Debates of March 16th, 1995

Supply

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—Woodbine, ON]

Madam Speaker, I found the member's speech interesting. She was talking about individualism as if we stand alone and do not need anything else around us.

What I hear her saying is that this country has never had and does not have today any sexism or racism that we need to worry about, that there is no stereotyping of the disabled and the physically challenged. She very well knows those very people came before us and told us that of them, something like 2 per cent or less have university educations. Two per cent or less have proper jobs because they do not and cannot access jobs because of stereotyping. This is just the physically challenged. I am not even talking about the racial situation.

The hon. member was talking about individualism and being able to stand alone, being able to make our decisions alone without any laws, rules, collective understandings or agreements of any sort. There was a time when that did exist. At that time there was also child labour and slavery in the world without any of these laws. I do not believe she is suggesting that we go back to those times.

The hon. member is also forgetting that women had to fight. There is the Person's case. Why do we even celebrate Person's day now? Did we forget that we had to fight for the rights to be considered as people and persons? It was not that long ago and a lot of things are still happening.

We saw in the paper just recently where women in business cannot get loans and have to pay higher interest. They stand alone but it does not seem to help. Being individuals does not seem to help.

Yes, we have a charter. Why do we constantly have to go to the Supreme Court with charter challenges in order to get the rights under that charter? They do not automatically happen just because there is a charter. How did we get the rights under that charter? It was by fighting tooth and nail because they were not in the original draft of the charter.

How does the member expect to stand alone, individually isolated and through osmosis each of us will do the right thing only because we want to and because it has never happened before?

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary North, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is very important to understand that because we are each responsible for our own future and our own achievements does not mean we are in isolation. Nobody with common sense would even suggest that a society which is a corporate word would want to isolate anyone. I do not recall ever using such a word. Yet, this hon. member is so concerned about branding people and putting them into groups that the word isolation stands out in her mind if you even dare to oppose such a concept.

We must help each other. That is the whole point of society. Everybody has read the poem "No Man is an Island". We know that to be true. What is really important to understand is that struggle is part of the human experience.

Yes, the struggles she talked about were important. Those struggles are going on today and will continue, but the important thing is that we become responsible for what we make of ourselves. If we are delivering results to people and delivering the things they need, then where is the achievement and the merit? It is owed to us and it becomes ours by matter of right. We do not have to work for it.

Discrimination cannot be redressed even though discrimination is a terrible thing. If I had been alive at the time when women could not vote, I would have been up there hollering and screaming as loudly, as articulately and as passionately as anyone else. Discrimination cannot be redressed by more discrimination which is exactly what we are going to get if we are not careful.

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board]

Madam Speaker, I happen to be one of those people who believes we do not do enough research in Canada and probably throughout the world on people issues, the questions of poverty, racial discrimination, et cetera.

I am particularly concerned with the following. Is it the hon. member's opinion that we undertake enough research on people issues in Canada, obviously including issues that are directly related to women in society in general. I refer specifically to equal pay for work of equal value. Do we undertake enough research on other issues are particularly relevant to women, for example in the field of health? Do we undertake enough research in redressing some of the financial injustices women suffer in society?

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary North, AB]

Madam Speaker, the point I am trying to make is that all members of society are equally important. Why are we singling out a particular group as needing special help? All of us need to be treated fairly and impartially in this society, not just some of us. There is no reason to suggest that some of us are more entitled to fairness and impartiality than others. That is just not sensible.

We need to be concerned about each other. We need to help each other. Throughout the centuries the people of good ethics, solid citizens, the people who were respected were those who cared for the disadvantaged, the poor, the needy, those without a voice, those who were without anyone to fight for them. We must continue to do that.

The only point I am making is that kind of caring cannot be legislated. It must be done on an individual basis. It must be done by working with people. It is not done by creating some scheme where results are guaranteed, but where opportunities are fought for, where people are valued and where their achievements and aspirations can be freely met. It is a far different thing from meeting those aspirations for them. It gives them the opportunity to meet them.

We need to discuss the distinctions in this important area because it is a critical area. We have to care about each other and we do. What is the most caring thing, to give people gifts or to allow them the opportunity to get what they want in life through their own merits, their own struggles and their own efforts?

An illustration is often given of a butterfly that struggles and struggles out of the chrysalis. A chick tries to struggle out of an egg. Both are long and exhausting processes. However if you

tear open that chrysalis or that egg, the new creation that comes out of it is weak because it has not had to struggle.

We need to be there for each other. We need to care about each other's struggles. We need to make sure there is fairness and impartiality. We cannot deliver things to people that they can best benefit from by achieving them themselves. That is a very important point in this debate. I hope that satisfies my hon. friend about what I mean in that regard.

[Judy Bethel, Liberal, Edmonton East, AB]

Madam Speaker, yesterday the Canadian Federation of Independent Business had a press release. It said that women in new businesses are refused small business loans 20 per cent more often than men in new businesses. It also said that women in business pay 1 per cent more above prime than men in business do. I would like the member to respond to how we as a society should deal with these kinds of inequities.

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary North, AB]

Madam Speaker, this is an important point. On the face of it, these kinds of statistics look like nothing more than discrimination.

The question must be asked: Are the banks which are clearly in the business of making money simply refusing women loans because they do not like women? If that is the reason, then they should be hammered over the head. It is stupid.

What difference does it make if you are a man or a woman in business? The point is, is there a good business reason as to why this decision is being made? If there is a good business reason, then as a business woman I am going to make sure that I meet the concerns of the bank and qualify for the loan I need. I am going to satisfy the bank that it would be very well advised to give me the needed money because I am a good risk. That is the kind of initiative we need.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the discussion today. I am delighted that the concerns pertaining to 52 per cent of society are being addressed in a thoughtful manner based on the political observations of people.

Politics makes strange bed fellows, if I could put it that way. Each of us chooses the political party that best suits our interests and concerns. Perhaps the way we view society is reflected by the choice of where we sit in the House. We have been listening to a very interesting approach. Much of it reflects the values I consider important. Some of it is totally outrageous and some of it is strictly political partisanship of the weakest form of politics I could possibly think of.

Notwithstanding, it is vital that we enter into this kind of discussion. I am very pleased to respond to the motion of the opposition member regarding federal action to achieve women's economic equality.

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her motion. She is asking this House to affirm a principle that is also dear to my heart, the economic equality between men and women. It is not easy to achieve, but it merits discussion, particularly after the speech by the hon. member for the Reform Party.

Our government is firmly committed to helping women attain equality. There is no doubt that the equality of women, fairness and justice for all hinge on economic independence.

We also know that economic equality is fundamental to the well-being of women and indicative of the status of women in our society. Being affluent and having a good job make it easier to stand up for your interests. If you are at the bottom of the scale, if you are a divorced women, if your parents have lived a life of confrontation accompanied by physical abuse, your life will not be quite the same. Equality will be lacking. I believe it is up to society, men and women together, to take an interest in these vital issues.

In my view, women must be able to take part in the workplace, to receive equal pay for work of equal value, and to contribute equitably to our collective wealth. I must tell you that, as a mother who had sons, would I not have wanted the same treatment, the same equality of opportunity for my daughters-had I been blessed with some-as for my sons, and as for my daughters-in-law today? If they have the same education, the same ability and the same experience, why do they not deserve the same treatment? I have never understood why we cannot ensure that our sons and our daughters live their lives on an equal footing. This situation can change if women decide to have children, and this must be taken into consideration as well.

I feel that it is very important to find a way of ensuring that the equitable contribution to our collective wealth benefits everyone, all members of our society, women as well as men.

I am pleased to be part of a government that is determined to accelerate the advancement of economic opportunity for women not only in the marketplace but also in their daily lives if they choose to work in their homes. I am honoured to serve under a Prime Minister who is committed to exactly the same goal.

The goal of the Liberal Party has not changed. Times have changed. What we saw as necessary many years ago has changed in the new reality of today's world, whether it is the technology

that has changed, the organization of society that has changed or the role and place of women in society that has changed.

We can look at the House and at the number of women who have been able to win "gagner leurs épaulettes au niveau politique, elles siègent ici".

[An hon. member]

On their own initiative.

[Sheila Finestone, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Not on their own initiative, I say to my colleague across the floor. From a lot of work by women like me and plenty of others.

The Liberal Party has brought into force a Human Rights Act, a Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and a royal commission on economic equality, all structures of society that express our will to ensure equality for women and that give us the legislative mandate and the tools we need that were not in place when the Royal Commission on the Status of Women first held its hearings.

I appeared before the Royal Commission on the Status Women. I appeared about child care. I appeared about latchkey children. I appeared on the role of the volunteer in society, the needs of the volunteer and the need for recognition for unpaid work. The women here today gained many opportunities right back to the Lavalee case and right through the history of the development of equality and opportunity for women.

The women who think today that there is nothing we need to be concerned about, that violence against women is not a reality, that it is not something society should deal with, and that the Minister of Justice who has been doing a fine job addressing many of the issues should not be doing it, have missed the point that 52 per cent of the population require attention. All those issues in society need to be addressed.

I thought it would be worthwhile to address some of the points raised in my absence this morning. I was attending other duties and could not get back to the House on time. I gathered from what colleagues in the Reform Party said concerning women's equality and the consolidation of the federal government's organizations for women that they accused the government of not taking enough action on equality. They referred to us as a special interest group. They talked about us as a particular bunch in society.

Quite frankly this bunch in society, this gender called women, females, wives, mothers and grandmothers, happen to make up 52 per cent of the population. They are not a special interest group. The gun lobby is a special interest group. The banking institutions are a special interest group. Certainly women are not a special interest group. They are an integral part of society. Their concerns need to be addressed through research, through public meetings, and through advancing their concerns on the floor of the House.

Members of the House should make sure they consult their ridings to find out the concerns of women, their husbands and children. They might be more reflective of real society and stop worrying about the peculiarities of a just society from their perspective which seems to want to throw everybody in jail and throw away the key.

They have called for the government to get out of child care, that women should stay at home and look after children. If all women in the workforce stayed at home over 20 per cent more of the population would be living under the poverty line.

They do not recognize that women go to work not only because they like to and not only because they have confidence and want to but because they need to in order to keep their families above the poverty line. I do not expect the Reform Party to understand that.

They also talked about the question of the lack of need for any special action. There is plenty of need for special action so that the women of the country will be ensured of special action.

I would now like to talk about the project to merge these institutions, a project I have just tabled, and the action the government has undertaken with respect to the three groups serving the interests of women, because I think it a bit unfortunate that this was not well understood. Perhaps the opposition party, the Bloc, did not have an opportunity to carefully read the document I tabled and the time perhaps to read what I said in the House. In this regard, I would like to draw their attention to certain facts.

Through in-depth research undertaken by this government to ensure that it gives careful attention to fiscal matters-and, with all sorts of new things in our society, and with the need to be careful with the deficit as well, we must manage our society very carefully-as part of my mandate with respect to the status of women, I looked at the three major institutions, government institutions. This has nothing to do with the private sector and the organizations in the private sector, which have their own sets of problems. That is another issue. It was not the issue I dealt with; I tried to ensure that they operated better and in a way that would see to their interests from the grass roots right up to Cabinet and from Cabinet back down with the information required.

It was discovered that everything was in triplicate. We had three separate administrations and three levels of duplication, and I took those steps to streamline all these resources, to concentrate our efforts and to reinforce our capacity to achieve equality.

By merging the three groups, we will eliminate confusion and facilitate access to government. This initiative will also provide a more direct link with women organizations at the local, regional and national levels as well as with non-governmental organizations and universities. What is more important is that I get to keep the $700,000 so that-yes, the Bloc member is

surprised, but I want him to have peace of mind, I do not want him to worry-the money previously earmarked for the Advisory Council on the Status of Women will be reallocated to research conducted by Status of Women Canada and by women's groups, universities and other organizations.

We are going to see what happens, and we are going to consult on the reallocation, but the money for independent research will be-and this is a commitment I made yesterday-given to arm's length institutions and the results will be published in the interest of women, for women, and will not be touched by the government.

I needed that. Did you think I was going to take this money away from women's organizations? No, you started this for petty political purposes. I must say that this kind of system will be much more efficient. I also find strange that my opposition colleague would criticize the action of the federal government when the Province of Quebec recently restructured its own department on women's equality and she did not say a word. This demonstrates, on her part, a great interest in the status of women in Canada and I commend her for that.

I should make it clear that by consolidating all women's programs into Status of Women Canada we are working in the best interests of all women.

I know that some women are concerned that merging the advisory council with my department would essentially mean that the government could help itself to its funding. Far from it. I will not be a minister all my life. I have worked long enough not to want to pull the rug out from under women's feet, regardless of the government. I worked for ten years on the other side of this House and know how women can be misled and their interests forgotten. Such policies, they are smoke and mirrors; and they did not serve us well. This is not the type of policies this government wants to implement.

This government relies on the public, on women's organizations, to monitor our work and to tell us what they think of our performance. I must say that since my appointment, I have travelled a lot, I have met lots of women all over Canada, more than a hundred or so organizations. I chaired the working group on child care. I listened. This government listens. In Cabinet, we talk about women's interests and we will continue to do so.

We now have a very diversified, very competent network of people who are able to appear before us, whether it be on issues of violence or others. The Minister of Justice and I organized a round table on that subject. Forty groups participated. Some 70 persons came. The government, not the advisory council, paid for these consultations.

When the Minister of Human Resources Development held his consultations, a task force was set up. This cost money, but I insisted on it. No later that three hours after the presentation of the budget, I received a phone call requesting permission to hold consultations across Canada.

As a result of this change, we will no longer have a large office in Ottawa, Montreal and Vancouver. The appointment of women by order in council has become a thing of the past. These offices will be closed, but in each region of Canada, in each city, there are women working closely with the people, who know who should get funded and who should not. They are able to organize gatherings, as they have been doing for me up to now, allowing me to meet people.

I just met with the Quebec women's federation, RESO, Charlotte Thibeault's coalition. These women mentioned that they research the issues they bring forward, but that otherwise they are not involved in research; they complained a lot about the way research is being carried out. I said that, from now on, research will be done according to the needs identified by women's groups and academics, that the choice of who will do it will be theirs, and that results will be published.

You do not like it? Too bad. I believe it is the way it should be done. We will consult women's groups as to the process. It may not be what you want, but I believe that it is the best way for women. Judging by the work women did in preparation for the Beijing meeting, I know that we are making progress. There are still a lot of problems, but we are making progress. Women on this committee held consultations with 2,500 women across Canada. They drafted answers and helped Status of Women to make improvements to the draft working paper.

I believe that the links, the co-operation and the mutual respect we established in many ways are in the interest of everyone.

In this way we are going to improve research and get more out of our consultations. We will be much more direct. We will use a "one-stop shopping" concept, research will be conducted by outside sources, independently, and all aspects of the library, etc, will also be reviewed, as well as distribution, because we will begin using all kinds of new technology. Women are quite advanced in this area.

I know that some people believe that we have stifled the voice of an important women's association and even silenced it. This is not true. This statement only confuses matters. The organization which was closed down was financed 100 per cent by the federal government.

The federal government will transfer close to $2 million for the status of women. I think this is a very good approach and I am very proud of what we just did because there comes a time when we have to turn over a new leaf. The 1970s were different from 1995. We had to closely examine what we were doing, and in doing so, we found a better way to handle women's issues.

Madam Speaker, thank you and I still acknowledge the importance of the role of women. Our political party will persevere, in our interests and in the interests of women-

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I regret that I must interrupt the hon. minister, but her time is up. We will now proceed to the question and comments period.

The hon. member for St. Boniface has the floor.

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board]

Madam Speaker, I have listened with interest to the minister's speech and I would like to ask her a question.

Like her, I realize that the government is doing a number of things for the women of Canada.

For example, we have come forward with an agreement for equal pay for work of equal value. We have the gun control legislation that is being supported by women. We have the prenatal nutrition program. We have the court challenges program that has been reinstituted, centres of excellence on women's health and a number of others.

There is simply a larger proportion of women who are poor, a larger proportion of women in society who are victims of violence and abuse, and a larger proportion of women who are single parents. Women still earn less than men.

Despite various initiatives that have been undertaken by government and because of certain decisions that have been taken-my colleague has addressed one of them-are we assured that we will continue to make progress on these fronts?

I tried to raise a question previously with respect to the importance of research on those fronts. I have a bias, I must admit. I think research on those issues is of critical importance to ensure that we continue to move forward because there are serious problems in society that affect women disproportionately.

[Sheila Finestone, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. I have visited Winnipeg and I have met with both English and French women's groups in the area as well as with multicultural groups. I can assure him I am more than ever convinced the research that needs to be done is proactive research as well as reactive research.

In the proactive field of research today, which we did not have in 1972 with the advisory council's arrival on the scene, there are women chairs of study across the land. Within the universities there is capacity to look at many of the problems such as the problems of poverty, the problems of inequality in terms of education and training, the whole area of change in the percentages of men and women in various institutions, and the need for the diversity of Canadians to be better reflected in the House.

A university study was done on the integration of women and visible minorities into the marketplace. When we see the disparity at least once it is put into concrete terms through research at the university level, or at SHRC for that matter, and we are in a position to be able to speak out and effect change on government policy.

I listened to some of the remarks of members of the Reform Party which I do not share. They say that government cannot make life fairer.

If we did not do research through the Canadian Federation for Independent Business, would we know that women who have an excellent record with respect to the creation of jobs in small and medium size businesses are far more effective and far more efficient or that over 40 per cent of the jobs are created by the small businesses in which women are the most successful after five years?

That research was done by the private sector, the CFIB in this instance, not by a university. It indicated that despite their success 20 per cent more women were refused loans at our banks and institutions than men and that when women obtained loans, 95 per cent of them had to pay higher rates with more difficult terms.

That research was extremely pertinent. I am very glad the member asked the question. It is a solid answer to the Reform member on whether or not we need to be doing work on equality for women in the fields of employment and earnings. Yes, we need to reach economic equality. The question was very pertinent. It allows me to thank the member very much.

There is room for research at all levels: through the private sector, through the public sector and through the universities with their great expertise.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Secretary of State for the Status of Women. I understand the government's new policy, which led to yesterday afternoon's decision that that would be the best way to operate.

I do not think that there is unanimity among women's groups or that it is as obvious as the minister would have us think. There is concern about the probable lack of transparency there would be in the department when public servants in this department are

called upon to promote the department's policies. The role of the advisory council was precisely to criticize government inertia and to suggest possible solutions regarding the various policies of the government concerning the status of women.

Take day care facilities, for example. We know that the 3 per cent of GDP has been reached and that 50,000 day care spaces have been promised. This does not come from the government. We hear about pay equity, while women are still earning 72 per cent of what men earn, and there are other decisions that the government is dragging its feet on. I think that enough has been said today about the various possible solutions that the government could adopt to bring about a considerable improvement in the economic situation of women.

What concerns me is the lack of transparency that might result from this new direction. I am also concerned about the choice we would have to make.

The minister said yesterday in her speech on the budget in the House that the various women's groups were very strong, very effective. I think that some of them are but that others are not so strong and do not have the Canadian Advisory Council's analysis capacity. Without this analysis capacity, how will they manage?

Women living in the outlying regions will have to negotiate with the federal government, to travel, to defend their priorities. The minister may be very positive, but I do not know what the outcome will be in the long term. I do not think, however, that this way of looking at things will be an end in itself.

She seemed to be saying that the women's movement was born of various concerns and that it was in its infancy when the council was created. I would say that, on the contrary, we have not yet reached maturity.

In 1920, women were earning 50 per cent less than men; in 1995, women are making only 72 per cent of what men make. We have clearly lost ground.

Given the economic situation, we know full well that women will be the hardest hit. This afternoon in the House, the Deputy Prime Minister replied to a question I asked on the dismantling of the advisory council-

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but her time is up. The secretary of state, for a brief reply.

[Sheila Finestone, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague. I am aware of her keen interest for women's issues. I know she speaks from the heart and I respect her for that. While I understand her interest for women's issues, I wish she would reply when Reform members make statements in this House, because it is quite frustrating to hear them sometimes.

I must say that, indeed, the advisory council had a role to play, and it played it well. Perhaps it even took a mother-hen approach at times. As I see it, the council was the driving force behind many activities and initiatives. You cannot say that, over the years, the Fédération des femmes du Québec, the National Action Committee on the Status of Women-the similarity of certain names causes some confusion, I know- the National Council of Women and others-there are a dozen organizations out there that I could name, have not been able to make representations and have not done so. And, through independent research, we will make sure that they can decide for themselves what their priorities will be regarding all the women's groups; I will not interfere. I think it will be in their best interest.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on the motion tabled by the hon. member for Québec, which deals with the economic equality of women. In spite of all the attention generated by the status of women in Canada, and by a number of legislative measures and policies designed to correct the inequalities of which they are victims, the situation of women remains very different from that of men, and there is still a lot to be done before they can enjoy the same benefits as their male counterparts.

As the member for Drummond, I first want to express my friendship and my support to women in my riding, particularly those who work in organizations dedicated to improving the situation of women in our riding. As the opposition critic on health issues, this is also an opportunity to stress the urgency of establishing a health care system for women.

The moneys allocated to research on women's health issues remain largely inadequate. There are insufficiencies in various sectors such as breast cancer research, gynaecology and obstetrics, chronic and degenerative diseases, mental health, violence, occupational diseases, specific needs of immigrant women of ethnic origin and native women, teenagers, elderly women, and so on.

At the beginning of her mandate, 15 months ago, the Minister of Health told us how she was going to promote women's health. She explained the programs that her government was going to implement, so as to correct the inequalities which affect women in the health care system. The reality, however, is completely different.

Since the Liberals took office, the funds allocated to health care keep diminishing. This government maintained the freeze on transfer payments to the provinces, thus creating a shortfall for provincial health care systems, including Quebec's. The government goes even farther in its last budget by cutting $70 million in the health department's budget, which is a 3.8 per cent reduction. But nothing is done to correct the imbalance between men and women.

Let me tell you about breast cancer. Canada has the world's highest rate of breast cancer.

Finally, the incidence of this terrible disease has constantly increased since the 1960s. Each year, 15,000 new cases of breast cancer are diagnosed, and 5,000 women will die of it this year, that is, one every two hours.

In Quebec alone, 1,500 women will die of this terrible disease. In Canada and in Quebec, a woman has one chance out of ten to develop breast cancer.

A national study, which was published last Thursday, shows that 41 per cent of women in Canada and in Quebec consider breast cancer to be the main threat to their lives.

I think it is about time that we decide to overcome this disease. To do this, we must have a breast screening strategy taking into account both genetics and environmental factors.

This is exactly what emerged from the final report tabled last fall by the national forum on breast cancer in which the health minister took part. This report recommended that national practice directives be adopted immediately to enlighten doctors and promote research and job training. So far, nothing has been undertaken by the government in office.

There is also cardiovascular diseases, which are the main cause of death among women. Indeed, 40 per cent of women will die of cardiac arrest or of cardiovascular complications. Despite these alarming figures, the last budget resulted in cuts to the Tobacco Demand Reduction Strategy.

Resources allotted to this program will decrease from $185 million to $81 million. At the very least, this represents a $104 million reduction, even though the number of smokers continues to rise, especially among women. We know that smoking increases the risks of cardiovascular complications. However, members will remember that tobacco control once was the health minister's favourite theme.

There were reports recently, and again today, in the media about the terrible problem relating to genital mutilation which is wreaking havoc in several countries around the world and is even practised here, in our society. The government is not addressing this crucial issue and we are wondering what it is waiting for.

Quebec has already showed leadership by announcing that it will criminalize this action and sue everyone guilty of genital mutilation. The federal government refuses to clearly add genital mutilation in the Criminal Code, despite the repeated requests made by the official opposition and the government of Quebec and the fact that several European countries and states in the U.S. have already taken such measures.

When can we expect a truly good health system for women? I still remember when birth control was not well known and was hard to get. I remember when women's diseases were considered a normal part of women's lives and their imaginary disorders. I remember when knives were used way too often. We only have to think about all the unnecessary hysterectomies that were performed.

Of course you will tell me that times have changed, that today's policies stress the importance of addressing social and economic problems recognized as being directly related to health. But how are words translated into action? Far from improving, the status of women is even deteriorating.

For years, women's health centres in Quebec have been repeating that the social and economic conditions of women, poverty, the double workload, violence and discrimination are all problems that a pill will not solve.

The solution for women is to eliminate poverty because there is a direct link between poverty and health. Statistics have clearly shown that low income people are sick more often than others.

In this year of tolerance, the International Women's Day that we celebrated last week compels us to have greater respect for ourselves and for others. Women have demonstrated throughout history that they have this extraordinary capacity to obtain a consensus. Our modern societies, whose only values now seem to be those generated by the globalization of economic and cultural markets, need more than ever the involvement of women as mediators.

In the name of profitability, our societies exclude more and more people and fuel the rise of several forms of fundamentalism. Because they are the very ones with the sensitivity and the ability to do it, women will have to assert themselves to lead a successful battle against poverty and radicalization.

I will close my remarks by addressing the women of Quebec, to whom I want to deliver this message. In a few months, we will have a crucial decision to make, a decision that will have a lasting impact on our future. My wish would be to see the women of Quebec taking part actively in this historic moment because no country can be built without the voice, the will and the consent of women. And the new society that we see rising on the horizon must include the women of Quebec.

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

Madam Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank the hon. member for being very realistic about the role of women in the political life of a society. They say that when men go into education it is for themselves, whereas women do it for their family, in other words, society.

I am convinced that women, when they see what is happening in Quebec, will certainly get involved in order to maintain their quality of life at an appropriate level and ensure better opportunities for the future in case Quebec separates and becomes independent.

We have travelled the same path. Women respect each other. Redefining borders will not help in any way. It will create a situation where poverty will be worse for women and their families.

I would like to ask a question of my colleague. When she says that we must follow up on what is happening in Quebec because it just ruled that the mutilation of female genital organs is a crime, I wonder if she was absent from the House when the Minister of Justice and myself ruled that our federal legislation would also consider such mutilation to be a criminal act? If we are presented with a case involving such an act, it will be tried and judged according to Canadian laws since it is a criminal act.

I am very happy to see that the Court of Quebec, or rather the Human Rights Commission, has ruled on that issue. I am also happy to see they agree with us on a point that has already been ruled on in the Canadian laws.

There is no need for lengthy analysis to find out that such a practice goes against Canadian values, that it is unacceptable to mutilate female genital organs and that people have to abide by our rules and standards, period. Certainly, for all women, whether they live in Quebec or in Ontario, whether they are from Nova Scotia or Newfoundland or Vancouver, British Columbia, this act of mutilation is unacceptable.

I am asking the hon. member a second question concerning the health issue. In order to eliminate poverty, we took some measures in favour of pregnant women. We also undertook some research on breast cancer, on heart diseases in women and on their prevention. Considering her great interest in that matter, I am convinced that, given her great interest for these matters, if she has other ideas to bring out at one time or another, she will assist the health committee of the House of Commons by making her comments, which will be greatly appreciated.

Is she ready to bring us other suggestions on this?

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, regarding sexual organ mutilation, we note that it is not mentioned that this practice is criminal. Why does this practice still exist? As was noted earlier today, a physician had to perform surgery on young women. How is this still possible? He had to do nine operations. What can we do to stop that? The individuals who performed these barbarous acts on those young women are still running free. This practice is being performed in many places.

When people arrive in Canada, they do not know it is illegal in our country. They should be told, and the fact should be public knowledge. Steps must be taken to prevent that practice. This is happening here in Canada. In 1995, it is unbelievable that we still hear about those practices. In Toronto, a physician told me that he gets calls regularly from women who ask him to perform these operations on the sexual organs of their children. The Criminal Code must either be strengthened or other measures must be enacted because this situation is really alarming.

As far as-

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but her time is up. The hon. member for Laval Centre has the floor.

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

Madam Speaker, allotted days on a motion of the official opposition provide special moments in this House, because, by making it possible to ask government about the real issues, they force parliamentarians to consider certain unavoidable realities.

The reality we are currently considering concerns more than half the population, since, today, we are assessing the government's action, or, rather, its inaction with respect to women.

On March 8, 1994, International Women's Day, the Bloc Quebecois tabled the following motion in the House on an opposition day:

That this House urge the government to recognize the principle of economic equality between women and men and to implement measures, in areas of federal jurisdiction, to guarantee women equity in employment, wages and living conditions.

What has become of this a year later? Women in Canada and Quebec agree: for this government, it is a long way from the cup to the lips. There was not a hint of the grand principle of equity in the budget tabled by the Minister of Finance. And yet women here need real action.

It therefore makes sense for the opposition critic on the status of women to table a motion denouncing the federal government for its inaction in its areas of jurisdiction through its failure to adopt concrete measures to promote the equality of women.

The Bloc Quebecois notes that the Liberal government has failed to keep the commitments it made with regard to promoting equality for women. One has only to look at the situation in various areas of social concern, including child care services, public housing and the struggle to prevent violence against women.

The Liberal government's latest decision to abolish the Advisory Council on the Status of Women is a clear indication of the cabinet's concern about women.

It appears that the government is no longer interested in hearing a voice independent of political power express the rightful claims of women. The council's credibility with various

women's organizations was commonly recognized. It is not easy to answer to one's conscience when the will to act is lacking.

It would seem that the activities of this organization will be transferred to Status of Women Canada. What activities are we talking about, however, since $1 million in funding will be cut?

The equal opportunities for women program will also be transferred to Status of Women Canada, but with a budget reduced by five per cent. They say that, for the moment, this cut will not affect grants to volunteer organizations working on the status of women issue. What we really want to know is how long will this moment last.

Of all of the issues regarding the status of women, violence against women is probably the most devastating, as much physically as it is psychologically and it also saps morale. Despite the efforts of groups working to stop violence against women, the incidence of violence has increased at an alarming rate. Can we fight so rampant a social ill with only sentiment and good intentions as weapons? No, Madam Speaker.

The violence that often stems from economic inequality could be eliminated if the government would only assume a strong leadership role in society, put equality high on the list of priorities and channel the appropriate resources to the cause. Governments do not have the right to expose the pursuit of economic equality for women to the whims of the tax system and budgets. Such behaviour is tantamount to subsidizing economic inequality.

More than ever, fighting violence against women must be a priority. Is it acceptable in 1995 that women and families still have to face violence day after day? In January 1994, Statistics Canada publicized the results of a vast survey in which 12,300 women participated. It brought to bear some disquieting facts.

It revealed that 51 per cent of all women have been victims of at least one act of physical or sexual violence. One in five were hurt and one in four were hurt so badly that they required medical attention. In 25 per cent of all cases, the husband or common-law spouse was the perpetrator. What is even more serious is that children witnessed the violence 4 times out of 10.

These figures jive, by the way, with the statistical data contained in a 1991 report called "The War Against Women". The report found that between 63 and 83 per cent of the victims of physical abuse knew the men who abused them. One woman in ten is assaulted by her spouse and, on the average, victims are abused 30 times before they call the police.

The Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women published its own figures, which have quite a story to tell about the treatment women receive. It found that one in four Canadian women were sexually exploited at one point of their lives. In half of the cases, these women were not even 17.

Considering these disturbing facts, how can the government justify its decision to reduce subsidies to organizations against violence towards women when the need is more pressing?

Women will not feel secure before there is true equality between men and women. How much injustice, inequity, inequality, and violence will the women of Canada and Quebec have to endure before the government commits itself to act in a concrete way and proceed with the necessary social and economic changes to achieve equality?

The Liberal government with its current budgetary measures in the area of unemployment insurance, with its determination to cut transfer payments to the provinces in the areas of health, education and social services is working towards a pull-out of the central government in these matters.

The so-called reform of social programs, postponed until 1997, announced a dark future for young people, the unemployed, senior citizens and, of course, women.

Indeed, there is no doubt that women will be the first victims of the changes to eligibility criteria for unemployment insurance, in a large part because it will be based on family income. We can assume that women could be denied access to the plan because of the high salaries of their husbands. What about other payments, in particular old age security?

The same logic seems to apply, since the budget of the Minister of Finance is starting to open a breach into old age security. "If your family income exceeds a certain threshold, Madam, you will no longer get your monthly cheque." For many women, this cheque is tangible proof of a certain financial autonomy, very often the first they ever had. We cannot deny that some aspects of women's reality have been overlooked by decision-makers. But an oversight can be corrected, if only the will to be fair is strong enough for us to admit that we were wrong.

The economic security and equality of women can only be achieved if women are economically independent. In turn, economic independence is tied to the creation of lasting full time and adequately paid jobs. However, in 1993, women accounted for 69 per cent of part time workers in Canada. This ratio is unacceptable. Job insecurity is replacing economic security and equality for women. This is second rate equity.

Instead of jeopardizing the scant efforts made over the past decades to try to provide women in Canada and Quebec with economic equality, the government should recognize that only a

sharp directional change in employment strategies will guarantee the women of this country the economic security necessary for individuals to find their balance, for families to be healthy, and for people to enjoy respect. This government has its work cut out, but it remains to be seen if it will have the courage to get down to business.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to add a few comments and make some observations. First, it is not the credibility of the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women which is being questioned here, but the operating costs, the duplication costs. We are talking about a third of the budget being used for three full time employees, the president and two vice-presidents, and some thirty former part-time employees appointed by order in council. I must say that one third is too much. For the rest of the money that we will keep, that the Canadian Council will keep, we will make a review and consult women to determine how to put that money to good use. I believe this is a better way to ensure that many of the questions you raised on certain points, some important questions, will get at least a technical answer. That is another story.

To conclude on your colleague's speech on health issues, my other mandate, that of multiculturalism, has showed me that we should deal with that shameful and hateful issue of genital organs mutilation through education and not only through a judicial and criminal approach. It is through education that we can reach multicultural groups and various ethnic communities and start an information process. We are making a film on that subject for doctors, nurses, families and centres, and I hope this will also help.

Finally, I would like to bring to your attention the fact that it is not the Advisory Council which studied the issues and data on violence which you mentioned several times in your comments. That research was done by a group on violence appointed and paid by the government. It is also Statistics Canada which conducted a comprehensive research effort, known world-wide, and studied the treatment of women in the context of criminal law. These are the people who brought that to our attention.

And it is I, as the minister for the Status of Women, who brought these data here, with my team. Do not create confusion for society at large. What was the role of the Advisory Council on the status of women? What is the role of the status of women, which I am in charge of? What are the roles of various groups in society at large?

I think that some answers to these questions could clarify things a little bit, so that we will know that equality of women will finally be coming. We know that a strong economy and the participation of women are the key to their independence. That independence is very important. Do you not think that, in the future, if we cannot be treated as equals, if we do not have the right to equal salaries, if we do not have the chance to be equal in society, we could be the victims of violence?

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

Madam Speaker, I just want to direct a comment to the hon. secretary of state. She talks about very high administration costs, saying that some women were paid outrageous salaries. When will highly paid men see their positions cut, too?

We are talking about education and communications. Since the hon. secretary of state maintains that the council's credibility was recognized, I wonder if the members of the Council on the Status of Women were consulted on the best way to review the overall handling of women's issues.

Women are being short-changed, in terms of equality. In the 1994 budget, there was the whole infrastructure program. I would like to know how many women got jobs in connection with the infrastructure program? And, if some of them did, it would still have been part time jobs.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for supporting my motion and for giving us an overview of the various areas in which the government is being criticized for its inaction. As far as day care centres are concerned, Quebec receives $35,000; and day care needs in Canada are said to amount to $2 million. As far as pay equity is concerned, women earn 72 per cent of what men earn.

I thank my colleague, and I would like to ask her if she agrees with the hon. secretary of state's comments during this week's budget debate. She said that-

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I am sorry to interrupt. The time is up, but I will give you 30 seconds to answer.

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have a slight problem. She said that-Not having heard the end, I cannot answer. Since you wanted to give me the time to respond, please allow her to complete her sentence.