Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to this issue today. I wish to preface my remarks by saying that although I will not be in complete agreement with my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois, I believe it is important for all of us in the House to have the opportunity to debate.
It is through debate and discussion that ideas evolve to make for a more effective environment, especially when we are looking at this whole area of the ongoing evolution and devolution, shall we say, of those issues that are particularly important to women as they become more a part of society.
I would like to compliment the minister for youth and training for the philosophical eloquence with which she addressed this issue. My approach is going to be somewhat different because we were asked to assess the impact of the Liberal budget on the whole of society and that, of course, includes women.
The rhetoric that has been used to promote the evaluation of issues pertaining to women has been in my view for far too long framed in the term women's issues. This narrowly defined focus ignores the economic reality and the impact that is felt, not just by women but also by men, our families and Canadian society in general.
The Liberal budget is a good example of this cross-cutting effect, across lines of race, religion, gender, even age. Today I will address three areas on which the budget has a negative impact as these are related to women. I chose to be very specific. I am glad that I did because it does provide a challenge to government, not necessarily in a negative way, but perhaps to challenge its thinking and approach to many of these issues.
The first element I want to focus on is women and their autonomy. I will use the example of a national day care program, highlighting another broken Liberal promise, as well providing a dialogue for discussion from the Reform perspective. It is an opportunity to which I have long looked forward.
The second area for discussion evolves around opportunities for women in Canada and the hollow ring of support provided in the Liberal budget. The focus for this aspect of my discussion is on the department of the status of women. We know that common sense speaks against the notion of social engineering. There is no strength in a tradition that keeps the issues of women from being addressed in a manner deserving of swift action.
Last, this address will look at creative productivity, meaning jobs, jobs, jobs. Does that not have a familiar ring? The Liberals ran on this strong platform plank but have abandoned it in search of a savvy transparent advantage: the need to be liked by an electorate becoming increasingly frustrated by political posturing that does nothing more than foster dependency through the status quo. We will talk about women in business in that section.
Given the economic situation in Canada, the government simply cannot afford expenditures in the area of social programs. Yet the government and the previous one made extravagant promises to Canadians for a national day care system. For financial reasons, the Conservative government broke its promise in 1992-93 and the Liberal government has promised national day care if the economy grows.
The reality is that it is easy for government to continue to make a promise it cannot keep and has no intention of keeping. The Reform Party prefers not to make promises on policies for which it cannot realistically expect to deliver.
As a matter of social policy, the Reform Party believes that the sole responsibility for the care of children lies with parents and that the federal government should not interfere with that responsibility through economic incentives that promote one form of child care over another nor promote subsidized day care facilities.
By advocating universal day care, the Liberal and former Tory governments are both saying that the responsibility for the care of our children lies with the state and not with the parents. Reform will only support a system that keeps the state out of the homes of Canadians and maintains the freedom and responsibility of parents to care for children while providing some form of assistance to only those parents and children truly in need.
The federal government should concern itself exclusively with matters that fall within its jurisdiction such as fiscal and monetary matters. High taxes, unemployment and rising interest rates are by far the major reasons why Canadians have no choice but to work while balancing homes and child care responsibilities. If the government would balance its budget, thereby giving Canadians the leverage to balance their own, not only would options open up for Canadian parents but the number of single mothers and children living in poverty would decrease.
Financial problems are a major contributor to family breakdown and divorce. By alleviating some of these financial hardships, the government will indirectly strengthen the family. That is this country's richest resource and economic foundation.
The debt and deficit situation no longer provides any leverage to the federal government in terms of lost revenues or further expenditures. The government's hands have become tied as far as new programs or financial incentives are concerned to allow the choice for parents to stay home or go to work.
The Reform Party believes that there are various avenues to pursue in anticipation of long term tax relief for Canadians. We continue our work in these areas as demonstrated by the Reform's taxpayers' budget thereby increasing disposable household income and allowing for choice when it comes to caring for children.
From a taxation perspective, we recommend that the government discontinue the child care expense deduction to level out the playing field between stay at home and working parents. It should pursue tax avenues that are not unfairly balanced in favour of one lifestyle or family composition over another.
However, before it does so, it must determine whether federal responsibilities extend to providing child care to Canadian children because current expenditures including the following: the child tax benefit, the child care expense deduction, equivalent to married tax deduction, GST credit, CPP survivor benefits, UI maternity and parental benefits, social assistance and transfer payments to provinces under CAP. These effectively put it in the day care business and directly into the homes of Canadians.
This jurisdiction is one for which it currently has no control. The provinces and territories are primarily responsible for the issue of child care. As provinces enact their own child care legislation and establish the accompanying regulations regarding the number of attendants per child, physical requirements of child care settings and training levels, all important criteria, dwindling transfer payments to the provinces become an even greater issue. How can this government justify downloading more responsibility to already cash strapped provinces?
What I have explained here would introduce a level playing field for both work and stay at home parents and would have far reaching positive economic implications. The potential for single income families could mean a drastic decrease in unemployment. For each person vacating the workforce a job opens up for the unemployed. The parent who chooses to be at home would have the opportunity and time to volunteer at schools, hospitals or local community centres, relieving some of the financial pressures currently facing these organizations which rely on government funding. It becomes a circle for success.
We are advocating in favour of the family and those measures which will help Canadian families remain the social and economic building blocks of this country. These are the issues which affect and concern all of us, women and men. The issues of child care and the choice to work or stay at home predominately affect women.
The Liberal budget demonstrates a lack of understanding and commitment to this fundamental reality. Reform's vision of social policy overall includes the decentralization of spending authority to the levels of government closest to the people, an improved framework of co-operative national standards, the empowerment of families and individuals, and a reinvigorated charitable sector.
It is my belief that complete equality has come to reflect the core values of what I call the new feminism. I see any attempt for change in this regard caught up in the social engineering process as sustained and subsidized by Status of Women Canada.
The Liberal budget did nothing to move us away from a tradition that perpetuates an old style of issues management, review, consult, discuss, a never ending circle of policy development going nowhere. Women want action on these issues which are so important to them.
When the Minister of Finance tabled his budget he announced he was transferring to Status of Women a women's program from Human Resources Development. When he undertook this move he transferred $11.3 million to Status of Women, $8.6 million of it for straight grants to special interest groups, and $2.7 million for the administration and distribution of those grants. That amounts to an administrative overdose of close to 30 per cent. No business can afford to operate like this. No family country can afford to operate like this. No household can afford to operate like this. How can our government?
The move was followed this week by another announcement from the Secretary of State for the Status of Women. As of April 1, 1995 the National Advisory Council on the Status of Women will be disbanded. Yet there was no mention in the budget of an amalgamation of the NACSW with Status of Women Canada.
The secretary of state allowed the estimates for the advisory council on the status of women to be commissioned, estimates which were published and released. They were of no value, for not one month later the announcement was made that the advisory council on the status of women would cease to exist. The secretary of state permitted an expenditure of tens of thousands of dollars in consulting fees to produce part III of the estimates when she knew all the information contained therein would not be used. It would not be needed. What kind of leadership is this?
Not only do we have a department failing to disclose, we have wasted taxpayers money in order to further an unknown agenda at this point with respect to the budget. It is this kind of politics which has caused Canadians to find politicians less than forthright.
On the issue of this department change, it is a tentative step in the right direction in terms of reducing the size of government. I acknowledge that. However, in terms of cost reduction it really is tokenism. A saving of $1 million cast against an exploding debt is cold comfort to Canadians waiting for an improved fiscal climate.
We need a dismantling of Status of Women altogether. I say this for two reasons. It would remove the stigma of special interest groups from women who are seeking to make positive change socially, economically and politically. Canadians would view this with favour as we strive to reach true equality without subsidized funding supporting these groups. It is a divisive practice creating us versus them.
We would see government moving away from the cycle of reviewing, consulting and discussing with no action. The issues important to women would be more readily addressed and quickly if it were moved into the various departments for which there would be authority for action. Violence against women could be dealt with by the Department of Justice. The whole issue of breast cancer and research would move to the Department of Health. The finance department could have the opportu-
nity to address realistically the whole issue of poverty within single parent families which are usually led by the mother.
Last year in her budget speech the secretary of state was very proud to announce that the government recognizes there are inequities in our tax system and income system detrimental to woman. She suggested there would be a review-another review-to address things such as support payments for women. She suggested the government would improve this situation.
Here we are a year later and absolutely nothing has been done in this area. When a bill was presented by my colleague from Calgary Centre to redress this inequity the Liberal government refused to support it.
One questions the partisanship of the House when sound fiscal proposals are introduced. What is the government's position regarding the interest of women, if only to score political points?
Through effective and non-government subsidized efforts litigation and the simple exercise of expression through votes women do wield a lot of clout. When government officials, politicians, lawyers and judges get on side this will facilitate a powerful dynamic for change. In any quest for solutions the best models are partnerships of public and private resources. Resources mean more than money. Governments cannot act alone. They have neither the know how nor the money.
What I speak of has been a long time coming. Our daughters, my daughters and my grandchildren, granddaughters I hope, will view the years prior to the 1970s as the dark ages. Male domestic violence went unchecked. Divorced women were denied a share of family property. Pregnant women were discriminated against in the job market. Rape could be easily laughed out of court by smart lawyers. Women were expected to declare they would love, honour and obey when they took their marriage vows. In fact 27 years ago I said "obey" and thought nothing of it, but how times have changed.
The world was perceived from a male prism, from the use of language to the raised issues that have altered the course of those issues most important to women. Cases on equal employment opportunities, spousal support, fair pensions and equal pay, as well as sexual assault, sexual harassment, rape, pregnancy discrimination and violence against women have been benchmarks for women in the last decade. Remarkable efforts from remarkable men and women have resulted now in a very different world view.
The best models for change are built on the partnerships found in the public and private sectors. This is even more apparent as we move to discuss women in business. Governments provide the environment in which business will thrive. Governments are there to cope with infrastructure development while the private sector seeks to thrive in a competitive and free market.
This leads to my discussion of women in business. Women are starting businesses at three times the rate of men. Of these, 75 per cent start their businesses during the peak child bearing years, placing additional responsibility on the family structure. These, women like most small business people, work long hours, from 50 to 70 hours a week, and earn on average less than $30,000 a year.
I would like to throw out a challenge to those government institutions that become obstructionists to the phenomenon of women entrepreneurs. Women who create employment as small business owners are not a passing fad, but have become a basic trend.
However, there is still discrimination by financial institutions against women who own and operate businesses. This discrimination was detailed in a study released last week by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and takes the form of higher interest rates and a higher refusal rate for financing requests for women than for men. This discrimination was identified despite the fact that the characteristics used for the study were the same, irrespective of gender.
The characteristics were the age of the business, the sector of activity, the number of employees, the sales performance, the number of credit managers, provincial and financial institutions. Externally it would appear that women are participating on a level playing field.
What possible conclusion could be drawn when women business owners operating with the same parameters as male business owners are either refused their financing requests or are forced to pay a premium rate to compete on this so-called level playing field? The cost of financing is therefore unequal for men and women who own and operate businesses. This is the kind of equality that needs to be challenged and changed because it is not equality at all.
The report concluded by making eight recommendations. I find it shocking that the recommendations suggest financial institutions should change their approach toward women business owners, that financial institutions should investigate ways of better understanding the particular situation of small and medium size businesses, especially women owners.
These kinds of recommendations do nothing to encourage responsible business decisions to be made by our financial institutions based on competency and merit. Instead, although identifying that women business owners are treated unfairly by our institutions, it concludes the fault is that of the women rather than gender bias.
The finance minister stated in his budget speech: "There is so much more that we would like to be able to do for the millions of
Canadians who care little about the world of dividends and derivatives and simply worry about making ends meet".
It is time for this government to worry about making ends meet. A crippling debt and continual deficit stifling the growth of the nation will not lead us to prosperity. Removal of barriers through proper allocation of tax dollars enabling less social dependency and a more self-confident and trained workforce, empowerment if you will, will ensure that prosperous future for all of us, men and women.
