Debates of March 16th, 1995

Questions On The Order Paper

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That notwithstanding any order of the House, that any recorded division to be taken today during Private Members' Business be deferred until Tuesday, March 21 at 5.30 p.m.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to.)

Supply

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

moved:

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

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today of tabling a motion regarding an issue related to International Women's Day.

In my opinion, the motion is urgent, given the government's recent actions. The motion is 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 of women in federal areas of jurisdiction".

I would have preferred not to have to table such a motion before this House, but its goal is to make my colleagues and Canadians and Quebecers aware that Liberal decision-makers have failed to act on the fine words bandied about within these four walls.

A year ago, I tabled my first motion on the issue, which stated that, firstly, it was important to recognize the principle of economic equality between women and men, and, secondly, that measures must be implemented to guarantee equity in employment, wages and living conditions for women. It was most unusual and remarkable, but government members supported the official opposition's motion.

However, I must admit that they stopped at the first part of the motion and have never gone on to the second. How else can the current situation be explained with the same people in play? How else can we explain the decisions recently taken by this government which purports to be concerned with the economic inequality of women?

How else can we explain the decision to go ahead with the cuts to grants for women's rights organizations which were announced by the previous government? All the while, the Minister of Finance tried to reassure us regarding this issue and, just before the last budget, stated that his government was fully aware of the issue, that the last budget proved it and that the government intended to prove it again in the next.

I recall that the minister then mentioned the important role that organizations play in promoting women's rights and in improving their living conditions.

How can we explain that, in two weeks, the government will cut funding to the initiative against domestic violence, which finances pilot projects, research, public awareness and education campaigns, etc.?

And yet, the Secretary of State declared last March 3: "Violence against women, sexual harassment, inequalities and inequities in employment opportunities, the wage imbalance and gender discrimination must all be addressed. I am pleased the government is continuing to push forward on all these fronts".

Everyone knows that unfortunately little progress can be made without money. How else can we explain the government's policy of tying financial compensation due a woman to her husband's income? Both these trends are obvious in the proposed unemployment insurance and old age pension reforms. And yet, the Minister of Human Resources Development stated last October: "We are putting forward major proposals concerning the problem of family work and the manner in which part-time workers, the majority of whom are women, can be given a certain degree of protection with respect to unemployment insurance and other income security programs".

Since when is a woman's economic equality acquired through dependence on her husband? Women do not accept this approach, nor should they. What explanation is there for the complete absence of references to child care services in the last budget, when the same minister stated on that same date that in the green paper consideration was being given to major child care programs and a national strategy, requiring funding amounting to some 700 million dollars. Where are the budgets needed to create new day care spaces, where are the transfers Quebec is calling for in order to develop its own network? Why is there no interest in finally resolving the thorny issue of pay equity in the public service, when this issue has languished before the courts for several years now, depriving thousands of women of money that is rightfully theirs?

And yet, the President of the Treasury Board said last June: "As an employer we are concerned about pay equity. We would like to resolve this problem as quickly as possible, in order to cut short the long drawn out legal proceeding instituted by the preceding government". Noble words! How does this explain the offensive transfer carried out by the Minister of Finance onto the backs of the provinces, the inevitable result of which will be

either a reduction in health and education services and social assistance benefits, or a tax hike?

Yet, on February 8, the Minister of Finance stated: "We are fully aware of the need to deal fairly with women's needs". Does the minister sincerely believe that fairness towards women lies in reducing their standard of living? And how does one explain the Secretary of State for the Status of Women's latest decision to abolish the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women?

The main role of this organization was to do research and disseminate information on problems affecting women. It also played the role of government watchdog by analyzing the economic impact of government actions and decisions on women. Yet, in the same speech in which she announced the abolition of this organization, the Secretary of State repeated the Prime Minister's comments: "For its part, the Canadian government has taken up the challenge. Women's equality is not a matter of special rights or interests. It is a matter of social and economic justice. It is a matter of good government".

The abolition of CACSW is not an example of good government that will help women meet the challenge of economic equality; in fact, it is just the opposite. Women's economic status is not improving. They are the first victims of the massive cuts in the federal public service. Some 45,000 jobs will be lost; and women will be hit the hardest. They are still earning only 72 per cent as much as their male colleagues. In 1920, they were making 50 per cent as much as their spouses. They still account for the majority of single parents, poor people, people living in inadequate housing, and victims of family violence. Women expect measures that will finally allow them to achieve the economic equality they are entitled to.

On March 8, 1994, the Secretary of State said this: "For the first time we have had a government sensitive to the different impact of programs and policies on women. It is a government willing to ensure that gender perspective is taken into consideration in all the proposed changes whether they are fiscal, social or juridical in nature". In fact, the decisions and actions taken clearly show this government's insensitivity to the inequality still plaguing women in Canada and Quebec. It is also obvious that this government has no intention of taking the necessary corrective measures.

It is obvious that this government truly deserves the severe criticisms levelled against it today by members of the opposition on behalf of Canadians and Quebecers. There is an urgent need to act instead of merely indulging in rhetoric. Is "Towards Equality" not the slogan adopted by the Canadian government to promote the world summit on women to be held in Beijing in September 1995? I think that this government is off on the wrong foot. It will go there to brag about what it has failed to do at home.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Questions or comments? No one? Did I hear correctly that you will share your time? Agreed.

The hon. member for Saint-Hubert.

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

Mr. Speaker, we know full well that, each time the issue of status of women is raised, we lose a large part of our audience. It is not that too much time is devoted to this subject in this House. It is just that many people do not want to hear what we have to say and, more than anything else, they refuse to take action.

I will speak on the status of women anyway, and the status of women in the legal profession in particular. In Quebec, you can be a lawyer or a notary.

I will focus on women lawyers because, unfortunately, a committee has yet to be appointed to look specifically into the experience of women notaries in their everyday practice. All our statistics on women lawyers were provided to us by the Quebec bar association.

In the legal profession, women experience basically the same thing women experience in any area in which they work; by "work", I mean work outside of the home, of course.

If there has been such an influx of women on the labour market, outside of the home, we know this is due to a large extent to socioeconomic factors. It became necessary for women to help maintain the family income. This has been a determining factor.

In 1951, women accounted for less than 25 per cent of the Canadian labour force, as compared to 58 per cent of adult women in 1991. By far the biggest increase in the labour force participation rate occurred among women with young children, the majority of whom have full time jobs.

Women who, by necessity or by choice, head for a career in law face many difficulties inherent in this line of work. The dysfunctional relationships with male colleagues, the under-representation on the bench and the limited number of female teachers in our law faculties are but a few of the symptoms of a serious problem which persists in a world which claims to be eliminating injustice and unfairness.

Women are now part of the labour force, but female jurists form a distinct group. In the public's eye, we are perceived as being privileged. Yet, to become a disciple of Themis, a woman must overcome many obstacles which are not related to her status as a jurist, but to her status as a woman.

The Quebec Bar Association's committee on women lawyers, to which I alluded earlier, took a close look at the issues confronting female lawyers. Unfortunately, the chamber of notaries does not have a similar committee. A poll was conducted among women lawyers and the findings were released in

1. Those findings are very instructive. They clearly show the obstacles which we must face not just as jurists, but also as women.

In the five years previous to the poll, 71 per cent of female lawyers experienced problems in their vocational practice. It is important to point out that the situation of the majority of these women did not change over that period, whether we are talking about hiring policies, relations with male colleagues, judges and clients, parental obligations, working conditions in general, or career advancement. In short, there is no progress.

Women lawyers practice a profession which was defined by men. Our laws and our precedents are set in a masculine mould. Lynn Smith, the dean of the law faculty at UBC, clearly exposed the problem in an article entitled "A system that's changing". Let me quote and eloquent excerpt: "The roots of the current legal system were planted by men. Developed at a time when women could not vote, be elected, become lawyers or be members of a jury, the law sought to protect the interests deemed important by men, given the realities of their lives as men. When the law did take women into consideration, it was solely from a male standpoint".

The most glaring example of inequity comes from the judiciary. An overwhelming number of judges appointed by the federal government, that is, the provincial superior court judges and the Federal Court judges, are men. Overall, only 134 of the 950 federal judges are women.

By interpreting the law and exerting some moral influence, judges help to shape and develop the fundamental values upon which our society is based. Women have been chronically under-represented among judges. In other words, although they have had the right to practise law for 53 years now, the proportion of women on the bench still remains under 10 per cent of all Quebec judges in the Quebec Court of Appeal, the Superior Court, the Court of Quebec or the municipal courts.

At the Quebec Superior Court, where judges are appointed by the federal justice minister, women represented 11.3 per cent of all judges, accounting for 20 of the 176 judges, as of March 1, 1995.

The situation elsewhere in the country is not much better. Madam Justice McLachlin and Madam Justice L'Heureux-Dubé are the only two women out of the nine judges appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada. They represent 22.2 per cent of these judges, while women account for 52 per cent of the Canadian population.

As of March 1, 1995, women made up only 10.3 per cent of the judges appointed to the Federal Court and the Tax Court of Canada, accounting for 8 out of these 60 judges. I could go on and on with the deplorable data concerning the Canadian women's place in the judiciary, but it would feel like preaching in the wilderness.

It is up to the Minister of Justice to appoint more women judges at the federal level. He is duty bound to review the questionable selection process where potential women candidates must have an impressive number of years of litigation practice, when we know that most women cannot consider that kind of practice because of their parental responsibilities. Such a criterion is not applied at the provincial level. It is hard to imagine how a mother could sit at a trial for three intensive weeks. Yet, it is acceptable for a father to be in the litigation practice and to devote all of his time to his work.

Men's schedules do not change much when they become fathers and have young children. However, this is not the case for women, especially those with preschoolers. Whatever their profession, mothers of toddlers are the most likely to change their work schedules.

For example, 95 per cent of career women, including women judges, work full-time, compared with 68 per cent of women who have preschool children and a similar job. Almost one third of women with preschool children and an irregular work schedule indicated that they had chosen such a schedule mainly to be able to take care of their children.

The selection process used does not reveal how a candidate is chosen and should therefore be abolished. Openness is a necessity, not a luxury.

If the process were more open, the Minister of Justice could no longer hide behind vague excuses like the lack of qualified candidates. If the requirements are the same for men and women, they automatically create inequities since, in general, women do not practise the profession in the same way that men do.

Treating both sexes the same way is creating inequities. The low representation of women among judges is in no way a reflection of their availability since in Quebec they now represent almost a fifth of the Bar membership eligible for the bench, that is, people who have been practising law for at least ten years. Furthermore, with the increased numbers of women who have entered the legal profession since the early eighties we can expect that the number of women eligible for appointment will increase rapidly in the next few years.

I ask the Minister of Justice: Will we see an increase in the number of women appointed to the bench proportionate to their representation among the most experienced members of the legal profession? Time will tell.

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

Mr. Speaker, our colleague from Saint-Hubert raises an issue that is both sensitive and real.

Indeed, in Quebec like everywhere else in Canada, women are clearly under-represented in the judiciary. I have vivid memories of the 1984 election campaign where the leaders of the four federal parties were proposing gender equality. The govern-

ments that have been in power since that time have done nothing, or almost nothing in this respect.

My colleague from Saint-Hubert asked a question of the Minister of Justice who will obviously avoid giving an answer. I would like to ask my colleague from Saint-Hubert if, in her opinion, the federal government demonstrates the will to achieve, within a reasonable time frame, equity in appointments to the bench.

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

Mr. Speaker, the answer is a simple no. Unfortunately, since the Liberal government came into office in 1993, it has not demonstrated the will to appoint more women to the bench. We just have to look at the appointments that have been made.

On this subject, I would like to add that it is often said that if women are under-represented in the system, it is because they do not want to be elected to the House of Commons, they do not want to attend the conventions, they do not want to take part in the nomination process.

I would immediately say to that that the problem is not that women do not want to participate, but rather that they often do not want to be part of a system that was established by men for men. Women are not used to fighting with each other for a position. They are used to getting a position because of their skills.

When they go to a convention or a nomination meeting and see everybody bickering on the floor, they are very uncomfortable. That is why there are not too many women in politics.

I just wanted to add this observation to explain that it is often for that reason that, unfortunately, there are not more women in this House.

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew, Liberal, Secretary of State (Training and Youth)]

Mr. Speaker, I thank opposition members for bringing forward this debate. I rise in the House today to express my deep pride in the government's record in promoting social justice and economic parity for the women of Canada.

I am encouraged by the interest shown by the hon. member of the opposition in the issues of women's economic equality, for what could be more important to Canada than the welfare of more than half its population. I believe it is 52 per cent. It is only when women and families thrive that our country will be renewed.

I welcome the invitation to demonstrate to my colleagues that the federal government can be counted on to keep its promises. We said we would and we are reshaping the country, making it economically strong, socially just and proud of the rich diversity of its people.

Our plan for Canada outlined in "Creating Opportunity" is firmly anchored in the principle that governing is about people. The motion before the House raises an important question: What has the track record of the government been on issues that affect the economic status of women? The short answer is that the government has done a great deal. The government made commitments in the last election campaign and is living up to them.

In the few minutes available to me today I want to discuss the actions we have taken in the important area of employment programs. I want to look briefly at the record in unemployment insurance and I want to talk about the child care issue. I will finish with some comments on the government's proposal for changes to the Employment Equity Act. The document is an empowering document not just for women but for the disabled, for aboriginals and for visible minorities.

First let me establish the context. 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 left of the political spectrum. Therefore well over 400,000 people can say that they have taken part in the greatest social program of all since the government took office in October 1993. There is every evidence that the record will continue strongly and that these are predominantly good jobs and full time work. Women are claiming their full share of the growth.

Let me give a personal view of what it is to be a woman and what it is to be a woman in an area that used to be exclusively male in the number of areas I have occupied in my career. I was in the civil service for many years before I entered politics. My experience was that I never had a problem working with men because those were the people to whom I had the most exposure in the levels I occupied in senior management. It gave me a great deal of opportunity to build human relationships that had a certain dynamic and express co-operation and a bit of a positive attitude about working with other people.

However the real experience I have as a woman comes from the fact that the most influential people in my life have been women. My grandmother was a medicine woman. She was an orator. She was the anchor in my family. She was the leader in my family. There are many strong men in my family. The women in my family are very strong women. They see the opportunity for greatness in almost every opportunity that comes their way.

Another most influential woman in my life has been my stepmother who adopted me when I was three months old. She took the opportunity to teach me good things. I cannot think of a thing women have gained that has just been given to them. I cannot see an empowerment process that women have not fought hard for. Women are truly the instrument of their own empowerment. We are 52 per cent of the population. If women use that

instrument, if women use that power device sincerely, it will be the essence of how great our accomplishment can be.

I have travelled around the world. I have seen other societies, other groups across different nations. It sort of sets a stage for what we have in Canada. In our party we have the whole idea of equality of opportunity and I really believe in it. It is interesting when we think about people like Eleanor Roosevelt, the wife of a former president of the United States, who said: "No one can make you feel inferior without your consent". I feel that way about being a woman.

I feel that women have certain natural talents. That does not make us better than men. It just makes us as good as we can be. It gives us the capacity for nurturing, the capacity for co-operation, the capacity for vision, and the capacity for sharing. We are not keeping the power to ourselves but we are sharing the power. The use of a power in a very positive way is a dynamic that women bring to politics, to business and to social development. It is a different style. It is not better. It does not create inequity. It creates the greatest opportunity for women.

If we look back through history to when women in Canada received the right to vote, no one handed it to them. No one made us persons without the struggle of women. Women themselves went out and put up the fight to gain that right, to gain that recognition. We have fought some big battles. They are not battles between the sexes. They are battles for human dignity. They are battles of the individual fitting in society in a way that expresses true human rights and dignity: the right to work, the right to raise children in an environment that is safe and clean, and the right to raise our heads among others without feeling shame or disgrace even when there are problems. That is the kind of country we live in. That is the kind of democracy for which people fight and in fact in some countries for which people have died.

I come from a family in which women play a very predominate role. The men play an equal role in their own area, but I am talking about women today. I am not saying it is just our day. In fact all the men here today can have the honour of being honorary women if they so desire.

The whole issue of economic empowerment is a different dynamic. Many would say that business is a man's world. That is changing. We no longer have a single income society. We have a double income society. People are working, partnering and sharing. There are children to look after and there are competitive forces that impact on families, communities, regions and the country as a whole. Women are major contributors. Not only do women see the necessity of their positive participation. Men also see the positive contributions made by women. It is necessary. It is absolutely necessary.

Women make up 52 per cent of the population. I was in Copenhagen. Empowerment to me is reaching out and having the human experience of realizing the differences, of building tolerance, of building acceptance and of approving of people's differences linguistically, culturally, socially and economically. We are all people.

I was empowered by seeing other women. I had the opportunity to listen to female leaders and male leaders from around the world. On International Women's Day there was much mention that despite the fact women make up 52 per cent of the population they account for 70 per cent of the world's poor. If women account for 70 per cent of the world's poor, implicit in that is that children are involved. There are more women in female centred living circumstances or families than there are males.

We realize the imperative of empowering women. For instance, the government in making its appointments to boards and commissions is constantly vigilant and balancing the number of women appointed to boards and commissions, as are other members of this caucus and other members of the House. There is a balance. It is definitely a commitment of the Prime Minister and the cabinet.

There is still a greater opportunity for us to look at some of the most economically related boards, to look at the financial institutions and to be able to appoint women. There are women who are qualified, woman who have years of experience. I have met them, as have other members of the House. They are women with a lot of experience and equality of education, who have two or three degrees. They are women who are not bilingual, but multilingual.

They are multi-faceted women who have a whole range of talents to bring forward to the process, not only empowering their families and themselves but their communities and this country. There is definitely a role for ensuring that women get to the top in partnership with men. It is not either/or. It is better when they work together.

We also understand the right to be recognized as persons was not conferred on us by a special men's club that thought it was time to make women persons. That did not happen. Women took up the fight. Women won that right.

It is a powerful feeling on Persons day every year watching the women being recognized, outstanding citizens in this country, who have contributed not only to themselves but to their communities and to their country and maybe to the world in a sense by setting an example.

The right to vote was not conferred on women because someone decided. It was a hard fought battle. It was something women felt strongly about and they finally won the right to vote.

Around the world democratic rights is one of the most powerful tools. Look at South Africa. It is a prime example. The right to vote, the right of assembly, the right to speak, the right of mobility are things women have to make work for themselves. That is the basis of a firm foundation on which to build economic empowerment. That makes it a powerful tool.

At this time the government is aware economic growth by itself is not enough. Women still remain clustered in traditionally female occupations such as teaching, nursing, clerical or sales and service work.

I was so pleased when I went to Montreal two months ago and met with a group of young girls in a classroom dedicated to teaching math and sciences to these young women. I want to see these young girls 20 years form now. I want to see them when they are in high school and university. I told one young girl her seat is waiting for her in the House of Commons.

[An hon. member]

Look out world.

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew, Liberal, Western Arctic, NT]

Look out world is right. Those young people are going to be a huge factor not in just the empowerment of their specific gender, but of this country. If we use that 52 per cent resource to its maximum, we can help to abate a lot of the social problems. We can help to abate a lot of the economic woes that befall our communities.

In this country we are so good at building infrastructure. If we need a road, we build it. If we need a hospital, we build it. If we need banks, we build them. If we need airports, we build them. The one thing that is critical and has not happened over different levels of successive governments is building that firm human foundation, that firm human infrastructure that is spiritual, social, cultural and linguistic which will result in children staying in school and will not drop out.

That is not always the result because we have a disempowerment somewhere along this infrastructure path we have taken. I am not saying that we should not have infrastructure. I am saying that if we have it, it should work for us. It should give us the results we need.

We should be producing. We have skating rinks and curling rinks. We have these other kinds of institutions and infrastructure. They should be producing better athletes. They should be producing children who will be able to set their goals and reach them with their families and their instructors.

Somehow we have to get back to the basics of making those things work for people, not just women, all people in this country. We need to say real empowerment is not the empowerment of one individual. Real empowerment is the empowerment of our families, of our children, of our communities and of our country.

A country is not about one person. A country is about a collective, all the people who live here, all the people who come here from other parts of the world who believe we still have the best country in the world. I certainly believe that.

I am not turning a blind eye and saying we do not have problems. We have problems, but at least we have the democratic right, the equality of opportunity to be able to deal with those problems, to make a better tomorrow for ourselves and for our children.

If all the government did was rely on the market, as some in the House would prefer, we would see only a glacial change in the labour force situation of women. This government believes it can do better. It recognizes the continuing need to help women move into new growth areas. It recognizes its own programs and services can help to bring us closer to that goal. That is important in terms of the government's employment programs.

Hon. members will be aware of many of the programs and services provided by Human Resources Development Canada. I am sure almost all of us have Employment Canada centres in our ridings. These offices have made real efforts to reach out to women, to make programs and services more accessible, to break down the stereotypes and the barriers to full participation by women.

In the last full fiscal year, 1993-94, more than one-quarter of a million Canadian women, 262,392, participated in HRDC employment programs and services of all kinds. That figure was fully 28,555 more than in the previous year. This is so absolutely important.

There is a lot of technical information I have here which I have not shared with the House. It takes co-operation. It takes true partnership. It takes true dignity and respect to really empower the individual and to empower a community, a family, a country. It can be done by respecting and recognizing the power and the real empowerment of women.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague opposite made some interesting comments. She mentioned points regarding the status of women that certainly raise some questions. I am criticizing my hon. colleague for her government's lack of concrete action.

Both she and her colleagues on the government side point to certain situations, but they have yet to put forward any concrete measures, like a day care system; instead, we get budget cuts hitting community agencies and groups that provide assistance to women, and we get UI benefits based on family income. What does the government intend to do to help women?

They point to certain things, and say that they are aware of the situation, of violence against women, but what have they done to the budget dealing with violence against women? In two weeks there will be no more money for that, and we know very well that the government has not stated what it intends to do about it. As recently as yesterday, the secretary of state let it be known, on

the sly, without consulting women's groups, and in a crude fashion that the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women would be shut down. She said, among other things, that the council had been set up by a movement that was in its infancy.

Should we conclude from those remarks that the women's movement has reached its full development? I do not think so. I think that progress has, indeed, been made, but the movement has not reached maturity.

I would like to get specific indications from my colleague. I too can wax poetic about the status of women. I too had to fight to make my way and be elected to this House, and it was not easy. Structures are frequently barriers that are not easily overcome. I agree with my colleague opposite about that, but I would like to have specific facts.

It is no secret that the Axworthy exercise was rather vague as far as the status of women is concerned. The same holds true in other sectors as well, like justice. I would like to hear what concrete action the government will take within a certain time frame and how much money it will spend. With the cuts recently announced, the CACSW will lose 30 per cent of its budget. Women's groups are being told that they are now on a solid footing. Such a statement is dangerous because it is not true. Some groups may be on a solid footing, but discrimination will occur.

How will the minister responsible for the status of women decide which group is to get grants? How will that decision be made? There is a vacuum here and we are left wondering whether there is a real will to help women. In 1995, more than ever before, women will need help because, when we go through a severe economic crisis, violence escalates and women are more than ever in need of help.

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew, Liberal, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that they are confused. On the one hand in dealing with the opposition we find that every time we raise an issue, no matter what it is, women, employment or child care, we are told it is in the purview of provincial jurisdiction, that we have to confer with our provincial counterparts.

The hon. member is suggesting that I make suggestions about specific projects, specific initiatives even though she knows full well we have not had the opportunity to discuss such issues as child care with the provinces, which Quebec feels very strongly about.

There is not a vacuum. The government has undertaken a number of initiatives. Program review and evaluation is one of them. Under that guise we have also looked at women's programs. Change is not a bad thing. What is wrong with change in the name of effectiveness and efficiency? That is what the country wants. Canadians are telling us it is not how much we have, it is what we do with it. They are also telling us change is not such a bad thing. To make change in the name of efficiency and effectiveness is a good thing for this country as a whole, not just women.

It is true we are consolidating the women's programs but it is all in the name of removing duplication, eliminating a number of unnecessary allocations. We need to do that to make it more cost effective and to deliver services to the individual rather than build administrative bureaucracies.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is true that we are asking for money, we are asking for transfers to provinces so that Quebec can finally get the amount of money that it needs to create its own programs. That certainly does not mean that we want the federal government to create the programs. We should not play on words either.

I will quote my colleague, the secretary of state, who was saying just yesterday that she had two good news. These two good news are bad news for the provinces. First of all, there are no tax increases. What does that mean? It means that the provinces will have to increase taxes in order to fill that gap and to pay for programs which will be created in the different provinces.

Second, tax loopholes have been eliminated; the budget makes our tax system more equitable. Which tax loopholes? The ones for big business, for family trusts or the ones for the middle class and the poorest people? That is the question that I am asking my colleague.

1115

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew, Liberal, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, there is no way I would expect this hon. member and the opposition to come forward and endorse and kiss the budget that we presented. I do not believe that.

However, she suggests that in the budget we put forward the provinces have no responsibility. I dare say not. The province she is from is preparing a budget that will have an impact. She is fearful that it will not all be good.

These are tough times and we have taken the directions we believe are necessary in order to get our house in order. We are doing what we feel we do best and we are leaving to others what we feel they can do better. That is the way in which we are conducting our business.

There are different levels of taxation. I cannot speak to all of them but clearly there is a responsibility. We have made our move and the next step is up to the provinces.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to put a question to the minister about another aspect of her speech. She says Canada is the best country in the world to live in and anyone can enjoy it. As far as I am concerned, I see things differently. Overall, it is true that Canada is well positioned among western countries, but there are groups in our society which are less fortunate than others and the government should try to improve their situation.

I would like to draw your attention to the aboriginal people. Given the statistics on suicide, alcoholism and various other social problems, I wonder if the best way to help aboriginal women would not be to thoroughly examine the relationship between the natives and the federal government and to review, or discard altogether, the Indian Act, in order to put an end to the shameful way Canada has been treating native peoples over the last century.

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew, Liberal, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I am really quite pleasantly surprised to hear the member opposite speaking about the rights of aboriginal people.

It is no secret that I have been very outspoken on the rights of aboriginal people. I am also quite pleased, as was the rest of the country and the House, that the only department that is experiencing growth, even though it is not enough to meet the increase in demand and need, is the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

I am also quite pleased, on behalf of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, to note that there is a major devolution and dismantling process under way. Something is definitely happening. As an example, an agreement was signed in Manitoba. That is just one area but there are other sources of self-empowerment.

The government has a whole section on self-government. There have been major comprehensive land claim deals signed with the Yukon, a number in the Northwest Territories and also in the province of Quebec. Those are the real empowering sources on which the government has taken an initiative. It is not just this government but other governments as well.

We are not turning away from the people who are the most vulnerable, at risk and disadvantaged. We are there for those people.

We understand that we can do business in a much more effective and efficient way. The Canadian public agrees and is ready for that. In a sense, we are catching up with public thinking on this. I am sure the hon. member will recognize that in doing so we will not turn our back on the people who really need our help.

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Québec for having introduced this most important motion in the House this morning. I expecially like the part of the motion which refers to: "-inaction regarding the adoption of concrete measures to promote the economic equality of women in federal areas of jurisdiction."

Would the Secretary of State for Training and Youth be prepared to make a commitment before the House this morning that she will take steps at the highest levels of her party to ensure that women will not be affected more than men by the 45 000 job downsizing over the next three years?

She said earlier that women accounted for 52 per cent of the Canadian population. Will the ratio be higher than 52 per cent when those 45 000 civil servants lose their jobs? Will there be many more women than men among those people?

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew, Liberal, Secretary of State (Training and Youth)]

Mr. Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board is the minister who has that responsibility. I feel he has an eye and an ear to all of the dynamics of balancing on gender the concerns of the people who will be reduced from the work force there. He is considering all the dynamics. I would not even try to improve on the excellent job the minister has done.

I am sure he has a special concern about the view that government has toward the role of women in everything we do. Of course I have support for women in all areas, not just this area, as my colleagues do, some of whom are male.

[Jan Brown, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

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.

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville—Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will take a moment to compliment the mover of the motion, the member for Quebec.

In her motion she expresses the feelings a lot of us have, that we would all like to do more at this time to enhance our civilization, the civility of our country, and we would like to encourage those women's groups which have over time spoken out so eloquently and which have demanded more equity in their lives as Canadian citizens.

From that perspective I am in agreement. At the same time, as the government responsible for the fiscal balance of this country, we have had to cut back and it is not just on the backs of women, although that is the focus of today's discussion.

It is rather pretty well in every facet of our society, whether it is a businessman who used to get a grant or a women's group that used to get a grant. It is possible that neither may get a grant now. That does not mean we should leave our ideals behind. The member's motion helps us to keep those ideals in the forefront as we struggle through this period.

As for the last speaker, the member for Calgary Southeast, I find it somewhat difficult to follow her logic. She described the 1970s as the dark ages for women. She used some good examples to describe the days when women were less equal than they are today. At the same time she seemed to agree with the closing down of the council on the status of women and, if I am correct, she suggested that we should close Status of Women Canada.

Does the member feel there has been some progress over the last number of years in the way in which women can participate in our society today in civilian life, in the military and in Parliament? How does she think we got here in 1995? Was it not the work of volunteer women's groups, government funded women's groups, and governments of the past that put budgets together for Status of Women Canada to pursue the issues outlined by women as needing to be improved to improve women's lives?

[Jan Brown, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question. There is no denying that women have moved a very long way. If it had not been for the efforts of the feminists, if we are to use that term here, there would not be the level of awareness of many of the issues I cited in my text. If they had not spoken out change would not have occurred.

We have entered a different era. In my text I was trying to move us beyond the status quo. It is a challenge to government in terms of what I said to find ways to look at equality on the basis of just that with no conditions attached.

We will have to come to terms with the economic reality that the government has very few dollars to spend and start to rely more on volunteer groups as she suggested and those avenues I mentioned in my text to pursue and continue the evolutionary change.

I talked about effective and non-government subsidized efforts. I talked about litigation. I talked about the simple exercise of expression through our right to vote, putting people in the House of Commons. Hopefully that means women and men who will continue to press for change and pursue the opportunities we can without having to rely heavily on governments to fund initiatives. The issue of the dismantling of status of women is an attempt to move us beyond that point.

The government's budget was a startling shift to a different spectrum on the continuum of left to right. The ideology of social liberalism seems to have changed. They too have embraced more of an economic pragmatic approach to how we deal with issues. I am trying to seek different ways of encouraging women as well as men to find alternatives rather than the status quo approach of going to government for money to undertake another policy review or to produce another report with little action.

I appreciate the member's questions and look forward to further discussion with her at some other time.

[Tony Ianno, Liberal, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it was very interesting to listen to the hon. member and her approach to the government's budget.

Independence is very important to women and to all Canadians. The budget is taking a first step toward encouraging more independence. Child care is an important aspect of that. It is not just a lifestyle, as the hon. member has indicated, but a need to allow single women especially to get back into the workforce, which gives them and their families dignity. They can then act as role models for their children and contribute in a very meaningful way to Canadian society. Their children will have the independence to do the things they want to do.

One aspect of the budget of the Minister of Finance concerned small business. We should take into account the statistics the

hon. member has stated regarding the increase of women entrepreneurs in the system. That should be commended because it will spur the country to become self-sufficient and reduce the overall debt. We should take into account the one way in which small business people can get money to improve and enhance their business opportunities is through the source of capital from banks.

As the minister stated, through the budget the banks have to be encouraged to sit down with government to find ways to lend more money to small businesses. Considering that small businesses run by women are becoming more and more a factor, it is in the right direction to give them the tools they need to help our economy get stronger.

We should take into account the benchmark to which the minister was alluding. We should take into account that some banks are lending small businesses less than one-third of all their corporate loans. One recommendation I put forward was that the government should encourage banks to lend to small businesses at least one-third of the amount lent to all corporate donors. Then we would find an increase in loans to small businesses from $33 billion to $49 billion, or a 50 per cent increase. That would encourage many small businesses to expand and give women more tools to do much better.

Would the hon. member agree that would be a good step by the Minister of Finance?

[Jan Brown, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question.

I would ask the member perhaps at another time to explain exactly what he means by government encouragement. I do not have a clear understanding of what he means by encouragement. However I would support government working with the banks to encourage a plan for action such as the hon. member suggested.

I talked about the whole matter of financial institutions lending to women. I was taken aback by the report undertaken by the Federal Business Development Bank regarding the gender bias that appears to be apparent with respect to women and how women have access to money to foster and create businesses that will thrive. That is the point I would like to make here. It was concern for gender bias. Women do not appear to be treated fairly by financial institutions, given the nature of the report I cited in my text.

From the Reform Party perspective we encourage and recommend competition in banking provided to entrepreneurs such as service to customers and delivery of quality products. We also recommend an independent ombudsman to adjudicate problems such as the ones I have mentioned. That is a form of problem resolution without having to go to government for further money to resolve the problem.