Debates of March 8th, 1994

Supply

[Sheila Finestone, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I am sorry, I missed that.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I wanted to tell you that the Chair was simply applying the applicable standing order. If it is the wish of the House to continue as has been suggested by the secretary of state and hon. members opposite, certainly the Chair will adhere to that. On debate, the hon. secretary of state.

[Sheila Finestone, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this very important day and the excellent choice of the opposition day subject matter encourages us to allow as many people as possible to speak in the House. Presumably that is why we went ahead with what would seem to be a contradictory situation. I thank you for your openness in accepting the decision of the House.

I think the time has come to renew our commitment to women's economic self-sufficiency and become even more dedicated to achieving economic equality and equity in the labour market.

It is a fact that women's equality, and equity and justice for all can only be achieved through economic independence. We are also aware that economic equality is both the basis and the measure of the status of women in our society.

Women must have a place in the job world, receive equal pay for work of equal value and contribute their fair share to our collective wealth.

I feel privileged to be part of a government which is determined to accelerate the advancement of economic opportunities for women. I am honoured to serve under a Prime Minister who is committed to that goal.

The Liberal philosophy has always been based on fairness, equity and social justice. The Liberal tradition is rich in accomplishments and success toward women's equality.

The last Liberal government brought us the Canadian Human Rights Act, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and initiated the Royal Commission on Equality in Employment in 1983. The same government appointed the first woman to the Supreme Court of Canada, the first woman Speaker of the House and the first woman Governor General of Canada.

Now in a little more than 100 days our Prime Minister has appointed the first woman Deputy Prime Minister, the first woman Government Leader in the Senate and the first woman Clerk of the Privy Council.

For the first time we have had a government sensitive to the different impact of programs and policies on women. It is a government willing to ensure that gender perspective is taken into consideration in all the proposed changes whether they are fiscal, social or juridical in nature.

We are aware that women make a tremendous contribution to our society and our economy. The economic disparities that affect women however, are related to a number of factors.

First of all, women do much work that is not remunerated. Whether they do volunteer work in the community or take care of elderly parents, all women spend a significant part of their lives helping others without payment, out of love and dedication.

Second, women today still shoulder more than their share of the responsibility for their families and their homes. I am often amazed to see how young men, and especially young fathers, share parental and household tasks. According to the statistics, however, women still do most of the work.

The third disparity hinges on the kind of jobs where women tend to be concentrated, the so-called pink ghettos. In employment sectors like office work, sales or services, 80 per cent or more of the employees are women. Generally speaking, these jobs do not pay as well as jobs in sectors where men are more numerous.

Finally, women face attitude problems. When they mention cases of clearly discriminatory behaviour, the answer is often: "I do not see what the problem is". I am afraid people will have to learn to see, and this is particularly true in cases of sexual harassment and sometimes even in cases of violence against women.

I hope that every member in the House realizes how important it is for our country that women achieve economic equality. It is a matter of fairness and justice but it is also a true economic issue for all Canadians. In times of economic restructuring and increased international competitiveness, we have to make use of the full potential of all our citizens.

I wish my hon. colleague had included in her motion the other designated categories of Canadians who are also struggling on the road toward equality, both socially and economically. I am referring to visible minorities, aboriginal peoples and persons with disabilities. Those are areas where I must be an advocate at all times and members will agree being an advocate for those people is very important. In each one of these groups there are women who must face double and sometimes triple factors of discrimination. Women politicians have a particular responsibility and a special opportunity to break down these barriers.

We can reach out to other women. We can help level the political playing field for them. We can call for action and get action. It may not always be as fast as we would wish. We can do this in partnership with men and we can do this from both our riding perspective as well as the perspective of our province and our country. That is our job. The total country is ours.

That brings me to the second part of the motion presented by my friend from Quebec, who is asking the government to implement measures, in areas of federal jurisdiction, to guarantee women equity in employment, wages and living conditions.

First, I would like to remind my colleague that, in our famous red book, we made three definite commitments in that respect.

To start with, for the Employment Equity Act to be really effective, it must apply to the largest number possible so as to broaden its impact. I believe that members will agree with me on that. Now, for my second point.

We will through our human rights legislation enlarge the legislative authority to initiate investigations of employment equity issues.

Third, federal contractors should be subject to mandatory compliance with the principles of the Employment Equity Act.

I remember when that act came into the House. It had some very big holes in it. I hope, as we put in a mandatory review period which is coming up shortly, that we will have filled those

holes with legislation before we even get to the review stage because they were very obvious by their absence.

We believe that the federal contractors program presents a good opportunity to demonstrate our commitment to the principle of employment equity. The message is loud and clear. If one wants to do business with the federal government, one must implement employment equity in the workplace. That means fair jobs based on merit and those based on merit will get a first choice and open access to that job application.

As I have mentioned before in the House, this rule applies to our infrastructure program as well. Our representatives at the selection committee have all been instructed to look into the employment equity aspect of every project and to take this into account in their final recommendations.

I believe that this plan toward a more equitable working environment for women answers my colleague's motion for the most part. She knows, like every Canadian knows by now, that if it is in the red book it will happen because we are now quickly turning our promises into action.

I believe that the plan I just outlined directly answers the request made by my colleague from Quebec in her motion.

However, I would like to add a couple of points. First of all, I firmly believe that legislation, agreements, regulations and policy statements are useful, if not essential, to bring us closer to economic equality and social justice.

Nonetheless, I am convinced that without a reasonable consensus among citizens and without the active participation of all Canadians, we will progress at a snail's pace. However, if we all strive towards the same end, in a joint effort, we will progress by leaps and bounds.

Therefore, I would suggest to Canadians that they put this International Women's Day to good use by drawing up a list of initiatives we could take to improve the status of women in our country.

Government cannot do it all. It takes everyone to participate, men and women in all sectors of our society.

After seeing, these last few days, business and union leaders jointly and severally approve a recommendation package aimed at improving women's working and living conditions, I cannot help thinking that there is light at the end of the tunnel. It is only a matter of time.

My second thought deals with a degree of opportunities. I am dedicated to pay equity and enhancing working conditions for women, but first women have to be able to find a job. This is where this government is being the most helpful to women. By making job creation and growth its top priority, the government is providing women with the basic essential opportunity to reach out for economic independence and equality.

I have to point to the small and medium sized business undertakings in which we are going to ensure access to capital, where over 30 per cent of those businesses belong to women, where they are twice as successful as men and where 85 per cent of all new jobs are created in the country. This will indicate to everyone that we have a strong commitment to women.

We on this side of the House believe that a strong economy is the key to women's economic independence and we believe that a strong economy is based upon the full and fair participation of all our citizens. It is true that the greatest resource we have in the country is grey matter, intellectual property, and 50 per cent of it rests in the heads of women.

This government knows that for Canada to prosper it must take full benefit of all the talents of all of our citizens and ensure that all Canadians are treated with fairness and equity. This is precisely what we intend to do.

On February 7, 1994 the leader of the government in the House set forth the principle that the decision of this government as to how to vote on any motion would be determined on the basis of the merits of the motion. In accordance with that principle, in accordance with openness and right of obligations and actions in this House, and in keeping with the spirit of parliamentary reform, I am happy to inform the House that it is the intention of the government to support the motion now before us.

[Daphne Jennings, Reform, Mission—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the whip of the Reform Party, I would like to advise the House that pursuant to Standing Order 43(2) our speakers on the motion will be dividing their time.

In speaking on today's opposition day motion which addresses the economic equality between men and women, I am drawn back to my 30 years in the classroom where I hope I successfully taught our young people that they did not deserve special treatment because they were women or that the young men did not deserve special treatment because they were men. I hope I set high standards in my classroom. The only qualifications for achievement were hard work, the ability to respect all fellow students and the ability to accept responsibility.

By now it is obvious that while I hold women in high regard, I also hold men in high regard. Part of this respect comes from my father, a military man of four wars: the Irish rebellion, the first world war, the Palestine uprising and the second world war.

I do not remember him telling any of his nine children, six of them girls, that there were any restrictions on what they could do with their lives. I only remember one strong message given to each of his children: a man or a woman is worthy of their hire. Do not be asking how much pay you are going to get. Work hard, your employer will like your responsible attitude. If you treat others as you wish to be treated, this usually holds true.

My mother never went out to work, enjoyed her home, raising her children, president of the PTA, and encouraged all her children to work hard. Although she never learned to drive, she encouraged her children to, and her daughters to carry their own weight in society. I remember while she was on the PTA our school board served hot lunches every day to each student through the help of volunteer parents and the community. The government did not pay for these hot lunches.

Why am I saying all this? There are a lot of members in this House who, like me, are over 50 and who can attest to these strong teachings given to us by our parents of all cultures and all nationalities. These parents if still alive are grandparents and some great-grandparents. Many of us here today are grandparents. 1994 is the year of the family and I can think of no better way to celebrate International Women's Day than to pay tribute to grandparents around the world.

In many cultures our senior citizens are treated with much more respect than here in Canada. They are given a position of honour and respect in the family. If we look at various cultures around the world we see the importance of grandparents in raising children. With the British Columbia Indians, for example, traditionally the grandparents raise the young people. Also in the Chinese culture and many other cultures around the world.

Throughout the history of mankind societies throughout Asia, Europe and North America, all of them, had concerns for the children. Throughout all these societies, whether a modern society or aboriginal people, there was always a place in the old days where the elders were respected. The elders helped train the children. They passed on tradition, culture and heritage. It went way beyond that. It went to the point of giving the feeling of security, the feeling of love and warmth.

In today's world of broken marriages and single parents we need the support and the stability of our grandparents more than ever before.

In this year of the family there are no special interest groups. Rather we must look at the whole family from the youngest to the oldest. It is very significant that grandparents seem to have a real natural regard and concern for grandchildren.

Not so long ago this subject was debated in the Alberta legislature. Mrs. Hughes quoted a study by Jim Gladstone at the University of Guelph. He conducted a study in 1986 that reinforced the importance of grandparents to grandchildren. The report concluded that when marriages break down grandmothers have more contact with their grandchildren than perhaps ever before. Gladstone believes that this means that grandparents have an innate tendency to respond to the needs and the emotional upheaval of their grandchildren and their children.

Previous research on children of divorces suggested that young children have very little opportunity to talk about the breakup.

Gladstone goes on to say that through the child's unique relationship with the grandparents they can obtain the kind of counselling, comfort, reassurance that they need providing they have access, continuous access.

Therefore there is a necessity for creative legislation that protects access for both grandparents. We can that see that grandparents have a great deal to contribute to the life of these children of broken marriages.

I understand that article 611 of Quebec Civil Code states:

In no case may the father or mother without serious cause place obstacles to personal relationship between the child and grandparents.

This is in Quebec civil law. It is the only province thus far that has enshrined it in law.

We also need to look at precedents in legislation. For example 50 states in the United States have similar types of legislation. Last week I had the honour of meeting with Nancy Wooldridge, president of Canadian Grandparents Rights Association, British Columbia Branch, formed in 1986. Nancy Wooldridge successfully defended her rights as a grandparent in the courts in 1984.

The purpose of the association is to promote, support, and assist grandparents and their families in maintaining or re-establishing family ties and family stability where the family has been disrupted, especially those ties between grandparents and grandchildren.

We could give many practical examples of how grandparents have been obstructed through the court system from contacting children when they could have had a very positive effect on them. The Grandparents Rights Association has many documented cases.

Again because of time we are not going to go into them today. In many cases it is a personal tragedy for the grandparents but more important for the grandchildren who are deprived of this most important asset.

Therefore it is important that we have legal protection for our grandchildren. We can recognize that all grandparents are not beneficial to grandchildren but there are times when they should have direct access. However this can still be established by the courts. We do not suggest we change this.

This would be a very positive step toward protection and development of the child. It is something that lawmakers in Canada could contribute to. I am asking the government in any consideration of future legislation to consider including the rights of grandparents in a fair and legitimate manner.

I would be remiss if I did not recognize the past efforts of other parliamentarians who have brought to the House the concerns of grandparents. The hon. member for Ottawa West, one of our Liberal members, presented petitions and Stan Wilbee of the last Parliament presented Bill C-332 to amend the Divorce Act to protect the rights of grandparents as well as grandchildren. Now is the time for all members of the House to recognize the rights of the complete family in this 1994 year of the family.

Tomorrow I will be presenting a petition containing over 3,000 names in continuing support for the complete family and in support of our grandparents. At this hour I am awaiting news from British Columbia that my seventh grandchild has been born.

I would like at this time to move:

That the motion be amended by adding immediately after the word "conditions" the following:

"through measures that support equality of opportunity without resorting to gender discrimination of any kind"

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I wonder if I could ask the assistance of the member for Mission-Coquitlam to be assured that I understood clearly the terms made by the secretary of state regarding the agreement between parties on the intervention by the member for Mission-Coquitlam. I believe the member for Beaver River will have five minutes of questions and comments. Is that in the next round?

[Daphne Jennings, Reform, Mission—Coquitlam, BC]

That is correct, Mr. Speaker, five minutes questions.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The amendment has been deemed receivable.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I know we are not allowed to talk about who is not in the Chamber, but let me flip that around and say that on this day of women's issues I will make mention perhaps of who is in the Chamber. Before I started I counted 16 men and five women. I am proud to say that three of the women are Reformers here in this caucus. When we talk about women being important, we think we are. We would encourage all to be here and listen to this.

I grew up in a single parent family in the greater Vancouver area. I would like to pay particular mention and tribute to my mother who raised, probably by the scruff of the neck, four daughters and one son. I pay tribute to her today because things were difficult back in the sixties doing that. It was the anomaly back then to be a single parent family. It almost seems like today we are strange if we grow up in a two parent home.

In honour of my mother, Joyce Levy, I thank her for the job she did of raising four girls and one boy in greater Vancouver in the sixties when times were tough. It was difficult.

I believe that any success our family would experience was because my mother said: "You are special regardless". She had four girls and one boy, but we were all treated equally. The success that any of us has experienced in our lives today is because she said: "If you think that you can do something, I believe you are competent, I believe you are able, go for it". It was not: "You are a girl, so we think you should have special status".

I am grateful for that. I am sure that all of us here who were treated that way in a family when we were growing up are grateful We are not here in the Chamber today because we are women necessarily.

I can think of nothing sadder than my campaigning in Beaver River, going door knocking and saying: "Hello, my name is Deborah Grey. I am your candidate for the Reform Party. Please vote for me because I am a woman". Nothing would be sadder for any of us in this Chamber, whether male or female, than to be able to appeal to the pity of someone to vote for us on those grounds.

The secretary of state mentioned in her remarks that she was elected by the women of Canada. We as women in this House were not elected by the women in our ridings. I do not think there would be enough to carry the vote, frankly. I live in rural Alberta and I know that as many women as men voted for me.

I was not elected to the Chamber by women to talk only about women's issues. I am here to talk about the economy, fiscal restraint, farming, the oil industry and everything else that we think is important in the constituency of Beaver River and all across Canada.

Let us not continue to make these ridiculous delineations between women's issues and men's issues. I suspect that some guidelines and some division lines have been drawn.

Let me refer a little more closely to what the Reform Party feels about the traditional lines of women's issues. We believe that our party's position is quite different from the traditional parties' positions in that we do not maintain a separate organization for women members. In the Reform Party women are dedicated to the same goals as men. These goals are fiscal, political and constitutional reform. I do not think there are any

lines to be drawn between women and men when we look at the things that are happening across the country.

Reformers prefer to work together on these issues, searching for realistic solutions which are practical and acceptable within the framework of a democratic, individualistic society.

Our party does not regard any political questions as being purely women's issues. Child care is not gender exclusive. It is a social, family and financial issue. Job and pay equity are not gender, age or ethnic exclusive. They are employment issues and should be dealt with as such.

If we see ourselves going down the road to talk about affirmative action, pay equity, special status for some, we can see where that road would lead us. Let us back up to the fork in the road and say these are issues we need to deal with in terms of absolute equality for all Canadians. It is a slippery slope that we go down if we say child care, job and pay equity are specifically women's issues.

What about sexual and domestic violence? They are not gender, age or ethnic exclusive. They are purely criminal and law enforcement issues and we should deal with them as such, not just breaking them off as women's issues. Then we see that it becomes a special interest group and dear knows we have enough of those in the country. I am not part of a special interest group. Let me make that very clear in Hansard forevermore.

The Reform Party believes that the issues of child care, job and pay equity and family violence are of equal concern to the majority of both men and women in society and we should start treating them as such. The other federal parties prefer to separate many important issues into specifically women's issues. This approach has led to the segregation of women into a special interest group.

I am not a special interest group. Let me say it again because I feel that strongly about it. I am a woman and I am proud to be a woman. First and foremost I am a Canadian and I would like people to think in this Chamber as well as in Beaver River and right across the country that perhaps I am here because of some capabilities and some abilities and specific skills, not just because of my gender. This place will sink when that happens.

I resent being told that because of my sex I am entitled to special considerations. For what? It is demeaning. It is an insult to my intelligence and a presumption that I am unable to compete on my own abilities.

I would like to expand on my statement on child care. We recognize that since only women bear children they often make choices about their lives that are different than those of men. For women who wish to devote their energy to child raising, a public policy framework sympathetic to families is necessary. My colleague talked about this being the international year of the family.

Let us look at the family. The family is the basic unit of our society, far more natural than it is to just hunker down with the women and say that we will look at those issues specifically. This should include generous maternity leave and re-entry provisions to make it possible for women to combine a career and family.

Our party supports child care programs that are based on financial need, not the method of child care chosen; programs that subsidize children and parents, not institutions and professionals. Therefore when we are always labelled as being anti-day care that is not the truth. We are in favour of child care but let us target it to the people who need it most and to people, not institutions and the professionals.

While some parents believe that day care is a viable option others prefer to care for their children within their home. The Reform Party advocates policies which permits parents to decide how best to care for their own children. We believe they should have that right.

For those unfortunate cases in which families break down, and I realize that they break down and I alluded earlier to the fact that I come from a single parent home, the federal government should assist provinces in developing reciprocal arrangements for enforcing realistic support payments from non-custodial parents.

Initiatives in this direction would be in line with the Reform philosophy of individual responsibility and would help reduce the dependence of single mothers on family assistance.

I turn to the issue of women in the workforce as we are in the Chamber, which for economic reasons includes a large majority of Canadian women. The Reform Party advocates a free and open labour market in which people are judged on their personal achievements.

Promotion on the basis of merits, not quotas, should govern the advancement of both men and women. This quest for statistical parity between men and women damages the very fabric of our society by compromising the merit principle.

Let me say again that any woman who sits in the Chamber, at the table, in the chair or in a seat as a member of Parliament should be here on merit and not because of some hiring false quota that says we will have so many women sitting in the Chamber, at the table, in Hansard , in the translation booth or whatever. We advocate enlightened personnel policies to end condescension and harassment toward women and to develop mutual respect in the workplace.

The Reform Party consistently supports the philosophy of treating people according to their individual merits and achieve-

ments. Our goal is to maximize individual freedom for all Canadians within the restraints of responsible citizenship.

I will say a few words with respect to sexual and domestic violence in closing. The Reform Party believes these issues should be dealt with by a legal system based on common law principles in which sentencing is a more adequate penalty and deterrent. We have spoken at length in the Chamber about what inadequacies there are in the laws and regulations in our country. We need to tighten those up so that there are really serious deterrents for people who are tempted to go after spouses and batter them or whatever.

We are looking forward to the day when all Canadians are treated equally and able to strive for their fullest potential regardless of race, language, culture or gender. Let us move ahead. Let us not get hung up with terminology. Let us move ahead to find real solutions to these issues that affect all of us, men and women alike.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard a good deal with which I can agree but I became a little confused with the amendment. I listened to it as carefully as I could. Perhaps I did not get the full sense of it but any action we might take with respect to the motion on the Order Paper today might not involve gender bias. That is how I understood it.

The member was speaking of directing our efforts toward the people who need our help most. It seems to me that when we talk about child care, apart from the children, the people who need help most are women. When we talk about single parents we know the vast majority of single parents are women. Therefore they are the ones who need support.

We think of some of the areas that the members opposite mentioned in which women are moving and making progress but in which they are still behind. An example would be in science and technology, in colleges and universities and in the workforce.

It seems to me that at the moment, although goodness knows we do need improvements in science and technology and education of all sorts, the people most in need are female students. They have moved in other areas such as the arts and the humanities but they have moved least in science and technology.

Similarly, if we look at the professional schools of all sorts, we would discover that women are still in the minority. I realize that there are other groups that need our support but women are the people who need our assistance most.

In the general area of income, we can obviously break out all sorts of groups that are in the below average income category. However here is this mammoth group which is the majority in the country, females, and the statistics all show that it is significantly behind the other large group which is males as far as income is concerned.

In my constituency, over two-thirds of women with children of school age work at the present time. They represent a low income group in my riding. I wonder if the member or the members opposite would care to comment on this point. How do we proceed on these matters without identifying women as people who are at the present time in need of support so they can move forward in these areas?

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in the time remaining I want to thank the member for his question but mostly for his comments.

In terms of our amendment we need to come up with what we think is a sensible definition and in fact the interpretation of employment equity.

Where I live in rural Alberta it is very difficult to find the exact slots for people who are qualified, who have merit and who have some personal achievement in some of these areas. The minister referred earlier to the fact that in this whole infrastructure program we need to make sure every category is filled by employment equity. That is very difficult to do in many parts of rural Canada. Therefore let us determine what our interpretation is.

I disagree with the fact that we should have artificially imposed quotas on employment equity right across the country. The hon. member made reference in his comments to the sciences. Let us make sure we realize that women are very capable in the sciences.

Maybe we should have educational programs and teaching faculties to say that women are very qualified to be engineers and scientists. Let us make sure that is permeated through society. I do not know the problem would be solved by saying that we demand x number of women in those faculties. We in the Chamber need to make sure our legislation and regulations are sensitive to that, but I do not know that imposing artificial quotas will go the distance in terms of finding real answers to it.

The member also commented on the fact that women are in lower paying jobs generally. We have seen all the studies. We have looked at both sides of the issues. Let me just sum this up by saying the following. I am a high school teacher by trade. I believe many women, myself included, choose to go into careers that are more humanities oriented. Perhaps it is because of our individual and special gifts we as women bring to a situation, the idea of consensus building rather than confrontation.

Many of those are low paying jobs. Therefore we need to realize that we do not just look at the numbers on these charts but we look at some of the reasons behind it. Women as child bearers obviously take a particular time out of the workforce. Maybe they are not anxious to get into careers that have to come before family, children and husbands. We need to pay particular attention to that.

Maybe that is one reason there are not as many women in the House as some people would demand. It is very difficult to be away from home. I know it is hard for every member but I find it particularly difficult to get on the plane every week and come here to Ottawa. I do not know if that is because I am a woman or because I am a homebody or because I am a newlywed. Who knows. I am finding it more and more difficult every week. However we need to be careful about the reasons there are not as many women in the Chamber rather than say we are going to fix the problem from on high.

The problem needs to be solved with each of us in our home communities. We need to encourage women to choose careers in the sciences or perhaps politics, not because they are women but because they are capable and have real abilities in those areas.

[Daphne Jennings, Reform, Mission—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I know it is unusual for me to answer after I have spoken and someone else has spoken on debate after me, but I understand the hon. member wanted to hear from both members.

Last year I listened to a woman with a career very high in the workplace speak on women's issues and their importance in the workforce. The item I picked up more than anything else is that those figures are grossly distorted. The reason is that women work part time in most cases. For many of them it is because they have to and for others it is because they choose to stay in the home and their only opportunity is to work part time. This pulls us way down when looking at those statistics. They are way out of whack and we have to look at them all carefully.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Before resuming debate, I am going back to the earlier intervention by the member for Mission-Coquitlam. I was touched when she shared with us that at some time during the course of this day she might once again be a grandmother. If I recall correctly it will be the seventh time. I join members on both sides of the House in saying congratulations and best wishes to mom and dad. We wish your new granddaughter or grandson a long, happy and healthy life.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Gilbert Fillion, Bloc, Chicoutimi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to mention the presence in the gallery of my wife Louise and two of my daughters, Marie-Hélène and Marie-Christine. I should also add that my other daughter, Isabelle, a student at McGill University, and my son Jean-François join me in stressing the importance of this day for all Canadian women.

On this day, March 8, I would like to talk about an issue of extreme importance to women and which we have to address if we are to give a true meaning to the word equality. I am referring to violence against women.

The very existence of this violence shows clearly that there is a power relationship underlying a serious imbalance and the absence of effective equality. Violence against women is an integral part of our social structure.

The tragic massacre at the École Polytechnique on December 6, 1989 brought back to the fore a brutal and far reaching reality and we are still torn apart by the whole thing.

This situation required action. In August 1991, the federal government set up a Canadian committee on violence against women. This committee was co-chaired by Mrs. Marthe Vaillancourt, a respected person in the field and also the director of the Centre d'aide aux victimes d'actes criminels in Chicoutimi, and by Mrs. Pat Freeman Marshall.

The committee did a lot. Hearings were held all over Canada. A final report was submitted in July 1993. From these hearings in 139 communities across Canada, as well as submissions and research documents, we gained a better picture of the situation of women. The committee proposed 494 recommendations in a 500-page document.

A framework had to be established and the committee defined violence against women as all forms of violence committed by men, as opposed to marital and family violence.

Violence takes different forms. It can be psychological, sexual, physical, financial and spiritual. Some aspects are unfortunately more familiar than others. There is no hierarchy in that list of various forms of violence; all forms of violence against women are to be banned, whether they are threats, rape, incest, unrequested sexual fondling, blows, withholding of money, contemptuous attitude towards one's personal beliefs, etc. Our tolerance of violence against women generates costs, human, financial and social costs.

Let me quote the final report of the committee: "A Quebec study compared the health of a sample group of women and children who had left a violent environment with women and children of a comparable group who had not experienced violence. It concluded that: The health of these women and their children was distinctly different from that of the general population, and they were affected first of all by problems of mental health".

We can see also that there are no case detection measures and that diagnostics are often false. Financial costs impact on health care and work-related costs and also on the judicial system. Let me quote the report again: "The costs of one sexual offence,

where the offender serves three years in prison, can be very conservatively estimated at more than $200,000". The Final Report of the Canadian Panel on Violence Against Women first describes the problem and its various aspects and, in a second part, presents a national action plan.

That national action plan comprises an action plan for equality and a zero tolerance policy. The action plan for equality makes recommendations on two main aspects of the issue: on the one hand, improve the economic status of women which is directly related to violence against women and, on the other, acknowledge and treat women as independent persons. Emphasis is to be put on eight specific areas: right to equality, equal access to the legal system, equal participation in politics and the civil service, improvements to processus aimed at promoting equality for women, economy, family, taxation and transfer payments.

Finally, the zero tolerance policy involves a responsibility structure for the implementation phases and an application model. This policy is based on the premise that no form of violence is acceptable and that sufficient resources must be allocated to eliminate violence against women.

In my riding, according to the 1992-93 statistics released by the Centre d'aide aux victimes d'actes criminels of Chicoutimi, spousal abuse and sexual assaults make up close to half of all complaints made pursuant to the Criminal Code. Note that 82.3 per cent of crimes are made against women.

At the national level, a comprehensive survey of 12,300 Canadian women conducted by Statistics Canada and made public in November 1993 provided eloquent information about violence against women. In Canada, more than one out of two women suffered physical or sexual abuse at least once during her adult life. In a great majority of cases, the assailant was known to the victim. The definition of an act of violence which was used refers to actions considered offences under the Criminal Code of Canada.

According to Statistics Canada, physical assaults vary from threats of imminent bodily injury to assaults causing serious bodily harm, while sexual assaults vary from sexual interference to violent sexual assaults causing serious injury to the victim.

This survey also shows that one in four Canadian women reported being abused by her current spouse or a previous one. The most recent national survey conducted in 1980, which was highly criticized for being speculative, indicated that one in ten women had been physically abused by her spouse.

Most of the 10 per cent of women who declared being victims of violence in the 12-month period preceding the survey were young women, between the age of 18 and 24.

The survey also shows that men tend to be more violent if they were witnesses to violence against their own mother.

Alcohol plays a major role since, as the study indicated, the assailant is intoxicated in more than 40 per cent of violence cases. One in five acts of violence mentioned in the study was severe enough to cause injuries, a quarter of which demanded medical attention. It is also noted that nine out of ten assaults not only caused physical injuries to the victim but left emotional scars as well.

Fear is on the mind of a good number of women whose spouse is violent. It is made worst by the prospect of finding themselves in a potentially violent situation. Thus, 83 per cent of women reported being afraid to enter alone an underground parking lot. Seventy-six per cent are afraid to use public transportation at night. Sixty per cent do not feel safe walking alone in their neighbourhood at night. Only 14 per cent of violent acts and no more than 6 per cent of sexual assaults were reported to police. In only a third of the reported cases, charges were laid against the assailant.

Further to this study, the Secretary of State responsible for the Status of Women stated that her government would launch a national campaign to heighten public awareness and take steps to force the violent spouse to leave the marital home. She promised in the same breath to better finance organizations for battered women and their children. As we say, desperate times call for desperate measures. One does not put a poultice on a gaping wound. These figures are very revealing and we deplore the fact that such a sad situation can exist in a country like Canada.

The budget allocated to the Canadian Panel on Violence Against Women was $10 million. A great deal of money and energy has been invested in this initiative, and the situation as it is depicted requires a follow-up on this report. Furthermore, the survey conducted by Statistics Canada, at a cost of $1.9 million, shows the extent of the problem.

Violence against women can now be measured. It is a serious problem that we must address despite its complexity. Community groups have shown us the way. At the moment, there are 360 shelters for battered women across Canada, and waiting lists to get in these shelters are often very long. The services provided are sensitive to budget cuts. Eighty per cent of these shelters were opened after 1980 and 95 per cent of them have less than 20 beds.

In the vast majority of cases, the services provided are short-term, as 70 per cent of the women remain in these shelters less than 20 days on average.

Beyond emergency services, we must offer more to women. We need to adopt a more reactive approach. The status of women in our society is directly related to their economic situation, among other things. Equality is also a matter of money. Let us take, as an example, pay equity and access to housing.

Women deserve the same treatment as men, and the violence that they have to suffer in our society clearly indicates that we have a lot of work to do. We must not think that it is a present-day problem. Let us remind ourselves of the suffragettes who fought for the formal recognition of women's political rights.

In 1931 and 1964, successive reforms to the Lower Canada civil code guaranteed full legal capacity to the married woman. In fact, in 1931, the introduction of reserved property allowed a woman to administer the proceeds from her work because it was said that many men would go off and drink their wife's savings. Unfortunately, there are numerous examples and, not too long ago, women had to fight for their rights.

The violence that they experience is a dramatic situation to which we cannot remain indifferent. It is very tempting to be legalistic, but we must go beyond that. To a systemic problem we must bring systemic solutions.

In the 1994-95 Estimates, Status of Women Canada plans to launch the following project: Co-ordination of the preparation of the federal program concerning the equality and security of women in co-operation with federal departments and other partners. This will incorporate the government response to the report of the Canadian Panel on Violence Against Women.

Status of Women Canada was given the mandate to produce the government response to the panel. That response will be submitted in the form of a federal program concerning gender equality and women security.

Finally, the co-ordination of a national public information campaign geared towards prevention will be pursued in order to eliminate the circumstances that promote violence against women. In view of the magnitude of the problem, the proposed action only allow the government to make an act of faith.

We are no longer trying to prove that there is violence against women; people are convinced that it exists. The consultation exercise has taken place, the problems have been identified and solutions have been suggested. What is the government waiting for to implement the national action plan that was tabled here in this House?

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Chicoutimi for his speech. Surely I can say that all members here agree entirely with his comments on violence against women and the measures we should take to prevent such violence.

What I would like to tell the hon. member is this: I believe he is right when he addresses the issue from a national perspective. He referred to Canadian activities to lessen the problem. He did not separate the women from his riding or his province from the other Canadian women. What I would suggest to him is that the women of his province or Canada should not be separated from the world they live in. I come from a riding where there is a high proportion of immigrants, and we know that the problem is international as well as national or provincial.

Therefore, my question to the hon. member is this: Given the complexity of the problem and the fact that it is a national and an international as well as a provincial issue, does he not agree that the initiatives required to correct the situation and better protect the women of Quebec and Canada should not be measures co-ordinated at the provincial, national or international level, but federal measures taken right here, together, because it is our responsibility?

[Gilbert Fillion, Bloc, Chicoutimi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question and comment. I must stress that in my presentation on the status of women, I have not taken a provincial political point of view because some would have said that the Bloc Quebecois wanted to use the issue to its advantage, that it wanted to score some political points.

When I speak about the status of women, in my mind I know that problem concerns the riding of Chicoutimi, the ridings of my friends from the other side, all my colleagues' ridings, the province of Quebec, all the provinces in Canada and Canada as a whole. Given the amounts spent on the preparation of that report dealing with many subjects, which was requested by the Canadian government and cost $10 million, at a certain point we should use that document as a basis for discussion and as a basis for dealing equally everywhere with violence against women.

Now how should we go about addressing the issue for all of Canada? What kind of committee could we create to make sure we are more alert? I leave it to those who will speak on the issue today to make some suggestions. I think that such a process is an important one; it is important to find solutions to the problems women are faced with.

[Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais, Liberal, Madawaska—Victoria, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few moments, not to ask questions, but rather to make a few comments following the remarks I just listened to.

I would point out that the fact that these gentlemen rise and talk about violence against women is proof that it is a societal

issue and not a women's issue. In the eyes of any self-respecting man or woman, this issue concerns us all and not only feminists.

I would also like to say how pleased I am to see the Bloc member going beyond party lines when talking about abused women. I do hope that in future debates on common issues, we will be able to count on their support.

I would like to conclude by telling Canadian men that the respect they feel for themselves automatically translates into respect for us, women.

[Gilbert Fillion, Bloc, Chicoutimi, QC]

I thank the member for her remarks. You can be sure, Mr. Speaker, that what I said is not a one-day thing. I made my career in teaching. I spent 34 years of my life with teenagers. Through the years, I met a great number of parents who would come and confide in me regarding the many different kinds of problems their teenage daughters were experiencing and I always listened very carefully to them. My job as a teacher taught me that, beyond political partisanship, everybody must join the fight against violence.

In any case, I am grateful for a job which allowed me to celebrate every day, 365 days a year, for 34 years, this event we mark once a year, on March 8, Women's Day. Thus, I directly carry this over into my family life, with my three daughters, my wife and my son. As you can see, I am in very good company.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a very short question to ask. I also want to congratulate the member for Chicoutimi on his speech. I am very interested in what he had to say, since I too have a daughter, who studied at McGill University.

My question is about comments made by Reform Party members. Does my colleague believe that the issue of violence against women only implies a need for more or less organized action, or that it is rather a matter of legislation and policies giving the preference to women?

[Gilbert Fillion, Bloc, Chicoutimi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if I understood the question correctly, I must say it is not a question of giving preference to women in legislation, but simply of wishing to ensure their equality with men in every sector of society. Then, whether we are looking at wages, social housing or equity in employment, the main thrust will be that our legistation must reflect the equality of men and women once and for all. At some point, men and women should be considered simply as human beings.

I want to mention in passing that I have relied heavily on data prepared by Statistics Canada since some had criticized the figures contained in the report on the status of women. These figures were later adjusted, to a certain degree, to reflect today's reality and the data available from Statistics Canada.

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity this motion gives me to salute International Women's Day. It is important for the House to mark this day and to recognize the significant progress that has been made in Canada over the years toward greater equality of women and men.

So, I am very grateful to have an opportunity to mark International Women's Day.

I can assure hon. members of my government's commitment to continued progress in the field of equality. That commitment is clear from our red book "Creating Opportunity". Whether we talk of women and health, or of streets that are safe for women, or of day care, the underlying principle is one of equality between women and men.

Basic to all progress is the prosperity of Canada, and pleased is the minister responsible for infrastructure to be implementing, in co-operation with other levels of government, a program that will put many Canadians to work. Directly and indirectly this program will contribute in the short term and through long lasting benefits, to the economic growth which will ensure the greater equality of men and women.

I want to talk today most especially about employment equity within the federal public service and particularly about employment equity and women.

In this context, I would like to pay tribute to a particular woman, namely my parliamentary secretary.

Members of the House will be aware Treasury Board has legislated responsibility for employment equity within the public service because of the persistence of my parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Ottawa West. She was in very large measure responsible for ensuring that the Public Service Reform Act passed in December 1992 contained an amendment providing specifically for employment equity.

This amendment is important in its own right because it will advance employment equity throughout the public service. It has however a further importance. The Government of Canada has an obligation to serve, I would suggest, as an example in such matters of great significance. The amendment conveys a message to all Canadians, women and men, that equity in employment is crucial to the full economic and social development of Canada.

The law sets out four designated groups that have encountered employment barriers. These are women, aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities and visible minorities. Women are a designated group in their own right, but they are about half of those other three groups as well.

If we discuss employment equity for aboriginal peoples we include aboriginal women. Progress for women as a whole must also be progress for any group that is disadvantaged.

The point of employment equity in the public service is to increase the representation of members of designated groups in those jobs in which they are currently represented to a lesser extent than their participation in the Canadian labour force.

It was a Liberal government that introduced one of the first programs designed to achieve this goal within the public service. The special measures program, as it is called, put in place in 1983-84 has contributed in a major way to increasing the number of women, and of men and women of the three other designated groups within the public service. The special measures program has continued over the years as a motor of the employment equity program.

Last December I had the honour to preside over a meeting of Treasury Board that approved the continuation of this program over the course of the next four fiscal years. In total almost $70 million will be allocated to the new special measures initiative program as it is now called.

I strongly believe that the renewed program will help to ensure employment equity within the public service.

Two particular programs have been of importance to women. First, the women's career counselling and referral bureau of the Public Service Commission counsels women who have the potential to rise into the executive ranks. It evaluates their management skills and refers women to appropriate competitions. The bureau cannot of course claim credit for all the progress that has been made, but there has been a real and notable increase of women in the executive group of the public service.

In 1983 women were 5 per cent of the executive level. By 1988 women's representation had more than doubled to 12.3 per cent. As of March 31, 1993 women were 17.6 per cent of the executive group, including a good number at the second highest level.

In addition there has been a steady increase in the number of women in what is called the feeder groups, that is standing in the wings and waiting to take over from the executives who will be retiring in the coming years. The public service is providing leadership in this area not just for the government but for the whole country.

The second aspect of the special measures programs designed especially for women is the OPTION program. The purpose of this program is to encourage the recruitment of women for what are called non-traditional occupations. A non-traditional occupation is one where the representation of women is under 30 per cent. Again there has been encouraging progress. In all these areas progress has been made but there is still is a lot more work that needs to be done.

The progress is not always measured by numbers alone. The program has particular importance because through strategic placements, the way is open for women to become employed in areas that traditionally were almost closed to them. Let me give an example of what can be done in the area of non-traditional occupations.

In 1992 the former Department of Energy, Mines and Resources received an employment equity award for its achievement on the recruitment of women in the science sector. Under its young scientists program that department has increased the number of women scientists by 63 since 1989.

Various departments also have bridging programs for women. Women occupy the vast majority of positions in the administrative support category. However it has not traditionally been an easy matter for a woman to move from the position of a secretary to a junior administrative officer and so on up the ladder. Bridging programs provide women with the training and the skills necessary so they can compete for more responsible positions.

It is essential that women be given access to the training which will help them secure the advancement they deserve.

The renewed special measures initiatives program will provide even greater encouragement to employment equity within the public service. Programs that were successful in the past such as the OPTION program are being continued. A new flexibility has been introduced so that individual departments can receive the assistance they require to carry out on their own individually tailored programs to assist women and members of all those other designated groups to achieve better representation within the public service.

Employment equity is all of these things but it is more as well. It is an attitude. It is a recognition that women and men are equal and that each of them can in her or his own way provide high quality service to the Canadian public as a member of the public service. It means that a man can easily take orders from his boss, a woman, that a woman has an absolute right not to be harassed

in any circumstances, that a secretary could be a man and that all women and men are treated with dignity.

We recognize that employment equity must be an integral part of human resource management. It is not something separate to be considered only after essential matters have been taken care of.

Managers are being trained to understand that Canada today is a diverse country. That is its strength and the public service must reflect that diversity if it is to serve the Canadian people intelligently and well.

For women there are other factors as well and legislation and policies are in place to provide for them. For example, pension provisions that discourage part time work and the taking of child rearing leave have been repealed.

Flexible work arrangements are in place in recognition of the fact that it is women who still carry the major burden of household responsibilities. Telework may be of substantial help to women whose situation makes it difficult for them to leave the house for extended periods, for example.

Job sharing may provide for many women an opportunity to participate in the public service that they otherwise would not be able to do, or elsewhere in the economy that is not available to them at this point.

Let me say that these are not concessions that are being made to women or to any other members of any of the designated groups in the employment equity program. Employment equity implies that barriers to the employment of any member of society have been dismantled and all can compete on an equal footing.

With employment equity we in the federal government still expect to recruit the best and the brightest, but we shall be ensuring that the candidate pool is as diverse and as rich as possible and reflects what this nation's composition is all about.

If some training is required to diversify and enrich the candidate pool, we will provide it where we can. That is the meaning of employment equity and of equality.

We will have other occasions in which to discuss the growing role and equality of women in Canadian society and within the public service. I want to assure the House today of my own personal commitment, a commitment that goes back through the years that I spent in municipal government, to the principles of both equity and equality for women. I am pleased to have had the opportunity to participate in this debate today.

Thus, I am very pleased to reiterate in the House my commitment to employment equity, and equality between women and men.

[Jan Brown, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge the hon. minister's comments. I would like clarification on one part of the hon. minister's analysis. To me there seems to be something of a flaw.

The hon. minister related a whole host of impressive statistics regarding the executive group of the public service from 1983 to 1993. They show an impressive movement for that executive group. The minister went on to say that men and women are equal. If we are equal I would like to ask the hon. minister why we as women must be strategically placed. That does not necessarily explain that enhanced equality of opportunity and recognition based on merit is achieved through strategic placement. I would like the hon. minister to comment on that part of his discourse.

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I used those statistics to indicate that we have advanced a fair bit. I also said at the point where I gave those statistics to the House that we still have a long way to go.

Obviously we want to put the most qualified people in all of our jobs. We want to make sure that those who have experienced barriers to those opportunities have those barriers removed in order to provide the kind of training and preparation that is necessary to give them every opportunity to be able to advance into those ranks.

The statistics indicate that we have come a fair direction but we still have a fair direction to go. I certainly would welcome the hon. member and any other member of the House giving suggestions and ideas about how we might better achieve that.

This has been a learning process for all of us over the years. Perhaps it has been rather slow in appearance to many people, perhaps these changes have been too slow to come about. Certainly there is an increasing acceleration, as the statistics indicate. On top of that, there is a greater awareness and desire to find new mechanisms, new methods and new means of training and preparation for providing, as I said in my remarks, that pool of people from all of the different employment equity groups-women, aboriginals, disabled and visible minorities-in order to have a public service that better reflects the composition of our population.

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

Mr. Speaker, I just have a couple of comments.

First, as a member of the Reform Party caucus I am proud to serve in Parliament alongside the women members of the Reform Party, women who were elected as MPs to serve in Parliament not because they are women but because of their ability, determination and ambition. I feel very proud to say that I regard the women members of the Reform caucus first as members of Parliament and second as women. I appreciate them very much.

In listening to the hon. member's comments I heard phrases about employment equity, equality, et cetera. Really what I heard was quotas. I heard affirmative action. I heard about concessions.

I suggest that quotas have nothing to do with equality and everything to do with political correctness. If the government were serious about equality it would concentrate more on breaking down the barriers wherever they exist and inviting people of both genders, visible minorities, aboriginals and the disabled, to apply for jobs based on their ability, merits and qualifications for the job rather than talk about providing specific training for members of these four groups the hon. member mentioned so that they can be encouraged to fill some sort of quota that the government may have in mind for the public service.

I submit and suggest to the hon. member that the government would be far better off to look solely at the abilities of people when it comes to filling public service jobs rather than the gender or cultural heritage or whether or not they are disabled. That is what Canadians are all about, the equality of all, which is understood to be a given. The thing that has been most destructive in our country has been the separation into different groups by governments past and caused dissension amount the Canadian people.

I suggest that embarking on a path such as the hon. member has suggested is a path that leads to affirmative action and quotas in hiring. If we take a lesson from the United States we can see what kind of social problems that has caused. I hope it does not happen in our country.

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am astounded at "understood to be a given" that equality exists in the country. Unfortunately there have been a lot of barriers for visible minorities, women and disabled and aboriginal people. They have not had the opportunities.

We have a composition in the public service that in past has not represented the composition in the population. There have been barriers to employment and barriers in terms of pay opportunities. These are facts that do exist and have been substantiated time and time again by many studies.

We are simply trying to break down those barriers. I never said quotas. I never used the word quotas at all. I talked about training. How do you equate training and quotas? Training is to help people. Training is provided for all people, men, women and all of the target groups I talked about today, training to help prepare them for jobs that can help them to rise higher in the service, to be able to perform to the best of their abilities.

Surely there is nothing wrong with that. How does the member equate that to quotas? I never said anything about quotas. We are trying to prepare people to do the best they can, to be able to advance in the public service and to give them the kind of training and support they need so that we will have an even bigger talent pool to draw from when we need to advance people. That surely is going to be to the benefit of the people of the country in terms of the public service we would provide.