Deborah Grey

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act, March 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the applause from both sides of the House. I think it is someone dying to speak over there who has been thwarted

perhaps in the debate today. They want to say something more. Who knows?

Let us look for a few moments at how the bill came to be and what some of the reasons are for the incredible crisis that is under way and why it has to be dealt with so quickly.

[Members Of Parliament, March 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House are begging for generosity on behalf of cabinet ministers who are making inappropriate remarks.

For five years I sat as a member of this House and watched the current government members demand resignations for far less serious reasons while they were members of the opposition.

It makes me wonder, had George Orwell written a sequel entitled "1994", could he have foreseen the politically correct movement which seeks to eliminate not only words but ideas and even debate on issues of the day?

When does this government plan to begin living up to the promises made in the red book by reprimanding cabinet ministers and ministers of state who personally attack other members of this House?

[Members Of Parliament, March 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

It is quickly becoming a habit in this Parliament that any MP who disagrees with Ottawa's politically correct dogma is labelled as racist, prejudiced, ignorant or now rednecked, the pejorative definition.

When will the Prime Minister instruct his caucus that personal attacks are not acceptable? When will he demand the resignation of ministers and ministers of state when such attacks are committed?

[Privilege, March 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, let us perhaps sum this up by saying that there is a process in place. The parliamentary secretary just went through it.

[Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, March 8th, 1994]

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?

[Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, March 8th, 1994]

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?

[Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, March 8th, 1994]

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.

[Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, March 8th, 1994]

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.

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?

[Supply, March 8th, 1994]

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.

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.

[Supply, March 8th, 1994]

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.

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

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.

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-

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.