Debates of March 8th, 1994

Supply

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Madam Speaker, I believe that mothers should have a choice. I never said that they should not. They should have a choice to work. I also believe they should have a choice to remain in the home. I believe that opportunity is rapidly diminishing. I think this is where the government comes in. Its intended expenditure over the next years is going to put greater demands on the family, on mothers and on fathers. It is here that I believe the choice is going to be lost.

In reply to this equality balance, I believe that it is diminishing whether we like it or not. Governments should quickly do something about it and can do something about it in this Parliament.

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary North, AB]

Madam Speaker, this is a very interesting debate and I congratulate the members of the Official Opposition for raising these issues. They are very important to society and should be properly examined. Sometimes they generate more heat than light, but I believe the quality of the debate today was very good.

I think the principle we are talking about today is important, one of equity and equality. It is something clearly that many members of this House, probably all members of this House, believe in very passionately and very fundamentally. I think it is sometimes in the interpretation of how this can be delivered that we have different ideas and legitimately so.

The Reform Party has proposed an amendment or an addition to the motion before us. Measures to support the desired outcomes that are set forth in this motion will be provided, will be delivered through providing equality of opportunity without resorting to gender discrimination. I believe that is an issue worth thinking about and worth debating.

The Reform Party does advocate equality of all Canadians regardless of gender. It also supports equality of opportunity without demanding equality of outcome. These are difficult concepts sometimes because they might seem mutually exclusive.

As Canadians we need to decide what kinds of personal choices and freedoms will play a role in what decisions and policies we put in place.

Individuals have the right to make choices for themselves. It enhances their dignity. It is sad that many men, women and children in our society who do not have the same freedom of choice live in very disadvantaged conditions. When these disadvantaged conditions are predicated solely on gender, age or ethnic and linguistic background, it is something we ought not to tolerate. Those kinds of distinctions should not determine the choices or opportunities we have.

Sometimes we simply do not make good choices. It has nothing to do with gender or any other kind of background. Our own involvement in life if you will has brought about those results. I sometimes wonder whether those choices should be corrected and compensated by the hard work and money of other people simply because those making the choices might happen to be women or in some other category seen to be disadvantaged.

We should help those people who need it, those who are truly unable to help themselves or have suffered misfortune. That has been a product of civilized society for centuries. However we must be careful in asking for special protection or special consideration based on things like gender. It could amount to an admission of inability to succeed on a level playing field with other members of society, to make good choices, to advance through competence, diligence and hard work, experience, learning and correcting our mistakes.

It is unfair to women to say they somehow cannot compete on that level. It is unfair to say that because of that they must be provided with extra money because someone has decided what they are doing is just as valuable as what a higher paid individual is doing, or someone has decided they must be given a particular level of housing through public contributions. It is untrue that women in this society through their own competence, ability and hard work are unable to provide these things for themselves and their families.

There may be issues that society needs to work on to make sure that women are not unfairly disadvantaged. One example is a woman being left with child care responsibilities when the other parent sails off into the wild blue yonder without carrying

those responsibilities. However, that is far different from setting artificial standards and saying that no matter what you do, no matter what your level of effort, no matter what your level of input, no matter what choices you make, other people are responsible for giving you those things. That is unfair and unwise in our society.

Others have mentioned Agnes Macphail, the first woman ever elected to Parliament. I have been reading some of her speeches. Like many women in this Chamber today, she certainly was no shrinking violet. She summed up her attitude toward the subject of today's debate with these words: "I want for myself what I want for other women, absolute equality". That to me says it all. Equality is not other people suggesting that women cannot make it on their own and therefore they have to be given a lift or a leg up any more than we would do for any other member of society. Yes, we should do that for people but not because they are women or because they are from a particular linguistic or cultural background but simply because we help each other as members of society.

When we look at today's amendment and our support for it, it is very important to establish a decision and a deliberate policy of not making gender discrimination. When we help members of society and when we decide the level of support we give to people, that decision must be based on need and not on other identifiable characteristics.

We ought not to compartmentalize society into different groups and marginalize people based on physical characteristics. We should deal with the issues that affect and hurt us all, that cause us pain and dislocation and that have broad implications for everyone in society. We need to treat them as people issues, as issues that are important to us all.

I urge this House to support the amendment we put forward.

[Julian Reed, Liberal, Halton—Peel, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have listened to the last three debates with great interest.

I heard the passionate debate by the hon. member for Halifax pointing out that the struggle for equality and the struggle for the ability of women to freely make their decisions are not finished yet. I listened to the hon. member for Calgary Northeast whose vision of this motion seems to be that the socialist hordes are waiting outside the door ready to trample a civilized society. Of course, the most recent speaker tried to inject some fairness into the whole debate.

I would like to tell a little story which exemplifies how slow this process has been over the years. I had the privilege of growing up in a household with a mother for whom equality was taken for granted. She was a modern language teacher educated in Paris during the 1920s when that was not supposed to happen. Her sister, my aunt with whom I talked about an hour and a half ago is a retired anaesthetist.

There was no question of income equality or gender discrimination. They were both at the top of their fields. They did what they did and were the very best at it. They were pioneers. The reason they achieved what they did was because their mother understood the importance of seeing they got an education to the utmost extent of their ability. They had the ability to make their own decisions freely and clearly then without being shackled by the things which are presently holding women back. That process has been very slow. If we do not make some kind of change or some kind of move we may be looking at the same kind of evolution 50 years from now.

A motion like this does not develop a gathering of the socialist hordes. Rather it recognizes that women who are on the move need to have the freedom to make those decisions on their own. Hon. members will be able to relate to many situations right now of women who are precluded from deciding their futures on their own terms.

Does the hon. member not agree with the necessity of being free to make decisions? Does she not agree that all women do not yet have that capability and that perhaps we in this House have some opportunity to advance their cause?

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary North, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments. I believe we think in the same way. I would fight to the death for freedom of opportunity and to have equal respect with anybody in this House, in business, in the professions and in society. That is a fundamental entitlement to any individual.

It is probably not true to say we all have complete freedom to make decisions. There are a lot of limits on the decisions we can make as individuals in this society. We have to recognize that and live with it. Gender or physical characteristics should not limit our freedom to make decisions.

More than any other country Canada has tremendous freedoms and we should be proud of that. As women we have demonstrated we can contribute significantly in all levels of society on a level playing field. Abraham Lincoln said that if you have what it takes, people will take what you have. It is pretty clear in Canadian society we have a tremendous opportunity no matter what our gender is to bear the truth of that out.

We must give people those chances and the results will speak for themselves.

[Pat O'Brien, Liberal, London—Middlesex, ON]

Madam Speaker, first may I join the other members in congratulating you for presiding over Question Period for the first time today.

On this International Women's Day it is my pleasure to stand proudly as a Canadian man and member of this House of Commons to support the opposition motion. After a couple of the recent speeches I hardly recognize the motion as was said earlier by one of my colleagues. What we are actually speaking to is:

That this House urge the government to recognize the principle of economic equality between women and men and to implement measures, in areas of federal jurisdiction, to guarantee women equity in employment, wages and living conditions.

The hon. member for Calgary North quoted a famous Canadian woman. The key word was equality and that is the key word in the motion. Yet we hear fears from members opposite particularly I am sad to say from certain members of the Reform Party.

We hear fears about quotas and these artificial numbers that are going to be set up to guarantee women these opportunities. I do not read the word quota anywhere in the motion in front of us and I do not read it in the amendment proposed by the Reform Party.

I share the view that frankly it seems some members opposite do not understand the motion before us. I do and I am going to be very pleased to support the motion when the opportunity comes.

The hon. member for Calgary North mentioned that certain issues may have to be dealt with concerning equal opportunity for women. I would suggest the word to use is not "may". A number of problems still exist in our society that need to be addressed. I would like to take a few minutes to give an overview, as I see it, of the barriers that women face in 1994.

The biggest barrier is an attitudinal one. We can see this in the history of this country. During the Olympics we all very proudly recognized and applauded the efforts of Canadian women and men in winning a number of medals and in conducting themselves so wonderfully on the international athletic stage. We need look no further than the sport which attracts us so much, ice hockey, and the fact that for a long time it was seen as strictly a sport for men.

I come from something of an athletic background. I cannot help but make that reference. Hockey was not for girls. It was thought to be too rough and too fast, which is nonsense. The fastest growing amateur sport today is ice hockey for women; for girls, young women, and women of all ages. I am sure that Madam Speaker is probably very adept on skates out on the canal, as I would like to try to experience myself. One needs go no further than that particular sport to know a myth has been debunked very effectively by Canadian women who have won world championships in hockey the past several years.

Another major problem is that of behavioural discrimination. We have been taught too often that boys must be aggressive, tough and outgoing but girls must be passive, docile, "ladylike" and not get themselves dirty and be involved in aggressive activities, athletic or non-athletic. That is a very destructive attitude and it is one that as a parent I have done everything possible not to inculcate in my own three children, and my wife has been very supportive in that.

The right to vote is worth reconsidering. It was not until 1918 that women got the right to vote in federal elections. We heard earlier some members of the Bloc castigating the government for the fact that it is not doing enough to assist women. Sadly I have to recall for all members of the House that the last province to give women the right to vote was the province of Quebec. I know that province has come way since that time, as we all have, but I do not think there are a lot of lessons for the government to learn from members opposite, some of whom unfortunately appear to be a little ignorant of their history around women's issues and the right to vote.

Before I was honoured with election to this House I was in the field of education. It is a historical fact, unfortunately, in Canada and in many countries that there has been significantly less encouragement of girls and women to pursue their education. All too often that has been sad reality.

There has been the myth that young women could only pursue certain fields of study, that somehow they were not equipped to go into particular areas that were somehow reserved for men. It has been a very negative attitude and one that has been very limiting to women in Canadian history. Thank goodness it is fast finding its place in the reality ash heap where it belongs. It simply bears no semblance to truth.

I would like to talk about employment opportunities for women. I recall there have been and still are unfortunately some very real barriers. We all know about the language referring to policeman and fireman. We are making very important strides in changing this kind of sexist language. As a city councillor I well remember in London, Ontario, just a few years ago supporting a motion to do away with the historic term "alderman" and to go with the more neutral term of "councillor". We heard the wails and the cries from some people that we could not change the historic term "alderman" and that somehow the heavens would fall down on us. That was silly. Now it is very commonly accepted and the more appropriate term is in place.

My municipality of London, Ontario very recently hired its first female firefighter. This is the appropriate term for such persons. We can see that firsts are being made every day in our

society and they are a long time overdue. There are, not may be, real employment limitations still on women in our society today.

What we need is a revolution in our attitudes as a Canadian society about what is the proper place of women. I am very pleased to have seen and heard reference to the statement that the proper place for women is in the House. I am sure everyone has seen that. It is under a picture of this Chamber. I applaud that and got a great kick out of it, as I am sure most men have. We know that women should have every opportunity and certainly have every ability to represent Canadians just as well as any other person. It should not be a factor of gender, race, religion, et cetera. Very slowly we are coming around to some of the attitudinal changes that are needed.

It is a sad reality that women are too often working only in clerical, sales and service jobs. In 1991 over 50 per cent of working women were in these jobs, whereas for men that figure was only 30 per cent.

Again I say it is not that there may be limitations on equal opportunity employment for women. Anyone who looks at the reality knows there are limitations that have to be addressed and finally are being addressed. The government intends to move forward very aggressively in that regard.

I am sure we all accept that by and large women bear much more the responsibility for the Canadian family. I well recall my own mother being the backbone of our family. I pay tribute to her for her love, courage and support of our family over the years. My wife shoulders more responsibility for our family than I do. She is making a sacrifice as many of the spouses of people in this House today are, male and female spouses both.

In my case, my wife is making a significant sacrifice and is taking on greater responsibility so I can have the opportunity and the privilege of serving the people of London-Middlesex in the House of Commons. I thank her for that and I appreciate the sacrifice. This is normally the role that women find themselves in. The sacrifices in the interests of the family far more often come from women than men. That ought not be made light of. It ought to be acknowledged as a reality and ought to be appreciated for what it is.

My wife and I have two sons and one daughter and it is very important to us that they be treated equally and encouraged to live their lives fully with no restraints based on gender for any of them. I heard hon. members earlier today express that was their experience and I applaud that. It is certainly the experience that we were trying to make sure our children live. However, all too often it is not the Canadian experience and we have to do more in that regard.

I come also from a municipal councillor background, as I mentioned earlier, and it is a sad fact that single parent families, by and large, are led by women. In 1991, 62 per cent of women-led families were below the poverty line. That is an incredible number, an unacceptable number and it has to change.

One need only look at the media to recognize that they fall far short of the mark in trying to make an attitudinal shift toward this issue. There is little interest shown in the activities of women in the media. I well remember many times, women's athletic teams complaining that they were not getting equal coverage. All too often I recall women councillors on city council feeling that they were somehow not receiving fair treatment. These were not exaggerations; you really had to support what they were saying because the reality was there for all to see.

On the issue of pay equity, women receive on average 72 per cent of what men earn. I would think that anyone who is fixated on financial matters, as my colleagues from the Reform Party are, and that is not necessarily a bad thing, how can they then not realize there is a pay equity problem is beyond me. From some of the comments I heard earlier it seems to be getting by some of the members, and I just do not understand how it can.

The issue of violence against women is a huge problem in the country today. The issues of family violence and sadistic pornography need to be addressed now.

When Canadian women cannot feel as safe as men on the streets, then obviously there is a problem. When your feeling of safety and your real safety is different because you are a woman, it is a national problem that needs to be recognized as such and should be addressed.

The question of political leadership has been raised several times by previous speakers. I fully support the fact that we will see more women as members of Parliament over the next few years. It is a very positive step that we have record numbers of women in the House right now. Our party has done everything it possibly can to ensure it takes place.

Only by aggressive action are we going to address these issues. I am proud, as a Liberal member of Parliament, to be a member of a party that appointed the first woman Speaker to the very seat that you occupy now, Madam Speaker. The first woman Governor General, the same woman, the Right Hon. Jean Sauvé was appointed to that position by a Liberal government. The same Right Hon. Madam Sauvé is being honoured today, as we all know, by the issuing of a Canadian stamp in her honour.

Many, if not most, of the first actions taken by governments in Canada to advance the cause of women I am proud to say were taken by Liberal governments. On our side of the House today we see the Deputy Prime Minister several cabinet ministers who are women.

Strides have been made, but further change will only be made by aggressive action by political parties and all Canadians who sincerely believe that this issue has to be addressed, that it is not going to go away and solve itself. As was mentioned earlier,

fully 50 per cent of appointments by the Liberal government since the election to various positions have been appointments of women.

It is important we encourage women of all ages to reject limits on their full and equal participation in our society, including governments, maybe especially governments. Canadians of all races have found out that the way to stop discrimination is by getting hold of the levers of power. My background is Irish Canadian and Irish immigrants to Canada found that out. Immigrant groups throughout our history have learned that lesson: You stop discrimination by becoming those who make the laws. Women are learning that lesson and I applaud that. I hope to see far more than 18 per cent of members of Parliament as women MPs some time in the near future.

I am pleased that one of the members of Parliament is part of the London, Ontario Liberal MP team, the member for London West. It is important that a full co-operative effort be made by men and women members on all sides of the House to work together to improve the decorum of the House, which I think is better but certainly could still be improved. In the various committees and in all the responsibilities of a member of Parliament it is very important that a teamwork approach be taken and that women members be fully included as equal partners because they are. They have been equally elected, they are equally talented and able, and it is very important we conduct ourselves in that way.

I can only relate to my own experience in 13 years of municipal government. Some of my best supporters and workers in campaigns were women. It has been my pleasure to encourage and help several women to run for office in London and I intend to do that again this fall when our municipal elections are held in Ontario.

It is important that we realize that politics and government is not a profession somehow limited to men. No profession should somehow be reserved for men. Unfortunately, that still is the case in the minds of many Canadians.

Our Liberal red book has made important commitments and our government has started to see these through already; the need to ensure equal opportunity for women, a strenghthening of the employment equity act, the need to do more in the area of research for women's health care. It is a fact that women's health care has been short-changed in funding. The red book addresses that need and the government will see that commitment through. There is a need to do more in the area of child care, a need to do more in the area of small business where women are twice as successful as men. That is very important. These are all red book commitments that I am proud to say this government will certainly see through to fruition.

In closing, I say that we need some changes and we need them now. We need changes in societal attitudes. We need changes in law. We need changes in government. There are problems and we must find the solutions. I want my daughter and all Canadian young women to have every opportunity just the same as my two sons, the same opportunity to pursue whatever career they want in this country with no restrictions, no limitations. Only then will we really fully realize our potential as a nation.

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my hon. colleague who provided a detailed presentation of the many problems faced by women. I was surprised to hear him say, in reference to some of my colleagues' remarks, that this government did not have to take any advice from the Official Opposition, if I understood correctly, since Quebec was the last province to enfranchise women. I want to remind my hon. colleague that the right to vote, both in Canada and in Quebec, was won by women who valiantly fought for it and that it was men who granted that right.

Of course, in those days, Quebec was going through what historians called the dark ages, but I want to point out that since 1960, since the quiet revolution, Quebec has progressed by leaps and bounds, to the extent that impartial, and often enlightened, observers recognize in Quebec a leader in many areas.

Since today is International Women's Day, let me highlight a few measures in favour of women, such as the lump sum payment at birth, the preventive withdrawal of pregnant women from the workplace, and the right for these women to receive their salary in the meantime. There are many more measures I could tell my colleagues about, but I am sure that other members have comments to make. So, in conclusion, I would add that the day Quebec holds the reins of its destiny, women there will receive their faire share in accordance with their contribution to society.

[Pat O'Brien, Liberal, London—Middlesex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I did not hear a question but I still appreciate the hon. member's comments. I am glad that I was correct and I am sure I was in relating the fact that unfortunately Quebec gave the provincial vote last to women. I did not say that as any kind of a condemnation of Quebec. I am very fond of visiting Quebec. I have many Quebecers as friends and I hope to always be able to go to Quebec. It is a very lovely part of this great country we call Canada.

I am pleased that there have been strides made in Quebec as there have been in other provinces.

My point is that when one points a finger, as unfortunately a member of the Bloc did a little earlier in the debate, that is not being careful to regard the whole scope of our history. We should be a little more sensitive to the fact that all parts of Canada have been negligent in this regard. All parts of Canada are moving forward. I am pleased that Quebec is as well.

[Jan Brown, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Madam Speaker, this indeed has been a very long day. I have sat here for many hours listening to this debate. I have been quite impressed on all counts and the hon. member's comments are well received by myself.

I wish to ask the hon. member a specific question regarding pay equity. I stand here proudly as a humanist. I am not a feminist. In that view I present this question to the hon. member.

The whole pay equity issue is tied to the fundamental debate behind equal opportunity of employment. I cannot understand how we can separate the pay equity issue from several things, and I am going to mention these to the hon. member. Then I am going to ask how the hon. member can exclude these expectations from the whole concept of pay equity.

Our party, the Reform Party, believes that the improvement of education is a key to accessing an employment opportunity. One does this by giving greater priority to the development of skills, particularly those that provide for future job flexibility. That is my first point.

My second point is on the emphasis of individual achievement. Employers must treat people, that is men and women, as individuals in all phases of the recruitment process based on their merit, skills, capacities, and experience in order to fulfil a job function. It cannot be on the basis of one's gender.

I will leave with that and I ask the hon. member to respond.

[Pat O'Brien, Liberal, London—Middlesex, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member is making the point that there ought not to be artificial quotas imposed in order to level the playing field, if you will. I can support that.

We can achieve equity in opportunity without doing that. I fully agree and support several women MPs whom I have heard in the House that they want to be treated and regarded as an equal and that in getting to their spot in this place they sought support on the fact that they were the best candidate, not that they were a woman. I fully support that.

The issue of quotas and pay equity are separable, and I can address it this way. There have been a number of surveys done that would show that a man and a woman doing the exact job, even in some cases in the same firm in the private sector, with the same qualifications were getting a difference in pay. I can let members imagine who was making the lower pay.

My background is education. A woman as qualified as I was when I was teaching with the same years of experience was guaranteed the exact salary. I would not have it any other way. Unfortunately it is not that way in many cases still in this country.

I would share with the hon. member at another time if she wishes some of the studies that prove that sad fact.

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the comments of the hon. member.

It appears perhaps that a little earlier he missed the point of some of the things that some members of the Reform Party were saying. So that the point is clear, I would like to state again that the Reform Party members have continually today applauded the achievements of not only the women MPs in this House, but the achievements of women throughout history, not because of the fact that they are women but because of their achievement in the same ways that we would applaud the achievements of men.

I want to make that very clear. We do not distinguish by gender the magnitude of the achievement but rather the achievement itself.

I would like to go back to some comments that the member made earlier in regard to some of the names we give to people in the workplace, such as policemen. He made a comment on that. He indicated that he found that term objectionable. I would like to ask him and maybe he could reply if he finds the term policewoman objectionable as well or should we be calling the person a policeperson. We could get carried away with this in the same way there is a suggestion that we begin to call manhole covers personhole covers. Where does it end?

Even in this House we differentiate between the terms Mr. Speaker and Madam Speaker. Does the member find these terms objectionable?

I talked about quotas earlier and certainly the government has not made mention of quotas. Let me say that the affirmative action groups in the U.S. began in the same manner. They did not mention quotas. They used terms like pay equity and job equity. In fact they were talking about quotas. That was their hidden agenda. That agenda would not fly in the early days so they chose to use softer, gentler terms.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

The time has expired, but the member for London-Middlesex may want to give a brief response.

[Pat O'Brien, Liberal, London—Middlesex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would because the hon. member has raised some very important points. I will try to be brief. It is tough to do. He has raised several points.

It seems to me in listening to the debate, with all due respect, that the Reform Party's premise is that there has not been discrimination in Canada against women. That seems to be its premise. That is absolutely and totally incorrect. I do not know how any reading of Canadian history can deny that fact.

Therefore when there has been discrimination there is an onus on society to be proactive in trying to address that discrimination. That is why this party has been very proactive in trying to find women candidates and help them raise funds to do the nitty-gritty things that you have to do to become a member of Parliament.

The hon. member does not know me well or he would not suggest that I am an extremist on language. Far from it. I would find ridiculous personhole covers and so on. I do not find ridiculous the fact that some of my former colleagues on London city council, female colleagues, were uncomfortable with the name "alderman". I was at groups with them. There was no problem in introducing me as an alderman but the person introducing the female alderman and the woman being introduced were both uncomfortable. Hence the better name councillor.

I would say to the hon. member that perhaps firefighter is a far better term that fireman. It can in some case give a wrong signal to women that somehow this is not a profession for them. That is absolutely and totally the wrong message that we want to send in my view.

I thank the hon. member for his comments.

[Gaston Leroux, Bloc, Richmond—Wolfe, QC]

I rise in the House today to reflect as a man on the various emotions and feelings that are set off by this kind of debate. There is joy and pride but also a sense of urgency when we reflect on the injustice suffered by women and their long struggle which is not over yet and must be taken up again every day.

I want to share this realization with my colleagues, with the women in the Bloc Quebecois, and I also want to salute all women and show my solidarity with their cause. I particulary want to salute our differences as men and women, our different ways of seeing, of feeling, of looking at problems, of approaching life and the joys it offers us. And I especially want to salute the women of the Eastern Townships whom I have met on many occasions in various organizations, and also the women in my riding who are very active in all areas as they usually are in our society. I want to salute all the women who were elected to the House of Commons, and especially my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois. And I also want to say a special word to my women friends, whose friendship and understanding I have valued for so many years. Finally, I want to salute the love and understanding of the woman I cherish, and the birth of a child conceived in love.

In today's debate which is about women and women's rights on International Women's Day, I believe that men can bring to this debate an element of solidarity with all women.

In the course of my speech I would like to mention a few key moments in the history of women. I would like to start by saying that we have come a long way since March 8, 1875, when for the first time in North America, women rose up against male capitalism and went on strike, and I am referring to the garment workers strike in New York.

Since then, a series of laws have been passed, especially during the past 30 years, to promote women's equality in the home and in the economic, political and public spheres of our society.

In 1893, the first feminist association in Quebec was established: The Montreal Local Council of Women. After 14 years of struggle on the part of suffragettes, women obtained the right to vote in Quebec in 1940. The Fédération des femmes du Québec and the Women's Association for Education and Social Action arrived on the scene in 1966. International Women's Day was celebrated for the first time in Quebec on March 8, 1972. The following year, Quebec's Conseil du statut de la femme and the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women were created. During the 1980s, Quebec women moved confidently into various fields of endeavour. Buoyed by the experience of the women who came before them, they demanded that they be given a place in all sectors of activity traditionally reserved for men.

For example, not so long ago, it would have been unthinkable to have women practising certain trades or professions. Sexism was so prevalent that women were literally prevented from holding certain jobs which, more often than not, also happened to pay more. The fact that women today work in fields which were once the traditional domain of men is undoubtedly a major victory in the struggle for the recognition of women's equality. This victory shows that women are capable of performing jobs from which they were unfairly barred from generation to generation. If we were to take as an example the Eastern Townships, throughout the 1980s and in the early 1990s, we have seen women take their place within the labour force as scientific researchers, well-known authors, business leaders, bus drivers, police officers, surgeons, lawyers, engineers and so on.

We are approaching the next century and, at a time when a woman's right to vote, her right to an education and her right to obtain an abortion are recognized, and at a time when various charters of rights and freedoms prohibiting all forms of discrimination based on gender confirm that mores have indeed changed, we must ask ourselves the following questions: Have we achieved true equality between the sexes? Has society, in Quebec and Canada, achieved a gender balance which confirms

its emergence as mature, harmonious society? Unfortunately, the answer is no.

In the very brief history of women's liberation I just made, a very dark day stands out, a day on which hatred for women was expressed in a very violent way. In 1989, as everyone will remember, we were stunned by the massacre at the École Polytechnique in Montreal.

In spite of all the progress made, of the unanimous recognition of the right of women to decide for themselves, which was again and again reaffirmed, another message emerged. The game of life is played according to strictly male rules. As professor Maria de Konninck said, while she held the Chaire d'étude de la condition des femmes at Laval University, and I quote: "The progress made by women is based purely on deep structural changes which significantly affect the place women hold as a social group".

The truth is, even if women represent 52 per cent of voters, they still hold 66 per cent of part-time jobs, earn less than 70 per cent of wages paid to men and have only 15 per cent of the action-oriented jobs. According to a press release of the Canadian Department on the Status of Women, in 1993, less than 5 per cent of heads of state, CEO's of major corporations and leaders of international organizations were women. According to this same press release, women are poorly represented in executive positions and at the policy-making and decision-making levels.

Many polls conducted in the United States show that women keep saying that equality at work and at home is still one of their major concerns. Statisticians at the Roper Organization, an American statistical body, indicate that men's opposition to the equality of women is a major source of ill feelings, stress and irritation for most of women today. Also in the United States, towards the end of the last decade, the proportion of women who believed they were not getting equal career opportunities or equal pay reached 80 to 95 per cent.

Again in the States, during the same ten-year period, complaints of sexual harassment at work more than doubled. This situation is without any doubt alarming and harmful, since sexual harassments can affect the physical and psychological well-being of the victims. Earlier in today's debate, we heard an absolutely horrifying description of violence against women and, as a man, I feel-and I think that all hon. members will agree with me-that we must show zero tolerance for violence. This abuse of power is demoralizing and counter-productive and undermines the equality of the people affected, and eventually leads to the loss of competent workers and to a decrease in work productivity and efficiency.

In North America, the number of battered women taking refuge in special shelters jumped by 100 per cent between 1983 and 1987. Declared rapes have doubled since the early 1970s, are twice as common as other types of assault, and are increasing four times faster than the overall crime rate in the United States. While the homicide rate is down, sex murders have jumped by 160 per cent. In 1978, women were victims of violence in 10 per cent of Canadian homes; in 1993, there was a 25 per cent increase in that number.

This government's lack of family policy-I am almost finished-shows the electoral opportunism of its party platform and its lack of a long-term vision that could foster a real equality between men and women. These serious shortcomings bring into question the progress of women in Quebec and in Canada. As we have seen from the position taken by the minister today, we must wait another two years for wage equity in the public service; the men responsible for finance, for human resources, and for employment and immigration say that we must wait another two years. Where are the women in the party who will support the fact that action on pay equity is urgently needed in the public service?

In conclusion, Madam Speaker, to ensure a continued evolution towards role equality, freedom from all aggression, be it physical or psychological, and a balance crucial to the stability of Quebec society, and acknowledging that to be fair is to recognize our differences, the Bloc Quebecois, within its own perspective, which is Quebec's political autonomy, suggests we recognize and implement employment and pay equity, and concrete measures to redress and correct the distressing situation of women.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has now expired.

The hon. member for Mississauga-South.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, after several hours of debate many hon. members have raised the issue of women in the context of violence. I feel compelled to comment on the incompleteness of the thought. Having spent five years on the board of the shelter for battered women in my riding, I can say that violence against women is really only one part of it. Really the aspect is abuse. I want to share this with members.

Abuse against women includes violence but it also includes non-violent abuses, the economic abuses in which the financial purse strings are controlled by one spouse to the detriment of the other, taking away that financial independence. The second aspect of it is psychological abuse. There exists that authority and that power as a result of the position of the man in the household, an abusive man. A woman does not have the dignity

and respect she has earned by being a partner within that marriage.

I want this to lead into a point that I raised earlier in the day because I feel so strongly about it. It has to do with one of the most honourable professions that anyone could aspire to that is available only to women, a mother; flowing from which is the ability to be the manager of the family home and providing that care.

There is a tremendous inequity in our society today. In this House throughout the day people have talked about women leaving the house and going to work. Who in this House honestly believes that being a spouse in the home is not a job, is not work, is not an honourable profession to be recognized and to be compensated?

That is one of the reasons I presently have a private member's bill in the works. I would like to see one day Canadians recognizing the value of a spouse in the home, managing the home and providing parental care and being compensated. That private member's bill will propose amendments to the tax act which would allow one spouse to pay or to transfer income to a spouse working in the home and taking care of the family home and the children.

I think we have to open up to the fundamentals within our society and realize that there is a very important role for women to play in certain aspects and that being in the home is a job to be respected.

Possibly the member has some comments.

[Gaston Leroux, Bloc, Richmond—Wolfe, QC]

Madam Speaker, in support of my colleague's comments, I would like to quote from a report published in 1992 by Statistics Canada which says that in 1986, women's activity in the homes was equivalent to about a third of business activity as expressed by the Gross Domestic Product. Such housework was then valued at $199 billion. So, you are quite right.

To remedy the problem of economic violence, the Liberal government should start implementing pay equity in the public service without any further delay.

[Ovid Jackson, Liberal, Bruce—Grey, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to respond to the member from Richmond and say to him that as the member for Bruce-Grey I came from the place of the historic women mentioned previously, Agnes Macphail and Nellie McClung.

In 1994 women are still suffering from the trauma of abuse in the home, not being able to walk the streets and of stalking. They are still not receiving their child support payments.

I welcome this motion from the members of the opposition. I think it is fitting that today, International Women's Day, we discuss this.

However, I am not here to talk about the history of what happened. I think today we should act.

I was mayor of the city of Owen Sound. I made proposals then and we should make similar proposals now. There are costs. Part of the problem that we get as we try to move women into positions they should be in where they are not disadvantaged is that every time we want to make a move with this pay equity there is a lot of pressure. In my force, for instance, there were 35 males and we had to try to make it equitable. The last five people we hired on that force were women.

However, I received a lot of pressure within my community about that. At that time I advocated that perhaps what we should do right there and then was split the thing in half so that we would retire those people who were older and probably looking at retirement anyway and make it right, rather than every year when a vacancy came up going through this whole process again.

I would like to ask the hon. member from Richmond what he thinks of that proposal. It is great to talk about that kind of stuff in this House but nothing will occur because of the pressure of the wage situation we have.

There is also pressure within society with males. Men are still quite macho and all that. A lot of us in this House get up and talk about this but in the end nothing happens. Therefore, I would like to ask the member if when we try to look for this equity whether we do not split the thing right down the middle and get on with it rather than every time we come to this pressure point we talk about it and then it goes away.

[Gaston Leroux, Bloc, Richmond—Wolfe, QC]

Madam Speaker, if the hon. members from the Liberal Party confirm their intention to act, as a female member was saying earlier, we now have a definite point that was raised today: wage equity for women in the public service. Do we want to prevent those responsible from imposing a two-year wait and force them to take action right away? I urge you to do it within your own party and to exert pressure on the ministers involved to resolve immediately the issue of wage equity for women in the public service.

[Pierre De Savoye, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to address the House today on such an important issue. It is important as this issue, the status of women, affects 50 per cent of our population.

In the last few weeks, I had the opportunity to address this House many times on various issues I was not very familiar with, on which I had to do extensive research in order to talk about them in an appropriate fashion. Today, I am dealing with a subject I have been familiar with since I was born because, just

like the other gentlemen in this House, I live with the other 50 per cent of society, the fair sex.

I have known various eras. I experienced Quebec's dark ages before 1960, when we had an extremely limited vision of the role of women in society. I went through the period from 1960 to 1970, when these values were first challenged, of course by women but also by men.

In the seventies, I had the pleasure and the privilege of teaching with colleagues from both sexes. That gave me the opportunity, and it was indeed an opportunity, to be put in my place on several occasions and to eventually learn that our society is equally made up, from an intellectual, moral and physical point of view, of men and women.

At this point, I would like to share some of my experiences, as well the conclusions I have drawn from them. In the next few minutes, I will address male Canadians and Quebecers, but female Canadians and Quebecers are certainly welcome to listen.

I believe that the real challenge lies not so much in major pieces of legislation or great principles but, rather, in every day life. The real challenge has to do with our individual behaviour every minute and every hour of the day. It is somewhat like the environment, in the sense that you have to start respecting it at home. The same is true in the case of women: it is in our daily activities that we must begin to respect them as he should.

How many times have I seen people, including myself, use the masculine form to refer to doctors, lawyers or musicians. How many times have I heard teachers, including myself, use the masculine form to discuss a whole range of issues. Thank goodness, I was lucky enough to have female colleagues to bring me back to that marvellous reality that the world is indeed made up of both the masculine and the feminine genders.

I learned, and it was not easy, to use both the masculine and the feminine, and to say in French "il" and "elle", "celui" and "celle", and in English "he" and "she", and "his" or "hers". But that did not come naturally. I had to work at it. One must especially be careful not to fall in a trap and decide that, in order to make a text simpler, only the masculine form will be used, being understood that it also includes the feminine gender.

This is real streamlining since it is tantamount to eliminating 50 per cent of the population. I am sorry, but it is a rather poor argument.

I am relating my personal experience. I have made it my duty, when I write, to go the long way and say in French, "le musicien et la musicienne", and not "le musicien-ne". It is quite long to write "le musicien et la musicienne". It requires a greater effort, but I think it shows a greater respect of our reality. After all, if we do not start at that level, where will we start?

If collective agreements had been written using both the masculine and the feminine genders, we would not have to now talk about pay equity and equal pay: it would be implicit. But it is not, and this brings me to the issue of labour market experience.

Men, in groups or individually, commonly use stereotypes to put down what a member of the opposite sex is saying, to lend weight to the so-called male stand. It is not easy, Madam Speaker, to refrain from doing this. Why not? Because that is the way we were brought up. Because the way we, modern men, have been raised reflects values that I was about to describe as from another century but, goodness me, it was only a few decades ago that we started off down the road of change in terms of respect for women. We were raised in a way which was appropriate for our fathers and ancestors, but is now inappropriate. So, we have to change our ways. We must do so, if we are to achieve our goal, that is to say equity with regard to persons of the female gender.

I would like to point something out to this House, and the public watching us at home, especially mayors and municipal aldermen and women, may understand what this is about. We are presently receiving applications under section 25 and DEP, asking for certain types of jobs to be subsidized. Interestingly, when you go over some of these applications, you realize that there is gender-based inequity in wages.

One of the actions I intend to suggest to my employment center is to start refusing applications that do not reflect wage equality or returning them, asking that appropriate changes be made. I think that it is through everyday actions like this-and I will close on this-that little by little, in time, we will fill the gender gap.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Hamilton—Wentworth, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciated the remarks of my hon. colleague across the way. I wonder if he could answer a question that I must admit deeply troubles me. I think members from all sides of the House would agree that there should be fairness and equity among the sexes as there should be among all Canadians.

One thing that troubles me is the cost of undoing the wrongs of the past. I put it very simply to the hon. member. If it were a matter of redressing the wrongs of the past in the civil service with respect to women, would he be prepared to add a billion dollars to the deficit in this next year or so?

[Pierre De Savoye, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Madam Speaker, that is an interesting question indeed. The bulk of my speech was not on that subject as the member will realize. I mentioned that people should start

addressing this issue at their own door steps, every day in whatever they are doing, the way they talk, the way they address women.

On the specific issue, if men would accept lower salaries by a global amount equal to the one that is needed to raise women's salaries until we reach it mid way, would the member accept that? I would.

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew, Liberal, Secretary of State (Training and Youth)]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to respond to the opposition motion urging the government to recognize among other matters the principle of economic equality between women and men and to implement measures to guarantee women equity in employment, wages and living conditions.

To begin, I wish to commend the opposition for raising these issues in the House on International Women's Day. This inspiring day is a time for celebration but also for reflection. We are inspired by the significant progress made recently by women in all areas of life. We celebrate their successes and their substantial contributions to our economy and our quality of life. But we also reflect on the inequities that still exist.

This government welcomes a debate on issues which affect women, a very important debate. This government is prepared to build meaningfully on past accomplishments. In that context it is committed to expedite the process of full and lasting equality for women in every avenue of human endeavour.

We must grasp the socioeconomic realities of the global marketplace. It places increasingly competitive pressures on successful industrialized nations. It also dictates that we forge ahead in eradicating inequality, not only for the inherent essence of fairness but also because Canada needs to promote full development of all its human resources. Only then can it continue to provide its citizens with the prosperity and promise to which they have become accustomed.

On the threshold of the 21st century, our nation must face many challenges. One of the most difficult is to ensure equal participation of women in all aspects of Canadian society. Although our government is proud that it has always contributed to the betterment of women in our country, we are the first to admit that much still remains to be done.

For example the feminization of poverty is a disturbing issue. Single parent families headed by women are the most afflicted. Close to 60 per cent of such families live below the poverty line. The poverty rate for elderly women is double that of elderly men.

Women also suffer from discrimination in the workplace. For example in the Northwest Territories 43 per cent of all workers were women in 1992. However the average income of women was 63 per cent of the average income of men. Women are overrepresented in low paying part time jobs and are often denied promotions, job security and standard employee benefits. This is not only unfair, it is unacceptable.

The achievement of equality in the workplace is an absolute necessity and cannot be compromised by dated arguments and head in the sand thinking. Equality is one of the core values of Canadian society and we cannot tolerate exceptions under any circumstances.

Our government is committed to ensuring employment equity and will strive to offer all Canadians better social and economic conditions. Women are entitled to their fair share of economic power and equitable participation in political decision-making.

We cannot have an egalitarian society if we are indifferent to some segments of our population. We quite simply cannot allow the disadvantaged to be left to their fate while the privileged prosper.

More than 10 years ago a Liberal government, in fact the current minister appointed the Royal Commission on Equality in Employment, the Abella commission. In response to that report the previous government brought in the Employment Equity Act. We were critical of the act in 1986 and we have not changed our minds since.

When the act was first proclaimed its stated purpose was to eliminate systemic barriers to employment faced by women, aboriginal people, persons with disabilities and visible minorities. While there have been success stories and individual employers who have set exemplary precedents, progress for women has not met expectations.

The law now applies to about 350 employers with over 600,000 employees in banking, transportation and communications. Since 1987, the proportion of women has grown by nearly 4 per cent and is now the same as their representation in the Canadian labour force. Nevertheless, women's employment is still highly concentrated in office work, sales and services.

Under the circumstances I am sure hon. members will understand this government's commitment to strengthen the employment equity legislation. It flows directly from our pledge to improve the laws and social programs which form the basis for

fundamental fairness and decency within which Canadians must be able to pursue their individual goals.

We are concerned about the existing act which has done little to improve the lot of women along with visible minorities, aboriginal people and persons with disabilities. We want to ensure that opportunity is distributed more evenly so that a broader spectrum of our society can aspire to earn a decent wage and live with dignity and respect.

In the red book, our government made three specific commitments on employment equity. First, the principles of employment equity must apply in the federal public service and federal government agencies and commissions. Second, we want to give the Canadian Human Rights Commission authority to investigate issues related to employment equity. Third, federal contractors should be required to comply with the established principles.

The Minister of Human Resources Development has indicated on several occasions that our government would see to it that specific action was taken over the coming year to strengthen employment equity legislation. Indeed, our government intends to establish a broader and more solid legislative base for employment equity, which will provide for better representation of designated groups in the labour force.

Employment equity means more than simply hiring women, aboriginal people, persons with disabilities and members of visible minorities. It means developing creative strategies to ensure that scarce jobs are filled according to the principles of sound human resource and equity planning. The focus must be on developing training and retention programs that allow longer term internal changes to take place in the workforce.

Employers can be expected to make more progress toward an equitable workforce during periods of economic growth than during periods of restraint. Under bullish economic conditions employers have more opportunities to hire and promote members of designated groups such as women. Therefore they may achieve good results without actually extending much effort. In times of restraint however the best efforts of employers may go unrewarded. Low proportions of designated groups hired and promoted in the workforce may reflect difficult economic times rather than a lack of effort on the part of employers.

In assessing the results we must take economic conditions into account. These variables require all partners; business, unions, designated groups and governments to collaborate to meet workforce equality objectives.

I think it would be remiss on my part if I did not let hon. members know about the excellent record of the federal Public Service on employment equity. The Department of Human Resources Development, which employs about 27,000 persons since its recent reorganization, is a good example.

Despite the anticipated challenges associated with restructuring and downsizing and the potential impact on employment equity, no group has been disproportionately affected. While concern over the possible negative impact in these hard times is quite legitimate, much of the progress achieved to date in employment equity has occurred under trying conditions as well.

Human Resources Development Canada now administers the programs and services of originating departments, including Employment and Immigration, Health and Welfare, Labour, Multiculturalism and Citizenship and the Department of the Secretary of State.

The consolidation of these programs and services can only have a positive impact on the future of employment equity. In Human Resources Development Canada the department's role will be greatly strengthened in this domain since it has already gained much in-house expertise with the addition of new programs and services.

Human Resources Development now offers a wide variety of activities and instruments which can be brought to bear to accelerate employment equity in the workplace. As a large employer in this nation and with a corresponding budget to generate social progress, the department will have unprecedented opportunities to induce a ripple effect in both the federal and private sectors. This holds true particularly with regard to employment equity.

Rather than get mired in complex details and statistics I believe it will suffice to say that there is a significant representation of women in senior positions of Human Resources Development Canada. The government is committed to ensuring that women and other designated groups will not be disadvantaged by downsizing and restructuring.

The department will be in a strong position to react promptly to any negative plans and could well serve as a barometer for excellence in the rest of the public service and beyond.

I would now like to address the issue of pay equity. The Canadian Human Rights Act considers that not giving men and women equal pay for work of equal value is a discriminatory practice.

The Canada Labour Code authorizes officials of the Department of Human Resources Development to audit the pay equity practices of companies. These officials may also submit cases of alleged discrimination relating to wage parity between men and women to the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

Audits are conducted to verify that pay equity implementation by employers has taken place. Refusal to act results in referral to the Human Rights Commission for further investigation and resolution. This inspection program has resulted in three cases being referred to the Human Rights Commission since 1989. Two of these cases have been resolved with wage adjustments of some $125,000. Two additional inspections have been initiated and should be completed this summer. These decisive, no nonsense responses demonstrate very clearly that pay equity legislation cannot be flouted or ignored.

Most employers are anxious to comply with pay equity guidelines, and under a new program it will be possible to examine an employer's implementation program, find any problems that may exist and deal with them quickly, without having to submit the case to the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

There have been some positive results emanating from pay equity compliance measures. Between 1971 and 1992 the wage gap between men and women has narrowed about 20 per cent. In addition, in 1992 women working full time earned an average of some 72 per cent of what was earned by full time working men. This represents an improvement of about 3 per cent over the previous year.

While these figures do not represent satisfactory levels of change, they do indicate some tangible movement. They also illustrate that equal pay compliance programs have resulted in industry-wide pay equity initiatives in the federal jurisdiction. These steps have often been promoted and sponsored by employer associations which set a standard for less sophisticated and less aware employers.

With the recent advent of labour-management partnerships directed at involvement in the pay equity implementation process, there is evidence that greater strides than ever before will be taken in this area.

Finally, Madam Speaker, considering the symbolic importance of International Women's Day, I would like to take these last few minutes to recall the recent advances which have been made by women. Their employment situation has developed spectacularly during the past decades, while the significance and diversity of their roles have also increased considerably.

We all know, unfortunately, that women who succeed still have trouble being accepted by many of their male colleagues.

For a long time women were rarely encountered in other than support positions. There was also tokenism of the most blatant kind. In the 1970s a disproportionately large number of women were concentrated in secretarial and clerical positions. Since then some of these imbalances have been corrected and many women have increased their career opportunities and some have advanced to executive levels.

It must be recognized that many women workers had to sacrifice personal lives for the workplace. Secretaries followed their bosses up the corporate ladder and became more trusted than senior advisers, yet were never given pay and positions commensurate with their worth.

Women who aspired to management positions either hit a glass ceiling or were removed from the decision making process. Many talented women found themselves excluded from the "old boys' network" in their job environment and were never really accepted, even on a purely professional level, as women doctors, lawyers or engineers.

However, Madam Speaker, there is a bright side: the position of women on the labour market has changed dramatically. According to 1991 census figures, women represented 45 per cent of wage earners in Canada, compared with 35 per cent 30 years ago.

In addition, as noted earlier, there has been significant improvement in the representation of women in management. We in this House are becoming increasingly aware of the impact women are having in all parts of the workplace.

Coincidentally 1994 is the 40th anniversary of the women's bureau. The women's bureau has much to be proud of. Since its inception in 1954 it has contributed significantly to the increased awareness of issues related to women in the workplace as to the removal of remaining barriers. The bureau interacts closely with key partners to change workplace policies and practices. It has helped considerably to move Canada forward as a country which promotes the advancement and well-being of all its workers.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I think the secretary of state was not quite through, but I had to interrupt her because it is 6.33 p.m.

It being 6.33 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply, pursuant to Standing Order 81(16).

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.