Debates of March 16th, 1995

Supply

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the government says that it will transfer more powers to the provinces so that we can have our own programs tailored to our particular needs, but it should also consider giving us the money that we need to deliver these programs.

The federal government is getting ready to transfer to the provinces powers or, rather, responsibilities that we cannot afford to exercise. I think it is a very serious problem that we will have to face in the coming years. Imagine! At least Quebec has a good structure, but in some other provinces, particularly the smaller ones, it will be a big problem.

Secondly, when the hon. member talks about solidarity and says that the government cannot count on the Bloc Quebecois, I will remind her that, last year, we introduced a bill on unemployment insurance for women. I do not know if the member remembers that, but we asked women in this House to show some solidarity with regard to this bill so that women who work with their husbands would not be penalized under the unemployment insurance program. The member's party voted against our bill that would have been beneficial to women. We called for solidarity among women. I will tell you one thing: as long as this solidarity among women does not exist, regardless of their political affiliation-and it certainly does not exist in this House at this moment-women will never get anywhere. Yet, we account for 52 per cent of the population. The hon. member has nothing to teach me and I think it is time she got her act together. When she sees a bill like the one we have introduced in this House, she should think twice before voting against it.

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Saint-Denis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am working for solidarity among all Canadians and, on this side of the House, we have shown that we encourage women to run for elections and get elected. Look at the number of women in the two opposition parties.

But I have a question to ask. We talk about solidarity with regard to legislation. The government recently introduced Bill C-64, an Act respecting employment equity. We asked for the support of the members opposite. I believe that this bill will give women new opportunities to achieve economic equality. Why did the other parties refuse us their support?

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think that the hon. member is wrong. I could show her a bill that was exclusively for women. The bill she referred to is not legislation for women, it is very wide in scope. We will not support a bill just because the hon. member says to.

The bill we talked about dealt exclusively with protecting and helping women. So, when she talks about solidarity, I am sorry, but I beg to differ. She also mentioned her political party, where there is a fair number of women, a party that encouraged women. I can say that in the Bloc Québécois, we as women had to fight on the same terms as men and I am very proud of having been elected here, not because I was chosen by my leader, but because I fought and won in a nomination convention, like everybody else.

[Roger Simmons, Liberal, Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank my friend the hon. member for Québec for raising an issue that is both important and relevant. Her motion reads as follows:

That this House denounce the government for its insensitivity and its inaction regarding the adoption of concrete measures to promote the economic equality in federal areas of jurisdiction.

That assessment does not seem accurate to me.

The motion gives us an opportunity, I say to my friend from Frontenac, to discuss an important issue but the wording of the motion is a bit dishonest. To put it more bluntly, it is just not true. During the next few minutes let us examine the record, because it is not true. I am very proud to be here because I take real pride in the government's record in promoting social justice and economic parity for the women of this country.

I am encouraged that the member would put forward the motion on the issue of women's economic equality because what could be more important to Canada than the well-being of more than half its population? It is only when women and our families thrive that our country will be truly renewed.

The motion before us raises an important question. What has been the track record of this government on issues that affect the economic status of women? The short answer is that this government has done a great deal in a relatively short time. The government made commitments in the election campaign and the government is living up to those commitments. Before we get on to specific ways in which the government has honoured its commitment, let us look at the context for all of this.

It has become a truism that the best social program is a job. That point has been made by people from both the right and the left of the political spectrum. Well over 400,000 people can say they have taken part in the greatest social program of all since this government took office in October 1993. There is evidence that record will continue strongly. These are predominantly good, full time jobs. Women are claiming their full share of this growth. At the same time, the government is aware that economic growth by itself is not enough.

Women still remain clustered in traditionally female occupations such as teaching and nursing, clerical, sales and service work. If all the government did was to rely on the market as some in this House would prefer to do, we would see only a glacial, painfully slow change in the labour situation as it relates to women.

This government can do better. We must do better to recognize as the government does the continuing need to help women move into new growth areas. It recognizes that its own programs and services can help bring us closer to that goal.

The federal side has a number of innovative projects aimed specifically at addressing the needs of women. Since it is the hon. member for the riding of Quebec whose motion we are discussing, let me talk briefly about a couple of projects for women that are under way in her own province of Quebec.

Since last October, Rimouski has been home to an entrepreneurial training project. Women of all ages with business creation projects have been receiving the skills they need to create successful small businesses. The project has focused on the needs of women without sources of income.

What is equally important is the team that has pulled this project together. The local Canada employment centre, the CEGEP de Rimouski and the group Ficelles, whose purpose is to ensure women's access to work, have all co-operated to make this dream a reality. It is consistent with our interest in encouraging self-employment as the way toward economic self-sufficiency.

In Montreal there have been a couple of projects. In one, women who are on unemployment have been receiving modern technological training and support to help them move back into

the workforce and into more highly skilled jobs. In the other, recent female immigrants have been trained as fibreglass mill operators.

These are examples in one province. There are many more in that province and there are many more all across the country. Our new programs for youth share this commitment to the needs of women. Youth Service Canada has been a real success story. In the lead site projects, the ones that tested the concepts beyond Youth Service Canada, 54 per cent of the participants are female.

Some projects were focused on issues of particular interest to women. For example, the Regina family service bureau ran a project that helped 10 young single mothers.

Employment programs and services are only one element of our work for women. Unemployment insurance is a program that continues to play an important role as we move toward a more active labour market policy. There are some elements of UI such as maternity and parental benefits that respond to the labour market reality faced by female workers.

To my friend from Yorkton-Melville and my friend from Edmonton Southwest, despite their professed beliefs it is important we have programs that help women respond to the labour market reality, programs such as maternity and parental benefits.

We do not have to go far back in time to find how this program has been adapted to the needs of women. We need only go back one year to 1994. The government decided to scale back UI benefits. However, in doing so it took into account the situation of people on low incomes. Almost 60 per cent of single parent families with children under 18 live on low incomes. Far too many are single mothers struggling to make ends meet.

It is that situation that caused the government to create the special 60 per cent dependency benefit rate for people who are supporting dependents on the basis of low income. This year people who earn an average $408 a week or less and who's spouses get the child tax benefit or who support a dependent are eligible for this additional UI support. That provision makes a real difference for a single mother. Since the implementation of the dependency benefit rate over 192,000 claimants have qualified. The great majority, 148,000, were women.

The government recognizes the labour market needs of women extend well beyond the traditional programs and services, no matter how sensitive these services and programs. The National Association of Women and the Law stated in its appearance before the Standing Committee on Human resources Development a year ago: "We recognize the growing importance of women in the labour force, but fail to recognize that women have children and women are primarily responsible for their care".

Child care is important. It was a concern of ours during the 1993 campaign. It is a need that we are addressing on three separate fronts.

The government is moving ahead on its First Nations and Inuit child care initiative. The goal is to increase the level of services in those communities. There is so much more. A second front is a research and development component to give us more information in this critical area of child care.

I have pages of programs the government is working on. We are not there yet. We are working at it and I believe when we get there the women of this country and therefore this country as a whole will be the better and the richer for it.

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my distinguished colleague from Burin-St. George's is an outstanding parliamentarian, and he regularly demonstrates his skills when he takes the floor.

The thing I disapprove of is that his party and, to a certain extent, the hon. member for Burin-St. George's himself, talk out of both sides of their mouth. I would like to give an example, that of the Canada Labour Code reform and precautionary withdrawal from work.

I do not need to remind you, Mr. Speaker, that the family unit is the most valuable asset of any country. In May 1994, the Bloc Quebecois tabled a motion supported by the governing party, the Liberal Party of Canada, in order to raise the compensation for pregnant women to the 95 per cent level provided by the Quebec CSST. Right now, it stands at 60 per cent.

A discussion paper on the Canada Labour Code reform is being circulated at this time, and the Liberal Party of Canada did not include that motion, which it supported in May 1994, to give substantial assistance to pregnant women who must ask for precautionary withdrawal from work in order to carry their pregnancy to term and protect their unborn baby.

Like the rest of us, the hon. member for Burin-St. George's is certainly aware of the importance of the family unit, that is a wife, husband and children-the complet unit. The children will be the work force of tomorrow and will pay for our pensions. That natural asset of our country is now declining.

We moved a motion that the hon. member's party supported, but what we see and hear in the House today is just a lack of courage, and double talk, Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately, the hon. member for Burin-St. George's is the one who will have to clarify his party's position. I hope he will set the record straight, because this is an important motion on the equality of women.

[Roger Simmons, Liberal, Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, my French is so rusty these days that I will do the wise thing and talk to him in a language that I know a bit about. I will make a promise to him that I will get back to my long neglected French.

I thank him for his kind comments about my speech. I share very much his views on the importance of the family unit. I thought he articulated it very eloquently a moment ago and I salute him for that.

As to the motion he was talking about, I plead ignorance. I do not remember the details of it and I will not pretend that I do. He put his finger, and rightly so, on one of the many areas in which this government needs to move.

I have always been appalled that remuneration has been on the basis of sex; that females have been getting lower wages for performing the same services. There are thousands of examples of that. I have been appalled that people are paid differently because they live in one region versus another. Two wrongs do not make a right. These disparities have to be corrected.

We are on the matter of women's issues today. I do not like the term. They are all our issues, but I know what is meant by the term.

The member flagged an issue that I pursue and will continue to pursue. The matter of the disparity of wages is untenable and we have to move to correct it as soon as possible.

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, while I do not appreciate or accept the tenor of the motion presented for debate by the hon. member for Quebec, I recognize and thank her for giving us the opportunity to talk about such an important aspect as the quality of the connection that Canadian women have to the social and economic infrastructure of Canadian society.

It is a critical topic. As one of the 50 some women elected to the House it is incumbent on me to do whatever I can to encourage our governments and our legislature to understand where that connection is and make it better.

In her motion the hon. member focuses specifically on the economic connection, the economic side of the connection that we as women have to Canadian society. We have to speak about both the economic and social support that we as women need if we are to participate fully and completely in Canadian society and offer a bettering of the society through skills, abilities and qualities we bring as women.

In understanding the connection between social and economic development I turn to September of last year when I had the opportunity as a member of the parliamentary delegation to the United Nations conference on population and development to understand quite fully the impact development has on population.

We did a lot of very good work at the conferences that were the preliminary to those debates in Cairo to encourage an understanding of the impact development has on population management, more specifically to understand that when we talk about development we do and must talk about both social and economic development.

We played a very significant role in helping the world understand that it is the strong connections that women must have to both the social and economic supports that exist in a society that will in turn improve the development and the productivity of a nation and then in turn enhance and help manage population control.

We were essentially talking about development in developing nations. As I worked with and talked to colleagues from around the world I realized this debate is still going on in all developed nations. Canada is at a different level because of the hard and dedicated work of many Canadian women. When we think of the women who work so hard to get us recognized as persons not so very long ago, they helped move us to the position we are in now.

I think of some of my friends. Doris Anderson worked outside the government sector with non-governmental organizations and as a publisher of a well-known women's magazine. I think of the work she has done. I think of Lucie Pépin, a friend and colleague, a former member of Parliament who has worked so hard on behalf of women's issues. All these women have brought us, as a developed nation, to a point that is different from those of the developing nations.

The conversations we had in Cairo focused on the need for women to commit, with development on the social side, to very basic things when it comes to health: access to tetanus, polio and tuberculosis cures and shots, access to clean water. Basic health measures are what they need.

When we were talking about education we were talking about access to primary school education. When we were talking about access to economic support we were talking about the basic notion that it was okay for women to work outside the confines of the defined home as we know it.

For us in the developed nation of Canada, we are talking about things of a different sort at a different level. It is not so much basic health issues but issues of research for women and the impact of breast cancer and the impact of heart disease.

When we are talking about education we are encouraging our young women to complete high school and post-secondary education. When we are thinking about other social aspects such as safety and comfort, not only in our streets but in our own homes, we are having to understand family violence and to

accept that it is not in any way, shape or form something that we want to be part of our society.

When we think specifically about our connections with the economic levers we are talking about women having access to financial supports. The government is looking at these things and working on them all. For the Bloc Quebecois to say that we are not is really a falsehood.

When we go back and think about safety and the need for women to have confidence they are supported in our society, we look at the measures the Minister of Justice has undertaken. Just recently he tabled a bill that will no longer allow drunkenness to be a defence, particularly in cases of rape. We will see tabled soon I am sure, considering the importance of support payments to single parents, most often women, some changes in that regard and those will be tabled in the near future.

Today, as we debate Bill C-41 in committee, I will be tabling an amendment to the bill that will ask, under the section where we are discussing restitution, that the courts turn their head to the loss of income and support that can occur in cases of family violence. It should recognize that restitution should be paid to women who have to leave their homes as a result of family violence and perhaps incur costs related to transportation, alternate forms of housing and day care, drug and dental requirements. I hope that members of the Bloc on the committee will support me on that amendment.

These are things the government is doing to make sure that Canadian women are connected and supported on the social side.

I know the Minister of Health is working very hard and diligently and has implemented a fresh start program for aboriginal communities which is very important.

When we think about education, by and large a provincial jurisdiction, as individual members of Parliament, women in particular, we have a strong role to play in making sure that our young women do and are encouraged to carry on to high school, college and university and to set their sights as far ahead of themselves as they possibly can so they do not get stuck in female ghettos, in typically female occupations.

One of the most important parts of my job is to meet with young people in my community, in the public schools and high schools, and talk to them about what a woman can be in our country.

Very recently I attended the Daughters of Invention, where grade seven girls came together and spent a couple of days talking about science and research. As we were discussing role models and women, I asked them: "Back in 1867 when Confederation was discussed, do you think your grandmothers would have voted for Canada or against Confederation?" They put their hands up, some yes and some no. I said: "Do you know what girls? Your grandmothers could not vote back then. They were not even considered persons". There was an embarrassing ah-ha. They did not realize that.

It was at that point I realized that my job as a member of Parliament is to make sure that optimism, I suppose to a certain extent that naivete, cannot continue, that they know that as females there are restrictions on them but that they can participate fully and equitably in our society.

When it comes to the economic side, there are many things we have to do. I can only say how strongly I support the employment equity legislation that encourages Canadian businesses to recognize the importance of having a broad mix of people in their organizations. We are not talking about quotas. We are talking about recognizing people for the skills and abilities they have and that they bring to an environment. It is legislation we are improving and that I strongly support.

With that, I see that my time has gone. There are so many things we can talk about. Again I thank the hon. member for giving us the opportunity to debate and share our ideas in this regard.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague, who probably knows, whether there is a different treatment for pregnant women in a situation of precautionary withdrawal of work.

The Bloc Quebecois had proposed an amendment at the time of the last Labour Code revision in 1992 to authorize the federal government to make administrative agreements with any province that had a system providing better conditions than those provided for for women in the Canada Labour Code, in cases of precautionary withdrawal of work.

The Liberal Party, then in the opposition, had supported the amendment put forward by the Bloc. Now, we are about to revise the Labour Code. There is a paper from the Department of Labour circulating, but there is no provision in that paper for administrative agreements between the federal government and any province. That is what the amendment was all about; we were not referring to Quebec but to any province whatsoever, and those administrative agreements were along the lines of flexible federalism, I would imagine.

I would like to know if the hon. member will undertake to ask her government to include in the legislation provisions dealing with precautionary withdrawal of pregnant women in order to enable the federal government to make administrative agreements with any province that has better conditions than those provided for in the Canada Labour Code, since at least in the case of Quebec they are not as good as those provided for in the

Quebec Labour Code. Is she agreeable to such a request and will she approach her government's labour minister about that?

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not completely familiar with the amendment to which the hon. member is referring. I will apprise myself of it.

I would agree and say that we have not come to the point where the salaries paid to women in the workplace are equal to those to men. That is something we are always conscious of, working toward and committed to.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague. I saw her applaud the announcement made yesterday by the Secretary of State for the Status of Women regarding the elimination of the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women.

I would like to ask the member how civil servants can ensure the transparency which, I think, the Council now provides. How can she guarantee that civil servants will implement without any bias the different policies which will be put forward? How, in fact, can the department act as both judge and jury? I would like her to explain this because it seemed to delight her yesterday.

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know a number of the women who for many years have participated on the Advisory Council for the Status of Women and say that we have appreciated the work they have done over the last number of years.

I believe that the announcement made by the minister was a good one. It essentially brings together disparate sectors that have been focusing on improving the status of women in the country in a consolidated effort. In a consolidated way we will be able to make significant progress in effort and on behalf of women with her announcement.

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak today to the motion introduced by my hon. colleague from Quebec. I commend her for introducing into the House a good discussion on the whole issue of equality. It is an issue that has a lot of interest in the country, one that a lot of people are concerned about.

One of the lessons of history is that personal struggle and achievement go hand in hand. In fact, I know that is true for many of us here. Sometimes the Canadian public feels that members of the House do not know what personal struggle is about. I know from speaking to many of my colleagues, and from personal experience, that we do have personal histories of struggle and achievement.

It is important for many of us to realize that these issues are not just something to be debated in the House, but they are issues which all of humankind have struggled with for many years.

I would like to outline to my colleagues some of my personal background in this area. I am the oldest of seven children. My parents were not well off, I think poor would probably be an accurate word. If I wanted money I always had to earn it. I have worked since I was very young in the summers and weekends to have the money I wanted.

The day I left home when I was 18, my mother came home with my youngest brother and so the family kind of went on even though I was going on with my life. My parents were not able to help me with my education. I put myself through two university degrees. I was also widowed in my thirties. My husband died very suddenly, leaving me a single parent and sole support of the family.

I became a professional person, a lawyer, before there was any affirmative action and before there were any nice government programs to help women achieve equality. Many people who I know are very proud and very happy to have been able to make the achievements in their life on their own merit.

The subject of this debate today is how we can best achieve the kind of results we want from our life-

[The Speaker]

The hon. member, of course, will know that immediately following question period, we will return to debate and she will be given the floor.

It being 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30(5), the House will now proceed to Statements by Members, pursuant to Standing Order 31.

The Budget

[Carolyn Parrish, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today with pride and some dismay.

I am proud of the Minister of Finance who has proposed in this year's budget the most dramatic comprehensive changes in government since World War II.

I am proud to be part of a government that has met, and will continue to meet, the objectives necessary to wrestle the deficit and debt that are damaging the country to the ground.

My dismay has mounted over the past several weeks while I listen to the members of the third party refuse to join us on this

side of the House, however grudgingly, and working for the future prosperity of this beautiful country.

They ran on the concept of a new type of politics that does not follow the old partisan ritual and dogma. Why then are they voting no to the challenge we now face?

Why is their leader currently communing with the spiritual leader of the new right wing of the United States, being tutored in barbaric doctrines which slash seniors pensions and allow orphans to be institutionalized? Why is the leader of the third party not participating in this country's rebirth instead of observing the machinations of an evil, bitter monster to the south?

Taxation

[Gilbert Fillion, Bloc, Chicoutimi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, taxpayers in Quebec and Canada have lost confidence in the Canadian tax system. The underground economy is spreading. Tax accounts outstanding exceed $6 billion, and in the case of the GST, $1.3 billion.

Furthermore, the tax system is full of holes. Wealthy taxpayers and large corporations can afford to pay tax experts for advice on how to take advantage of tax loopholes. For instance, they can take advantage of the fact that Canada has signed at least 16 tax treaties with countries considered to be tax havens. Every year, ten of thousands of profitable businesses pay no taxes at all. Meanwhile, the Minister of Finance is letting individuals pay 65 per cent of the tax increases in his last budget, while family trusts will have to wait until 1999.

In spite of all this, the Minister of Finance still refuses to proceed with a complete overhaul of the tax system that would eliminate fiscal inequities.

Mount Allison University

[Paul Forseth, Reform, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in 1991 Mount Allison University in Sackville, New Brunswick was in a financial mess. It had a deficit of $2.5 million and a debt of $10 million. Like the federal government it desperately needed to get its financial house in order. The current president of the university, Ian Newbould, was recently quoted in Maclean's magazine as saying: ``If we were a corporation we would have been in receivership''.

In over three years that university has eliminated its debt and created a surplus of $13 million. Clearly the goal of the university president was not to achieve a smaller deficit. Instead, satisfaction would only come with no deficit and zero debt. The goal was achieved through responsible control.

The finance minister stood in this House and expected praise for a deficit prediction of $25 billion. Some provinces, and universities such as Mount Allison, have become the national standard of fiscal responsibility. The minister needs to take a hard look at how the real world manages its finances and reflect on how he failed to measure up to the Canadian standard.

Rural Child Care

[Marlene Cowling, Liberal, Dauphin—Swan River, MB]

Mr. Speaker, farming is not a nine to five business. It involves early mornings, late nights and weekends, which most child care operations do not accommodate. As a result parents are forced to leave their children alone or take them along when they work with heavy machinery or livestock.

For every six deaths resulting from farm accidents, one of those victims is a child. Fifteen per cent of those hospitalized as a result of farm accidents are children under 16 years of age.

Last week was National Farm Safety Week. I would like to recognize the people and organizations who are working to find flexible, accessible and affordable solutions for rural child care, namely: the National Coalition for Rural Child Care; the Women's Institute; the Rural Development Institute of Brandon, Manitoba; and many others. I applaud their commitment and dedication to the safety of farm children.

Public Service Of Canada

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton—York—Sunbury, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I speak today on behalf of our friends and colleagues of the federal public service. Several members of that employment sector are now entering a period of significant change and transition. As the governing body in this House we must fulfil our commitment to ensuring sensitivity, compassion and caring during this passage.

We have asked so much of our people and they will rise to the challenge. However, we must empower decision makers at the local level so they can do their jobs right to ensure that those affected by this change are treated fairly and with dignity and that the best possible course of action is determined one by one, according to the needs of each individual.

Those at the local level are the ones best able to determine how the changes we have asked for can be brought into effect. We must all do our part. I know this government will honour its commitment to ensuring fairness, compassion and flexibility at the local level for the betterment of our people and our nation.

Cuba

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today we celebrate the 50th anniversary of Canada's unbroken diplomatic relationship with Cuba.

Canada and Cuba maintain a friendly and diverse relationship which includes political diplomacy, trade and commerce, scientific and economic co-operation, and tourism. In the area of fisheries, Cuba has supported our view on the need for measures to end high seas overfishing.

Cuba is a nation that is now in transition to a market economy, a nation with which we have significant trade, an area that we can and should expand upon. To enable Canadian businesses to compete for new economic opportunities in Cuba, I urge the Minister for International Trade to reinstate the $30 million line of credit to Cuba so that Canadian companies can take advantage of it to increase Canada-Cuban trade.

Canadian Armed Forces

[Jean-Marc Jacob, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

Mr. Speaker, three years after the auditor general drew the attention of the government to what it costs taxpayers in Canada and Quebec to train a member of the armed forces reserve-90 per cent of what it costs to train a regular soldier-no steps have been taken to stop this wasteful spending.

In fact, the Canadian Reserve whose training is ineffective and inadequate, is the most expensive in the world after the one in Switzerland, which has no army. It will cost us a billion dollars again this year.

Ironically, the government decided to quietly get rid of the Advisory Council on the Status of Women and save a paltry one million dollars, while the National Defence budget, which totals more than $11 billion, was cut by less than 5 per cent this year.

Justice

[Philip Mayfield, Reform, Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the people of Quesnel, British Columbia are outraged by our so-called justice system.

Last Sunday, Quesnel RCMP arrested a 19-year old man who, according to witnesses, dragged an elderly woman into his hotel room, held a knife to her throat and brutally raped her. When the woman's husband entered the scene, the rapist chased him down the hall and threatened him at knifepoint. The community hoped that justice would be served.

The elderly woman who is in what are supposed to be her golden years is in trauma therapy. The loving couple has been scarred forever. Imagine the shock Quesnel residents felt when this rapist was allowed back into the community on a petty $1,000 bond.

Canadians deserve better. While our criminals are given free college tuition or are let go on token bonds to roam the streets, shattered lives are left to heal on their own. Meanwhile, the public continues to ask who the justice system works for, the victim or the criminal?

Will the justice minister please stop wasting time on pet projects and start working to put justice back into the justice system?

Fisheries

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

Mr. Speaker, there are 50,000 people out of work in Atlantic Canada because of the collapse of our fishery. These 50,000 people were forced to turn to government assistance to help put food on the table.

During the election campaign, Liberals pledged that our government would support its fishermen, deal with foreign overfishing and help preserve the remaining fish stock. Over the past week, our government has come through on this commitment 100 per cent.

On behalf of my constituents, I commend our minister of fisheries for taking a strong stand against foreign overfishing, ensuring that the turbot does not go the way of the cod. Over the past week I have received faxes, phone calls, petitions and letters of support for the minister of fisheries. That support has been well founded.

Today foreign ships are no longer fishing on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks. We are on the verge of negotiating stricter international rules.

Today I challenge all MPs to stand behind the minister as he continues to fight to protect and preserve the Canadian fishery.

Francophones Outside Quebec

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

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc member for Rimouski-Témiscouata and critic for the Department of Canadian Heritage toured the country to tell francophone communities that the Bloc was with them all the way.

But Tuesday, the honeymoon was over when she accused the francophones of this country of being sell-outs.

How embarrassing for the Bloc to have one of its members make such accusations. Talk about double talk. At last the Bloc is showing its true colours to francophone communities.

But when Paul Piché and Laurence Jalbert made it clear they were separatists, after receiving financial assistance from Canadian Heritage for the production of records and videos, did you hear any federalists insulting them?

Not at all, and it goes to show how open-minded federalists are, and we expected Bloc members would show the same respect for the opinions of others.

On behalf of the francophones of this country, I ask that the member of the Bloc withdraw, in this House, the slanderous term she used.

Forum For Young Canadians

[Jean Augustine, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, last evening I had the pleasure of meeting many participants of the Forum for Young Canadians. This yearly forum has once again brought together high school students from all across the country to learn firsthand the workings of our federal Parliament.

This year Etobicoke-Lakeshore is well represented by Melissa Jenkins of Bishop Allen Academy and Raphael Pacquing of Father John Redmond High School. These two students travelled to Ottawa to exchange ideas and explore their interests in the process of government, the media and the role of members of Parliament.

I commend the efforts of all who have contributed to the success of this year's forum. May these youths return to their communities across Canada with the knowledge this government is working hard to ensure a strong and prosperous country for future generations.

Quebec Sovereignty

[Roger Pomerleau, Bloc, Anjou—Rivière-Des-Prairies, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the English speaking Canadian intelligentsia met yesterday in Toronto, at the invitation of the C.D. Howe Institute, and indulged in a fit of Quebec-bashing the likes of which have seldom been seen.

These great democrats, full of Canadian patriotism, suggested that Quebecers be made to suffer in order to prevent a vote in favour of sovereignty. This idea was not only sanctioned but added to by political science expert Stéphane Dion, who suggested that ``the more it will hurt, the more support for sovereignty will weaken''.

Since Stéphane Dion is now a freelancer working as an advisor to the Prime Minister of Canada, Quebecers gather that his statement reflects the position of the federal government.

I trust that Quebecers will, as they have done throughout their history, stand tall and defend their right to exist to the face of the world.