Christiane Gagnon

[Unemployment Insurance Act, November 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on Bill C-218, an Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act. I wish to indicate my approval of the bill introduced by the hon. member for Saint-Hubert.

The bill seeks to correct an injustice made against almost a million Canadians and Quebecers, of whom two-thirds are women.

Yes, one million Canadians, most of them women, that the government does not trust and considers as UI abusers because they are not dealing at arm's length with their employer, who is either a brother, a son, a daughter or a spouse. This is unacceptable in a country where citizens are presumed to be honest.

I remind the House that until 1989, any woman employed by her spouse could not draw unemployment insurance benefits. That in itself is shocking and appalling. Indeed, who would accept such a discriminatory clause nowadays? Yet, women had to unite in a long and vigilant fight to bring that discrimination to an end.

After a challenge under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the section of the act excluding from entitlement to benefits any woman working for her spouse was ruled invalid and discriminatory by the Supreme Court of Canada in March 1989. This ruling finally gave fair treatment to these women who work in family businesses and granted them the well-deserved right to unemployment insurance benefits.

However, this victory was short-lived. In October 1990, the then government found a way to get around the 1989 ruling, by including, in the definition of excepted employment, employment where the employer and employee are not dealing with each other at arm's length. By excluding from benefits not only women, but everyone not dealing at arm's length with their employer, legally, the law no longer seemed discriminatory.

It is possible that some employees working for their spouses defraud unemployment insurance just as it is possible for an employer and an employee who are perfect strangers to cheat the system. The penalties in the law are explicit and severe enough to cover all fraudulent claims.

Losing a job is in itself a stressful event that can weaken one's self-esteem. We, on this side of the House, do not think that most people choose unemployment as a way of life. Nor do we believe that the unemployed in Canada are lazy people drinking beer in front of the television, as the prime minister unfortunately said. But that such a suspicion be covered in the act is unacceptable to the 1 million Canadians who are unemployed, including 650,000 women.

What is shocking here, and that I want to denounce, is the burden of proof which lies with the unemployed individuals from the very first stage of their benefits claim. These individuals must prove to Revenue Canada, Taxation that their work contract was meeting all the requirements of a position that anyone else could have held. No other category of claimants is required to produce such proof.

But what is more shocking and adds to my determination to support the deletion of section 3(2)(c) is the fact that the amendment adopted October 22, 1990, only slightly softened the blatant discrimination present in the former Unemployment Insurance Act. The existing legislation is targeting an easily identifiable group and results mainly in the systematic exclusion of women employed by their spouse.

Are these women entitled to UI? Yes, said the Tax Court of Canada in 1989. Since then, these women have been contributing to the system. But by a clever trick, the 1990 UI reform managed to include anyone not at arm's length with the employer.

When these women lose their job, it is often because their spouse's business is going down the drain. It is then that these women need UI benefits. Instead they have to prove to officials of Revenue Canada, Taxation that their job is justified, therefore insurable.

Then begins a long inquiry process that can last several months, even a year, during which the slightest doubt leads to an exclusion because the process does not tend to confirm eligibility but rather to prove abuse.

Once more, the Canadian government shows that it does not focus on the real problems and that the services most needed by people are still subject to a cumbersome bureaucracy.

I believe it would be improper to assume that a woman taking an active part in the operations of her husband's business would try to abuse the unemployment insurance system. Yet, if she worked for a competitor, she would not be subject to such misconceptions. Bill C-218 precisely aims to put an end to such an unfair situation.

This discriminatory clause of the act is detrimental to all women from a human and social point of view because it denies them the right to their fair share and a fair treatment.

Therefore I ask the government to repeal paragraph 3(2)(c) of the Unemployment Insurance Act. I urge the government to get rid of the vicious and discriminatory measure by which the previous government deprived one million Canadians and Quebecers, mostly women, of their right to unemployment insurance at a time when they need it most.

[Social Security Program, October 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am not at all surprised at the comments of the hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine. I think there was a consensus in Quebec on education and occupational training from people with high credibility. This issue has nothing to do with political allegiance. I was naming all the stakeholders from the political, educational and labour communities and we all agree in Quebec that education and vocational training should be under Quebec's jurisdiction.

Civil servants told me that no one could understand a thing about the alignment of federal and provincial programs. We can see that the hon. member did not often have to look for a job and was never forced into the maze of programs delivered by Quebec and Ottawa.

One of the programs offered by the federal government, before the training program starts, is a needs analysis. It so happened that there was a two-year delay before it could be implemented and when we were about to start, the needs had changed and there were no more participants. During all this time, the people had not worked. So you can certainly not blame this on ill will on the part of the Bloc Quebecois if we do not understand.

We were elected with a majority in our ridings to defend Quebec's interests and I think, in this case, it means to repatriate our money.

I have not talked about transfers to provinces. The government wants to cut transfers so that the onus will be on the provinces to manage this cut-rate unemployment. The provinces will again be the ones to pick up the tab. And we all know that when provinces go broke, they turn to municipalities.

Therefore, I think that if provinces were to manage their own programs, the constituents and the public would really know who the culprit is. Now the federal and provincial governments are passing the buck back and forth.

[Social Security Program, October 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, maybe the government thinks it is making an effort. But between its rhetoric and reality, there is a world of difference. I believe that we must be wary of some of the proposals put forward in the working paper, especially with respect to women. I believe that when you revert to taking into account the spouse's salary to determine eligibility to unemployment insurance, this is a real step backward.

I believe that if this suggestion is accepted by the Liberal government, we will not be helping women. Most frequently unemployed people are women, therefore this is what I call a double standard. On one hand, the government allows tax havens such as family trusts, and on the other, it says that it is going to go on a witch hunt to catch unemployed women, to see if they are not dipping two or three times in the unemployment insurance pot, in which case they will get cut off. They will no longer be eligible.

With respect to Quebec, there is another side to the story. I believe that the real objective of the Liberal government is to get involved in job training. In Quebec, there is a consensus. All stakeholders, including the Bélanger-Campeau Commission, the unions, political parties, the Conseil du patronat, agree that Quebec should manage its own job training. This is an expensive bureaucracy for the federal government and Quebec, both in terms of money and time.

I do not believe that the Liberal government will be going in that direction. Quebec's unemployment rate has doubled since 1970. The Liberal government is pursuing the same policy as the Conservatives who lost the elections because of it. They wanted to make cuts in unemployment insurance, and reform social programs, but the Liberal Party promised jobs, jobs, jobs. This is where the Liberal Party is heading in the wrong direction. It should be offering to stimulate the economy, to stimulate business in order to create jobs.

Obviously, if the unemployment rate has doubled since 1970, it is because there are no jobs. What are we going to do with the frequently unemployed? We are going to penalize them. We are going to turn them into second-class unemployed workers, and women will be particularly penalized by this suggestion.

[Social Security Program, October 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I want to discuss the impact of the social program reform for women. As the Official Opposition critic for the status of women, I will specifically deal with the impact of the proposals tabled by the Minister of Human Resources Development.

The discussion paper includes several measures which are totally unacceptable to Canadians. The first one relates to the UI program. The proposed reform will result in reduced UI benefits for women. Indeed, if a person living with another one loses his job, the benefits paid to that person will be reduced when his spouse earns a good salary. Since, according to statistics, women earn about 70 per cent of what men make, they will be directly affected by that measure, because their benefits will be diminished and may even be reduced to nil.

This proposal is totally unacceptable. How can we implement such a policy and claim at the same time, on the international scene, that we promote the right of women to economic equality, as the Canadian government did at the Nairobi conference and will do again this fall in Beijing?

This is an insidious form of discrimination. Either we really try to promote the right of women to equality by ensuring that domestic policies are fair and take into account the situation of women, or else we stop claiming to be a world leader in that field. The government should make up its mind. At the very least, it should ensure that it does not increase, through irresponsible policies, women's dependence on men, thus perpetuating a context which is conducive to violence and exploitation.

Another proposal in the minister's discussion paper aims at reducing access to benefits. Under this proposal, people who are frequently unemployed, mainly those who have insecure jobs and many women are in this category, would see their benefits reduced. Again, this would primarily affect women, since they hold most of the seasonal jobs.

The document raises another question regarding unemployment insurance. I am referring to contributions made to the program. Indeed, one wonders if women who are ineligible for benefits because of their spouses' incomes will be forced to continue to contribute to the UI program, thus putting an even greater burden on the family income. In our opinion, this would be a hidden increase in the tax burden and would violate the promises made by the current Prime Minister.

Let us now turn to another aspect of the reform which deserves a very close look, namely the financing of post-secondary education. Here again, women are experiencing a setback. On October 6, the minister stated: "Let us put a lot more money back into the system. Let us make a much broader, wider system of grants and loans available to students of all kinds everywhere. They can get access to our system on a basis where they can repay the money based on their incomes".

A reduction in the transfer payments to the provinces will have a direct impact on provincial governments. These governments will have to choose between dealing with this new tax burden or transferring it to the universities. Either we increase taxes to pay the higher costs or the universities will have to significantly raise tuition fees, which will increase the students' level of indebtedness. This would be a setback, especially in Quebec, where we have succeeded in helping poorer students to attend college or university. Also, this will have a direct impact on women. As we know, women are poorer than men.

If we go back to the system where only the rich can afford post-secondary education, the percentage of female university students and graduates will drop considerably.

You do not have to be a statistician to know that the level of education is directly related to the level of income. Is this how we will reduce the dropout rate, by dashing the hopes of poorer students wanting to go to university and to improve their lot? Is

this how the Minister of Human Resources Development will improve economic opportunities for women?

I think the minister will only encourage students to increase their indebtedness level in order to be able to further their education. This is how we will end up with a two-tier university system like in the United States: a classy private system and a poor public one. There are no projects, guidelines or instructions on expanding day-care services, except for a statement that eventually, resources will be invested in this area. This is a major omission, and it reflects this government's failure to consider the daily needs of women.

How can women expect to go back to work or function satisfactorily in the work place, when every day they are faced with the problem of a shortage of day-care for their children? Women would have to earn at least $10 per hour to be able to pay for day-care and the transportation costs involved when a woman works and has children. Women would have to earn more than $10 an hour, so they can afford satisfactory day-care for their children while they are at work.

Many women, especially single mothers, will leave their jobs or will not be promoted because they do not have access to day-care or their incomes are not sufficient. One wonders what this government's priorities are. Are they about buying missiles for $400,000 each, so the Canadian army can make a good showing at competitions in Florida, or intercepting private communications through the Communications Security Establishment, an activity estimated to cost a modest $250 million annually?

Will the Minister of Human Resources Development show more concern about programs financing than his leader, who said he was not worried about the expenditures cleverly hidden in the Public Accounts? Would there not be a case for investing in our children's future rather than in unproductive activities? Where are this government's priorities? What needs is it willing to finance? One also wonders why, in preparing its reform proposals, the government failed to consider the unequal economic status of men and women and try to correct it.

We condemn these reform proposals which are a disaster for female workers, students and women who are frequently unemployed, proposals that contain no job creation strategy. Women need well-paying, steady jobs, but the only job creation measure the government has introduced since it was elected, the infrastructures program, has failed to increase women's participation in the labour market since these jobs did not draw on women's more traditional skills.

Women do not need any more talk about training, when training is a dead end since there are no jobs available. Women need real social reform, with measures that will help make them equal economic partners, not measures that merely consolidate the usual pattern of dependency and dropping out. Mr. Minister, some major changes will be necessary if women are to get their rightful place in the labour market.

[United Nations Day, October 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all Bloc Quebecois members, I am pleased to announce that today, October 24, is United Nations Day and marks the 50th anniversary of this international organization.

In a speech he gave in Montreal in May 1992, United Nations Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali reminded us that "to relate to the universal, one must first be true to oneself. That is why sound internationalization of modern life must be based on a solid sense of identity. Excessive or misunderstood internationalization could destroy cultures and melt them into a standard culture, from which the world has nothing to gain".

This quote is particularly significant today, when the UN will undergo-soon, we hope-an extensive reform. It faces many challenges in the months and years to come.

One of these challenges is the emergence of many new international players the UN will have to deal with. The radical changes in the international geopolitical context have led to a large increase in the number of players. Because of this, the new problems facing the international community have become even more complex and varied.

There is, however, something good in this as it reflects the reality, the will of the people.

We are pleased to note that the UN is concerned about a standard culture replacing national identities at a time when the Canadian government shamelessly claims that there is only one culture in Canada, a so-called Canadian culture. It is partly to fight this standardization process that the first action of a Quebec having achieved sovereignty following a fully legitimate process under international law will be to integrate into the complex web of multilateral relations by applying to join the UN.

In closing, I wish to express our sincere thanks to the United Nations Association in Canada and to all Quebecers and Canadians who helped shape the UN and make it so respectable in our eyes.

[Terrorism, October 19th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, approximately 20 people were killed and 40 wounded in a bombing this morning in Tel Aviv. The horror we have witnessed was appalling, and we wish to extend our deepest sympathies to the victims' families.

Just days after it was announced that the Nobel Peace Prize had been awarded to Israeli leaders and the leader of the PLO and two days after Israel and Jordan announced they had reached a comprehensive agreement, there is cause for considerable concern about the effect of this deadly attack on the ongoing peace negotiations.

We strongly condemn this attack. The enemies of peace must not win. According to the PLO leader, the best way to respond to the acts of such radicals is through the pursuit and intensification of the peace process. Let us hope that the peace process will continue.

[Social Program Reform, October 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, since this proposal is an unacceptable setback for women after decades of struggle for increased financial independence, will the Minister immediately undertake to withdraw this proposal which is in fact discriminatory?

[Social Program Reform, October 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.

The Minister's discussion paper confirms the worst fears recently reported by the media. Not only is this document going after the most destitute members of our society, but it is targeting women specifically. It proposes to make the spouse's income level a criterion for UI entitlement.

How can the Minister justify his approach that makes women's right to UI benefits subject to their spouse's income level?

[Social Security Programs, October 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know what the hon. member thinks as a woman and as the status of women critic. I would like to know her opinion on the minister's proposal that unemployment insurance benefits be reduced and based on family income in the case of the frequently unemployed.

We all know that it is mostly women who hold temporary and part-time jobs. Is the hon. member not of the opinion that these measures would bring women's financial equality backwards?

I would also like to hear the views of the hon. member on the Minister's proposal that the family income be taken into account when establishing the level of benefits. Does she not think it is a regressive measure showing that women are still second class citizens?

[Social Security Programs, October 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question to the hon. member in her capacity as a woman and as the status of women critic. I would like to know what she thinks of the Minister's proposal that unemployment insurance benefits be reduced and based on family income in the case of the frequently unemployed.

We all know that it is mostly women who hold temporary and part-time jobs. I would like to ask the member if she does not see these measures as being regressive for women's financial equality.

Another aspect of the Minister's proposals suggesting that the benefits be based on family income is that a woman's benefits will be subordinate to her spouse's income. Does the hon. member not feel we are still treating women as citizens of-