Debates of March 8th, 1994

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.

Supplementary Estimates (B), 1993-94

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, 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.

Land Claims

[Jack Iyerak Anawak, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

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.

International Women's Day

[Sheila Finestone, Liberal, 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.

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.

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.

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,

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.

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.

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.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

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.

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:

Put the money where it should be.

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.

[Jan Brown, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

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.

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.

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.

Supplementary Estimates, 1993-94

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, 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.

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.

(Motion agreed to.)

Petitions

[Rex Crawford, Liberal, Kent, ON]

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.

Questions On The Order Paper

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, 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.

Supply

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

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.

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

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.

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.

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,

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.

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.

[Sheila Finestone, Liberal, 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.

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.

Is the hon. minister speaking on debate?

[Sheila Finestone, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

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.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC]

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.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC]

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.