Christiane Gagnon

[Income Tax Act, October 5th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to take part in this debate concerning families and particularly the twin roles played by many mothers as both educator and provider. I will thus limit my speech to families with children of school and pre-school age.

The figures on working women are constantly changing. For example, in 1969, only 30 per cent of both parents had a job, whereas in 1990, that figure had soared to 71 per cent. Thus we see that a large majority of mothers in two-parent families are now on the job market. In my opinion, this is due mainly to the financial requirements of the family. Canada wide, in 1991, 4.1 per cent of double income families had an income under the low income level.

If it were not for the spouse's wages, the rate of low income families would have been close to 15 per cent. The situation was more serious for two-parent families with children under 13. Indeed, in 1987, 12.6 per cent of them had an income under the low income level, whereas if the parent mainly responsible for child care, usually the mother, had not had a job, that figure would have been as high as 25 per cent.

So we see how vitally important it is for a large number of families that mothers work outside the home. However, this presence on the job market is threatened by some factors, including poor child care services. A background document produced by the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women in 1994 revealed that, according to data from 1988, child care problems can have an effect on parents participation in the workforce and on their productivity.

It also said that those problems could affect the productivity of mothers or their participation in the workforce three times more than fathers. So, we see that families need the work of mothers and that it must be supported by adequate child care services. A second explanation of the increased participation of women in the workforce is their desire of fulfilment through a career. Women now represent the majority of B.A. holders. So, they naturally feel the need to apply the knowledge that they received during their studies.

This CACSW document provided the very conclusive results of a poll conducted on female teenagers from across Canada. Almost 90 per cent of girls in the 8th, 9th and 10th grades expected to work full time ten years down the road. Also, more than half firmly believed that they would work for pay long after completing their studies. So, women work to address the financial needs of their families and because they want to and can contribute to the development of society.

Having done this very brief overview of the participation of mothers in the workforce, let us examine the bill before us. This bill provides for the distribution of income among spouses, from the bread-winner to the spouse staying at home to take care of a child who does not go to school full time. The real purposes of this legislation are to create employment and free up daycare spaces, to give credit to homemakers and to enhance the quality of life for families.

Before I comment on these, allow me to review briefly the monetary situation of women living as part of a couple. In 1991, in 75 per cent of all two-income families, the men were earning much more than their spouses. Therefore, in most cases, the recipient of part of the spousal income would be the woman. I will analyze the bill with this in mind.

We do not agree with some of the intent of this bill when it comes to lowering the high unemployment level and dealing with the problems resulting from the shortage of spaces in daycare centres. Of course, these problems are real and we have denounced them repeatedly. However, they must not be used as the basis of an argument against women. Quite the opposite. We should acknowledge the problems of mothers who stay home and take the necessary action to make sure they are economically and socially equal. Women who stay home feel isolated and lack social support. They are affected by the lack of contacts with other adults.

They are also strangers to the influence networks that are so vital to job search. We know that 75 per cent of all women who find jobs have access to a network. That is just as true in politics as it is in other areas.

We also know that the immediate result of years devoted to housekeeping and children is a considerable loss of income and various problems with re-entry into the labour force: the women need updating of skills and retraining; they have no relevant experience.

Finally, when children leave, mothers have to face the empty nest syndrome. It is true for those who are still married, but much more so for women who also face a divorce or a separation. Their emotional problems will greatly increase their ordeal before they can get back on their feet.

This bill seeks to increase the number of women staying at home. Who would benefit from such a measure? Neither women nor society in general, which would be deprived of their positive contributions. On the other hand, when we consider that families need the mother's salary, we must conclude that the proposal of the member for Mississauga-South is intended only for families

where the father's salary is the highest of the two. The male bourgeois dream lives on.

What about the situation of women who are victims of conjugal violence? We know how determining is the control exercised over the victims in this kind of relationship. The bill provides for the spouse who works to share his income. How and when would this be accomplished? There are reasons to fear that this situation would tighten even more the financial and emotional control exerted by an abusive man over the woman who shares his life. We must be careful not to make matters worse for women with this legislation.

I tried to briefly explain the reasons why I oppose Bill C-256. I am sure the author of the bill had good intentions and was committed to improving the situation of these families. However, I think the considered changes will not do so. The evolution of society is closely linked to the improvement of the condition of women and what women want is greater financial independence. They want their specificity to be recognized, as well as their contribution to the life of their community. They want to be equal, and equality is achieved through independence, not subjugation, whether financial or otherwise.

[Criminal Code, October 5th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc Quebecois reacted with amazement to the Supreme Court decision, based on the Charter of Rights, which admits extreme drunkenness as a legitimate defence for sexual assault.

From now on, someone accused of sexual assault who can prove that he was so drunk as to be almost insane or acting on impulse will be able to evade his responsibilities.

Nevertheless, common sense tells us that someone who commits a crime as serious as sexual assault after he has voluntarily consumed too much alcohol or drugs cannot use his state of mind as an excuse or to seek lenient treatment from the court.

On behalf of the thousands of women who have been raped, will the federal government amend the Criminal Code? That is the question which the Minister of Justice must answer as soon as possible!

[Criminal Code, October 4th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I ask the House for unanimous consent to propose an amendment to the title of my Bill, C-277, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (circumcision of female persons), by removing the word "circumcision" and replacing it with the words "genital mutilation".

I would also like the English version of the title to be amended accordingly.

(Motion agreed to.)

[Petitions, October 4th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, excuse me, I do not have a petition to present, but I have a motion. Should I have presented it earlier?

[Canadian Heritage, October 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I was saying that the purpose of this bill is to promote, with our own money, a single vision which melts Quebec's culture into a multiculturalism program which presents problems for Quebec and which will also present problems for English Canada.

In fact, there is no consensus regarding this multiculturalism program. We should have a debate on the objectives of such a program. We want newcomers to adopt Quebec's culture, to learn French and to respect our institutions and customs. Indeed, it is one thing to know these institutions and customs but quite another to respect them.

This is what we mean when we say that we want to manage our own programs. We want to have control over the programs and the money used to promote the distinct character of our society. We speak French and we want to promote our own culture.

[Canadian Heritage, October 3rd, 1994]

I can see that the hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine still has not understood the meaning of my intervention. The federal government invested in the movie Octobre because that is where the money is. If Quebec had had the money, then Quebec would have been asked to fund this type of production.

I am sorry, but I have to say that this bill will just aggravate the problems related to Quebec's cultural identity.

I am also aware that these funds come from the money we give the federal government to manage our country, which means that Quebec pays for these federal grants. We would like to see how we could manage our own programs. Of course, it would look bad if the federal government did not give anything to our producers and artists from Quebec. Nevertheless, it is an historic event. We could have a debate about the October Crisis here in this House, show you the movie, show you how some Quebecers were treated and how Mr. Trudeau sent in the army. This crisis-

[Canadian Heritage, October 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, given the questions asked by the hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, it seems like he did not understand the points I was making.

Earlier this afternoon, in my speech, I talked about the federal government's involvement in what should be provincial jurisdictions. What we want in Quebec is to manage our own money and to decide what we want to do with regard to promotion in Quebec, outside Quebec and throughout the world.

For the federal government to implement institutions is one thing, but to decide what to do in the province of Quebec is quite another thing.

As a matter of fact, I sit on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage where many questions will be raised. We have met with artists' associations which are complaining about the decisions made by the government and the federal institutions, because these decisions do not completely allow the

government of Quebec to maintain its own institutions and jurisdictions.

I can see that the hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine did not understand a thing I said. We do not want to hear about how many millions were invested; we want to decide, by ourselves, how to spend that money.

I think I have answered the questions put by the hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine.

[Canadian Heritage, October 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-53. This legislation, described as a mere technicality, provides an ideal opportunity to explain Quebec's perspective to our fellow Canadians.

As you know, the Bloc Quebecois has the mandate to protect Quebec's interests at the federal level. Those interests are largely dependent on the development of Quebec's own cultural life as well as on its exclusive control over it. This is what Mr. René Arpin, chairman of the advisory group on Quebec's cultural policy, said at the hearings of the standing commission on culture, in June 1992.

He said that "Quebec's distinct character and sound management of priorities require that the province have complete control over its cultural choices". Mr. Arpin added that "the federal government must completely withdraw from the cultural sector, regardless of Quebec's constitutional future".

Around the same time, the then Quebec minister of Cultural Affairs, Mrs. Frulla-Hébert, who can certainly not be labelled a sovereignist, said: "When it comes to programs, the federal government does little or no consultating". Genuine consultation is practically non-existent, and, when it does occur, it is often at Quebec's request. When, as often happens, it is faced with a fait accompli , Quebec has to state its real needs after the fact''.

Since Bill C-53 mainly concerns federal activities in the cultural sphere, I will discuss certain aspects of federal encroachment in this area and, more specifically, the causes of this intrusion, how it is expressed in the bill, and its harmful impact on Quebec's development as an autonomous State.

Federalism or the invasion of Quebec: the origin of Quebec's problems lies in the very nature of the federal system. In fact, Quebec is considered to be just another province, one of ten, which is a denial of reality. Federalism means a central government that must reconcile the usually divergent interests of various regions and cultures.

Because the Canadian government, in its infinite wisdom, decided that some day we should have a Canadian identity, it blithely ignored the situation in Quebec. Now this situation is quite different from Canada's. Quebecers are not concerned about their identity. Studies keep reminding us that Quebec's identity is alive and well, thank you very much. Canada's existential problems do not concern Quebecers.

Quebecers worry more about their economic and cultural development. However, since English Canada is seeking its elusive identity, Quebecers will have to contribute financially to this quest for the Holy Grail. This, without any decision-making power, since the power is shared among representatives of the ten provinces. That is one of the ways in which the federal system has an impact on Quebec.

Another side of federalism we cannot ignore is the negative consequences of the federal government's tremendous spending powers. These spending powers were gradually granted to the Canadian government by the courts which were, and still are, dominated by the legal profession from English Canada. However, as constitutional expert Gérald Beaudoin has pointed out, the courts are uneasy about with this power.

After analysing the jurisprudence in this area, Beaudoin noted that judges often issue formal warnings to the effect that spending powers should not be legislated in an area under provincial jurisdiction. He wrote that it was clear that abuse of spending powers confused the issue of government responsibilities in a federation and could upset a sometimes fragile balance.

The message is clear. Spending powers which initially were to be exercised only in exceptional circumstances are now used, at the drop of a hat to intrude in areas under provincial jurisdiction. Professor Beaudoin also quoted Professor Jean Beetz, former Justice of the Supreme Court, and we found his comments very revealing. The former Justice wondered about the financial power of federal institutions. Despite ineffectual warnings in the jurisprudence, a new kind of legislation had been created that allowed the federal government to influence provincial jurisdiction by dispensing its largesse as it saw fit.

The minister's powers, duties and functions under this legislation mostly concern matters of provincial jurisdiction. I am referring to the arts; the status of the artist; cultural heritage and industries; the conservation, exportation and importation of cultural property; and, to a lesser extent, amateur sport.

The federal government will be investing more than a billion dollars a year in Quebec on culture only, and we contend that this legislation is a form of back door intervention and an

encroachment on provincial jurisdiction. We strongly denounce such federal schemes in Quebec.

As I said earlier, Quebec officials have been asking for years for the exclusion of the federal government in the area of culture and the transfer of all powers to Quebec. Yet, section 4 of Bill C-53 would give Heritage Canada full power in the area of Canadian cultural development. Subsection (2) lists the areas of jurisdiction, and I will give you some which worry us: the arts, including cultural aspects of the status of the artist; cultural heritage and industries, including performing arts, visual and audio-visual arts, publishing, sound recording, film, video and literature; the formulation of cultural policy as it relates to foreign investment; the conservation, exportation and importation of cultural property. This is not just encroachment, this is a full-scale invasion.

The predatory attitude of the federal government illustrates very well the impossible Canadian duality. On one side, English Canada is seeking a national cultural umbrella, hoping it will bring about a Canadian identity-a national obsession-and hence a Canadian culture. On the other side is Quebec, where identity and culture are alive, dynamic and strictly our own.

Quebec does not need federal intervention. On the contrary, to ensure that Quebec culture continues to blossom, we must be free from federal intrusion. We must be given the money spent in Quebec by the central government to use as we choose and according to priorities that we would set ourselves to meet our needs.

There are at the present time an astounding number of overlaps and duplications between the cultural institutions and programs of Quebec and Canada. Here are some: the arts councils, the state television networks, the archives, the national libraries. Why not save millions for the taxpayers by eliminating these duplications and giving Quebec sole responsibility in an area so vital for its future as a nation?

Culture is what drives society. In a publication entitled Le Québec dans un monde nouveau, the present Quebec Premier said it in these words: Our culture is the blend of our common history and heritage, of our common values and institutions. Our life as a community, our solidarity and collective vision are based on our culture''. He then added:Culture is the expression of a feeling of belonging to a community, it is the very fibre of our people. It is incarnated in our way of life, our way of thinking and creating. Within the particular North American context, Quebec culture must continually assert itself, promote creation expressing its originality, and seek enrichment by assimilating contributions from outside its borders. These are the requirements necessary to our vitality and survival''.

Within such a context, it is easy to see how different the Quebec culture is from the Canadian experience. We must promote the development of our culture, but not within a framework imposed by a government representing the other group.

This was the conclusion reached by two well-known Quebecers who followed one another as Quebec Minister for Communications and Cultural Affairs. In 1992, Mr. Jean-Paul L'Allier and Mr. Denis Vaugeois wrote: "Political subordination and economic inferiority can only breed an atrophied and diminished cultural life. It can be artificially sustained for a certain period of time as is the case in Canada and Quebec. But money is not enough. Inspiration is needed. We must be able to rely on our own resources. True development cannot come from outside".

It is imperative for the federal government to withdraw from Quebec culture and to compensate the Quebec government accordingly.

Multiculturalism is another area under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Canadian Heritage. Here again, Quebec's specificity is not being respected.

There is in Quebec a consensus on how to deal with our fellow citizens from outside Quebec. The position adopted 20 years ago and systematically maintained since then is based on integration and respect. Quebec society favours the full involvement of all its members, whether they were born here or elsewhere. However, in order to meet this goal, integration into Quebec society is emphasized. We expect new immigrants to learn the national language, French, and to familiarize themselves with our traditions. This position does not imply in any way that racism or discrimination in any form is tolerated. On the contrary, Quebec society makes it a point to respect differences and individual rights.

Yet, respecting differences is not the same as officially promoting and institutionalizing these differences, as the Canadian multiculturalism policy calls for. Quebec has chosen to integrate its new members into Quebec society rather than the opposite. There is a major and, in my opinion, irreconcilable difference.

This is another area in which the central government flouts Quebec policy. The federal government legislates, creates programs and spends considerable amounts to promote the opposite approach. While, in our opinion, respect for individual rights clearly comes under provincial jurisdiction, the federal government continues to encroach on Quebec jurisdiction. We denounce and will always denounce this situation. That is another fine example of federalism's benefits.

Before closing, I will point out another insidious aspect of this bill, namely the Canadian heritage minister's duty to promote and develop English-speaking minorities. No one needs a history lesson to know that only Quebec has an English-speaking minority.

Quebec anglophones are the best-treated linguistic minority in Canada, a fact that some of them even recognize. Representatives of French-speaking groups from outside Quebec would be easily satisfied with the status enjoyed by English-speaking Quebecers. Of course, I am not saying that there is no room for improvement. However, Quebec treats its minority with a very open mind.

It is in that context that we question the federal government's intentions in this area. In pursuing the objective of promoting the development of that so-called minority, does the government intend to legislate against Quebec's policies, even though these policies are very generous? Since federal legislation takes precedence over provincial legislation, Quebec's language policy could thus be subverted.

Does the government intend to spend large amounts to promote English in Quebec? Does it intend to give anglophones social and cultural facilities that are out of proportion to this linguistic minority's share of the population?

Let me reassure you that neither I nor my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois nor the government in power in Quebec have any intention of reducing in any way the advantages that our English-speaking fellow citizens enjoy. On the contrary, the Constitution of a sovereign Quebec would confirm the rights and advantages that the English community enjoys now. That is public knowledge.

However, I am concerned about what the federal government actually intends to do in Quebec. The government has no obligation to consult the provincial government and would probably feel no obligation to do so, as history shows. These issues are too important to give the central government complete power in this area in Quebec without saying a word.

Another issue raised by the bill is equal treatment for French- and English-speaking minorities. How can we ensure that francophone minorities will benefit fairly from federal largesse? How can we ensure that they will be able to catch up with Quebec's anglophone minority to some extent? Bill C-53 remains silent on this fundamental aspect of the treatment of minorities in Canada.

Quebec knows what to do; it knows what to do for its culture and for its minority. The central government should restrict itself to its own field of jurisdiction. Perhaps that is what good government means!

[Genital Mutilation, October 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, is the Deputy Prime Minister not of the opinion that the best way to put a stop to those inhuman practices is to criminalize them through specific clauses leaving no possible margin for doubt?

[Genital Mutilation, October 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. During the Gynaecologists and Obstetricians Conference held in Montreal last week, the physicians confirmed they have on occasion treated young girls suffering from the after-effects of genital mutilations done right here in Canada.

These statements show that excisions and infibulations are more widespread than we would have thought. Is the Deputy Prime Minister still of the opinion that the current provisions of the Criminal Code are sufficient, as the Minister of Justice says?