Debates of Oct. 16th, 1995

Presence In Gallery

[The Speaker]

As a lead in to the tributes to the member for Yukon, I wish to draw to the attention of the House the presence in the gallery of Ms. Alexa McDonough, member of the Legislative Assembly of Nova Scotia and the new leader of the federal New Democratic Party.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

The Hon. Audrey McLaughlin

[Sheila Finestone, Liberal, Secretary of State (Multiculturalism) (Status of Women)]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure today to pay tribute to the Hon. Audrey McLaughlin, an outstanding human being, a wonderful spokesperson in the interests of our society and always very measured but very convinced in her observations and in her remarks.

Audrey McLaughlin is one of the outstanding leaders and role models of Canadian politics and female politics. She has strengthened us all by her presence. She has been symbolic of all we are about and why and what we wish to achieve in terms of equality of opportunity, equality of access, equality by the very right of our competence our skills and our personalities. She is a woman who has all of those attributes.

In every way she symbolizes why we are all here. She has contributed in very significant ways to the changing of the tone and the substance of debate. That has been one of the most significant observations I could make as we shared the other side of this floor for many years. Audrey always had the ability to present her point of view in a very deliberate and measured way. She did not agree most often with the procedures of the House but she was never disagreeable in her approach to her point of view and expressing her firm conviction which she holds from depth of heart which becomes very obvious.

It was a privilege to have the Hon. Audrey McLaughlin on the trip we recently completed for the fourth annual conference in Beijing on women's issues. Her presence was a symbol to the host country as we travelled with four different parties representative of the diversity of this country, not only the diversity of political opinion but the diversity of our geography and the diversity of our people.

She is an eloquent spokesperson for the aboriginals of her region, the people who have elected her to the House; not only the aboriginals but certainly those she represents with such sincerity and depth of commitment to their interests and to their well-being. For this we owe her a very strong vote of thanks.

When Audrey would stand to make a speech or to pose a question she did it in a very holistic way. It was never with the finest of lenses, which I appreciate perhaps more than most. I like that approach because it puts an issue into the context of daily human life, of living. Living is so daily and, Audrey, you bring that to our attention so succinctly and effectively.

As a woman she is a trailblazer. In 1989 she became the first woman to lead a national political party in Canada, in fact in all of North America. Sixty-eight years after Agnes Macphail, the first woman was elected to the House of Commons. As a woman she bears the legacy of womanhood, having many and diverse roles which are rather in competition at many times. She is of course a politician but say she belies the phrase "you are too nice to be a politician".

She is a leader who brings with her and believes in sharing power and leadership and is a model to other women. We have stunning proof of that in the House, which you have just brought to our attention, Mr. Speaker. We all welcome Alexa McDonough as the new leader of the New Democratic Party. We wish her well as she takes on a very difficult and very trying role. I hope she does not find putting together both roles of politician and general citizen too difficult.

Audrey McLaughlin the activist has served on many boards and has brought a lot of interesting perspectives to these boards of directors. Audrey McLaughlin is also a mother with two children and it has taken the support of those children for her to be in the House. She has also been an outstanding daughter to her mother and we have all followed that with great heart.

On behalf of countless women and children across this land, we take our hats off to you, Audrey McLaughlin. We wish you well in your future.

[Lucien Bouchard, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add the voice of the official opposition to that of the government spokesperson in paying all of the honour that is due to Audrey McLaughlin as she moves from the life of an elected representative to the life of a private citizen.

I would like her to tell her that we have all loved and admired her and that we will continue to show her all of the esteem she deserves. When I was on the opposition benches from 1990 to 1993, when the Bloc was not a recognized party, I had the opportunity, since I was in the same corner of the House, to work in close conjunction with Ms. McLaughlin as Leader of the Opposition. I must admit that I learned lessons from her which I try to put into practice daily.

I believe that we must acknowledge the work carried out by this great lady who is leaving the House of Commons for another life, a life in which I know she will be equally productive. We must tell her how much she will be missed. The social awareness she has shown in this House is something that has been building throughout her life. She came to politics from social work. She has worked in the health field, she has worked with children. When she spoke of those causes in the House she knew what she was talking about, and we sensed that in the sincerity of her speeches.

I would also like to remind people that she was the first woman leader of a major federal party. She has blazed a trail for others to follow. We must acknowledge that she has done a good job of doing so, for now another woman will be leading her party.

I do not wish to see her leave the House right away, but I know that the decision she has made to leave the leadership of a great party like the NDP was a very big decision. I hope she will remain extremely active in politics, for the party she has led which is now to be led by Ms. McDonough and in fact has been led by her since the weekend, is a party which represents in English Canada the values to which all of us in the Bloc Quebecois adhere, but which are not exclusive to the Bloc.

We know that social values are very important in English Canada, that English Canada fought long for them. There must therefore be a party in this House at all times to defend those values. I hope that party will be the NDP.

Again, allow me to repeat our regrets that Ms. McLaughlin has stepped down from the leadership of the New Democratic Party, and to wish her from all of us a long and active life. At any rate, we know that she will be following the excellent examples set by Stephen Lewis and Ed Broadbent before her.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Reform Party I would also like to congratulate the member for Yukon.

We have sat together in the House for several years. Although we have all kinds of different political views, we also share many things and have a lot of things in common. We first came to the House via byelections, a very exciting situation. The member for Yukon was elected in 1987 and I was elected in 1989. We are women and that gives a certain situation and a certain leaning. When you are in here you learn all kinds of things about being a woman in federal politics certainly. We are both far from home as we serve in this place.

When we live in far flung western and northern ridings, Ottawa is a long way from home. There are people who we really cherish and miss dreadfully when we are a long way from home.

We have sat as independents in this House. We have that in common as well. That gives a certain perspective also in the House of Commons. It lets us realize that things are not always just the way we would want them to be but it is a good learning situation for both of us.

What impressed me the very most when I first came here and wandered around as a caucus of one all by myself was seeing Audrey in her good business clothes and her Reeboks walking through the Byward market. That really warmed me to you, Audrey. I realized then that here was a party leader who was practical and when she was going on a long jaunt from Parliament Hill she was free and willing to wear her Reeboks. I have always

appreciated that about her. I will continue to think of her as I march through the market in my Reeboks.

When somebody comes to Parliament Hill from so far away, they give up an incredible amount of their personal life. I know, Audrey, it is difficult to be so far away from home as you put many relationships on hold as you come here and serve the Canadian public.

I want to thank you on behalf of my party and on behalf of all Canadians who appreciate so much-maybe they do not say it daily-the fact that you have also given up much. We want to thank you and say that we appreciate all that you have done. Thank you so much for your contribution to Canadian life, to the Canadian political process and the incredible sacrifice that you have made to your country. Good luck in all that you do in the future. God bless you, Audrey.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, this weekend the NDP elected a new leader. My caucus colleagues and I were pleased to have our new leader, Alexa McDonough, recognized in the gallery today.

The NDP caucus looks forward to working with Alexa. It also looks forward to the day when she and many others join us in this House to put forward our vision of the country and the world.

For the last six years, that vision has been put forward on our behalf in this House and across Canada by the member for Yukon, the Hon. Audrey McLaughlin. As chair of the federal NDP caucus I am honoured to be able today to pay tribute to Audrey on behalf of my colleagues and I am sure on behalf of Hill staff, party members and many other Canadians, all of whom I believe came to very much appreciate the member for Yukon and her way of doing politics.

Audrey, like some of her predecessors, had some moments here in Parliament that will be recorded in the minds and hearts of New Democrats forever as richly symbolic of the dissent which we express in this place about what is regarded by the conventional wisdom as unacceptable or unavoidable, whether it is on matters like NAFTA, privatization, deregulation, a whole list of things. Your leadership in our opposition to the gulf war was such a defining moment for many New Democrats.

And if I may say so while I am talking about courage, I remember your support of the Charlottetown accord when you put what you thought was best for your country ahead of what you knew might be politically risky for your party.

As the first woman leader of a federal party, you made history and you made it in such a way that our party was able to elect another woman as leader without gender being an issue. Thanks to your history-making leadership bid, the time when gender is an issue in Canadian political leadership contests may well be history. This is as it should be and for this all Canadians who value the equality of the sexes are indebted to you.

The member for Yukon is no longer our leader, but we are delighted that she continues to be our colleague, having put behind her the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune that sometimes come with the leadership of political parties. We know that the people of Yukon will be the real beneficiaries as Audrey will now be able to give her undivided attention to a part of Canada that she so clearly loves, and whose reality she brought home to us in the NDP caucus and elsewhere.

I venture to say that the phrase coast to coast to coast, which Audrey always insisted on, by way of recognizing northern Canada and the northern coast it represents, has changed the lexicon of Canadian politics in a way that brings recognition to northern Canada and the constituency which you so ably represent.

On a personal note I remember as well the joy which you took in having caucus go to the Yukon for a retreat. I remember even better the experience of mushing on the back of a dog sled, thanks to the care which Audrey took to make sure that we all had a taste of this great northern tradition. The dogs were a little bit tired after pulling me.

Since the election of 1993 and her announcement of her intention to step down as our leader, the member for Yukon has given much of herself and her energies to the renewal process in our party, a process which she gave impetus to originally and which has helped to invigorate the NDP.

In this, as in all things, Audrey has earned the affection of many New Democrats with her warm smile, her kind words and her ability to remember so many of the countless faces and names she encountered as a political party leader.

Finally, there is one word that seems to come to everyone's mouth when we speak of the member for Yukon and that is dignity: dignity in the day to day demands of politics. I remember Audrey patiently putting on my son Daniel's rubber boots in order to personally view the flooded yards and homes of south Transcona in my riding. But most of all dignity in the face of difficult circumstances, dignity in the face of electoral defeat, dignity in the face of criticism and dignity in the passing of the torch to a new leader.

For all these things and more, Audrey, we say thank you.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to pay tribute to the hon. member for Yukon. This distinguished and elegant member of Parliament was the leader of her party and the first woman to

head a national party. For this, I offer her both praise and congratulations.

I have had an opportunity to visit the Yukon and been impressed by the work Ms. McLaughlin has accomplished there. The Yukon is no easy place to visit. It is no easy place to serve. It is immense and surely as far away as you can get in Canada from the capital. For this I raise my hat to one who, probably, for many weekends has gone home to visit her constituents and returned to work every week.

I have found Ms. McLaughlin to be affable, friendly, distinguished and elegant. She always had time to chat, regardless of one's political affiliation. She invariably had a smile and a kind word to say. We will miss her. She served her party with enthusiasm. She knew her subject matter. She spoke well in the House, in both official languages.

I have always appreciated the fact that she recognized Canada's two main groups and wanted to represent everybody all the time, always with a view to improving quality of life. I am pleased to have sat in the House with her as a colleague since 1988 and I will remember her as an extraordinary individual. My congratulations, Ms. McLaughlin.

[Audrey McLaughlin, NDP, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly thank everyone for their very kind comments. I also thank my caucus colleagues for their support and their comments today.

I have been very proud to lead a political party that has consistently stood for working Canadians and those who would be working, for a strong national health care program, for Canadians who really believe we have to have tax fairness and fair trade agreements. It is a party that refuses to abandon the poor, the ill and the vulnerable, when right now that seems all too popular.

Unfortunately, it was a time when political life seemed somewhat suspect. There is less respect for politicians. However, despite all of our country's problems, I am proud to be a member of Parliament, proud to work for my country and for my territory, the Yukon. We are a diverse country with a strong sense of history, a country built by the first nations, the anglophones, the francophones and the allophones.

We are a diverse country, made up of many peoples. We have many challenges to meet in the 21st century. It will take the contribution of every Canadian to move us forward with pride in this heritage and hope for our future.

I have sometimes despaired about the political process and wondered if we could really do this, but I have never doubted that in this most imperfect of systems, we are engaged in the noble process of public service. It is for this reason that I feel privileged to continue as the member of Parliament for Yukon and to continue to serve Canada and my constituents. I look forward to working with our new leader, Alexa McDonough.

[The Speaker]

As always, the last few words go to your Speaker.

Although I do not allow the rules to be broken often, many members addressed the hon. member for Yukon as Audrey.

Audrey, most of us in the House are honoured by this beautiful House of Commons. I say to you, on behalf of our colleagues who have chosen me Speaker, that you, Audrey, have honoured this place and we appreciate having you with us.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

Points Of Order

[The Speaker]

Colleagues, I am now ready to rule on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Gander-Grand Falls on October 4, 1995 concerning the procedural acceptability of Bill S-9, which is on the Order Paper today, an act to amend the Canada-United States Tax Convention Act, 1984.

At that time the hon. member brought to the attention of the Chair the possibility that a bill from the Senate, which had been read a second time in the House and referred by the House to committee, might impose expenditures on the Government of Canada.

As all members know, Standing Order 79(1) and section 54 of the Constitution Act, 1867, require that the House of Commons shall not adopt or pass any vote, resolution, address or bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue or of any tax or impost to any purpose that has not been first recommended to the House by a message from the Governor General. In short, a royal recommendation must be obtained.

In addition, section 53 of the Constitution Act, 1867, states:

Bills for appropriating any Part of the Public Revenue, or for imposing any Tax or Impost, shall originate in the House of Commons.

It is the duty of every member of this House to be vigilant in this regard and to scrutinize bills no matter where they originate.

Bill S-9 has not just arrived in the House. The message from the Senate was received on May 3, 1995. The bill was read a first time

on June 14 and was read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance on September 21.

Although the bill is now coming to the House for report and third reading stages, the Chair does accept the explanation given by the hon. member for having raised this matter so late in the legislative process since his point of order is based on information received during the finance committee's deliberations on the bill.

I wish to remind all hon. members of citation 319 of Beauchesne's sixth edition, which requires that points of order be brought to the attention of the Chair as soon as possible.

I want to thank the hon. member for Gander-Grand Falls for raising his concerns. I would also like to thank the hon. members for Willowdale, Regina-Lumsden, and York South-Weston and the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader for taking an interest in this matter and providing the Chair with their views on what is described in Erskine May's 21st edition at page 67 as "the most important power vested in any branch of the legislature, the right of imposing taxes upon the people and of voting money for the public service".

I want to assure the House that I view this matter very seriously and I have thoroughly studied the situation.

In his presentation, the hon. member for Gander-Grand Falls argued that the provisions of Bill S-9 would impose expenditures on the government by reducing taxes on profits made by American multinational corporations in Canada. He also stated that the bill would require the government to pay a tax credit to persons subject to estate taxes in the U.S. Therefore, the government would suffer "a loss in tax expenditures for all time to come". The hon. member for York South-Weston also spoke to this point.

In his submission, the hon. member for Gander-Grand Falls made reference to two rulings given by my predecessor Speaker Lamoureux on November 12, 1969 and on June 12, 1973. I have examined these rulings very carefully. In both cases, the bills brought down from the Senate very clearly contained provisions requiring expenditures by the government and Speaker Lamoureux quite rightly ruled that these bills infringed the privileges of the House of Commons. Both bills were set aside. However, these two precedents do not, in my opinion, apply to our present circumstances.

From my research, the substantive changes to the Canada-United States tax convention dealt with in Bill S-9 appear to relate to reductions in the rate of withholding taxes applied to different types of payments, for example, to dividends paid by a company resident in one country to a company in the other country owning more than a certain percentage of voting stock in the first company.

The bill will also have the effect of granting some tax relief retroactively and there may be some reimbursements payable for taxes paid under the law as it now reads, should Bill S-9 be passed by the House and receive royal assent.

The bill does not appropriate tax revenue, but rather exempts or reduces taxes otherwise payable, in some cases retroactively.

As members know, when the House is dealing with tax measures, members may propose amendments to such bills so long as they do not exceed the scope, increase the amount or extend the incidence of any charge upon the public.

No amendment may be proposed that would increase the rate of tax nor extend its incidence to a new class of payers without the recommendation of the Crown. In their search of such measures committees may also propose such reductions. I would refer hon. members to citations 988 to 991 of Beauchesne's sixth edition on this point.

Citation 992, also dealing with the powers of House committees with regard to tax bills, states:

So long as an existing tax is not increased, any modification of the proposed reduction may be introduced in the committee on the bill, and is regarded as a question not for increasing the charge upon the people but for determining to what extent such charge shall be reduced.

It must also be borne in mind that members of this House can initiate and have initiated bills to lower taxes. So too can the Senate. And there is a longstanding practice for the government to introduce such bills in the other place at its discretion.

The parliamentary secretary to the government House leader noted in his intervention that Bill S-9 is not a bill for appropriating any part of the public revenue or for any tax or impost and therefore does not require a royal recommendation. There will be no expenditure of public funds, though money already collected from Canadian citizens pursuant to the tax laws of Canada may be refunded.

As the parliamentary secretary pointed out, the repayment of tax revenues already received is not an appropriation of public money. Thus, the bill could be properly introduced in the Senate.

In conclusion, Standing Orders 79 and 80 have not been contravened, as Bill S-9 neither imposes a tax nor appropriates money for any purpose. Since the bill relinquishes funds it might other-

wise have gained, it is not appropriating money but forfeiting revenue it would have raised without such changes.

Once again, I thank the hon. member for Gander-Grand Falls for his diligence in guarding the privileges of the House by bringing this matter to my attention.

Government Response To Petitions

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to three petitions.

Women's History Month

[Sheila Finestone, Liberal, Secretary of State (Multiculturalism) (Status of Women)]

Mr. Speaker, today we are celebrating Persons day, the highlight of women's history month.

This is a time to celebrate the contributions of women to Canadian society, a time to be proud of the remarkable progress Canada has made toward equality for women and against actions of racism and sexism.

The Fathers of Confederation made the original blueprint of Canada in 1867. However, it took until 1921 for women to earn the right to vote.

Nonetheless, throughout history, the women of Canada-in all their diversity-have prevailed. They have shaped the values of this great country: democracy, tolerance, generosity, fairness, and respect for human and minority rights.

Today we celebrate five intrepid women from Alberta who won a court case in 1929 that changed the lives of all Canadians. The court's decision made women legal "persons" under the constitution. And that made them eligible for appointment to the Senate.

Today we have the largest representation of women ever in the Parliament of Canada, in the Commons as well as in the Senate. With the charter of rights and freedoms, the constitution now guarantees women and men equal rights and freedoms as full partners in our society.

Women have made great progress toward equality, and that means progress for Canadians and for all of Canada.

Today we recognize women's issues as societal issues. We recognize and realize that women's equality is in the best interests of Canada. All our talent and all our potential in all the socioeconomic and cultural fields of activity must be used as we progress to face the challenges of the 21st century. That is why we must keep up the momentum toward our global goal of the universality of women's human rights, for they are inalienable, integral and indivisible.

The government has approved a plan of action to ensure that women's equality is kept on track. The federal plan for gender equality, equality for men and women, which was tabled prior to our departure for the fourth world conference on the status of women, deals with the real issues of the day. Those issues are action for the economic empowerment of women, action to support women entrepreneurs, action to promote employment equity so women can have a fair chance at the jobs of today. These measures and others, along with social support systems, can help women and their families rise out of poverty.

Make no mistake, the family is the basic unit of society and must be supported in all its forms. We need healthy, vital families and women's economic independence. That can help. It can allow women to escape domestic violence. There is a direct link between economic independence and violence. That is just one reason why we will continue to work on eliminating the violence that limits women's ability to participate in and contribute to society. We have taken measures such as stricter firearms control, a new anti-stalking law, federal subsidies for shelters for battered women.

Economic empowerment means recognizing and valuing the important role of women's unpaid work as homemakers, as caregivers, as volunteers, as those who look after the elderly. This work has value of great worth in our caring and sharing society.

That is why the 1996 census will include a question on unpaid work.

The federal plan also puts women at the heart of government decision making. It requires that every policy, program and law be developed with the impacts on women, as well as men, in mind. Let us not forget that women represent half of Canadian society. We are not a society of special interests but a society built by both men and women over two centuries.

We also have a global plan: the platform for action on women's equality adopted at the recent UN World Conference on Women in Beijing.

I am proud to say Canada played a leadership role in securing a strong agreement on the rights of women and girls in Beijing, which was signed by 189 nations attending the conference.

I am also proud to say that Canada's leadership on equality was recognized with two awards: a prestigious United Nations prize for advancing literacy, thanks to the initiatives in New Brunswick; and Canada was honoured with the global award for the most improvement in the status of women over the last decade. In making the award the International Federation of Business and Professional Women commended Canada for its steady and remarkable progress in advancing equality for women. This was acknowledged and awarded after 110 countries were carefully examined. Canada was not found wanting. Canada was found head of the pack.

The way to the future is clear. Canadians must continue that progress to a true partnership between women and men. This is imperative as we face an increasingly complex global society.

In closing, I want to extend my heartiest congratulations to the six women who were honoured today. Each of them were pioneers in their own way. Each of them fought against violence and fought for an integrated and accepting society. We owe them a great debt of gratitude. I extend them my best regards.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak about this victory for women which my colleague, the hon. secretary of state, has pointed out was a concrete step toward equality for women. The 1929 legal victory was an important step in this egalitarian undertaking, I agree. It represented a significant milestone in terms of democracy.

Other victories followed, as we know, perhaps less striking ones but equally important: women's influx into the work force; improved education for women; their entry into non traditional employment; the creation of daycare services; their presence on various boards, I could go on and on. Yes, Canadian women and Quebec women have made progress, and they must be congratulated and encouraged to continue.

I shall make use of this opportunity to explain to my colleagues why, very soon, Quebec women will be deciding to continue their progress on their own. Although they have made definite progress, as I have said, the women of Quebec will be able to progress a little faster on their own, with the weight of the federalist yoke lifted from their shoulders.

Quebec women will be well protected by the Quebec charter of human rights, which will reaffirm equality and the rights of women. They will continue to be well served by the civil law system, under which they have equal status and equal rights with men.

In a sovereign Quebec, Quebec women will be ensured of the survival and the dynamism of their language and culture. They will no longer have to worry about the survival from generation to generation of things I know are of concern to them: culture, language, education, employment. Quebec women will continue to progress under a democratic political regime, with an equal say in drafting the constitution of their new country, with their rights to equality reaffirmed.

Quebec women will make even more gains under a democratic Quebec, within a system in which social rights will be the focus of the state's actions. They will benefit from a family policy focused on their needs and those of their children, a policy free of the constraints imposed by the present federal system, which makes policy harmonization impossible.

[Sheila Finestone, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Really!

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Please, madam secretary of state.

In a sovereign Quebec, free of Ottawa's centralizing goals, women will clearly benefit from a policy of full employment coupled with a social policy that reflects the effect of their participation in the working world. I am talking here of policy on child care, working conditions in keeping with family responsibilities and employment equity. Where are the daycare places so long promised by the federal government? They were promised, and we are still waiting. Yet we are paying the federal government to have these places created.

Quebec women will have the advantage of a unique system of manpower planning and training. They will have the benefit of a system that is decentralized in favour of the regions, the prime sources of human and business activity.

Finally, Quebec women will move far beyond the endless battles and constitutional red tape and will focus their energies on improving the quality of their life, that of their children, their husband and their fellow Quebecers. This was the request of the participants in the women's march on poverty, last June's bread and roses march, which was undertaken on behalf of all Quebec women. This is what the Government of Quebec is proposing and is committed to promoting.

In conclusion, Quebec women will quicken their step toward equality by dropping a level of government, which is preparing to sacrifice them on the altar of economics and which is preparing to impose cuts on their old age pension and unemployment insurance cheques, by tying these benefits to the family salary in the new reform of social programs. They will drop a level of government that is useless, costly and more concerned about the interests of major corporations than about the grocery bill of single parent families.

I am appealing here to Quebec women's common sense and administrative talents to get them to realize that savings are possible by eliminating overlap and duplication.

It is by taking control of their own destiny, by becoming self-sufficient that Quebecers, like Quebec, will grow from now on, in friendship with their Canadian sisters and without forgetting the progress that has already been made. There is, however, much more to be done in this area, and I think that the federal government should first deal with women's economic equality.

Women in the public service still earn only 70 per cent of what men make. Something must be done, and I urge the government to move from rhetoric to action.

It is said that women's economic independence is important and could reduce violence against them. I call on the government to take measures to ensure that women are paid as much as men for doing the same work. I urge the government to think about the action plan for gender equality.

The study the minister referred to earlier, the federal plan, puts women at the heart of government decision making. This plan requires that every policy, program and law be developed with the impacts on women, as well as men, in mind.

I exhort the government to be very vigilant regarding the reforms contemplated by the Minister of Human Resources Development, for example, cutting UI and old age pension benefits and setting women's benefits on the basis of family income. We know full well that benefits are often based on men's higher wages, and we fought against this.

What does this mean for a woman who receives her first old age pension cheque at 65 and whose husband earns a certain salary? It is often the first cheque these women have ever received. This cheque also represents economic independence, a little bit of economic independence for women.

[Jan Brown, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to rise in the House today to recognize and commemorate the Persons case from 1921, especially in the midst of great parliamentary diversity of opinion and focus as we speak today.

I would like to first congratulate all of the women today who received Governor General's awards: Marthe Asselin Vaillancourt, Dr. Mary Cohen, Ruth Flowers, Sheila Kingham, Carolyn Thomas, and Alice Taylor, who are all being recognized for their efforts toward making Canada a place in which all are treated equally. These women stand for everything that has gone right in Canadian history.

Look at the progress that has been made in Canadian society since 1929 when women received the right to vote. Today I refer and indeed also defer to those five Albertans, women all, who challenged successfully the convention of their day to bring the vote to women.

The secretary of state briefly mentioned the importance of family in society. This is a message that is sometimes forgotten or passed over when we are caught up in the singular focus of women's issues. As a party we affirm the value and dignity of the individual person and the importance of strengthening and protecting the family unit as essential to the well-being of individuals and society. Hopefully, this is a principle about which we may all agree, because once we have agreement we will have a fundamental basis from which to move forward.

We constantly hear comments and stories about women doing things differently and having different approaches to communicating. This is true, and perhaps more so for the women we recognize today as they receive the Governor General's award for their contributions to society.

Let us also look to history and in particular to Agnes Macphail and Nellie McClung, extraordinary women indeed. They broke ground for women today and they did it because they were focused, had strong convictions, and they also had a creative edge to bring their point home.

These women of the early suffrage movement had a sense of humour, were thoughtful in their world view, and for the most part could handle themselves well in difficult situations. For example, at a rally held in 1915 a heckler yelled at Nellie McClung: "The Prime Minister would quit politics if a woman were ever elected". Well, Nellie did not wilt. Instead, she replied: "This proves what a purifying effect a woman would have on politics".

McClung was no shrinking violet. She was fair minded, good humoured, and determined. These qualities typify Canadians and also my colleague from Yukon who was honoured by the House today.

We still need to work to guarantee equal opportunity for all. We may disagree on the quality of outcome, but whether we agree or not, when we as women engage in debate we must still struggle to relay our message.

McClung staged demonstrations to make her point in her time. In recent memory, one member of this House is said to have hiked up her skirts and jumped over a desk to make her point. Another member, this member, sat on the hood of a sports car to make hers. John Crosbie and the modern feminist movement are still shaking their heads.

Let us look at Agnes Macphail. When she first entered the House of Commons as Canada's first woman MP in 1921, a Commons employee tried to stop her at the door of the Chamber. She entered anyway, while he shouted, "You can't go in there, Miss". Once

inside, Macphail was touched to find a bouquet of roses waiting on her desk, but was humiliated later to learn that they were the penalty a male MP paid for betting she would lose the election in her Ontario riding.

Since women were given the vote in 1929, tremendous advancements have been made. Some of them have come amazingly late, but still we achieve. We have gone through periods when women and men toiled apart as changes occurred. We are finally coming to a place where we recognize that men and women together and as equals can create the kind of country we all want to live in.

I would like to extend again my congratulations to all the recipients of the Governor General's awards today.

Committees Of The House

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 90th report of the very hard working Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding membership of committees.

If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in this report later this day.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with the leave of the House I move, seconded by the hon. member for Ottawa-Center, that the 90th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House earlier this day, be concurred in.

(Motion adopted)

Petitions

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36 signed by many people in the Ottawa area and having to do with euthanasia.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present a petition from my riding of Prince George-Bulkley Valley that deals with an opinion and a belief that is shared by a majority of Canadians right across this country. It deals with the fear that the privileges society extends to heterosexual couples could some day be extended to same sex relationships.

The petitioners pray and request that Parliament not amend the human rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act or the charter of rights and freedoms in any way that would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or of homosexuality, including amending the human rights code to include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase of sexual orientation.

This petition originated in the College Heights Baptist Church of Prince George. I am proud to say that I concur 100 per cent with this petition.

[John O'Reilly, Liberal, Victoria—Haliburton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my pleasure to present the following petition from the county of Haliburton.

The undersigned residents of the county of Haliburton and visitors draw the attention of the House to the importance of national unity to our country at this time.

They therefore request Parliament to urge the government to impress upon the leader of the Reform Party the need to promote national unity in this very unfortunate situation in which our country finds itself.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to present a petition which has been circulating all across Canada. The particular petition has been signed by a number of Canadians from Mississauga, Ontario.

The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House that managing the family home and caring for preschool children is an honourable profession which has not been recognized for its value to our society.

They also state that the Income Tax Act discriminates against families who make the choice to provide care in the home to preschool children, the disabled, the chronically ill or the aged.

The petitioners therefore pray and call upon Parliament to pursue initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against families who decide to provide care in the home for preschool children, the disabled, the chronically ill or the aged.

Questions On The Order Paper

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the following question will be answered today: No. 193.

Question No. 193-

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

What was, in fiscal year 1994-95, the total cost to the Department of Health of providing health care to claimants of refugee status in Canada; what was the projected amount for this line of spending in the 1994-95 estimates or supplementary estimates; and how does the Department of Health expect to cover any shortfall resulting from refugee health spending overruns?