Debates of March 8th, 1994

Supply

[Maud Debien, Bloc, Laval East, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to wish a wonderful International Women's Day to all my female colleagues in this House.

I am proud of the solidarity which unites us today, in this House, where we wanted to be elected because we believed we could influence political decisions and protect the interest of the population of Canada and of Quebec.

Women make up 52 per cent of our population. I firmly believe that it is the duty of a responsible government and members who were elected to represent their constituency to respect and guarantee equal opportunities and equal rights for men and women. The fact that there are not as many women in this House as there could be, shows how difficult it is for women to get into politics.

I am also very pleased to make my first speech during a debate held on the International Women's Day. The status of women has always been a main concern of mine and my involvement as a founding member of the Centre des femmes de Laval gave me the opportunity to better understand the daily problems and the dramas some women have to deal with. Often, these women can only rely on the community resources made available to them by the women's groups to help them to take charge of their life to become independent and more aware of their own situation.

Allow me, on this special day, to reiterate my support and send my best wishes to all women in Laval, and especially to my female constituents in Laval East. I would also like to mention the wonderful work done by women organizations in Laval and all the volunteers who care for the well-being of women in Laval.

Like several other organizations, women's groups play a primary role by advocating changes to improve the standards of living of women.

I was able to appreciate the quality of services provided to women in need, such as crisis centres, counselling services, referral services, shelters, health services, training, emergency services, and the list could go on and on.

It is also the first time in federal political history, that Laval has female MPs. I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to those women who work with such dedication at La Maison Le Prélude, Le Centre des femmes, Le Centre d'accueil pour les femmes victimes de violence, the AFEAS, Le Cercle des fer-

mières, Le Club des femmes d'aujourd'hui, Laval au féminin, Pause Carrefour-Santé, and other centres.

I want to thank the volunteers and the workers of those various organizations which offer women a place where they can feel a sense of belonging and solidarity.

The active contribution made by women to improve the quality of life for Canadian and Quebec societies takes many dimensions. In the past, women have shaped Quebec and Canadian societies, whether by making an economic and social contribution with their work at home or in the workplace, or through their entrepreneurship, their initiative, their dedication and their skills. Today, women are increasingly more present in all sectors, thereby continuing to play a major and active role to ensure the collective prosperity of our societies.

Throughout history, the movement to promote women's status has always sought a greater recognition of the principle of equality between men and women. If the status of women has improved over the years, although a lot remains to be done, it is because of the efforts and initiative of women's groups. Let us not forget that women fought hard to have their rights recognized.

Women often had to fight powerful religious and political institutions, as well as the press of the time.

Women's groups have been the driving force behind change in the area of social, political and economic justice in our societies.

The first women's organizations called for basic rights: the right to a higher education, the right to equality before the law, the right to vote. Great Canadian and Quebec women laid the groundwork for equality and for the right of women to participate in all spheres of activity. Their tenacity, commitment and determination gave rise to new hopes, struggles and victories. While some of these women's names are inscribed in the history books, others still echo in this noble House, reminding us of the ideal to uphold and encouraging us to continue following in their footsteps.

At this time, I would like to recall several of the women's groups and pioneers who, through their dedication, sense of justice and fairness, were responsible for the emergence of important women's rights movements. They include Thérèse Casgrain of the League for Women's Rights, Marie Gérin-Lajoie of the Provincial Franchise Committee for Women's Suffrage, Carrie Derrik of the Montreal Suffrage Association, Grace Ritchie England of the Local Council of Women of Montreal, Idola Saint-Jean of the Alliance canadienne pour le vote des femmes, Laura Sabia of the Voice of Women, Léo Roback, the well-known feminist and activist, Laurette Slone of the League of Women, Madeleine Parent of the textile union, Azilda Marchand of AFEAS, the women's association for education and social action, Nellie McClung who fought for women's suffrage in Western Canada, Bessie Starr and Emily Stowe who, as early as 1888, spearheaded the drive for the recognition of women's rights, and, last but by no means least, the celebrated Agnes Macphail.

However, the history of women quickly brings us back to reality. Despite the major gains made, women's groups still must fight today, in 1994, to maintain what they have achieved and to have their rights recognized. Indeed, in the past few years, under the guise of deficit and debt reduction, we have witnessed an unprecedented conservative backlash and a move to push women back, whereas they still have substantial gains to make.

In their day-to-day lives, women are still confined to job ghettos where, of course, they earn lower wages. According to the report of the Canadian committee on the status of women, one in seven women, or 71 per cent-works in one of five professional categories: teaching, nursing and other health care professions, office work, retail and the services sector. The percentage of women working in non-traditional sectors such as manufacturing, construction trades, transportation and communications and handling in fact dropped from 13 per cent in 1981 to 10 per cent in 1991.

This same report also mentions that 85 per cent of salaried women work in service industries, as compared to 62 per cent of men. Moreover, 14.8 per cent of the female labour force works in production sectors. Not only are women confined to job ghettos, but in cases where they perform similar work of equal value to the work done by men, they are paid far less.

Another example of disparity is access to the job market. If accessing the job market is difficult for men, it is even more so for women. Among other things, the provisions aimed at facilitating the entry of women into the labour force are inadequate. For example, daycare services are inadequate and there is a lack of alternative measures such as more flexible work schedules, adapted career paths and family leave.

The result of the difficulty for women to access the labour market is dramatic: 55 per cent of the poor are women and, among them, the poorest are single mothers. Statistics show that one Canadian family in five is a single-parent family, 82 per cent of which are headed by a woman and 61.9 per cent are living under the poverty line.

Do you know, Madam Speaker, what the annual income of unemployed single parents was in 1991? Scarcely $12,000, which puts them well below the poverty line. These are generally women like those you will find in shelters and transition centres, who have to rely on support agencies.

Here is another fact. Our seniors who, through their hard work, sacrifices and generosity, have helped build this country find themselves in a similar situation. The report I quoted earlier

indicates that nearly 50 per cent of women 65 years old and over have less than minimum subsistence income. While 85 per cent of older men receive pension benefits, only 50 per cent of women in the same age group do.

The list of cases where women invariably come off the losers is long: violence, inadequate job training, social housing shortage, unfair taxation. Allow me to say just a few words on the subject of taxation, as it speaks volumes.

We all know that actions are planned regarding tax women have to pay on support payments which, sadly, they all too often do not receive. On the other hand, their estranged spouses can claim a deduction for all amounts paid in alimony. How can such inequity be justified? We often hear that it is intended for men, to induce them to obey alimony orders. I would like to remind this House that about 75 per cent of estranged spouses still do not pay.

With the recession, deficit and debt always looming in the background, the dominant economic discourse would have us believe that excessive costs associated with social needs are the cause of all our problems. But this premise is incorrect. The cost of our social programs has not increased in over ten years. Social programs are not responsible for the skyrocketing deficit and debt. The Canadian debt crisis was brought about by government mismanagement. The deficit is growing because the government refuses to put in place a fair taxation system, because its monetary policy maintains interest rates artificially high, thus making the debt service charges increase and creating more unemployment, and because the government refuses to reduce waste and overlap.

The women and women's groups mentioned earlier decided to get organized and to act to get equal rights. They showed the way. If women have been able to find help, comfort and justice, it is thanks to other community groups that have since joined in. As I said earlier, in 1994, women's groups still have to fight for their survival. The budgets and attitudes of the previous government, which seems to be the source of inspiration for this Liberal government, jeopardize the very existence of such groups. We have as evidence the 5 per cent cut announced by the finance minister in various support programs, in addition to the 25 per cent reduction these groups have sustained since 1989. Their budget was slashed from $12.5 million in 1985-86 to $10 million in 1993-94, and it will be even less if we believe the Minister of Finance. This is unacceptable, as the initial funds provided to these groups were already clearly insufficient.

The 400-odd women's groups are active in many areas-including physical and mental health, employment, single parenthood, violence, and aging-which would cost a lot more to manage if the government was directly responsible.

By pulling out and encouraging groups to get funding from other groups, the government shows its ignorance of the realities in these organizations. Most of the time, this forces women to spend a lot of time and energy on fund-raising, when this time and energy would be better spent on improving women's living conditions and, in the end, the well-being and quality of life of all Canadians and Quebecers.

True, the private sector sometimes supports women's groups and associations, but only as long as they provide direct assistance services to the population. But what about awareness groups demanding economic equality, equity in employment and wages, parental leave, preventative withdrawals, child care services, in short, better living conditions for families? The private sector rarely subsidizes lobby groups. By gradually withdrawing their financing, the government once again penalizes the most disadvantaged, a group where women are in the majority.

Is it not important to question the cuts introduced by the previous government, that the current government apparently wants to maintain and even deepen? Is this not a disguised way of muzzling women's groups that make claims and exert pressure? Should we not question the gag method designed to prevent them from criticizing government policies?

I would now like to make a comment about interest groups. Contrary to what some people think, women's groups are not interest groups. As the National Action Committee on the Status of Women rightly stated, the interests of 52 per cent of the population are not special interests but public interests. The promotion of social, political and economic justice does not have anything to do with the lobby for multinationals, banks, family trusts and businesses that do not pay taxes.

In its throne speech of January 18, the government expressed its intention to change its relations with lobbyists. Canadian and Quebec women would like the government to clarify what is a lobby and what is an interest group and who are their members.

Finally, I would like to say that the involvement of both levels of government in the area of subsidies to women's groups and organizations in Quebec, like in many other sectors affecting women's lives, creates overlap and duplication in programs and structures, leading to a waste of public funds.

I personally think that Quebec women's interests would be better served if there were only one level making decisions and distributing funds. It also makes it impossible for Quebec to develop a consistent policy on the status of women.

For example, the dual jurisdiction in family law often leads to inconsistencies. The federal Parliament has jurisdiction in marriage and divorce matters, while Quebec can legislate on solemnization of marriage and on property and civil rights. Quebec cannot in these conditions initiate a reform process that could give it a unified family court.

In closing, I hope that this day of reflection and debate on the status of women will allow women to continue their long march towards equality and independence.

[Audrey McLaughlin, NDP, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on today's motion especially because it is International Women's Day. All members should keep this very important motion in mind.

I would like to make some comments today about the economy and women's place in that economy, not the place that is defined for us, but the place we define for ourselves. It is a place that is equal, just and co-operative. It is one that gives us choices and allows us to determine our own vision of who we are and who we want to become as individuals in society. I want to talk about what we can do as parliamentarians, as men and women in the House to bring about the fundamental change which is required if we are to make that vision a reality.

Many people get nervous when we talk about fundamental change. It is very threatening to some. All kinds of excuses will be put forth as to why we cannot bring about real change. Sure, maybe there can be a program or two, a pay raise here or there, but tamper with the big stuff, talk about structural change and the alarm bells go off. Obviously someone has a good thing going but it sure is not the women of Canada.

This is not to suggest we have not made extraordinary gains. International Women's Day is about some of those gains.

Today we look at our universities with some satisfaction. Half the undergraduate students are women. Forty-one per cent of medical students are female; 48 per cent of law students are women; and 47 per cent of business students are women. One-third of all businesses started in Canada are started by women. The success rate of those businesses is very high and exceeds those started by men.

In all other areas however, women still lag far behind. Only 17 per cent of university professors are women. Only 18 per cent of members of Parliament are women. Only 1 per cent of corporate executives are women and one of them was so successful she was named "Man of the Year". Women also continue to be grossly underrepresented in engineering and in the sciences.

Sometimes people ask me why we need to have 50 per cent female politicians, 50 per cent female engineers and so on. It is just common sense to me, common social sense and common economic sense. Our society can no longer afford to ignore the expertise and knowledge of half of our population.

Women have always played a key role in the economy as unpaid labour. This invisible cheap labour feeds and cares for the family, for the male paid workforce and raises future workers. It is called a labour of love. We know love is a part of it but so is exploitation.

Money too often has been the measure of worth in our society and because women's labour has not been paid it has been historically undervalued. Because that work has been undervalued, far too often women have not been valued. That lack of worth has a whole array of consequences going beyond our lower paycheques. Women still make 69 cents on the dollar of men in our society.

We see it as well in the lack of commitment to women's health care needs and the controversies over breast implants, breast cancer and the overmedication of women. We see it in continued violence against women, victims of abusers in a too often abusive society. We see it when a woman cannot get the police to enforce a peace bond against her violent partner, yet the laws are always there to protect property in times of strikes. We see it in the twisted notion that somehow rape is not a war crime. That is changing to some extent but we recognize how much more there is to do. We see it in sexual harassment being treated as a joke by some.

That is the kind of thinking which has to be challenged and changed. Who is making the rules? Who says it has to be this way and who says it cannot be changed? Many people who have profited from the way things are are the ones who are saying it cannot be changed.

Some people will remember when slightly under 10 years ago former member of Parliament Margaret Mitchell mentioned in the House that one in ten women suffered from spousal assault and many members laughed. We have a way to go. Today people would not laugh. We have to go beyond the rhetoric to implementing real programs and take the trend in attitudinal change into real action. The reality is that the world has changed in many ways. Society has changed. It is time for politics to catch up.

We know child poverty is a tremendous problem and shame to Canada. We have been sanctioned by the United Nations for child poverty. Poor children have poor parents. In Canada unlike many of our trading partners 58.4 per cent of single parents, the vast majority of whom are women, still live in poverty. Opportunities and choices are too often denied to them. It is not because people say they do not value the family. It is because the structural changes that would fundamentally attack these issues in our society have not been made.

There are three important ways to broaden these choices and to expand those opportunities. They are pay equity, employment equity and a national child care program.

I would like to deal with the issue of child care. No doubt there is a link between the ability of women to participate in the workforce and the availability of accessible, affordable child care.

In a past career I worked for a children's aid society. After a number of years I was struck by the view that our society is not a very child loving one. We do not structure our society in a way that values our children and our future. The lack of this reasonably rich and resourceful country to come to terms with the need for affordable, accessible child care is one example of our failure to value families and children.

Child care is not a charity issue. In many ways it is not a social issue. It is an economic issue. It must not be seen solely as a woman's issue. Child care is the responsibility of everyone in society. It is central to the functioning of our economy. Looking at studies from other countries it is very easy to see the correlation between the availability of child care and the ability of women to participate in the workforce.

Other important steps can be taken to ensure women's economic equality. Labour legislation can be passed making it easier for workers to organize in sectors where women predominate and where work is very often part time, casual or temporary.

We can take it upon ourselves as legislators to see that part time workers, whose numbers are increasing and a large percentage of whom are women, receive adequate pensions and other benefits to ensure a more stable future.

There can be labour standards with flexible and comprehensive leave policies that recognize family responsibilities and the rights of same sex couples.

We hear much from different parliaments, not just in Canada but abroad as well on the question of family values. I ask each person today to examine their consciences in terms of how our actions show we care about families. If we really cared about families we would have child care. We would have appropriate labour legislation. We would ensure the family is valued not by rhetoric and not by simply longing for the long past nuclear family, if it ever existed, but by recognizing the situation as it is today and valuing the choices people make and valuing our children.

We can have a clear definition of sexual harassment in labour legislation. The legislation can set clear policies for handling complaints and discipline.

On the economic front we can make low interest rate loans more readily available to co-operatives and small businesses, many of which give women a greater say in their own economic future.

We can find ways to value unpaid work. We can encourage young women and girls to study math and science. We can include women's studies as part of core curriculum and ensure post secondary courses accommodate women's needs.

We can provide training programs to move women into trades and technologies. Those programs can be made available to women in both rural and urban areas.

I would like to say a word about the focus needed for women in rural areas. The availability of training and educational opportunities is often more difficult. It is something our society has not really come to terms with. Our rural economy and the needs of rural women must be a focus for members of the House.

We must ensure as well there are adequate old age security and income supplements so that older women do not have to live in poverty. Older women make up a disproportionately large percentage of those living in poverty.

We can build more low cost housing so that women have a safe place to call home. We can make sure that health care meets the needs of women, not just those of drug companies. Women must be given choices in those health care needs. That means more funding for planned parenthood, more research into safe and effective contraception and ensured access to abortion services not just in urban hospitals but in community based clinics across Canada.

True economic equality for women will come about only through these and other initiatives. That economic equality will go some way in addressing the imbalance of power between women and men in our society, an imbalance that contributes to violence against women.

We will not be safe, be respected, get child care, get equal pay or get better health care unless we as women and men, as parliamentarians and decision makers, take leadership on these issues. Too often there has been a tendency for the House not to take leadership on these issues.

I must say many men in this House have supported the kinds of equality measures I am talking about. It gives me great hope that together we can accomplish the kind of equality which will enhance our society, our families and our country. Equality and social justice require a true commitment not just from governments, not just from parliamentarians but from society as a whole. As parliamentarians we have a role to play. We help to formulate legislation which very often not only addresses inequities but leads the way. It takes more than that; zero tolerance for violence in our society for example.

There is much we can do outside the House to support and promote equality for women. As women, we have to value our own experiences because sometimes we undervalue them, and recognize that someone who runs a home can very likely run a business or a country.

Second, I would say that those of us who have had some small success in our careers have a responsibility to be mentors to younger women who will follow us. It is by our example that we can begin to redefine what is of worth in our society.

I have had the opportunity to speak over the last six years on International Women's Day, both in the House and across the country. We have seen many sad things in the House as well that we have acknowledged having taken place. All of us remember the Montreal massacre, and it was of credit to the House that members supported December 7 as an official day of mourning.

These are important statements that have been made by parliamentarians. Today is the day we should rededicate ourselves, men and women, to use the power we have, in the House and outside, to promote true equality.

I have been involved for many years in the women's movement and I know that words do not change much, but the language we use can change the way we think about things. We have had some rather regrettable examples in the House of Commons where people forgot that. It does matter what we say; it does matter what we do.

I believe the issue of women's equality is inextricably linked to the equality of everyone in our society-aboriginal people, visible minorities, persons with handicaps-and that when we tolerate structural inequality, as I believe we have at the moment in our society, we are ignoring a very basic political fact. Today we look at what is happening in South Africa where racial injustice was not only ignored but was promoted for many years. It affected every person in that society. It affected international relations.

We do not necessarily have a sterling record on women's equality internationally. Members will remember that last year Canada was deemed the number one country by a United Nations report, the best place to live under a whole series of criteria. It also added that if the status of women was factored in we dropped to eighth.

As the debate went on, I noticed that report was used to say, quite rightly, that we are that kinder, gentler society that others might long for. I rarely heard anyone mention the equality of women and the second part of the report which made a very negative observation about our society.

My party supports the motion put forward by the Official Opposition. However we would like to see parliamentarians do more than simply support it verbally by giving speeches, but by what we do and what we undertake to do as individual members of Parliament and as political parties.

People will recall that during the previous session of Parliament some of the recommendations of the Electoral Reform Commission were accepted. One section was not and I would like to suggest to the government that it show its commitment to equality. The Electoral Reform Commission recommended that political parties receive a rebate based on the number of women they nominated as candidates. That acknowledged an acceptance of the fact that we do not have sufficient numbers of women in political life.

I would also like to see the government restore core funding to women's centres that provide many of the services, often sadly at a fairly low wage rate, to the communities across the country which help to deal in preventive, educative and counselling ways with the issues which most people here I am sure will say they are concerned about: violence against women in our society, poverty, and so on.

I would make a plea for the government not just to give a nice speech today but to acknowledge the contribution of women: women who run transition homes, women's centres, counselling centres, and what that means to our society as a whole.

In conclusion, in supporting the motion I would like to say that International Women's Day is not a day simply for women. It is a day when we can recommit with actions, and in this forum with legislation, that truly will work toward redressing the imbalance between men and women in society.

We have seen positive changes over the years. I am pleased that many men share the goals that we who have worked in the women's movement for equality for many years have promoted. Only together and through our role as parliamentarians can we show the rest of the country that the leadership, the elected members, take the motion seriously, will act on it and not just support motions but support legislation when needed.

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying to the leader of the New Democratic Party that I support everything in her remarks. I was listening to her speech in my office while working on another issue and I came over here because I felt that she, as always on this issue, is right on track.

I would like to comment on a particular part of the hon. member's speech where she talks about women in business. In the United States right now women owned or partnered businesses employ more people than all the Fortune 500 companies combined. The emerging force is women as the real leaders in entrepreneurship in North America, not just in words. It is reality. The facts and statistics are there. It is one of the reasons

why the Minister of Human Resources Development is going to be supporting momentarily the opening of Canada's first women in business centre in downtown Toronto. We can see the tremendous success that is emerging from women owned or partnered businesses.

We are finding that one of the most difficult issues facing women who are either starting a home based business or moving from a home business into a larger business is that the financial institutions, the banks, do not get it or cannot seem to read the statistics of success. Canadian bankers will say that women repay loans better than men. This is all statistically recorded. Still we hear that women owned or partnered businesses have a very difficult time in accessing capital.

In the member's opinion or because of her experience, could she give us some reasons why financial institutions are so restrictive in their attitudes when they are loaning money to women who want to start or expand their businesses?

[Audrey McLaughlin, NDP, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I guess I could give a psychological analysis as well as a financial one.

Part of it comes back to the fact that historically as well as to some extent now, women's work is not valued. Some decision makers in financial institutions, men or women, are having a bit of trouble making the link that women can actually be successful in a variety of areas. As my friend says, we know the statistics about the success of women in business.

I have heard this from my constituents and had the experience myself perhaps seven or eight years ago where I could not get a credit card unless my spouse signed to say that I was a good person, a good financial risk or something. The fact that I was divorced seemed to be not understood by the people who were asking.

It is attitudinal in our society. It is one of the attitudes we have to address. I speak to may women across the country, professional women, women who are moving from home base to larger enterprises. They have a terrible time getting funding. It is a very real problem.

I would say to my friend that there are many analyses I could make but the best would be for the government which according to the budget is going to be sitting down with financial institutions to make sure that it raises this very important issue for funding for women entrepreneurs. I am sure if my friend is there he will do that. I ask that the government make this a priority as well.

I was struck, and I mentioned it briefly in my comments, that at the end of last year the Financial Post put out a magazine that had 200 of Canada's top executives. We have to remember that the most influential chief executive officers of the country probably carry some political clout as well as business clout. Two of them were women.

This is also illustrative of the business community as a whole, not just the financial community. It has to recognize two things, not just the value of women but the reorganization of the work place that values-it would be of advantage to men as well-family roles.

That would go equally for the House. We might think about how schedules are arranged and those with family responsibilities, men and women, can be assured that there is more time to carry out family responsibilities by the very schedule we set here ourselves.

I have spoken to many women who are concerned, particularly in business and in politics, about taking senior positions because of the kind of humanless work environment that tends to be constructed in our society. That is a real issue for the future which all of us might want to give some attention to if we truly believe in involving more women in both of those arenas.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the opposition's motion encouraging the government to recognize equality between men and women and to implement necessary measures to ensure this in the area of federal jurisdiction.

On this International Women's Day it is truly a privilege for me to address such an important issue here in the House. However before I begin I would like to thank my mother, Irene Lemak, for deciding to have me, raising me, putting up with me, looking after me and loving me. Thanks, Mom.

Back to the motion, it is our duty as members of Parliament to address the problems of equality that women face in the workforce, encourage co-operation and protect the rights of all Canadians.

Economic equality can only exist between men and women when employment in the country is truly based on individual qualifications, experience, motivation and not gender. In this system the individual who is best qualified for a job, male or female, would get the job.

However the fact of the matter is that true equality in this form remains an ideal in Canada and not a reality. It is time for women in the country to be given the respect, the pay and the opportunities they deserve. This means that as a government, members of all parties should work to review the problems associated with sexual harassment and discrimination in the workplace and correct any wrongs that surface as they are discovered.

We must explore the problems associated with maternity leave and the difficulty that many women face in re-entering the workforce. It must be a balanced approach with the needs of the

employer also factored in. Currently the system that exists seems to recognize the problems and it seems to work.

Before I became a member of Parliament I ran businesses for 25 years. A lot of times this problem surfaced and by allowing the women to have maternity leave, have their baby and holding their job open to them for a period time of three to five months to make a decision as to whether they wanted to come back, this seemed to work. Out of six such pregnancies I had four female employees who decided to stay at home and two who came back. Perhaps a system like this has improved.

We must examine the discriminatory problems associated with child care and the rights of stay at home parents who are not entitled to the same rights as those who pay for child care outside the home. We must acknowledge the fact that there is a social stigma attached to stay at home mothers which implies that they are not on the same level as those who work outside the home. We must recognize the value of the contribution of those women who work at home and give them the opportunity to pursue any direction they choose.

Having a child should not be directly influenced by the government with various incentives through legislation. For instance, Calgarians Jim and Laurie Boland were recently told in Federal Court by a judge who had to make the decision that a parent who chooses to be at home with their child is not entitled to the same privileges as those who pay for child care.

The Income Tax Act admittedly denies the Bolands equal benefit under the law, but because stay at home parents are not a "a discrete and insular minority", as used by the judge they are not protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

This is legal discrimination and this must stop. If the motion today is intended to address problems like these, I would encourage the government to get on it right away and introduce legislation to make a judge's ruling unnecessary in situations like this one.

Parents should be free to choose the form of child care which best suits their situation as opposed to having government reward one choice over another.

In this International Year of the Family it is my intention before the year is over to introduce a private member's bill on the topic of equal financial assistance to all families regardless of the type of child care arrangements that they have made.

Let us build a country in which taxation and the options for employment are fair, a country in which opportunities flourish for individuals and employment is based on qualifications, experience and motivation, not gender.

If the motion suggests that affirmative action should be legislated in the workplace as a fixed percentage then the Reform Party opposes it. A lot of speakers earlier today pointed this out.

Women are not a special interest group. My caucus colleague from Beaver River mentioned this number of times. She said it twice and so I will follow her leadership and mention it twice as well. Women are not a special interest group. Affirmative action leads to reverse discrimination and not equality. Women are people just like men and should be respected as such.

It is time that extremes, the extreme males who are called male chauvinists and the extreme females who are called feminists, come together and eliminate that hardness and that extremism from both ends and come together and recognize each other as human beings. Respect and understanding are key.

In conclusion, I believe that women in the home, in the workplace and in general deserve more respect, not quotas. Perhaps a good beginning would be, especially in this year of the family, a definition of family in which we subscribe to some of those values in an ever changing world that existed in prior years when we had commitment and we had a sense of direction.

Perhaps a family could be defined as two people who are related by blood or through marriage or through adoption. This would cover a lot of the situations for single parents, for marriages and other situations in which the parents are deceased and siblings live together. These are the things I feel we should address this year.

As my final words, I do not think we should gloss over the problems that exist between men and women. I believe we should recognize them, face them head on and try to resolve them through respect and understanding, rather than through legislation and affirmative action.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Before resuming debate I wish to inform the House that, pursuant to Standing Order 33(2)(b), because of the ministerial statement Government Orders will be extended by 18 minutes later this day.

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the motion in front of the House today is one that someone may wonder about, specifically why a male would stand on this issue at all, thinking that it might be an issue only for women. I would like to state initially that as a Reformer I believe in equality of opportunity for every single Canadian but not equality of outcome.

I would like to comment on what qualifies me to speak on this issue. First, I was raised by a wonderful mother. Second, I have a sister whose love and affection I value. Third, I am a husband of 28 years, very happily married. Fourth, I am a father of seven children, only one a daughter. I have six sons, an imbalance

maybe in my life. Finally I have professional qualifications which have allowed me to be close to women and their problems for all my adult working life.

I would like to make some observations. One observation is that women live seven years longer on average than men. I have wondered in one sense why women would want to be equal to men in that regard. We have a shorter lifespan than women.

The second thing I would like to comment on is an observation that I have made from my time as a student in university. In my initial class there were 106 of us, but 14 of my classmates were women. I graduated back in 1968. I have watched the enrolment in university in my faculty very carefully. Today I find that the enrolment in the faculty is virtually equal.

I have asked myself what the change has been since 1964 when I entered college and today. Has it been a legislative change? Has there been a change in legislation that would require the university to have men and women treated as equal? There has not been such a legislative change at all. There has been what I call an educative change, a change that has allowed us to recognize that women's qualifications in the faculty that I graduated from are absolutely equal.

Another observation I would like to make is in a sense a bit of a myth exploder. I have heard figures bandied about that women are paid much lower than men on average and that for equivalent work they do not do as well as men. One thing that is missing from this equation, however, is if we compare men who were never married with women who were never married, the results are virtually equal for pay and have been in that regard equal for a long time. Those observations I would like to leave with the House at the start of my comments today.

I would like to address what marriage does to the equation. I look back to the days when my grandparents were raising their family. It was a traditional, old time Canadian family. My grandfather worked on a dairy farm, outside. My grandmother was the housekeeper and worked inside. She did the gardening, the housework, the cooking, the sewing, the yard chores, the house renovations, gave piano lessons, prepared for church. There are some who say that those duties were not at all equal. There are some who say there was an equality there. I asked my grandmother whether she felt there was any inequality there. She said there was an inequality, my poor grandad had all the hard work and she had all the enjoyable work.

In the modern family today things have changed dramatically. There are often two working parents who have to leave the home, go outside the household, and it is very difficult for a mother to nurture the children and do that only. With those working parents when they get married the most natural thing that happens is that they decide to have children. When the children come along there are certain negatives that relate to the mother as far as the job situation is concerned. When she is pregnant often morning sickness comes along and she has difficulty even getting to work during that period of time. She goes through childbirth and there is a period of time, some six weeks plus, in which she is incapable of working. In many cases there are mothers who decide that they will stay home and nurture the baby, breast feed, care for in a way that only a mother can care for the newborn baby.

There are cases in which there are medical problems that crop up. High blood pressure can be a problem with the post-partum period. There are other issues, problems with the placenta, problems that require the mother to be out of the workforce for a fairly long period of time.

When these issues ensue the mother automatically takes a drop in income. The father generally goes out and may even find extra work. The statistics I hear which say that men and women are not equally treated in our society in some cases are aberrations. I would rather have the statistics of never married men and women compared to see if we have equality.

I hear from both the Liberals and the Bloc members a desire to engineer socially, to move toward what I think are very well meaning principles. I do not agree with the final result but I know that the motives are good.

I want to bring up an example of a type of social engineering that I came across which I think is wrong headed social engineering.

With regard to social engineering, in the early 1900s there was a small community in Alberta called Brule. This community was based on coal mining and coal mining alone. It was a thriving community. In fact when the first world war came along the community boomed. People moved in, built homes, and had a real solid community. They had enough access to humanity. There was a theatre and a bowling alley.

The future of Brule looked very bright. However the coal reserve ran out. The very fine seam of coal they had literally ran out. It took six months until the community of Brule was non-existent. Everyone had moved away. They sought employment where employment was.

I wonder what would happen to Brule today if exactly the same thing occurred. I imagine that Brule would have had an influx of social workers who would come in to take care of the problems of alcoholism that would ensue from unemployed miners who wanted to stay exactly where they were because they had nice homes and all the amenities. I am quite convinced we would have a department of all kinds of things looking after the social needs and concerns and worries of the people of Brule. We would need somebody there for economic displacement, somebody to make sure the post office was looked after and some-

body to make sure that the school had all the advantages of the schools in the larger communities.

The social engineering that would keep Brule there today did not keep Brule there when it died. The community of Brule today is non-existent. Even the homes were taken down, disassembled, and taken to a community fairly close by. Brule was literally gone.

I think in our haste and great desire to do well that we sometimes socially engineer ourselves into the corner.

I would conclude my comments by saying as I said at the start, that I heartily support the equality of opportunity for everyone in Canada. I do not support the equality of outcome. My desire is to make sure that we do everything we can to prevent the impediments that will prevent the equality of opportunity. That goes for every single Canadian, man or woman.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member's comments. I thought I would suggest one initiative that Canadians might consider to see the member's reaction.

Very typically when we have two spouses working and there are dependent children which require day care the net income to the second spouse entering the workplace after day care costs is very nominal.

Given that the value of the net pay to that second spouse does not generally reflect the value of the work provided in the workplace, I wonder if the member would consider the merits of an arrangement whereby a working spouse could either transfer income or pay a salary to a spouse in the home who is managing the family home and caring for dependent children. In that way there would be earned income in the hands of that second spouse, allowing them to have economic independence and the ability to purchase RRSPs, et cetera. Also it would free up a job, free up a day care spot and maybe recognize for the first time in our Canadian society the value of a spouse in the home.

I wonder if the member might comment on the general merits of recognizing the value of the woman in the home.

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would prefer, rather than recognize the woman in the home or even in fact the man in the home by paying or doing something of that nature, making sure that the income tax system did not downplay the contribution of the spouse in the home.

The Income Tax Act is discriminatory for those who have a spouse at home. My preference would be to do this the least legislative way as possible. In my mind the use of the Income Tax Act in that way would be more appropriate. I thank the member for the question.

[Eugène Bellemare, Liberal, Carleton—Gloucester, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the hon. member of the Reform Party. Did he actually say that men and women who never got married and do the same job have equal pay?

Does the hon. member believe that male and female nurses get the same wages, that female lawyers are paid just as much as male lawyers in some firms, that female and male physicians earn the same income, that female and male employees doing the same clerical work are paid the same salary, that female and male partners in a firm reap the same benefits? In short, does he think male and female employees doing the same job have equal pay throughout Canada?

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, never-married men and never-married women statistically have exactly the same earnings Canada-wide. The member is correct and that is what I said.

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have the opportunity to participate in this opposition day debate on a motion that we all support.

There is no question about the fact that we in this House are constantly working at initiatives that bring knowledge and sensitivity to providing economic equality between men and women.

To begin with, I would like to talk about a personal experience that I had in my riding about a year ago. A group of women from the riding came to see me on a Saturday morning. Most of them were on social assistance at that time. They were telling me, first of all, that they were all educated but were victims of a rather rough economy in the last few years. They had their own strengths in terms of entrepreneurship and felt with a little bit of assistance they could start their own business. They asked whether our office could give them some help in starting their own business.

I was not really equipped at that moment in time but said that I would look into what the Federal Business Development Bank did in terms of supporting women who wanted to start in business. Within a month we set up a little conference, women in business, on how to start one's own business.

We expected that at the first meeting perhaps 40 or 50 women would show up, women who would be interested in starting their own home based business, a corner store or a specific craft that they wanted to market or sell.

About three days before the event we started getting letters, applications and requests to come to this meeting. Over 500 women showed up for this women in business conference on how to start a business. During the question and answer period I listened to the frustration that women have in starting their own business. Our educational system is not geared toward being

sensitive on how to help women get into business. Our financial institutions are not geared toward helping women who want to start their own business.

In the statistics in terms of women who are either leaders or at the board level of our major businesses in Canada, as a country we have really not supported women in senior positions in this country.

This first meeting led to subsequent meetings where we brought in executives from among the few women around our city who were experienced in business. We asked them if they would be mentors for others who wanted to start, who wanted to learn, who wanted to advance or who wanted to upgrade their skills. We developed a series. After about four or five of these meetings, and I do not think we had a meeting with less than 300 women, we discovered that this need for a business centre for women was absolutely essential if we were going to really give this area of women's entrepreneurship a real solid footing.

The Minister of Human Resources Development in the last couple of weeks has given us some tentative support for getting this going. It is an example of a concrete initiative.

Right now women owned or partnered businesses employ more people in the United States than all the Fortune 500 companies put together. When we are facing a period of deep unemployment in our country I believe that by making sure that the resources that will support women getting into business are there will go a long way in getting people back to work.

We talked in the last budget about all the initiatives related to small business. We have to be very specific when we go into these various areas that we are sensitive to making sure that whether it be in the banking area or whether it be in special education or retraining that the whole area of women in business is looked at.

As the leader of the New Democratic Party said earlier today, this is an area where all of us are going to have to work at with a little bit more focus. I do not think that there is any way that we can be proud of the record in this area right now.

My remarks are going to be very short today. The message is that we are going to do our best in our industry committee, especially in the area with banks. We will make sure that all of these issues that are related to small business have very special focus, especially on the needs that women require in order to get into the area of entrepreneurship.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest, as I always do, to my hon. friend's comments. I find myself once again agreeing with much of what he had to say. I know that he is concerned, dedicated and very committed to the points that he makes.

I wonder if I could make a suggestion. Part of the mandate of the new government and perhaps the new Parliament is to review the Federal Business Development Bank's operations and to ask questions about the kind of job that it is doing, the kind of emphasis that it places in terms of its lending portfolios. I think a lot of us have concerns about the role that it is presently playing and would like to see it in a whole new mandate.

I think one of the more positive initiatives is the CASE program, the counsellor assistance program, where experienced entrepreneurs, experienced business people, assist and lend their expertise and talents to those starting up new ventures and new businesses and the like.

Does the hon. member see a role for the FBDB to play in providing support, particularly for women entering the world of business and entrepreneurship, and could this be a leadership role that that bank could take on that would then encourage the other lending institutions of Canada to follow suit in one way or another?

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Broadview—Greenwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. He raises a good point.

The Federal Business Development Bank right now is doing some work in the area of assisting women in business. I cited the example that we had in the riding. They provide this service for any member of Parliament who would like to have a town hall meeting to assist women who want to start their own business. The Federal Business Development Bank will assist any member of Parliament who wants to take on that initiative.

Their counsellor assistance for small enterprise is a good program, but the problem is that it has limited resources. Even though the counsellor assistance for small enterprise charges the business approximately $40 an hour to operate, it costs approximately $80 an hour to manage this particular section of the Federal Business Development Bank. With the budget constraints, that program which is so vital is really restricted in terms of its ability to serve the needs of small enterprise.

I believe, and I think this deals directly with the member's question, that the Federal Business Development Bank's role has been too restricted. I know that there are many members of that bank who would like to be full-fledged competitors of the major financial institutions in he country. We are certainly going to listen to them in the industry committee over the next 60 days.

Whether it be the Federal Business Development Bank, mutual funds, pension funds, le Fonds de solidarité, any funds that can assist women in business, small business in general, any

funds that can compete with the traditional financial institutions in this country, I would support amending the legislation in a way that would allow them to compete with the banks.

[Pierrette Venne, Bloc, Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, all judges of superior courts and courts of appeal in all Canadian provinces and territories are appointed on the recommendation of Cabinet. The Cabinet also designates the judges of the Supreme Court, the Federal Court and the Tax Court of Canada. The government therefore has the political responsibility for appointments to courts of superior jurisdiction across the country.

Today, there are 951 federally-appointed judges. Of that number, 123, or less than 13 per cent, are women. Statistics obtained from the Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs reflect the level of egalitarian concern shown by successive governments during the past 30 years. In the Supreme Court of Canada, which rules on issues of national importance, only two of the nine justices are women. In the Federal Court of Canada, which was established to judge cases involving federal legislation and federal responsibility, both in first instance and on appeal, only five out of a grand total of 35 judges are women.

In the Tax Court of Canada, which may be asked, for instance, to rule whether a woman employed by her spouse is eligible for unemployment insurance, only three of the 25 judges are women. In the country's ten appeal courts, out of a total of 126 judges, the government appointed only 23 women.

In the case of the Quebec Superior Court, the Courts of Queen's Bench of Alberta, Manitoba, New Brunswick and Saskatchewan, the Supreme Courts of British Columbia, the Northwest Territories and Yukon, and the trial divisions in Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island and Ontario, the figures are even more telling: out of 756 judges, only 90 are women.

There are no women on the New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island Courts of Appeal. The five judges of the Superior Courts of Yukon and the Northwest Territories are all men. In New Brunswick again, only two out of the 32 judges on the Court of Queen's Bench and the Appeal Court are women.

Even in Ontario, which has more than 25,000 lawyers, Liberal and Conservative governments appointed only 34 women out of a total of 277 judges of both courts.

One could say that judges are lawyers and that far more men than women belong to the provincial bar associations. This was indeed true in the fifties and sixties, but in any case I would say, first of all, that male/female ratios among lawyers are not relevant when appointments are supposed to reflect society as a whole.

I would also say that this particular argument is becoming less and less factual. The Barreau du Québec has 17,000 lawyers, of whom 35 per cent are women, while the Ontario Bar Association has more than 25,000 members, 20 per cent of whom are women, the ratio increasing to more than 45 per cent among lawyers who have practised law for less than 10 years.

In future, we could assume that the government should have no trouble finding 100 women among the 42,000 lawyers in both provinces for the positions that become available.

Mr. Speaker, the present profile of Canada's judiciary reflects the intolerable discrimination suffered by women in the law profession in this country. One wonders whether this discrimination arises from a political will to keep women out of the judiciary or simply from a mistaken conviction in our society that women had no place in the courts.

In any case, the result is the same, and it is high time we corrected this imbalance by systematically appointing women to the positions that become available in the future.

Ontario was the first Canadian province to admit women to the bar, when it passed special legislation for the benefit of Clara Brett Martin on February 2, 1897.

Quebec was the last province to amend its statutes to admit women to the bar in 1941. It is hard to imagine in 1994 that in 1940, it was perfectly normal and natural to exclude women from social life. It was a time when discrimination was institutionalized. Most women themselves felt it was necessary, and the fact that they were excluded from important positions was accepted as a matter of course.

We cannot explain the imbalance in the ratio of men and women in the judiciary on the basis of their actual numbers within the provincial bar associations. This argument is irrelevant, because there are so few positions to fill that the government can easily find suitable women among the thousands of female lawyers.

Who could argue that it would be impossible for the government to find the right persons among the 6,500 female lawyers in Ontario and the 5,000 in Quebec?

The role of higher Canadian courts is to sanction the laws, to interpret the fundamental texts and very often to decide on controversial issues in our society.

It is totally inconceivable and unacceptable that women should be almost systematically excluded. I urge this House and the government to recognize that time has come to correct this historical aberration.

I urge the government to select and appoint at least 80 per cent women to the positions which will become vacant in the magistrature under federal jurisdiction over the next few years. I am asking for a policy and a law that would facilitate access of

women to the bench, in order to correct the imbalance that has existed since Confederation.

I am only repeating a principle of our law: That justice be rendered and that it appear to be rendered in the eyes of both men and women of Canada.

[Eugène Bellemare, Liberal, Carleton—Gloucester, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise with pleasure to congratulate the member for Saint-Hubert on a speech for which she did a lot of research, a speech which dealt with the number of judges in Ontario, Quebec and throughout Canada. I commend her for her research and I support her when she says that the federal government should appoint more and more women judges so that justice is done for everyone, women as well as men.

I congratulate the hon. member for Saint-Hubert.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Pierrette Venne, Bloc, Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, after so much praise, I must tell you that I do not know what to say to my colleague. Of course, I thank him. I think that he got the message.

Earlier, behind me, someone was whispering to me that I did not talk about notaries, although I am a notary, quite simply because now lawyers are appointed judges, but I could also ask the Minister of Justice to appoint notaries-that would not embarrass me at all.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the comments. They were most interesting. In my experience I have heard what can best be described as blatant discrimination in terms of appointees with regard to the old boys networks such as the legal profession and the appointment of judges.

Would the member please comment on the realities of our society? When I go into a bank the majority of tellers are women. When I go into a corporation and look at the secretaries, the majority are women. When I go into a supermarket and look at who the clerks are, the majority are women. I suppose the examples go on and on, classical stereotype positions that seem to be prevalent in our society.

I wonder if the member feels that equity for women in our society is something to be legislated or mandated on the basis of a quota system or whether it should take into account primarily the ability to do the job. Perhaps the member would comment on that.

[Pierrette Venne, Bloc, Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in some cases, like the one I mentioned about judges, yes, I propose that in future at least 80 per cent of the judgeships that become open be filled by women. You can call that a quota, although I hate the term, but it can certainly be used.

In other cases, of course, if the same number of people apply for a position, the qualifications of each applicant can certainly be evaluated, as one should always do.

We have always been given the following objection: "Oh, you want to favour women, but you do not want them to be as competent as men". Unfortunately, I am often inclined to say "as competent as males", because I find using that kind of argument very sexist. Of course women are as competent as men, in all fields.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

It being two o'clock, the House will now proceed to Statements by Members, pursuant to Standing Order 31.

International Women's Day

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Madam Speaker, on this International Women's Day I appreciate the opportunity to recognize women from my riding who have contributed to the success of their community.

Dr. Eileen Travis was the first president of the Saint John Board of Trade; the Hon. Shirley Dysart, the first woman Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick; Mrs. Mary Munford, the first female Common Clerk of the first incorporated city in Canada, Saint John, New Brunswick; and Mrs. Anna Boyle, a woman with 12 children who works tirelessly to improve the quality of life for persons with disabilities. The Sisters of Charity of the Immaculate Conception provides vital outreach and support for social services.

As 1994 is the International Year of the Family it is important that I mention the work of the Saint John Council of Women. The council is constantly striving to improve the health and well-being of families in Saint John.

Finally it gives me a great deal of pleasure to inform the House that the first YWCA was established in Saint John, New Brunswick, in 1870 by Agnes Blizard.

Day Care Services

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Madam Speaker, day care services do not meet the growing needs of families in Canada and Quebec.

The lack of day care spaces and the cost often prohibitive of this essential service is causing a prejudice to women. In many cases, they cannot work outside the home. Not only are they deprived of their right to work, but also, for those who are single parents, they are being condemned to poverty.

However, I want to pay tribute to the courage and dedication of the day care employees who do a tremendous job looking after our children, and this for far less than adequate wages.

In this year of the family, it is high time that government acts and invests in a day care network rather than keep saying it is important.

Justice

[Val Meredith, Reform, Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to address an issue of concern to all of society.

In British Columbia three recent murder trials have produced a very disturbing trend. In each instance those accused were acquitted or convicted of a lesser charge of manslaughter because they had been under the influence of drugs or alcohol. In at least one current murder trial this defence will likely be used.

Unfortunately, not only is the substance abuse defence in vogue for current trials, but individuals already convicted of murder are now appealing their conviction, citing this defence. If this trend continues it will be difficult to get a murder conviction in Canada.

While the legal profession may defend this trend as being in step with the current law and legal precedence, the general public is outraged.

If the government were serious about its promise to protect women and children from violence it would change the law to make people responsible for their actions.

International Women's Day

[Bonnie Hickey, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, I want to take this opportunity today, International Women's Day, to speak on the future of young women in Canada.

Young women face the same pressures as their male counterparts when they consider their future. They are concerned about obtaining a quality education and about having employment opportunities. However they face the added pressures of being women in a society that is not always receptive to their needs and is often hostile.

I urge the government to take into account the unique needs of young Canadian women as it addresses the overall social and economic needs for our society.

If we are ever to obtain full equality we must first obtain economic independence. We must improve our education and training opportunities for women and we must provide them with employment opportunities.