House of Commons Hansard #32 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was society.

Topics

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

Bloc

Paul Crête Bloc Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the hon. member's speech and I was particularly interested in the whole issue of employment equity for women because I have two daughters who will be in the work force in a few years and, after the question period we just had, I was wondering what message we were sending to young people growing up when we say that the fight against the deficit is preventing us from correcting pay inequities.

A moment ago, the deficit was given as a reason for not acting and not correcting an unacceptable situation. Fifteen years ago, other reasons were given and in ten years, still other reasons will be given if we do not correct the situation immediately. So for the sake of young women now in the education system who will be on the labour market in the 21st century, could you not tell us publicly that your government's present position should be changed and corrected to put equity ahead of the deficit?

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

Liberal

Marlene Catterall Liberal Ottawa West, ON

Madam Speaker, I have the pleasure to inform the hon. member that I too have two daughters who work in professional jobs and I hope that their future will be a little more comfortable than what the previous generation had to put up with. So we share an interest in women's future prosperity. I think that the President of the Treasury Board clearly indicated in this House that pay equity is not an option. There is no choice between pay equity and fighting the deficit. The two are separate. We are looking for ways to correct that. As I just said,

we invited the unions to talk with us about finding a solution for pay equity. I hope that they will come and meet with us to pursue these discussions in order to come up with a solution finally. We did not use the deficit as an excuse for not solving the problem.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:40 p.m.

Reform

Dick Harris Reform Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the hon. member's comments. For the most part I appreciate what she had to say.

I do have a concern in one area. It is when the hon. member talks about pay equity for jobs of equal value. The government is embarking on a formidable task. As I understand the proposal the government is intending to defy decades upon decades of experience where the marketplace has established the level of wages to be paid in any particular occupation.

To give an example of this, my wife works part time in a ladies fashion store in my home town of Prince George. She works very hard and puts in long hours. In my opinion she gets paid about one-third of what she is worth. Nevertheless she likes the work so she does it. I believe she works every bit as hard as an electrician for example who earns $25 an hour plus benefits.

The question is: Could that retail store afford to pay her $25 an hour if my opinion stands that she works as hard as an electrician? The answer of course is no.

This idea of trying to equate the wages a tradesperson makes with the wages of someone in a totally different job category where the wages have been determined by years of market experience is almost an impossible task. One cannot say a secretary should make the same as a painter because they are two different occupations and the level of the painter's wages has been set by the market.

Another interesting point is it seems to me when all these commissions come up with their findings they never ever say the wages in a particular category are too high and should be lowered. It is always the other way around. It is remarkable there has never been an instance in my understanding where the pay scale has been overvalued in a job and that pay scale should have been brought down to match a job of equal value. It is always the other way around and wages are raised.

I am not saying people should not earn as much as they possibly can. As a matter of fact because of our tremendous deficit and debt which has been incurred with the help of this government and the previous government people have to earn more money. The taxation levels are so darn high that the disposable income is now hardly enough to get by.

It is not a question of high wages. We are talking about job valuation. I believe the government is attempting to defy years upon years of market driven levels. It is embarking on a formidable task. I believe that it is going to be almost impossible to come up with a plausible conclusion to this study.

I would like to ask the hon. member if her government intends to try to defy all this history and come up with this new formula, reinventing the wheel, so to speak.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Marlene Catterall Liberal Ottawa West, ON

Madam Speaker, perhaps I can give the hon. member some specifics on this history that I think we intend to defy. Since 1978, over a decade and a half, equal pay for work of equal value has been the law in this country but it is still far from the reality.

We intend to defy history. Why should this government be exempt from legislation that applies to every other employer in the country?

We intend to defy the tradition that has ensured that women are poorer than men throughout the country; that has ensured that women are concentrated in the lowest paying jobs in this country; that has ensured that the largest percentage of single parents, women, live in poverty as well as their children. We intend to defy those traditions.

The member has commented that the market has determined these things. He mentioned a personal example. It may be fine for his wife, if he wants to bring her into the debate this afternoon, to work for less than a living wage. It is not fine for a woman who has to support her children.

Perhaps the member can tell me why a dogcatcher gets paid more than somebody who looks after the welfare of children, twice as much I might say. He might have a reasonable explanation for that.

The fact is that we have traditionally had a society in which men have done most of the money making work and in which women have traditionally done most of the unpaid work. That unfortunately has carried over into the labour market in which the work most often performed by women is seen as less valuable; in which the salaries of women have been seen as peripheral to the economic well-being of the family. For many families that is no longer the case. The exploitation of women doing work of equal value for less pay is no longer acceptable. It is not.

The market does not always establish fairness. It is up to a society to take some leadership in establishing fairness.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Bloc

Monique Guay Bloc Laurentides, QC

On this International Women's Day, it is with great pride that I take the floor in this House. This day set aside for us is, in my opinion, essential and it has the added advantage of providing an opportunity to reflect on the situation of women in our society.

Those 24 hours devoted exclusively to women increase the awareness of people and make us more aware of our problems-those very real and numerous problems we are faced with every day.

In a letter dated February 8 to the Prime Minister, the Advisory Council on the Status of Women provides a list of 17 priorities requiring analyses and policies at all levels of government in order to set up a framework based on equality. Equality is the operative word that we should always keep in mind when we are called upon to take a position, to make a choice, to set policies or to initiate action.

These 17 points proposed by the Council deal with well known areas. However, when you group them in some ways or when you try to relate them one to another, you realize that being a woman in our society is a major handicap. Job creation, safety at home and in the community, status of native women, women's health and health care, income security, wage parity, daycare services are areas where we suffer unfairness, iniquities and indifference.

As a woman member, I consider myself privileged to have the tools which allow me to protest on behalf of my sisters. Every opportunity I get, I consider it my duty to draw the attention to the situation of women. I believe all women members should do the same. Moreover, our actions within our caucuses should always be aimed at improving the condition of women.

Despite our demands and our actions, despite the efforts of women's groups, the situation is not improving very fast. The slow pace of reform and the lack of strong and specific measures to deal with urgent problems clearly demonstrate that decision-makers are very reluctant to promote women's causes.

What bothers me most with this passive and indifferent position towards women is that we are failing to respond to the legitimate expectations of 52 per cent of the population. Women are a majority in our society. Given this 4 per cent majority over men, I feel that we have an obligation to meet women's needs. Alas, in actual fact, the reality is something else entirely.

This situation brings us to question the role of women in the system. Power and representation, particularly at the political level. Our presence in legislative bodies.

First finding: 53 out of 295 members of this Parliament are women. Since 1980, our numbers have increased. We went from 17 female members of Parliament to 27 in 1984, 39 in 1988, and 53 today. It is an interesting increase but one that is clearly insufficient.

While women make up 52 per cent of the population, we only constitute 18 per cent of members in this House. On the other hand, while 48 per cent of the population is composed of men, our male colleagues account for 82 per cent of members in this House. These figures show that the current Parliament and those of the past-when numbers were even more disproportionate-do not reflect at all the male-female ratio in the population.

This underrepresentation clearly puts women at a disadvantage. It also raises the whole issue of women's political representation. Before going any further on this, I want to point out that this imbalance also exists in the Cabinet. Only 6 out of 31 ministers and secretaries of state are women. This underrepresentation also prevails in every major sector of activity. Power is certainly not in the hands of women.

Faced with this statistical evidence, this Parliament is certainly not a microcosm or miniature version of our society. This numerical imbalance, combined with long-standing male dominance, affects all women's issues. It has become imperative for us women to show our feminist beliefs and to politically represent women if we want our lot to improve.

Our male colleagues are rather reluctant to embrace the idea of representing the female population.

For the purposes of a study conducted in 1993 by Manon Tremblay and Réjean Pelletier, 24 elected female representatives and 24 elected male representatives were interviewed. Sixteen of the 24 women, or 66.7 per cent, agreed that they had a special or additional duty toward the female population. As for the men, more than three in five, or 60.9 per cent, felt that women representatives had no obligation to maintain closer ties with women voters.

Since the majority of male representatives believe that we, women elected representatives, should not give greater consideration to women, we can only imagine how they must view women in general. The status of women is surely not at the top of their priority list. Far from it.

I also read with interest in the 1993 annual report of the Lobbyists Registration Act that women's issues rank 42 out of 52 in terms of the number of times raised by lobbyists. In other words, this issue is not very important to them. Women's issues do not, therefore, benefit from this important access to the government. While it may be true that women's groups do not have vast financial resources, it is equally true that lobbying is a predominantly male field.

I will say no more about the ability and willingness of men to espouse women's causes. I know that some of my colleagues are not part of the statistics quoted here and are staunch supporters of our cause. However, the fact remains that on a daily basis, women are confronted with serious problems to which no solutions are being advanced.

I have no doubt that if women held 52 per cent of the seats in this House, things would be quite different. Some studies indicate that women show more humanism and develop ethics of responsibility in the performance of their duties. This concern for the person is evident from the remarks of this female member of Parliament who was quoted in the Tremblay and Pelletier report as saying that: "Our management of political power relies much more on understanding and feeling for the human element, the people, I would say, and we are more aware of the consequences of our actions-We see things differently. Our femininity comes into play and gives a much more humane quality to politics".

There should be more women in politics. It is becoming imperative, if we are to see more humanism and feminism in politics, with humanism setting the human being and human values above everything else and feminism seeking improvement of the condition of women in our societies.

When they look at the situation in their ridings, all the hon. members of this House can see that the country is in dire need of humanism and feminism. Poverty, misery, violence and isolation affect an increasing number of people. They are becoming pervasive and, if nothing is done, the process will soon be irreversible. Soup kitchens, shelters for battered women, child abuse centers, housing problems facing families, street children as well as lonely and less and less cared for older people speak loudly of unfeeling governments and their lack of regard for human values.

These serious problems did not crop up overnight. They have been around for far too long already. Lawmakers are aware of them, yet they do not act on these inhuman conditions often, actually very often, affecting the status of women. One day, it is all going to blow up in our faces. And governments will reap what they have sown.

Let us face it, and studies back up this statement, we would be facing a very different situation if more women were and had been in power. Let us have more women in power, by all means. Imagine a Parliament, the make-up of which would be the opposite of this one, a Parliament with 82 per cent women and 18 per cent men. Why not?

The truth of the matter is that women continue to face gender-based obstacles. That is why the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women recommended the reactivation of the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing, with a mandate to review and report on matters raised by women groups in their briefs to the Commission.

In closing, here lies a colossal challenge that we must take on. Fundamental changes are required, and what better place than Parliament to act upon society as a whole! It is up to us, men and women who are not blinkered, to make it happen.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Reform

Jim Gouk Reform Kootenay West—Revelstoke, BC

Madam Speaker, the hon. member who just spoke has obviously spoken with a lot of personal passion as to her feelings on this matter.

Although there have been many inequities in the past and no doubt some forms of discrimination, one cannot make that right overnight. It has been suggested that 52 per cent of the constituents in this country are women. Why do they need special concessions in order to have the amount of elected representatives proportionate to the number of people who are out there if they have 52 per cent of the vote?

It seems that women get to make these choices as well. There should be no obstacles placed in front of a candidate seeking election, male or female. However, given that 52 per cent, the majority of all the voters, are women why then do we have to provide special incentives and special clauses for women in order that they get elected?

There were some suggestions made that I heard a number of times that one has to have more women as members of Parliament since one cannot have representation for women with men since men are not able to properly represent women's issues. Does that suggest that wherever we have a riding with a woman representative the men's issues are not looked after? I think not and I would not agree with that any more than I agree with the latter.

It was suggested that lobbying is a male occupation. Lobbying is also something that is kind of looked down upon now and we are trying to cut down on the number of people who are lobbyists. Why would women want to get into a profession that we have been trying to squeeze out and put down because it is simply not one that is appropriate for this day and age of Parliament?

I would suggest that the right way for us to go is to end inequities, to give the same opportunity for all people. By all means, women should have every right to reach whatever their potential is. There is absolutely nothing that says in a free society in which there is absolutely no discrimination that there will be equal numbers of men and women in every occupation. That is absolutely absurd.

There are things that women do better than men in some areas and there are things that men do better than women in other areas because of physical attributes or because of many other different things in their make-up. I would suggest that what we have to do is be equal, give them the same opportunities. Whatever is the

proper proportion will evolve. We cannot change the system overnight.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Bloc

Monique Guay Bloc Laurentides, QC

Madam Speaker, I would not want to be the hon. member's spouse because the relationship would not last very long.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Bloc

Monique Guay Bloc Laurentides, QC

I have full proof that a lot remains to be done before women can have their place in society, and particularly in politics. This is the only comment I will make, but I do hope that the hon. member has a wife who will teach him to respect women.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Bloc

Osvaldo Nunez Bloc Bourassa, QC

Mr. Speaker, on International Women's Day, I want to offer my best wishes to all women in Quebec and Canada, and also to the millions of women throughout the world, and particularly in Latin America.

I especially want to pay tribute to women who are union activists, who are immigrant in Quebec, and to the women in my riding of Bourassa, in the north of Montreal, who are very involved at all levels of the political, economic, cultural and community fields.

Last week, I visited several community organizations headed by women, including the Centre d'action bénévole de Montréal-Nord, which just celebrated its tenth anniversary. I feel honoured to have been asked to preside the ceremonies as honourary president and I want to congratulate the director of that centre, Mrs. Josée Aubertin, for her excellent work.

I also met Mrs. Lise St-Jean and other officials representing Halte-femmes in the north of Montreal, an organization helping women who have been or who are victims of domestic violence. Halte-femmes offers these women various activities and services such as a hot line and meetings to discuss issues, escorts to court or to visit professionals, awareness workshops on violence against women, information meetings, a documentation centre, outings, special activities for immigrant women, etc.

I also want to salute the members of the Montréal-Nord chamber of commerce who had the wisdom to elect Mrs. Micheline Gervais as their president, thus benefitting from her initiative and great skills.

Allow me to mention two more organizations which are doing a remarkable job in my riding: first the Association Entre-Parents, a support group for parents in the north of Montreal, which has set up a day care centre and a community kitchen, under the co-ordination of Mrs. Louise Cossette, and second, the Impulsion-Travail Group, which under the direction of Mrs. Johanne Joly, tries to help women with work-related problems to find a job or return to the labour market.

I would also like to acknowledge the contribution of the FTQ, its labour councils and affiliated unions, as well as its status of women service. Last December, the FTQ held its biannual convention in Montreal, where I had the opportunity to speak to more than a thousand delegates.

During this convention, the FTQ approved a policy statement on violence against women, in which it mentions that, as the central labour body in Quebec, it is very concerned about the increase of violence in today's society. More and more tragedies, like the one which occured at the University of Montreal's École Polytechnique, have forced us to realize that we have to take action.

As opposition critic for citizenship and immigration, I would like to mention the significant contribution of immigrant women to the Quebec and the Canadian societies, especially those women faced with three times the challenge since they are women, workers and immigrants.

It is a well-known fact that, on average, women earn much less than men. What is not so well known is that immigrant women earn 80 per cent of the average wages paid to women in our society.

There are about 20 millions refugees in the world and 80 per cent of them are women and children. Recently, the whole world was horrified to learn that rape had become a general practice in Bosnia.

I want to take this opportunity to send a message of solidarity and, inasmuch as I can, a message of hope to those women. Today, I ask the Canadian government to be more compassionate towards the women of Bosnia who are persecuted and create special assistance programs in order to help them.

More specifically I ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to accept a greater number of refugees from the former Yugoslavia and to give special consideration to women who were raped.

I would also like to bring to your attention the special problem of women who request refugee status because they fear persecution based on their gender. Unfortunately, in the Geneva convention of 1951, gender is not mentioned as a specific reason for fear of persecution justifying the granting of refugee status. But in certain countries, women are in fact being harassed simply because they transgressed some rule, regulation or religious custom which is discriminatory towards women.

The religious precepts, social traditions or cultural standards women are accused of not respecting vary greatly.

Canada must do more to guarantee better protection and hospitality to those women, particularly women from countries where such dramatic situations occur. I want to emphasize that this effort should be inspired by the fact that the UN declared 1994 the International Year of the Family.

Finally, I would like to raise a very serious question concerning the mutilation of women's genital organs. I strongly support the request of the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women urging the federal government to show leadership in ensuring that female genital mutilation does not happen in Canada and to ensure assistance is available here to women who suffer the long-term health effects of such a practice.

Such violence against young girls and women must be vigorously denounced. It is clearly a violation of their fundamental right to physical integrity.

Several countries, including Sweden, Norway, Belgium, Great Britain and certain American States, have already taken steps to that effect, adopting policies to stop female genital mutilation and passing legislation banning the practice on their territory.

Between 1986 and 1991, nearly 40,000 people from East and West Africa settled in Canada. In view of the fact that female genital mutilation is widespread in these areas, the risk that this cultural practice is being brought into Canada is very high.

On this issue, the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women made several recommendations which I want to repeat here, the most important of which is that the federal government introduce a specific law banning female genital mutilation in Canada.

As you can see, a lot remains to be done to redress injustices against women. Therefore, I salute the courage and tenacity of the women who are fighting this battle in Quebec and Canada and I assure them of my support and solidarity.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

Halifax Nova Scotia

Liberal

Mary Clancy LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to take part in this debate today. I want to begin by complimenting the movers of this motion from Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. I want to say, however, that there are a few home truths that need to be reiterated on the whole question of gender equality and the topics that we are debating here today.

First of all, I want to say that in this party on this side of the House there is a history of feminism. I speak that word proudly and loudly, again and again. I think of members of this House such as the Deputy Prime Minister, such as the Secretary of State for the Status of Women, such as the Minister of Natural Resources.

I think of members such as the hon. member for Ottawa West, the member for Nepean, former members such as the member for South West Nova who was here today. I think of the former member for St. Paul, Aideen Nicholson, who was here visiting with us today on International Women's Day. I think back to the first woman Liberal to sit around the cabinet table, the Hon. Judy LaMarsh, who gives her name to a fund that raises money for women who run for public office in our party.

I am proud of the tradition of feminism in the Liberal Party. I am proud of the women I have been fortunate enough to sit with in the House for nearly the last six years. I am proud of the new female members who have joined us this time. I am also proud of my male colleagues, but today is a day to celebrate women and I want to celebrate women. Women have not had a whole lot to celebrate. The fact that we are making some small breakthroughs should not, for even the shortest period of time, allow anyone to stand in the House and suggest that the status of women in this country has achieved equality because it has not.

There are a number of us fortunate enough to be here today who because of accidents at birth, hard work and education have managed to make it here. There are thousands, millions of women in the country who suffer every single day from abuse, from poverty, from fear, from cold, from hunger, from things that we should not accept. Every one of us, of whatever political stripe, bears a responsibility for the fact that in a country like Canada in the last decade of the 20th century, that is still happening.

Equality will not exist until women can be free from fear; in their own homes, in their neighbourhoods, in parking garages, in the streets and in malls. Women are dying in those places. Women are being abused, and beaten, and hurt, and left for dead. There is an epidemic of violence against women that is beyond the level of tolerance in a civilized country.

I heard the hon. member across the way-I am sorry I forget her riding, but I know her spirit on this-speak eloquently about Bosnia earlier today. Women in Bosnia are being raped and beaten and degraded on a daily basis, but so are women in Canada, so are women in the United States, so are women in Britain and the European countries. It is a world-wide epidemic and we are not immune.

It is a number of years-and thank God it will probably never happen again-since men in this Chamber laughed when an hon. member brought up the question of violence against women. They laughed. I remember that. I suspect you remember it too, Mr. Speaker. I was not here at the time but I think that perhaps some of the reason for that laughter may have been nervous tension. It may have been, I hope, a total misunderstanding of the situation. That is what I as a feminist and as a member of Parliament and as a woman think is at the root of the problem; a

lack of comprehension by some men and some women. It is a lack of comprehension.

For many good people of both sexes the idea of the abuse of women, violence against women, sexual harassment, sexual discrimination, all of the things that women deal with, if it does not come up and face you, or your wife, or your daughter or your sister on a daily basis, then perhaps it is hard to understand. It is hard to know that it takes place.

Let each and every one of us who are women in this House tell you that you must begin to understand it because it is there. It is your responsibility, each and every one of you, through you, Mr. Speaker, to do something about it, not to merely mouth platitudes, not to merely say something like: "Well, it can't be true that we should have more women because men can't represent women or women can't represent men", or some such balderdash which begs the question.

Until we have a significant, and by significant I means upward of 50 per cent of women in all the legislatures in the country, we do not have true representation. It does not mean that a man cannot represent a woman or a woman cannot represent a man. It means that the way our society reacts is that if women are not there in sufficient numbers, then what is essentially a male patriarchal society decides they are not to be listened to in any louder a tone than their proportional representation allows.

That is not happening by accident. That is not happening because the women who sit in the House in all three parties want it to happen. It is happening because of the way all of us have been brought up. It is happening because of the way life has evolved to this point in the latter part of the 20th century.

It does not mean that we put up with it, and it does not mean that we accept it as the kind of situation that Canadians and those people who we all represent feel is correct.

Men can represent women and do on both sides of the House. Women can represent men and do on both sides of the House. But until all of us take very seriously the whole question of gender inequality, then those who do not take the question seriously, those who do not comprehend it viscerally, are not representing their constituents, male and female, to the very best of their knowledge and ability. That is what every one of us wants to do. We want to represent the people who put us here and even the people who voted against us.

The question of pay equity, the question of employment equity, the question of equality before the law, the question of freedom from fear, freedom from violence, are so basic that when I hear them discussed as debatable issues, if you will, I become very angry. That may have shown itself from time to time both in the House and outside once or twice.

The other day I was having lunch in my riding with a woman activist who happens to be black. We were discussing an article in a national magazine about racism and sexism. I said to her that a young black woman activist in the United States said that sexism made her angry but that racism enraged her. My friend said that put it about as well as she had ever heard it. She said that is how she felt. As a feminist, as a black woman, sexism makes her angry but racism enrages her. I understand that too but you take your battles and I guess you apportion your passions where best you can fit your own beliefs.

We can all understand to some degree another person's pain but I cannot truly understand, or truly experience, anti-Semitism or racism, at least in the context in which we know it in this country. I can and have and continue to experience sexism.

The other isms , if you will, make me very angry but I guess for me the most visceral is still sexism and sexism enrages me. It enrages me because I know the abilities, the hard work, the dedication of so many women who are voiceless; the women who raise their children, run the volunteer organizations, the churches, the PTAs, the home and school associations, the United Way, the volunteer groups all across the country. Yet all of them to some degree walk out of those volunteer offices and suffer from discrimination in the workplace. Almost all of them will suffer from discrimination in the workplace of one kind or another. Over 50 per cent of them will experience some form of violence, and 25 per cent of them will experience significant violent behaviour, usually more than once in their lifetimes.

We have a culture in this country of blaming the victim. We have a culture in this country of wanting to sweep it under the rug. We have a culture in this country of saying it is not as serious, it did not happen, it could have been avoided if she had behaved in a different way.

As with almost every evil under the sun, it is rooted in fear. For some it is a fear of sharing power, for others it is a fear of job loss, for a third group it is a fear of seeming to lose face, if you will, in the power structure that is the family, as wonderful an institution as it may be. In some the power structure becomes the answer as opposed to the loving family that all of us believe in so strongly.

Essentially what we are discussing today is an issue of fairness. What makes me so angry, what enrages me so much, is that sexism, discrimination against women, is unfair and a waste. It is a waste of talent, a waste of ability, and a waste of women power that could be put to work to make this country so much more than it is today.

I have been talking about this a lot in the last couple of weeks to journalists, student groups and young people across my riding and in other parts of the country. I have talked about the fact that the increase in the number of women in this House has made it a different Parliament. It is a different Parliament for a whole variety of reasons and I have talked about a certain joie de vivre among the women, certainly in my caucus, but I feel it across the way as well. We have reached the numbers if you will, not sufficient by any means, but we have reached at least a level where I believe, Madam Speaker-and may I compliment you on your first Question Period-that we have passed at least the level of tokenism. It is still not enough, we still are not representative, but we have passed the level of tokenism.

It was particularly edifying today to see you in the chair, to see all women at the table, with no disrespect to the gentlemen who occupy those seats right now, and to note that our pages in front of the Speaker's chair were for the most part all female during Question Period. It was interesting to note that with the exception of one token gentleman on the government side, the questioners on the opposition side and on our side were female.

Some people will say that is not necessary, or why do you want to do that, or why do you only do that on International Women's Day. I say, Madam Speaker, that we do that kind of thing because symbols are very important. It is important symbolically that women stand up on this day and speak for each other in support of those things that matter to us. We know they matter to men as well. But it is also important that we stand and speak in our own voices without the necessity of speaking through our male colleagues. It is important that young people-and there were a number of little sisters in the House of Commons today who were shadowing many of the women MPs-see women use their voices on a whole variety of issues, economic and social, today. Each one of us bears the responsibility of communicating to the young women of this country that this Chamber is their place too.

Someone once told me that she did not get involved in politics because it was not a very ladylike occupation. I agree that it is not very ladylike. I guess I am fairly glad it is not.

I heard a laugh over there. Thank you. I am not quite sure what it means but I can hazard a guess.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

Liberal

Pat O'Brien Liberal London—Middlesex, ON

I support you, Mary.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

Liberal

Mary Clancy Liberal Halifax, NS

Thank you. We were born on the same day. That is why he does that.

The importance of politics not being ladylike is that it must be shown, however, that it is not unwomanly. This House is the place for women. It is the place for as many women who have the desire, the nerve and the ability to get here.

It is also important to note that it is the place for women who hold a diversity of views. That is right also. Just as every man in this House does not believe the same way as every other on a variety of issues, neither does every woman and neither should every woman.

There are members on the opposite side with whom I disagree most vociferously on a variety of issues. There are members on the opposite side with whom I might agree just as vociferously on certain other issues. The point is that this is the House of our nation's debate and the voices of women must be heard here and they must be heard as strongly and as passionately and as frequently as the voices of men.

If we do not pay more than lip service to this, if we do not ensure that the pathways are open for women to get to this House, then we are equally not making sure that the pathways for women are open in all occupations and professions in this country. The bottom line is that is what the resolution we are speaking to is about.

I opened my remarks by saying that I was very proud of women I have served with and continue to serve with in this House. I am proud of my party's record on the status of women. Most of all, I am proud of what we are going to do in a whole variety of areas. I am proud of the blueprints in the speech from the throne and in the budget. I am proud that my colleagues were tough enough to make the hard decisions so that this country will continue but it will also thrive and flourish because of policies.

I am most proud because I know that on this side of the House with the wealth of support for women we will continue to ensure that women are full partners because anything less is simply unacceptable.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

Reform

Elwin Hermanson Reform Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the hon. member opposite. I was interested in her comments regarding the involvement of more women in the House and the feeling of our population, especially the female side, that they could effectively operate within the atmosphere of this House.

I was involved with my party in the nomination process and in the election process perhaps more than some others. I am happy to report that the Reform Party was more successful in electing their women candidates than they were their men candidates, if one looks at the proportion nominated and the proportion elected.

I was also involved with the recruitment of candidates. We certainly encouraged women to seek a nomination in our party.

I found that one of the factors that made women most hesitant in seeking nominations for election to Parliament was the dignity and decorum of the House itself. The member alluded to the fact that perhaps the atmosphere was unladylike but that one could be womanly in the House.

I found that many outstanding women candidates were very reluctant to place themselves in a position where they would be heckled, cat-called and the like in this Chamber. They felt that they would rather assist and work for their country in other avenues.

I wonder what the hon. member opposite would give me by way of suggestion as to how we could improve the decorum of the House so that we could reduce the number of cat calls. I understand it is much better in this Parliament than it was the last Parliament.

I know sitting on the opposition side we have been subjected on occasions to a lot of hoots and hollering that even as a man I find objectionable. I have heard from many women who also find that atmosphere to be very objectionable. It has been a hindrance to their involvement in politics.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Liberal

Mary Clancy Liberal Halifax, NS

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

Actually and this is only half in jest, wholly in earnest one of the best things that we did for improving the tenor and behaviour in the House was electing a new government

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

An hon. member

Hear, hear.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Liberal

Mary Clancy Liberal Halifax, NS

Okay, a little response here from these benches. Obviously the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands is not paying attention.

Very seriously, there were some very serious breaches in the last House, no question. I will not demean the honour of this House by repeating them but most of the members know the incidents that I refer to.

There were numerous sexist slurs and at least one very totally unacceptable racial slur. It gave rise to a committee that sat in the last Parliament and dealt with the questions of racism and sexism. I am extremely hopeful that the recommendations of that committee will be coming forward as part of a reform package in the House of Commons.

I would like to make another point because I am a very strong believer in the value of debate, of reasonable but not necessarily totally cool debate. There is a place for passion in the deliberations of a nation. If a member on the opposite side makes me angry, I should display that anger, always within the bounds of the decorum that this House deserves and needs.

I recall my good friend and colleague, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, saying at one point in the last House that he would take any insult as long as it was gender and race neutral. There is a tradition coming down to us from the Mother of Parliaments and the tradition in this House of salient debate, of back and forth between members that can add to the whole tenor of the debate if you will. I agree with the hon. member that cat calls and what I can only call dumb stuff is not part of that.

However I would not for an instant want to see us so bland that we would not respond with fairly strong language, not insulting, never racist, never sexist, never pejorative, but there is a place for saying that one thinks that is a pretty dumb thing to say and that that member is going to therefore say it is a pretty dumb thing to say. Maybe the word dumb is unparliamentary. I am not certain.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Liberal

Peter Milliken Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

No, it is not.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Liberal

Mary Clancy Liberal Halifax, NS

Thank you. Pious windbag-

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Liberal

Peter Milliken Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Oh no. That's not good.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Liberal

Mary Clancy Liberal Halifax, NS

That is not good. I am just using these as examples.

I would not want us to totally iron out our debate if you would. There is a place for the proper use of the English and the French languages in all their majesty in this House with their use of insult as well. I think there is a place for that.

With regard to recruiting women, I was very involved in that process in my party. I am delighted that we were so successful. I think that the language was certainly part of what would have precluded many women from thinking that they would run. However, there is more to it than that. There is more to this being user friendly for women than just the language in the House of Commons.

Sometimes a devastating personal attack can take place in this Chamber with language that one could use in the pulpit of any church in this land. It is not merely what is said. It is how it is said, who is saying it and how it is delivered. I guess I would say that the women who sit in this House, be they Liberal, Bloc, Reform or independent, are probably not frail flowers in the long run. I would suggest to members that any one of us on either side of the House could take anything thrown at us and probably lob it back with pretty good response.

That is not what we should be about here. However, women have to understand that it is incumbent upon them to be here to ensure that the level of debate stays high and does not pander to the kind of thing that we are talking about. If they do not come at all it is never going to happen.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

Kingston and the Islands Ontario

Liberal

Peter Milliken LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Madam Speaker, I believe that there will be unanimous consent for passing two motions.

I move:

That, if a division on the budget debate is demanded on Thursday, March 10, 1994, the vote on such motion shall be deferred until Wednesday, March 16, 1994 at 6.30 p.m.

Second, I move:

That, on Wednesday, March 9, 1994, the House shall continue to sit past the ordinary hour of daily adjournment for the purpose of completing consideration of report stage and third reading stage of Bill C-3, an act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal Post-Secondary Education and Health Contributions Act; and

That, if a recorded division at third reading be demanded, the same shall stand deferred until Thursday, March 10, 1994 at 10 o'clock a.m. provided that the time taken for the bells and the vote, if any, shall be added to the time provided for government orders in the same sitting, and the ordinary hour of daily adjournment shall be extended accordingly.

(Motions agreed to.)

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

Reform

Art Hanger Reform Calgary Northeast, AB

Madam Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to speak on International Women's Day to a motion by my hon. colleague to the right which reflects the decidedly left wing politics of Her Majesty's Official Opposition. Despite the good wording of this motion and the good intentions of my colleague, the implications of this statement in public policy are not entirely positive.

For too long in this country debates over equal rights have been confused with demands for special treatment. We have seen emerge a special language of rights, a language which uses the vocabulary of rights along with the good intentions of those who began Canada's tradition of human rights, to further narrow political interests.

While the intentions of people like my hon. colleague may be good, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The words rights and equality have been stripped of their old meanings. Whereas one used to know that a right had been violated when, for example, one was put in jail without cause, now many feel that a right has been violated when two people with different resumés, different lifestyles or different biologies do not earn exactly the same income. Whereas the right of equality used to mean the right to be subject to the same laws as, for example, members of Parliament, now the right of equal treatment is taken to mean that each Canadian should receive exactly the same amount of government subsidizing.

While intentions of the social planners and the lobbyists who push for changes in our political vocabulary and the alteration of our political traditions do on the surface display a genuine commitment to the common good, the net effect of their political actions are limiting of freedom, the strangling of private initiative and an attack on the very diversity that is cherished and demanded by the left.

A first broad reading of this motion reveals only a vague purpose. What one needs to do is look at each demand that this motion makes and examine what the real impact of these demands would be. First, the motion demands that this government recognize the principle of economic equality. If we accept that men and women must achieve perfect economic parity, then we have moved beyond equality of opportunity and into equality of result. This motion goes beyond equality of opportunity since equality of opportunity and equality under the law is guaranteed by the charter and by Canada's common law tradition.

That is not good enough for some. For some equality of opportunity really means that minorities, including women, despite the fact that women account for more than 50 per cent of the population, are being systematically singled out and are being restricted from achieving their fullest potentials.

Who is perpetrating this oppression? As usual white males are the culprits of choice. It is said that white males are institutionally advantaged and are maintaining their advantage in the market by excluding others. It is claimed that government programs are being unfair to minorities by not adequately dividing up the pie of federal revenues in a way that ensures the maximum equality of as many people as possible, especially women and visible minorities.

Do these all boy networks exist? Perhaps, but so do female networks and minority networks. Is there a failure of social programs to redistribute wealth in a manner that creates total equality of condition? Yes, and that is as it should be. Social programs were created to act as social safety nets and nothing more. When government makes a decision to change the mission of its programs from safety nets to tools of social change then we have moved away from democracy, given up freedom and sacrificed liberty for the sake of pie in the sky equality.

Is this the price we want to pay for economic equality? I do not think so and I am confident that the vast majority of Canadians do not think so. I am just as sure that there is a contingent of very active, very vocal and very misguided lobbyists and politicians for whom equality of opportunity is not enough. Those people have had their perceptions of reality so clouded by ideology that they cannot see beyond the trees of good sounding intentions and into the forest of an authoritarian welfare state.

Next, this motion asks government to ensure equality of employment, salary and living conditions. How exactly can government achieve such noble sounding goals? I am sure the sponsor of this motion has a plan of action in mind and this plan of action undoubtedly includes a redistribution of wealth, hiring practices that discriminate against one group to make up for the alleged discrimination of another.

Government could legislate pay scales. Government could pass a law requiring free housing to be made available for all women. Would these measures work? Would they achieve equality? Yes, in a way. For if government were to engage in this kind of social and economic engineering the result would be a form of equality. We would be equally burdened by poverty as government saps the initiative of entrepreneurs and the capital of business. We would be equally deprived of liberty as government regulates more and more into our lives. We would be free from having to make moral and responsible decisions for ourselves as government in its wisdom takes that decision making power away from us.

While it may not be apparent to my colleague in Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, there is an alternative to the equality that comes from massive intervention in all areas of human endeavour. The alternative is equality under the law, equality that comes from equal protection by government from true threats to personal achievement and success.

Canada used to be committed to this vision of equality. Canada used to be a nation in which all individuals were free to participate in the workforce, to succeed economically, to start and develop a strong family unit and enjoy the security, freedoms and equality that come from a good job that can support a strong and intact family.

That vision became unacceptable to the intellectual and political elite in Canada. For the last 20-odd years our elite have been more interested in pushing an agenda of radical change than an agenda for preservation of what works.

An example of what works is creating equality under the law by ensuring that the criminal justice system is able to effectively protect all people. What use is it to demand the right to equal pay when women are afraid to walk the streets alone? What good is it to try to create equality in housing when women often live in fear of abusive partners?

It seems to me that our priorities have become very confused indeed. Further, Canadians are increasingly becoming aware of the inability of government to take over the roles that have been traditionally played by the family. Government, as a result of the very initiatives that are proposed in this motion, has tried to adopt the role of primary parent, primary guardian of children and even principal breadwinner for many families.

What has come of this?-an over burdened and bloated government, children who are neglected in government subsidized day care rather than being taken care of by parents.

Parents today often have to leave their children with caretakers because taxes take so large a bite out of salaries that one pay cheque is no longer enough to support the in home care of children by a parent.

Again, there is a degree of equality being forced upon us here, an equality of mediocrity, an equality of fear that our justice-

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

I am afraid the member's time has expired.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

Halifax Nova Scotia

Liberal

Mary Clancy LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Madam Speaker, I have a reality check that I would like to bring in. It may well be that a lot of women, and I have said it myself and I could not agree with the hon. member more, are unsafe in their houses.

That does not mean they should live in houses that are unsafe in and of themselves. It does not mean that we should merely fix one problem to the exclusion of another. It does not mean that if we solve crime in the streets we go on to solving the problems of poor housing.

One of the difficulties of governance is trying to solve more than one problem at a time, lest as we throw out the bath water we are also throwing out the baby.

Those of us on this side of the House, those of us who call ourselves feminists, are also proud to call ourselves people who believe in families. I have a family. Most of us have. I love my family and I believe deeply and passionately in the family.

I have another reality check. This may come as an overwhelming surprise to some people. Women work because they want to. They work because they like to, because it gives them personal satisfaction. They work because they often need a second pay cheque but one can be a working woman and be a good mother.

My father had the bad grace to die when I was seven years old and my mother went out to work to support the family which would probably be acceptable in certain circumstances. Let me say very strongly that my mother, who was a very good mother, loved her job. She enjoyed going out and working. God knows her only child grew up to be a member of Parliament which in some cases may be tantamount to ending up in jail but she thought it was a fairly successful resolution to the bringing up of her only child.

Most of my friends, practically all of my closest friends, classmates, women I went to school with, both work and have children. Their children, contrary to the opinion of some people, are not on crack cocaine or robbing stores or doing any of these things. One of them is taking a course in western civilization at the Sorbonne. Another one is in first year medical school and is

also holding down one of the first SSHRC grants ever to be given to a young student. His mother worked from the time he was an infant.

Their name is legion, the mothers and children in this country.

Madam Speaker, I believe you raised four sons. My God, I believe you also went out to work.

It is time we rid the myth that working mothers are responsible for the social problems in this country. Right now the vast majority of women, mothers of families, work because they have to to maintain a certain standard. That is true. They do not work for the colour televisions and the trips to Hawaii, they work to make sure that their families have the standard of living they deserve.

Every woman has the right to self-fulfillment. She has the right to go out and earn a living. She has a responsibility and it is usually shared with the father of those children, if he happened to stick around. In most cases they do stick around and go to work as well and they do good jobs.

I am told my time is up and I hope that this will be the last paid political announcement from this side.