherished and demanded by the left.
A first broad reading of this motion reveals only a vague
purpose. What one needs to do is look at each demand that this
motion makes and examine what the real impact of these
demands would be. First, the motion demands that this
government recognize the principle of economic equality. If we
accept that men and women must achieve perfect economic
parity, then we have moved beyond equality of opportunity and
into equality of result. This motion goes beyond equality of
opportunity since equality of opportunity and equality under the
law is guaranteed by the charter and by Canada's common law
tradition.
That is not good enough for some. For some equality of
opportunity really means that minorities, including women,
despite the fact that women account for more than 50 per cent of
the population, are being systematically singled out and are
being restricted from achieving their fullest potentials.
Who is perpetrating this oppression? As usual white males are
the culprits of choice. It is said that white males are
institutionally advantaged and are maintaining their advantage
in the market by excluding others. It is claimed that government
programs are being unfair to minorities by not adequately
dividing up the pie of federal revenues in a way that ensures the
maximum equality of as many people as possible, especially
women and visible minorities.
Do these all boy networks exist? Perhaps, but so do female
networks and minority networks. Is there a failure of social
programs to redistribute wealth in a manner that creates total
equality of condition? Yes, and that is as it should be. Social
programs were created to act as social safety nets and nothing
more. When government makes a decision to change the mission
of its programs from safety nets to tools of social change then we
have moved away from democracy, given up freedom and
sacrificed liberty for the sake of pie in the sky equality.
Is this the price we want to pay for economic equality? I do not
think so and I am confident that the vast majority of Canadians
do not think so. I am just as sure that there is a contingent of very
active, very vocal and very misguided lobbyists and politicians
for whom equality of opportunity is not enough. Those people
have had their perceptions of reality so clouded by ideology that
they cannot see beyond the trees of good sounding intentions
and into the forest of an authoritarian welfare state.
2015
Next, this motion asks government to ensure equality of
employment, salary and living conditions. How exactly can
government achieve such noble sounding goals? I am sure the
sponsor of this motion has a plan of action in mind and this
plan of action undoubtedly includes a redistribution of wealth,
hiring practices that discriminate against one group to make up
for the alleged discrimination of another.
Government could legislate pay scales. Government could
pass a law requiring free housing to be made available for all
women. Would these measures work? Would they achieve
equality? Yes, in a way. For if government were to engage in this
kind of social and economic engineering the result would be a
form of equality. We would be equally burdened by poverty as
government saps the initiative of entrepreneurs and the capital
of business. We would be equally deprived of liberty as
government regulates more and more into our lives. We would
be free from having to make moral and responsible decisions for
ourselves as government in its wisdom takes that decision
making power away from us.
(1650 )
While it may not be apparent to my colleague in Her
Majesty's Loyal Opposition, there is an alternative to the
equality that comes from massive intervention in all areas of
human endeavour. The alternative is equality under the law,
equality that comes from equal protection by government from
true threats to personal achievement and success.
Canada used to be committed to this vision of equality.
Canada used to be a nation in which all individuals were free to
participate in the workforce, to succeed economically, to start
and develop a strong family unit and enjoy the security,
freedoms and equality that come from a good job that can
support a strong and intact family.
That vision became unacceptable to the intellectual and
political elite in Canada. For the last 20-odd years our elite have
been more interested in pushing an agenda of radical change
than an agenda for preservation of what works.
An example of what works is creating equality under the law
by ensuring that the criminal justice system is able to effectively
protect all people. What use is it to demand the right to equal pay
when women are afraid to walk the streets alone? What good is it
to try to create equality in housing when women often live in
fear of abusive partners?
It seems to me that our priorities have become very confused
indeed. Further, Canadians are increasingly becoming aware of
the inability of government to take over the roles that have been
traditionally played by the family. Government, as a result of the
very initiatives that are proposed in this motion, has tried to
adopt the role of primary parent, primary guardian of children
and even principal breadwinner for many families.
What has come of this?-an over burdened and bloated
government, children who are neglected in government
subsidized day care rather than being taken care of by parents.
Parents today often have to leave their children with
caretakers because taxes take so large a bite out of salaries that
one pay cheque is no longer enough to support the in home care
of children by a parent.
Again, there is a degree of equality being forced upon us here,
an equality of mediocrity, an equality of fear that our justice-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am afraid the
member's time has expired.
Ms. Mary Clancy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration): Madam Speaker, I have a
reality check that I would like to bring in. It may well be that a
lot of women, and I have said it myself and I could not agree
with the hon. member more, are unsafe in their houses.
That does not mean they should live in houses that are unsafe
in and of themselves. It does not mean that we should merely fix
one problem to the exclusion of another. It does not mean that if
we solve crime in the streets we go on to solving the problems of
poor housing.
One of the difficulties of governance is trying to solve more
than one problem at a time, lest as we throw out the bath water
we are also throwing out the baby.
Those of us on this side of the House, those of us who call
ourselves feminists, are also proud to call ourselves people who
believe in families. I have a family. Most of us have. I love my
family and I believe deeply and passionately in the family.
I have another reality check. This may come as an
overwhelming surprise to some people. Women work because
they want to. They work because they like to, because it gives
them personal satisfaction. They work because they often need a
second pay cheque but one can be a working woman and be a
good mother.
My father had the bad grace to die when I was seven years old
and my mother went out to work to support the family which
would probably be acceptable in certain circumstances. Let me
say very strongly that my mother, who was a very good mother,
loved her job. She enjoyed going out and working. God knows
her only child grew up to be a member of Parliament which in
some cases may be tantamount to ending up in jail but she
thought it was a fairly successful resolution to the bringing up of
her only child.
Most of my friends, practically all of my closest friends,
classmates, women I went to school with, both work and have
children. Their children, contrary to the opinion of some people,
are not on crack cocaine or robbing stores or doing any of these
things. One of them is taking a course in western civilization at
the Sorbonne. Another one is in first year medical school and is
2016
also holding down one of the first SSHRC grants ever to be
given to a young student. His mother worked from the time he
was an infant.
(1655)
Their name is legion, the mothers and children in this country.
Madam Speaker, I believe you raised four sons. My God, I
believe you also went out to work.
It is time we rid the myth that working mothers are
responsible for the social problems in this country. Right now
the vast majority of women, mothers of families, work because
they have to to maintain a certain standard. That is true. They do
not work for the colour televisions and the trips to Hawaii, they
work to make sure that their families have the standard of living
they deserve.
Every woman has the right to self-fulfillment. She has the
right to go out and earn a living. She has a responsibility and it is
usually shared with the father of those children, if he happened
to stick around. In most cases they do stick around and go to
work as well and they do good jobs.
I am told my time is up and I hope that this will be the last paid
political announcement from this side.
Mr. Hanger: Madam Speaker, I believe that mothers should
have a choice. I never said that they should not. They should
have a choice to work. I also believe they should have a choice to
remain in the home. I believe that opportunity is rapidly
diminishing. I think this is where the government comes in. Its
intended expenditure over the next years is going to put greater
demands on the family, on mothers and on fathers. It is here that
I believe the choice is going to be lost.
In reply to this equality balance, I believe that it is
diminishing whether we like it or not. Governments should
quickly do something about it and can do something about it in
this Parliament.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North): Madam Speaker,
this is a very interesting debate and I congratulate the members
of the Official Opposition for raising these issues. They are very
important to society and should be properly examined.
Sometimes they generate more heat than light, but I believe the
quality of the debate today was very good.
I think the principle we are talking about today is important,
one of equity and equality. It is something clearly that many
members of this House, probably all members of this House,
believe in very passionately and very fundamentally. I think it is
sometimes in the interpretation of how this can be delivered that
we have different ideas and legitimately so.
The Reform Party has proposed an amendment or an addition
to the motion before us. Measures to support the desired
outcomes that are set forth in this motion will be provided, will
be delivered through providing equality of opportunity without
resorting to gender discrimination. I believe that is an issue
worth thinking about and worth debating.
The Reform Party does advocate equality of all Canadians
regardless of gender. It also supports equality of opportunity
without demanding equality of outcome. These are difficult
concepts sometimes because they might seem mutually
exclusive.
As Canadians we need to decide what kinds of personal
choices and freedoms will play a role in what decisions and
policies we put in place.
(1700 )
Individuals have the right to make choices for themselves. It
enhances their dignity. It is sad that many men, women and
children in our society who do not have the same freedom of
choice live in very disadvantaged conditions. When these
disadvantaged conditions are predicated solely on gender, age or
ethnic and linguistic background, it is something we ought not to
tolerate. Those kinds of distinctions should not determine the
choices or opportunities we have.
Sometimes we simply do not make good choices. It has
nothing to do with gender or any other kind of background. Our
own involvement in life if you will has brought about those
results. I sometimes wonder whether those choices should be
corrected and compensated by the hard work and money of other
people simply because those making the choices might happen
to be women or in some other category seen to be disadvantaged.
We should help those people who need it, those who are truly
unable to help themselves or have suffered misfortune. That has
been a product of civilized society for centuries. However we
must be careful in asking for special protection or special
consideration based on things like gender. It could amount to an
admission of inability to succeed on a level playing field with
other members of society, to make good choices, to advance
through competence, diligence and hard work, experience,
learning and correcting our mistakes.
It is unfair to women to say they somehow cannot compete on
that level. It is unfair to say that because of that they must be
provided with extra money because someone has decided what
they are doing is just as valuable as what a higher paid individual
is doing, or someone has decided they must be given a particular
level of housing through public contributions. It is untrue that
women in this society through their own competence, ability and
hard work are unable to provide these things for themselves and
their families.
There may be issues that society needs to work on to make
sure that women are not unfairly disadvantaged. One example is
a woman being left with child care responsibilities when the
other parent sails off into the wild blue yonder without carrying
2017
those responsibilities. However, that is far different from setting
artificial standards and saying that no matter what you do, no
matter what your level of effort, no matter what your level of
input, no matter what choices you make, other people are
responsible for giving you those things. That is unfair and
unwise in our society.
Others have mentioned Agnes Macphail, the first woman ever
elected to Parliament. I have been reading some of her speeches.
Like many women in this Chamber today, she certainly was no
shrinking violet. She summed up her attitude toward the subject
of today's debate with these words: ``I want for myself what I
want for other women, absolute equality''. That to me says it all.
Equality is not other people suggesting that women cannot make
it on their own and therefore they have to be given a lift or a leg
up any more than we would do for any other member of society.
Yes, we should do that for people but not because they are
women or because they are from a particular linguistic or
cultural background but simply because we help each other as
members of society.
(1705)
When we look at today's amendment and our support for it, it
is very important to establish a decision and a deliberate policy
of not making gender discrimination. When we help members of
society and when we decide the level of support we give to
people, that decision must be based on need and not on other
identifiable characteristics.
We ought not to compartmentalize society into different
groups and marginalize people based on physical
characteristics. We should deal with the issues that affect and
hurt us all, that cause us pain and dislocation and that have broad
implications for everyone in society. We need to treat them as
people issues, as issues that are important to us all.
I urge this House to support the amendment we put forward.
Mr. Julian Reed (Halton-Peel): Madam Speaker, I have
listened to the last three debates with great interest.
I heard the passionate debate by the hon. member for Halifax
pointing out that the struggle for equality and the struggle for
the ability of women to freely make their decisions are not
finished yet. I listened to the hon. member for Calgary Northeast
whose vision of this motion seems to be that the socialist hordes
are waiting outside the door ready to trample a civilized society.
Of course, the most recent speaker tried to inject some fairness
into the whole debate.
I would like to tell a little story which exemplifies how slow
this process has been over the years. I had the privilege of
growing up in a household with a mother for whom equality was
taken for granted. She was a modern language teacher educated
in Paris during the 1920s when that was not supposed to happen.
Her sister, my aunt with whom I talked about an hour and a half
ago is a retired anaesthetist.
There was no question of income equality or gender
discrimination. They were both at the top of their fields. They
did what they did and were the very best at it. They were
pioneers. The reason they achieved what they did was because
their mother understood the importance of seeing they got an
education to the utmost extent of their ability. They had the
ability to make their own decisions freely and clearly then
without being shackled by the things which are presently
holding women back. That process has been very slow. If we do
not make some kind of change or some kind of move we may be
looking at the same kind of evolution 50 years from now.
A motion like this does not develop a gathering of the socialist
hordes. Rather it recognizes that women who are on the move
need to have the freedom to make those decisions on their own.
Hon. members will be able to relate to many situations right now
of women who are precluded from deciding their futures on their
own terms.
(1710)
Does the hon. member not agree with the necessity of being
free to make decisions? Does she not agree that all women do not
yet have that capability and that perhaps we in this House have
some opportunity to advance their cause?
Mrs. Ablonczy: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
his comments. I believe we think in the same way. I would fight
to the death for freedom of opportunity and to have equal respect
with anybody in this House, in business, in the professions and
in society. That is a fundamental entitlement to any individual.
It is probably not true to say we all have complete freedom to
make decisions. There are a lot of limits on the decisions we can
make as individuals in this society. We have to recognize that
and live with it. Gender or physical characteristics should not
limit our freedom to make decisions.
More than any other country Canada has tremendous
freedoms and we should be proud of that. As women we have
demonstrated we can contribute significantly in all levels of
society on a level playing field. Abraham Lincoln said that if
you have what it takes, people will take what you have. It is
pretty clear in Canadian society we have a tremendous
opportunity no matter what our gender is to bear the truth of that
out.
We must give people those chances and the results will speak
for themselves.
2018
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex): Madam Speaker,
first may I join the other members in congratulating you for
presiding over Question Period for the first time today.
On this International Women's Day it is my pleasure to stand
proudly as a Canadian man and member of this House of
Commons to support the opposition motion. After a couple of
the recent speeches I hardly recognize the motion as was said
earlier by one of my colleagues. What we are actually speaking
to is:
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.
The hon. member for Calgary North quoted a famous
Canadian woman. The key word was equality and that is the key
word in the motion. Yet we hear fears from members opposite
particularly I am sad to say from certain members of the Reform
Party.
We hear fears about quotas and these artificial numbers that
are going to be set up to guarantee women these opportunities. I
do not read the word quota anywhere in the motion in front of us
and I do not read it in the amendment proposed by the Reform
Party.
I share the view that frankly it seems some members opposite
do not understand the motion before us. I do and I am going to be
very pleased to support the motion when the opportunity comes.
The hon. member for Calgary North mentioned that certain
issues may have to be dealt with concerning equal opportunity
for women. I would suggest the word to use is not ``may''. A
number of problems still exist in our society that need to be
addressed. I would like to take a few minutes to give an
overview, as I see it, of the barriers that women face in 1994.
(1715)
The biggest barrier is an attitudinal one. We can see this in the
history of this country. During the Olympics we all very proudly
recognized and applauded the efforts of Canadian women and
men in winning a number of medals and in conducting
themselves so wonderfully on the international athletic stage.
We need look no further than the sport which attracts us so
much, ice hockey, and the fact that for a long time it was seen as
strictly a sport for men.
I come from something of an athletic background. I cannot
help but make that reference. Hockey was not for girls. It was
thought to be too rough and too fast, which is nonsense. The
fastest growing amateur sport today is ice hockey for women;
for girls, young women, and women of all ages. I am sure that
Madam Speaker is probably very adept on skates out on the
canal, as I would like to try to experience myself. One needs go
no further than that particular sport to know a myth has been
debunked very effectively by Canadian women who have won
world championships in hockey the past several years.
Another major problem is that of behavioural discrimination.
We have been taught too often that boys must be aggressive,
tough and outgoing but girls must be passive, docile, ``ladylike''
and not get themselves dirty and be involved in aggressive
activities, athletic or non-athletic. That is a very destructive
attitude and it is one that as a parent I have done everything
possible not to inculcate in my own three children, and my wife
has been very supportive in that.
The right to vote is worth reconsidering. It was not until 1918
that women got the right to vote in federal elections. We heard
earlier some members of the Bloc castigating the government
for the fact that it is not doing enough to assist women. Sadly I
have to recall for all members of the House that the last province
to give women the right to vote was the province of Quebec. I
know that province has come way since that time, as we all have,
but I do not think there are a lot of lessons for the government to
learn from members opposite, some of whom unfortunately
appear to be a little ignorant of their history around women's
issues and the right to vote.
Before I was honoured with election to this House I was in the
field of education. It is a historical fact, unfortunately, in
Canada and in many countries that there has been significantly
less encouragement of girls and women to pursue their
education. All too often that has been sad reality.
There has been the myth that young women could only pursue
certain fields of study, that somehow they were not equipped to
go into particular areas that were somehow reserved for men. It
has been a very negative attitude and one that has been very
limiting to women in Canadian history. Thank goodness it is fast
finding its place in the reality ash heap where it belongs. It
simply bears no semblance to truth.
I would like to talk about employment opportunities for
women. I recall there have been and still are unfortunately some
very real barriers. We all know about the language referring to
policeman and fireman. We are making very important strides in
changing this kind of sexist language. As a city councillor I well
remember in London, Ontario, just a few years ago supporting a
motion to do away with the historic term ``alderman'' and to go
with the more neutral term of ``councillor''. We heard the wails
and the cries from some people that we could not change the
historic term ``alderman'' and that somehow the heavens would
fall down on us. That was silly. Now it is very commonly
accepted and the more appropriate term is in place.
(1720)
My municipality of London, Ontario very recently hired its
first female firefighter. This is the appropriate term for such
persons. We can see that firsts are being made every day in our
2019
society and they are a long time overdue. There are, not may be,
real employment limitations still on women in our society today.
What we need is a revolution in our attitudes as a Canadian
society about what is the proper place of women. I am very
pleased to have seen and heard reference to the statement that
the proper place for women is in the House. I am sure everyone
has seen that. It is under a picture of this Chamber. I applaud that
and got a great kick out of it, as I am sure most men have. We
know that women should have every opportunity and certainly
have every ability to represent Canadians just as well as any
other person. It should not be a factor of gender, race, religion, et
cetera. Very slowly we are coming around to some of the
attitudinal changes that are needed.
It is a sad reality that women are too often working only in
clerical, sales and service jobs. In 1991 over 50 per cent of
working women were in these jobs, whereas for men that figure
was only 30 per cent.
Again I say it is not that there may be limitations on equal
opportunity employment for women. Anyone who looks at the
reality knows there are limitations that have to be addressed and
finally are being addressed. The government intends to move
forward very aggressively in that regard.
I am sure we all accept that by and large women bear much
more the responsibility for the Canadian family. I well recall my
own mother being the backbone of our family. I pay tribute to
her for her love, courage and support of our family over the
years. My wife shoulders more responsibility for our family
than I do. She is making a sacrifice as many of the spouses of
people in this House today are, male and female spouses both.
In my case, my wife is making a significant sacrifice and is
taking on greater responsibility so I can have the opportunity
and the privilege of serving the people of London-Middlesex
in the House of Commons. I thank her for that and I appreciate
the sacrifice. This is normally the role that women find
themselves in. The sacrifices in the interests of the family far
more often come from women than men. That ought not be made
light of. It ought to be acknowledged as a reality and ought to be
appreciated for what it is.
My wife and I have two sons and one daughter and it is very
important to us that they be treated equally and encouraged to
live their lives fully with no restraints based on gender for any of
them. I heard hon. members earlier today express that was their
experience and I applaud that. It is certainly the experience that
we were trying to make sure our children live. However, all too
often it is not the Canadian experience and we have to do more in
that regard.
I come also from a municipal councillor background, as I
mentioned earlier, and it is a sad fact that single parent families,
by and large, are led by women. In 1991, 62 per cent of
women-led families were below the poverty line. That is an
incredible number, an unacceptable number and it has to change.
One need only look at the media to recognize that they fall far
short of the mark in trying to make an attitudinal shift toward
this issue. There is little interest shown in the activities of
women in the media. I well remember many times, women's
athletic teams complaining that they were not getting equal
coverage. All too often I recall women councillors on city
council feeling that they were somehow not receiving fair
treatment. These were not exaggerations; you really had to
support what they were saying because the reality was there for
all to see.
(1725)
On the issue of pay equity, women receive on average 72 per
cent of what men earn. I would think that anyone who is fixated
on financial matters, as my colleagues from the Reform Party
are, and that is not necessarily a bad thing, how can they then not
realize there is a pay equity problem is beyond me. From some
of the comments I heard earlier it seems to be getting by some of
the members, and I just do not understand how it can.
The issue of violence against women is a huge problem in the
country today. The issues of family violence and sadistic
pornography need to be addressed now.
When Canadian women cannot feel as safe as men on the
streets, then obviously there is a problem. When your feeling of
safety and your real safety is different because you are a woman,
it is a national problem that needs to be recognized as such and
should be addressed.
The question of political leadership has been raised several
times by previous speakers. I fully support the fact that we will
see more women as members of Parliament over the next few
years. It is a very positive step that we have record numbers of
women in the House right now. Our party has done everything it
possibly can to ensure it takes place.
Only by aggressive action are we going to address these
issues. I am proud, as a Liberal member of Parliament, to be a
member of a party that appointed the first woman Speaker to the
very seat that you occupy now, Madam Speaker. The first
woman Governor General, the same woman, the Right Hon. Jean
Sauvé was appointed to that position by a Liberal government.
The same Right Hon. Madam Sauvé is being honoured today, as
we all know, by the issuing of a Canadian stamp in her honour.
Many, if not most, of the first actions taken by governments in
Canada to advance the cause of women I am proud to say were
taken by Liberal governments. On our side of the House today
we see the Deputy Prime Minister several cabinet ministers who
are women.
Strides have been made, but further change will only be made
by aggressive action by political parties and all Canadians who
sincerely believe that this issue has to be addressed, that it is not
going to go away and solve itself. As was mentioned earlier,
2020
fully 50 per cent of appointments by the Liberal government
since the election to various positions have been appointments
of women.
It is important we encourage women of all ages to reject limits
on their full and equal participation in our society, including
governments, maybe especially governments. Canadians of all
races have found out that the way to stop discrimination is by
getting hold of the levers of power. My background is Irish
Canadian and Irish immigrants to Canada found that out.
Immigrant groups throughout our history have learned that
lesson: You stop discrimination by becoming those who make
the laws. Women are learning that lesson and I applaud that. I
hope to see far more than 18 per cent of members of Parliament
as women MPs some time in the near future.
I am pleased that one of the members of Parliament is part of
the London, Ontario Liberal MP team, the member for London
West. It is important that a full co-operative effort be made by
men and women members on all sides of the House to work
together to improve the decorum of the House, which I think is
better but certainly could still be improved. In the various
committees and in all the responsibilities of a member of
Parliament it is very important that a teamwork approach be
taken and that women members be fully included as equal
partners because they are. They have been equally elected, they
are equally talented and able, and it is very important we
conduct ourselves in that way.
I can only relate to my own experience in 13 years of
municipal government. Some of my best supporters and workers
in campaigns were women. It has been my pleasure to encourage
and help several women to run for office in London and I intend
to do that again this fall when our municipal elections are held in
Ontario.
(1730)
It is important that we realize that politics and government is
not a profession somehow limited to men. No profession should
somehow be reserved for men. Unfortunately, that still is the
case in the minds of many Canadians.
Our Liberal red book has made important commitments and
our government has started to see these through already; the
need to ensure equal opportunity for women, a strenghthening of
the employment equity act, the need to do more in the area of
research for women's health care. It is a fact that women's health
care has been short-changed in funding. The red book addresses
that need and the government will see that commitment through.
There is a need to do more in the area of child care, a need to do
more in the area of small business where women are twice as
successful as men. That is very important. These are all red book
commitments that I am proud to say this government will
certainly see through to fruition.
In closing, I say that we need some changes and we need them
now. We need changes in societal attitudes. We need changes in
law. We need changes in government. There are problems and
we must find the solutions. I want my daughter and all Canadian
young women to have every opportunity just the same as my two
sons, the same opportunity to pursue whatever career they want
in this country with no restrictions, no limitations. Only then
will we really fully realize our potential as a nation.
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval-Centre):
Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my hon. colleague who
provided a detailed presentation of the many problems faced by
women. I was surprised to hear him say, in reference to some of
my colleagues' remarks, that this government did not have to
take any advice from the Official Opposition, if I understood
correctly, since Quebec was the last province to enfranchise
women. I want to remind my hon. colleague that the right to
vote, both in Canada and in Quebec, was won by women who
valiantly fought for it and that it was men who granted that right.
Of course, in those days, Quebec was going through what
historians called the dark ages, but I want to point out that since
1960, since the quiet revolution, Quebec has progressed by leaps
and bounds, to the extent that impartial, and often enlightened,
observers recognize in Quebec a leader in many areas.
Since today is International Women's Day, let me highlight a
few measures in favour of women, such as the lump sum
payment at birth, the preventive withdrawal of pregnant women
from the workplace, and the right for these women to receive
their salary in the meantime. There are many more measures I
could tell my colleagues about, but I am sure that other members
have comments to make. So, in conclusion, I would add that the
day Quebec holds the reins of its destiny, women there will
receive their faire share in accordance with their contribution to
society.
[English]
Mr. O'Brien: Madam Speaker, I did not hear a question but I
still appreciate the hon. member's comments. I am glad that I
was correct and I am sure I was in relating the fact that
unfortunately Quebec gave the provincial vote last to women. I
did not say that as any kind of a condemnation of Quebec. I am
very fond of visiting Quebec. I have many Quebecers as friends
and I hope to always be able to go to Quebec. It is a very lovely
part of this great country we call Canada.
I am pleased that there have been strides made in Quebec as
there have been in other provinces.
2021
(1735 )
My point is that when one points a finger, as unfortunately a
member of the Bloc did a little earlier in the debate, that is not
being careful to regard the whole scope of our history. We
should be a little more sensitive to the fact that all parts of
Canada have been negligent in this regard. All parts of Canada
are moving forward. I am pleased that Quebec is as well.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast): Madam Speaker, this
indeed has been a very long day. I have sat here for many hours
listening to this debate. I have been quite impressed on all
counts and the hon. member's comments are well received by
myself.
I wish to ask the hon. member a specific question regarding
pay equity. I stand here proudly as a humanist. I am not a
feminist. In that view I present this question to the hon. member.
The whole pay equity issue is tied to the fundamental debate
behind equal opportunity of employment. I cannot understand
how we can separate the pay equity issue from several things,
and I am going to mention these to the hon. member. Then I am
going to ask how the hon. member can exclude these
expectations from the whole concept of pay equity.
Our party, the Reform Party, believes that the improvement of
education is a key to accessing an employment opportunity. One
does this by giving greater priority to the development of skills,
particularly those that provide for future job flexibility. That is
my first point.
My second point is on the emphasis of individual
achievement. Employers must treat people, that is men and
women, as individuals in all phases of the recruitment process
based on their merit, skills, capacities, and experience in order
to fulfil a job function. It cannot be on the basis of one's gender.
I will leave with that and I ask the hon. member to respond.
Mr. O'Brien: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is making
the point that there ought not to be artificial quotas imposed in
order to level the playing field, if you will. I can support that.
We can achieve equity in opportunity without doing that. I
fully agree and support several women MPs whom I have heard
in the House that they want to be treated and regarded as an
equal and that in getting to their spot in this place they sought
support on the fact that they were the best candidate, not that
they were a woman. I fully support that.
The issue of quotas and pay equity are separable, and I can
address it this way. There have been a number of surveys done
that would show that a man and a woman doing the exact job,
even in some cases in the same firm in the private sector, with
the same qualifications were getting a difference in pay. I can let
members imagine who was making the lower pay.
My background is education. A woman as qualified as I was
when I was teaching with the same years of experience was
guaranteed the exact salary. I would not have it any other way.
Unfortunately it is not that way in many cases still in this
country.
I would share with the hon. member at another time if she
wishes some of the studies that prove that sad fact.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley): Madam
Speaker, I listened to the comments of the hon. member.
It appears perhaps that a little earlier he missed the point of
some of the things that some members of the Reform Party were
saying. So that the point is clear, I would like to state again that
the Reform Party members have continually today applauded
the achievements of not only the women MPs in this House, but
the achievements of women throughout history, not because of
the fact that they are women but because of their achievement in
the same ways that we would applaud the achievements of men.
(1740)
I want to make that very clear. We do not distinguish by
gender the magnitude of the achievement but rather the
achievement itself.
I would like to go back to some comments that the member
made earlier in regard to some of the names we give to people in
the workplace, such as policemen. He made a comment on that.
He indicated that he found that term objectionable. I would like
to ask him and maybe he could reply if he finds the term
policewoman objectionable as well or should we be calling the
person a policeperson. We could get carried away with this in the
same way there is a suggestion that we begin to call manhole
covers personhole covers. Where does it end?
Even in this House we differentiate between the terms Mr.
Speaker and Madam Speaker. Does the member find these terms
objectionable?
I talked about quotas earlier and certainly the government has
not made mention of quotas. Let me say that the affirmative
action groups in the U.S. began in the same manner. They did not
mention quotas. They used terms like pay equity and job equity.
In fact they were talking about quotas. That was their hidden
agenda. That agenda would not fly in the early days so they
chose to use softer, gentler terms.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The time has expired,
but the member for London-Middlesex may want to give a
brief response.
Mr. O'Brien: Madam Speaker, I would because the hon.
member has raised some very important points. I will try to be
brief. It is tough to do. He has raised several points.
2022
It seems to me in listening to the debate, with all due respect,
that the Reform Party's premise is that there has not been
discrimination in Canada against women. That seems to be its
premise. That is absolutely and totally incorrect. I do not know
how any reading of Canadian history can deny that fact.
Therefore when there has been discrimination there is an onus
on society to be proactive in trying to address that
discrimination. That is why this party has been very proactive in
trying to find women candidates and help them raise funds to do
the nitty-gritty things that you have to do to become a member
of Parliament.
The hon. member does not know me well or he would not
suggest that I am an extremist on language. Far from it. I would
find ridiculous personhole covers and so on. I do not find
ridiculous the fact that some of my former colleagues on London
city council, female colleagues, were uncomfortable with the
name ``alderman''. I was at groups with them. There was no
problem in introducing me as an alderman but the person
introducing the female alderman and the woman being
introduced were both uncomfortable. Hence the better name
councillor.
I would say to the hon. member that perhaps firefighter is a far
better term that fireman. It can in some case give a wrong signal
to women that somehow this is not a profession for them. That is
absolutely and totally the wrong message that we want to send in
my view.
I thank the hon. member for his comments.
[Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): I rise in the House
today to reflect as a man on the various emotions and feelings
that are set off by this kind of debate. There is joy and pride but
also a sense of urgency when we reflect on the injustice suffered
by women and their long struggle which is not over yet and must
be taken up again every day.
I want to share this realization with my colleagues, with the
women in the Bloc Quebecois, and I also want to salute all
women and show my solidarity with their cause. I particulary
want to salute our differences as men and women, our different
ways of seeing, of feeling, of looking at problems, of
approaching life and the joys it offers us. And I especially want
to salute the women of the Eastern Townships whom I have met
on many occasions in various organizations, and also the women
in my riding who are very active in all areas as they usually are
in our society. I want to salute all the women who were elected to
the House of Commons, and especially my colleagues in the
Bloc Quebecois. And I also want to say a special word to my
women friends, whose friendship and understanding I have
valued for so many years. Finally, I want to salute the love and
understanding of the woman I cherish, and the birth of a child
conceived in love.
(1745)
In today's debate which is about women and women's rights
on International Women's Day, I believe that men can bring to
this debate an element of solidarity with all women.
In the course of my speech I would like to mention a few key
moments in the history of women. I would like to start by saying
that we have come a long way since March 8, 1875, when for the
first time in North America, women rose up against male
capitalism and went on strike, and I am referring to the garment
workers strike in New York.
Since then, a series of laws have been passed, especially
during the past 30 years, to promote women's equality in the
home and in the economic, political and public spheres of our
society.
In 1893, the first feminist association in Quebec was
established: The Montreal Local Council of Women. After 14
years of struggle on the part of suffragettes, women obtained the
right to vote in Quebec in 1940. The Fédération des femmes du
Québec and the Women's Association for Education and Social
Action arrived on the scene in 1966. International Women's Day
was celebrated for the first time in Quebec on March 8, 1972.
The following year, Quebec's Conseil du statut de la femme and
the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women were
created. During the 1980s, Quebec women moved confidently
into various fields of endeavour. Buoyed by the experience of
the women who came before them, they demanded that they be
given a place in all sectors of activity traditionally reserved for
men.
For example, not so long ago, it would have been unthinkable
to have women practising certain trades or professions. Sexism
was so prevalent that women were literally prevented from
holding certain jobs which, more often than not, also happened
to pay more. The fact that women today work in fields which
were once the traditional domain of men is undoubtedly a major
victory in the struggle for the recognition of women's equality.
This victory shows that women are capable of performing jobs
from which they were unfairly barred from generation to
generation. If we were to take as an example the Eastern
Townships, throughout the 1980s and in the early 1990s, we
have seen women take their place within the labour force as
scientific researchers, well-known authors, business leaders,
bus drivers, police officers, surgeons, lawyers, engineers and so
on.
We are approaching the next century and, at a time when a
woman's right to vote, her right to an education and her right to
obtain an abortion are recognized, and at a time when various
charters of rights and freedoms prohibiting all forms of
discrimination based on gender confirm that mores have indeed
changed, we must ask ourselves the following questions: Have
we achieved true equality between the sexes? Has society, in
Quebec and Canada, achieved a gender balance which confirms
2023
its emergence as mature, harmonious society? Unfortunately,
the answer is no.
(1750)
In the very brief history of women's liberation I just made, a
very dark day stands out, a day on which hatred for women was
expressed in a very violent way. In 1989, as everyone will
remember, we were stunned by the massacre at the École
Polytechnique in Montreal.
In spite of all the progress made, of the unanimous
recognition of the right of women to decide for themselves,
which was again and again reaffirmed, another message
emerged. The game of life is played according to strictly male
rules. As professor Maria de Konninck said, while she held the
Chaire d'étude de la condition des femmes at Laval University,
and I quote: ``The progress made by women is based purely on
deep structural changes which significantly affect the place
women hold as a social group''.
The truth is, even if women represent 52 per cent of voters,
they still hold 66 per cent of part-time jobs, earn less than 70 per
cent of wages paid to men and have only 15 per cent of the
action-oriented jobs. According to a press release of the
Canadian Department on the Status of Women, in 1993, less than
5 per cent of heads of state, CEO's of major corporations and
leaders of international organizations were women. According
to this same press release, women are poorly represented in
executive positions and at the policy-making and
decision-making levels.
Many polls conducted in the United States show that women
keep saying that equality at work and at home is still one of their
major concerns. Statisticians at the Roper Organization, an
American statistical body, indicate that men's opposition to the
equality of women is a major source of ill feelings, stress and
irritation for most of women today. Also in the United States,
towards the end of the last decade, the proportion of women who
believed they were not getting equal career opportunities or
equal pay reached 80 to 95 per cent.
Again in the States, during the same ten-year period,
complaints of sexual harassment at work more than doubled.
This situation is without any doubt alarming and harmful, since
sexual harassments can affect the physical and psychological
well-being of the victims. Earlier in today's debate, we heard an
absolutely horrifying description of violence against women
and, as a man, I feel-and I think that all hon. members will
agree with me-that we must show zero tolerance for violence.
This abuse of power is demoralizing and counter-productive
and undermines the equality of the people affected, and
eventually leads to the loss of competent workers and to a
decrease in work productivity and efficiency.
In North America, the number of battered women taking
refuge in special shelters jumped by 100 per cent between 1983
and 1987. Declared rapes have doubled since the early 1970s,
are twice as common as other types of assault, and are increasing
four times faster than the overall crime rate in the United States.
While the homicide rate is down, sex murders have jumped by
160 per cent. In 1978, women were victims of violence in 10 per
cent of Canadian homes; in 1993, there was a 25 per cent
increase in that number.
This government's lack of family policy-I am almost
finished-shows the electoral opportunism of its party platform
and its lack of a long-term vision that could foster a real
equality between men and women. These serious shortcomings
bring into question the progress of women in Quebec and in
Canada. As we have seen from the position taken by the minister
today, we must wait another two years for wage equity in the
public service; the men responsible for finance, for human
resources, and for employment and immigration say that we
must wait another two years. Where are the women in the party
who will support the fact that action on pay equity is urgently
needed in the public service?
(1755)
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, to ensure a continued
evolution towards role equality, freedom from all aggression, be
it physical or psychological, and a balance crucial to the
stability of Quebec society, and acknowledging that to be fair is
to recognize our differences, the Bloc Quebecois, within its own
perspective, which is Quebec's political autonomy, suggests we
recognize and implement employment and pay equity, and
concrete measures to redress and correct the distressing
situation of women.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Order, please. I am
sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has now expired.
The hon. member for Mississauga-South.
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South): Madam Speaker, after
several hours of debate many hon. members have raised the
issue of women in the context of violence. I feel compelled to
comment on the incompleteness of the thought. Having spent
five years on the board of the shelter for battered women in my
riding, I can say that violence against women is really only one
part of it. Really the aspect is abuse. I want to share this with
members.
Abuse against women includes violence but it also includes
non-violent abuses, the economic abuses in which the financial
purse strings are controlled by one spouse to the detriment of the
other, taking away that financial independence. The second
aspect of it is psychological abuse. There exists that authority
and that power as a result of the position of the man in the
household, an abusive man. A woman does not have the dignity
2024
and respect she has earned by being a partner within that
marriage.
I want this to lead into a point that I raised earlier in the day
because I feel so strongly about it. It has to do with one of the
most honourable professions that anyone could aspire to that is
available only to women, a mother; flowing from which is the
ability to be the manager of the family home and providing that
care.
There is a tremendous inequity in our society today. In this
House throughout the day people have talked about women
leaving the house and going to work. Who in this House honestly
believes that being a spouse in the home is not a job, is not work,
is not an honourable profession to be recognized and to be
compensated?
That is one of the reasons I presently have a private member's
bill in the works. I would like to see one day Canadians
recognizing the value of a spouse in the home, managing the
home and providing parental care and being compensated. That
private member's bill will propose amendments to the tax act
which would allow one spouse to pay or to transfer income to a
spouse working in the home and taking care of the family home
and the children.
I think we have to open up to the fundamentals within our
society and realize that there is a very important role for women
to play in certain aspects and that being in the home is a job to be
respected.
Possibly the member has some comments.
[Translation]
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Madam Speaker, in
support of my colleague's comments, I would like to quote from
a report published in 1992 by Statistics Canada which says that
in 1986, women's activity in the homes was equivalent to about
a third of business activity as expressed by the Gross Domestic
Product. Such housework was then valued at $199 billion. So,
you are quite right.
To remedy the problem of economic violence, the Liberal
government should start implementing pay equity in the public
service without any further delay.
(1800 )
[English]
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce-Grey): Madam Speaker, I
would like to respond to the member from Richmond and say to
him that as the member for Bruce-Grey I came from the place
of the historic women mentioned previously, Agnes Macphail
and Nellie McClung.
In 1994 women are still suffering from the trauma of abuse in
the home, not being able to walk the streets and of stalking. They
are still not receiving their child support payments.
I welcome this motion from the members of the opposition. I
think it is fitting that today, International Women's Day, we
discuss this.
However, I am not here to talk about the history of what
happened. I think today we should act.
I was mayor of the city of Owen Sound. I made proposals then
and we should make similar proposals now. There are costs. Part
of the problem that we get as we try to move women into
positions they should be in where they are not disadvantaged is
that every time we want to make a move with this pay equity
there is a lot of pressure. In my force, for instance, there were 35
males and we had to try to make it equitable. The last five people
we hired on that force were women.
However, I received a lot of pressure within my community
about that. At that time I advocated that perhaps what we should
do right there and then was split the thing in half so that we
would retire those people who were older and probably looking
at retirement anyway and make it right, rather than every year
when a vacancy came up going through this whole process
again.
I would like to ask the hon. member from Richmond what he
thinks of that proposal. It is great to talk about that kind of stuff
in this House but nothing will occur because of the pressure of
the wage situation we have.
There is also pressure within society with males. Men are still
quite macho and all that. A lot of us in this House get up and talk
about this but in the end nothing happens. Therefore, I would
like to ask the member if when we try to look for this equity
whether we do not split the thing right down the middle and get
on with it rather than every time we come to this pressure point
we talk about it and then it goes away.
[Translation]
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Madam Speaker, if the
hon. members from the Liberal Party confirm their intention to
act, as a female member was saying earlier, we now have a
definite point that was raised today: wage equity for women in
the public service. Do we want to prevent those responsible from
imposing a two-year wait and force them to take action right
away? I urge you to do it within your own party and to exert
pressure on the ministers involved to resolve immediately the
issue of wage equity for women in the public service.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf): Madam Speaker, it is a
pleasure to address the House today on such an important issue.
It is important as this issue, the status of women, affects 50 per
cent of our population.
In the last few weeks, I had the opportunity to address this
House many times on various issues I was not very familiar
with, on which I had to do extensive research in order to talk
about them in an appropriate fashion. Today, I am dealing with a
subject I have been familiar with since I was born because, just
2025
like the other gentlemen in this House, I live with the other 50
per cent of society, the fair sex.
I have known various eras. I experienced Quebec's dark ages
before 1960, when we had an extremely limited vision of the
role of women in society. I went through the period from 1960 to
1970, when these values were first challenged, of course by
women but also by men.
(1805)
In the seventies, I had the pleasure and the privilege of
teaching with colleagues from both sexes. That gave me the
opportunity, and it was indeed an opportunity, to be put in my
place on several occasions and to eventually learn that our
society is equally made up, from an intellectual, moral and
physical point of view, of men and women.
At this point, I would like to share some of my experiences, as
well the conclusions I have drawn from them. In the next few
minutes, I will address male Canadians and Quebecers, but
female Canadians and Quebecers are certainly welcome to
listen.
I believe that the real challenge lies not so much in major
pieces of legislation or great principles but, rather, in every day
life. The real challenge has to do with our individual behaviour
every minute and every hour of the day. It is somewhat like the
environment, in the sense that you have to start respecting it at
home. The same is true in the case of women: it is in our daily
activities that we must begin to respect them as he should.
How many times have I seen people, including myself, use the
masculine form to refer to doctors, lawyers or musicians. How
many times have I heard teachers, including myself, use the
masculine form to discuss a whole range of issues. Thank
goodness, I was lucky enough to have female colleagues to bring
me back to that marvellous reality that the world is indeed made
up of both the masculine and the feminine genders.
I learned, and it was not easy, to use both the masculine and
the feminine, and to say in French ``il'' and ``elle'', ``celui'' and
``celle'', and in English ``he'' and ``she'', and ``his'' or ``hers''.
But that did not come naturally. I had to work at it. One must
especially be careful not to fall in a trap and decide that, in order
to make a text simpler, only the masculine form will be used,
being understood that it also includes the feminine gender.
This is real streamlining since it is tantamount to eliminating
50 per cent of the population. I am sorry, but it is a rather poor
argument.
I am relating my personal experience. I have made it my duty,
when I write, to go the long way and say in French, ``le musicien
et la musicienne'', and not ``le musicien-ne''. It is quite long to
write ``le musicien et la musicienne''. It requires a greater
effort, but I think it shows a greater respect of our reality. After
all, if we do not start at that level, where will we start?
If collective agreements had been written using both the
masculine and the feminine genders, we would not have to now
talk about pay equity and equal pay: it would be implicit. But it
is not, and this brings me to the issue of labour market
experience.
(1810)
Men, in groups or individually, commonly use stereotypes to
put down what a member of the opposite sex is saying, to lend
weight to the so-called male stand. It is not easy, Madam
Speaker, to refrain from doing this. Why not? Because that is the
way we were brought up. Because the way we, modern men,
have been raised reflects values that I was about to describe as
from another century but, goodness me, it was only a few
decades ago that we started off down the road of change in terms
of respect for women. We were raised in a way which was
appropriate for our fathers and ancestors, but is now
inappropriate. So, we have to change our ways. We must do so, if
we are to achieve our goal, that is to say equity with regard to
persons of the female gender.
I would like to point something out to this House, and the
public watching us at home, especially mayors and municipal
aldermen and women, may understand what this is about. We are
presently receiving applications under section 25 and DEP,
asking for certain types of jobs to be subsidized. Interestingly,
when you go over some of these applications, you realize that
there is gender-based inequity in wages.
One of the actions I intend to suggest to my employment
center is to start refusing applications that do not reflect wage
equality or returning them, asking that appropriate changes be
made. I think that it is through everyday actions like this-and I
will close on this-that little by little, in time, we will fill the
gender gap.
[English]
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth): Madam
Speaker, I appreciated the remarks of my hon. colleague across
the way. I wonder if he could answer a question that I must admit
deeply troubles me. I think members from all sides of the House
would agree that there should be fairness and equity among the
sexes as there should be among all Canadians.
One thing that troubles me is the cost of undoing the wrongs
of the past. I put it very simply to the hon. member. If it were a
matter of redressing the wrongs of the past in the civil service
with respect to women, would he be prepared to add a billion
dollars to the deficit in this next year or so?
Mr. de Savoye: Madam Speaker, that is an interesting
question indeed. The bulk of my speech was not on that subject
as the member will realize. I mentioned that people should start
2026
addressing this issue at their own door steps, every day in
whatever they are doing, the way they talk, the way they address
women.
On the specific issue, if men would accept lower salaries by a
global amount equal to the one that is needed to raise women's
salaries until we reach it mid way, would the member accept
that? I would.
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (Secretary of State (Training
and Youth)): Madam Speaker, I rise today to respond to the
opposition motion urging the government to recognize among
other matters the principle of economic equality between
women and men and to implement measures to guarantee
women equity in employment, wages and living conditions.
(1815)
[Translation]
To begin, I wish to commend the opposition for raising these
issues in the House on International Women's Day. This
inspiring day is a time for celebration but also for reflection. We
are inspired by the significant progress made recently by women
in all areas of life. We celebrate their successes and their
substantial contributions to our economy and our quality of life.
But we also reflect on the inequities that still exist.
[English]
This government welcomes a debate on issues which affect
women, a very important debate. This government is prepared to
build meaningfully on past accomplishments. In that context it
is committed to expedite the process of full and lasting equality
for women in every avenue of human endeavour.
We must grasp the socioeconomic realities of the global
marketplace. It places increasingly competitive pressures on
successful industrialized nations. It also dictates that we forge
ahead in eradicating inequality, not only for the inherent essence
of fairness but also because Canada needs to promote full
development of all its human resources. Only then can it
continue to provide its citizens with the prosperity and promise
to which they have become accustomed.
[Translation]
On the threshold of the 21st century, our nation must face
many challenges. One of the most difficult is to ensure equal
participation of women in all aspects of Canadian society.
Although our government is proud that it has always contributed
to the betterment of women in our country, we are the first to
admit that much still remains to be done.
[English]
For example the feminization of poverty is a disturbing issue.
Single parent families headed by women are the most afflicted.
Close to 60 per cent of such families live below the poverty line.
The poverty rate for elderly women is double that of elderly
men.
Women also suffer from discrimination in the workplace. For
example in the Northwest Territories 43 per cent of all workers
were women in 1992. However the average income of women
was 63 per cent of the average income of men. Women are
overrepresented in low paying part time jobs and are often
denied promotions, job security and standard employee
benefits. This is not only unfair, it is unacceptable.
The achievement of equality in the workplace is an absolute
necessity and cannot be compromised by dated arguments and
head in the sand thinking. Equality is one of the core values of
Canadian society and we cannot tolerate exceptions under any
circumstances.
[Translation]
Our government is committed to ensuring employment equity
and will strive to offer all Canadians better social and economic
conditions. Women are entitled to their fair share of economic
power and equitable participation in political decision-making.
We cannot have an egalitarian society if we are indifferent to
some segments of our population. We quite simply cannot allow
the disadvantaged to be left to their fate while the privileged
prosper.
[English]
More than 10 years ago a Liberal government, in fact the
current minister appointed the Royal Commission on Equality
in Employment, the Abella commission. In response to that
report the previous government brought in the Employment
Equity Act. We were critical of the act in 1986 and we have not
changed our minds since.
(1820)
When the act was first proclaimed its stated purpose was to
eliminate systemic barriers to employment faced by women,
aboriginal people, persons with disabilities and visible
minorities. While there have been success stories and individual
employers who have set exemplary precedents, progress for
women has not met expectations.
[Translation]
The law now applies to about 350 employers with over
600,000 employees in banking, transportation and
communications. Since 1987, the proportion of women has
grown by nearly 4 per cent and is now the same as their
representation in the Canadian labour force. Nevertheless,
women's employment is still highly concentrated in office
work, sales and services.
[English]
Under the circumstances I am sure hon. members will
understand this government's commitment to strengthen the
employment equity legislation. It flows directly from our pledge
to improve the laws and social programs which form the basis
for
2027
fundamental fairness and decency within which Canadians must
be able to pursue their individual goals.
We are concerned about the existing act which has done little
to improve the lot of women along with visible minorities,
aboriginal people and persons with disabilities. We want to
ensure that opportunity is distributed more evenly so that a
broader spectrum of our society can aspire to earn a decent wage
and live with dignity and respect.
[Translation]
In the red book, our government made three specific
commitments on employment equity. First, the principles of
employment equity must apply in the federal public service and
federal government agencies and commissions. Second, we
want to give the Canadian Human Rights Commission authority
to investigate issues related to employment equity. Third,
federal contractors should be required to comply with the
established principles.
The Minister of Human Resources Development has indicated
on several occasions that our government would see to it that
specific action was taken over the coming year to strengthen
employment equity legislation. Indeed, our government intends
to establish a broader and more solid legislative base for
employment equity, which will provide for better representation
of designated groups in the labour force.
[English]
Employment equity means more than simply hiring women,
aboriginal people, persons with disabilities and members of
visible minorities. It means developing creative strategies to
ensure that scarce jobs are filled according to the principles of
sound human resource and equity planning. The focus must be
on developing training and retention programs that allow longer
term internal changes to take place in the workforce.
Employers can be expected to make more progress toward an
equitable workforce during periods of economic growth than
during periods of restraint. Under bullish economic conditions
employers have more opportunities to hire and promote
members of designated groups such as women. Therefore they
may achieve good results without actually extending much
effort. In times of restraint however the best efforts of
employers may go unrewarded. Low proportions of designated
groups hired and promoted in the workforce may reflect difficult
economic times rather than a lack of effort on the part of
employers.
(1825)
In assessing the results we must take economic conditions
into account. These variables require all partners; business,
unions, designated groups and governments to collaborate to
meet workforce equality objectives.
[Translation]
I think it would be remiss on my part if I did not let hon.
members know about the excellent record of the federal Public
Service on employment equity. The Department of Human
Resources Development, which employs about 27,000 persons
since its recent reorganization, is a good example.
[English]
Despite the anticipated challenges associated with
restructuring and downsizing and the potential impact on
employment equity, no group has been disproportionately
affected. While concern over the possible negative impact in
these hard times is quite legitimate, much of the progress
achieved to date in employment equity has occurred under
trying conditions as well.
[Translation]
Human Resources Development Canada now administers the
programs and services of originating departments, including
Employment and Immigration, Health and Welfare, Labour,
Multiculturalism and Citizenship and the Department of the
Secretary of State.
[English]
The consolidation of these programs and services can only
have a positive impact on the future of employment equity. In
Human Resources Development Canada the department's role
will be greatly strengthened in this domain since it has already
gained much in-house expertise with the addition of new
programs and services.
Human Resources Development now offers a wide variety of
activities and instruments which can be brought to bear to
accelerate employment equity in the workplace. As a large
employer in this nation and with a corresponding budget to
generate social progress, the department will have
unprecedented opportunities to induce a ripple effect in both the
federal and private sectors. This holds true particularly with
regard to employment equity.
Rather than get mired in complex details and statistics I
believe it will suffice to say that there is a significant
representation of women in senior positions of Human
Resources Development Canada. The government is committed
to ensuring that women and other designated groups will not be
disadvantaged by downsizing and restructuring.
The department will be in a strong position to react promptly
to any negative plans and could well serve as a barometer for
excellence in the rest of the public service and beyond.
2028
[Translation]
I would now like to address the issue of pay equity. The
Canadian Human Rights Act considers that not giving men and
women equal pay for work of equal value is a discriminatory
practice.
The Canada Labour Code authorizes officials of the
Department of Human Resources Development to audit the pay
equity practices of companies. These officials may also submit
cases of alleged discrimination relating to wage parity between
men and women to the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
[English]
Audits are conducted to verify that pay equity implementation
by employers has taken place. Refusal to act results in referral to
the Human Rights Commission for further investigation and
resolution. This inspection program has resulted in three cases
being referred to the Human Rights Commission since 1989.
Two of these cases have been resolved with wage adjustments of
some $125,000. Two additional inspections have been initiated
and should be completed this summer. These decisive, no
nonsense responses demonstrate very clearly that pay equity
legislation cannot be flouted or ignored.
[Translation]
Most employers are anxious to comply with pay equity
guidelines, and under a new program it will be possible to
examine an employer's implementation program, find any
problems that may exist and deal with them quickly, without
having to submit the case to the Canadian Human Rights
Commission.
[English]
There have been some positive results emanating from pay
equity compliance measures. Between 1971 and 1992 the wage
gap between men and women has narrowed about 20 per cent. In
addition, in 1992 women working full time earned an average of
some 72 per cent of what was earned by full time working men.
This represents an improvement of about 3 per cent over the
previous year.
While these figures do not represent satisfactory levels of
change, they do indicate some tangible movement. They also
illustrate that equal pay compliance programs have resulted in
industry-wide pay equity initiatives in the federal jurisdiction.
These steps have often been promoted and sponsored by
employer associations which set a standard for less
sophisticated and less aware employers.
With the recent advent of labour-management partnerships
directed at involvement in the pay equity implementation
process, there is evidence that greater strides than ever before
will be taken in this area.
[Translation]
Finally, Madam Speaker, considering the symbolic
importance of International Women's Day, I would like to take
these last few minutes to recall the recent advances which have
been made by women. Their employment situation has
developed spectacularly during the past decades, while the
significance and diversity of their roles have also increased
considerably.
We all know, unfortunately, that women who succeed still
have trouble being accepted by many of their male colleagues.
[English]
For a long time women were rarely encountered in other than
support positions. There was also tokenism of the most blatant
kind. In the 1970s a disproportionately large number of women
were concentrated in secretarial and clerical positions. Since
then some of these imbalances have been corrected and many
women have increased their career opportunities and some have
advanced to executive levels.
It must be recognized that many women workers had to
sacrifice personal lives for the workplace. Secretaries followed
their bosses up the corporate ladder and became more trusted
than senior advisers, yet were never given pay and positions
commensurate with their worth.
[Translation]
Women who aspired to management positions either hit a
glass ceiling or were removed from the decision making
process. Many talented women found themselves excluded from
the ``old boys' network'' in their job environment and were
never really accepted, even on a purely professional level, as
women doctors, lawyers or engineers.
However, Madam Speaker, there is a bright side: the position
of women on the labour market has changed dramatically.
According to 1991 census figures, women represented 45 per
cent of wage earners in Canada, compared with 35 per cent 30
years ago.
[English]
In addition, as noted earlier, there has been significant
improvement in the representation of women in management.
We in this House are becoming increasingly aware of the impact
women are having in all parts of the workplace.
Coincidentally 1994 is the 40th anniversary of the women's
bureau. The women's bureau has much to be proud of. Since its
inception in 1954 it has contributed significantly to the
increased awareness of issues related to women in the workplace
as to the removal of remaining barriers. The bureau interacts
closely with key partners to change workplace policies and
practices. It has helped considerably to move Canada forward as
a country which promotes the advancement and well-being of
all its workers.
2029
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I think the secretary of
state was not quite through, but I had to interrupt her because it
is 6.33 p.m.
[English]
It being 6.33 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings
and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the
business of supply, pursuant to Standing Order 81(16).
The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The 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 nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Call in the members.
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived
on the following division:)
(Division No. 7)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Chatters
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jennings
Johnston
Kerpan
Manning
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Penson
Ramsay
Ringma
Schmidt
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson
Wayne
White (Fraser Valley West)
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-49
NAYS
Members
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Asselin
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bachand
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Berger
Bergeron
Bernier (Beauce)
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bertrand
Bethel
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Bouchard
Boudria
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélisle
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Canuel
Caron
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Crête
Culbert
Dalphond-Guiral
Debien
de Jong
de Savoye
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Dubé
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier)
Gerrard
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Jordan
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Landry
Langlois
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lebel
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loney
Loubier
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLaren (Etobicoke North/Nord)
MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchand
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mercier
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Ménard
Nault
Nunez
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Ouellet
2030
Parrish
Paré
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Proud
Péloquin
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Riis
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rocheleau
Rock
Rompkey
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York Sudbury)
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
Speller
St-Laurent
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Tobin
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Valeri
Venne
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young -216
PAIRED MEMBERS
Augustine
Daviault
Gauthier (Roberval)
Minna
(1905)
The Speaker: I declare the amendment negatived.
[Translation]
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Léonard): Mr. Speaker,
seeing that there are four divisions to be recorded tonight and in
order to save time and allow the staff to go home earlier, I think
you will find unanimous consent to apply the vote just
completed on the amendment but in reverse to the main motion.
(1910)
[English]
The Speaker: Is the House agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 8)
YEAS
Members
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Asselin
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bachand
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Berger
Bergeron
Bernier (Beauce)
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bertrand
Bethel
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Bouchard
Boudria
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélisle
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Canuel
Caron
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Crête
Culbert
Dalphond-Guiral
Debien
de Jong
de Savoye
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Dubé
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier)
Gerrard
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Jordan
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Landry
Langlois
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lebel
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loney
Loubier
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLaren (Etobicoke North/Nord)
MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchand
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mercier
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Ménard
Nault
Nunez
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Parrish
Paré
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Proud
Péloquin
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Riis
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rocheleau
Rock
Rompkey
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York Sudbury)
Shepherd
2031
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
Speller
St-Laurent
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Tobin
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Valeri
Venne
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wayne
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young -217
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Chatters
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jennings
Johnston
Kerpan
Manning
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Penson
Ramsay
Ringma
Schmidt
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson
White (Fraser Valley West)
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-48
PAIRED MEMBERS
Augustine
Daviault
Gauthier (Roberval)
Minna
The Speaker: Pursuant to order made Tuesday, February 22,
1994, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
division on the amendment to the amendment.
[Translation]
Mr. Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, again, in order to save time, I
think you will find unanimous consent in the House to apply the
vote just completed to the main motion.
The Speaker: Does the House give its unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[English]
Mrs. Wayne: I wish to vote no against this, Mr. Speaker. I am
changing to no, however that goes, and I do not know. It is no,
no.
* * *
The House resumed from February 24 consideration of the
motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy
of the government; the amendment; and the amendment to the
amendment.
(The House divided on the amendment to the amendment,
which was negatived on the following division:)
(Division No. 9)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Chatters
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jennings
Johnston
Kerpan
Manning
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Penson
Ramsay
Ringma
Schmidt
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson
Wayne
White (Fraser Valley West)
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-49
NAYS
Members
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Asselin
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bachand
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Berger
Bergeron
Bernier (Beauce)
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bertrand
Bethel
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Bouchard
Boudria
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélisle
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Canuel
Caron
2032
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Crête
Culbert
Dalphond-Guiral
Debien
de Jong
de Savoye
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Dubé
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier)
Gerrard
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Jordan
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Landry
Langlois
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lebel
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loney
Loubier
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLaren (Etobicoke North/Nord)
MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchand
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mercier
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Ménard
Nault
Nunez
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Parrish
Paré
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Proud
Péloquin
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Riis
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rocheleau
Rock
Rompkey
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York Sudbury)
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
Speller
St-Laurent
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Tobin
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Valeri
Venne
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young -216
PAIRED MEMBERS
Augustine
Daviault
Gauthier (Roberval)
Minna
* * *
The House resumed from March 7 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-14, an act to provide borrowing authority for the
fiscal year beginning on April 1, 1994, be read the second time
and referred to a committee.
The Speaker: Pursuant to order made Thursday, February 24,
1994, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-14, an
act to provide borrowing authority for the fiscal year beginning
on April 1, 1994.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division):
(Division No. 10)
YEAS
Members
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellemare
Berger
Bernier (Beauce)
Bertrand
Bethel
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier)
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
2033
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLaren (Etobicoke North/Nord)
MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rock
Rompkey
Scott (Fredericton-York Sudbury)
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Tobin
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young -162
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Asselin
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bouchard
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brien
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Bélisle
Canuel
Caron
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Debien
de Jong
de Savoye
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gilmour
Godin
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Jennings
Johnston
Kerpan
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Manning
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McLaughlin
Mercier
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Péloquin
Ramsay
Riis
Ringma
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
St-Laurent
Stinson
Strahl
Taylor
Thompson
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
Wayne
White (Fraser Valley West)
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-105
PAIRED MEMBERS
Augustine
Daviault
Gauthier (Roberval)
Minna
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee.)
The Speaker: It being 7.20 p.m., this House stands adjourned
until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.20 p.m.)