Debates of March 16th, 1995

Supply

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

Mr. Speaker, I think it is interesting to see there is some agreement on the relevance of the motion presented by the hon. member for Québec. I am not saying that members will agree on every single word or that the government or the other opposition party will be in complete agreement, but there seems to be a common concern about the way women will be treated in the future, considering the changes that are taking place.

I will read the motion again:

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 think the operative words in this motion are "the adoption of concrete measures", because policies on the status of women have been discussed for many years. However, I think governments should be judged on what they have actually done in this respect.

Perhaps I may take an example from every day life. Take, for instance, Marie-Hélène, a young student who intends to go to university next September. How does she see her future as a woman? What kind of future can she expect?

Well, as a result of social programs reform, she can expect to be in debt to a far greater extent during the next few years. If she decides to go for a university degree, she will end up with twice or three times the debt she would have if she were completing her schooling now. Which means that a young woman who wants a career and considers what her future will be is going to say: Well, maybe it is not such a good idea to go all out to develop my potential because of the increased debt load I can expect.

It is very surprising that she should think so under a Liberal government that, in the sixties and seventies, tried to do some interesting things to promote equal opportunity. Today, the government makes it very difficult for people to take advantage of such opportunities by telling them that when they go to university, they will have to carry a much heavier debt load. As a result, only wealthy families will be able to send their children to university, and we are thus reverting to a model we had 25 or 30 years ago, which no one wanted and where equal opportunity for education did not really exist.

So that is an example of a lack of concrete measures from this government, a negative action that will turn the clock back 20 or 30 years and give many women cause for concern.

Let us get back to our student. She has finished her education and would like to start a business. She decides that she wants to get into new technologies. Unfortunately, she is not covered by unemployment insurance because she has never worked a sufficient number of weeks to be eligible, and she cannot apply for

welfare if her spouse has a job. In other words, she is not eligible for any government program.

I took this particular example because women are more likely to find themselves in this kind of situation. As a result of what I would call systemic measures that are counterproductive, a situation has been created where women who want to start a business will be less likely than men to have access to various types of assistance. This is unfortunate, because the government could have included a number of measures in the current budget to deal with this, but it did not.

I will continue with my example of a young woman looking at her future, making plans and trying to decide how she will go about it.

When she read the red book of the Liberal Party, during the electoral campaign, she might have felt that, whenever she decided to enter a new career, she would be able to take advantage of adequate day care services for her children, allowing her enough time to pursue a career while ensuring that her children receive a proper education and adequate support during their formative years. Now I am not saying that men do not have any responsibilities regarding the education of their children, clearly we have the same responsibilities as women, but the truth is that in the real world we very often ask women to be what we call superwomen, that is to say women able to juggle family, professional and social lives, and more often that not, without much help.

The government could have taken a number of concrete measures, since the Liberal Party had promised during the election campaign that if the gross domestic product was to increase by 3 per cent it would create 60,000 new spaces in day care centers. Recently, we have seen an increase in the gross domestic product, but no increase in the number of day care spaces which would benefit women, except for native people. Thus the commitment which has been made regularly to Quebec and Canada has now been rejected.

The previous Conservative government did not live up to this commitment. The Liberals, who were elected on the promise to bring about changes, in this area as well as others, are following in their predecessors' footsteps. We can see why there is still a great deal of dissatisfaction and why the lack of concrete measures on the part of the government can be denounced.

As a result, a young female student graduating with a heavier debt load and the knowledge that adequate day care services will not be available sees no hope of improvement in her situation. When she learns, at the same time, that the bodies acting as watchdogs for the status of women are going to be axed, she has every right to wonder what is in store for her. This young woman is full of vitality, very enterprising, and wants to go places.

I will now give you the example of another woman also full of vitality, but maybe not as lucky. For the sake of this exercice, let us call her Helen. Helen, a single parent with two children, stays at home. Housing consumes 40, 50, 60 per cent of her income. When she is told that the government is committed to reducing poverty, the first thing she expects is to spend a more reasonable proportion of her income on housing, somewhere around 25 to 30 per cent.

But nowadays, people often spend 50 to 60 per cent of their income on housing. This means that, with a welfare cheque, when you spend between 50 and 60 per cent of it on rent, you have to be a miracle worker in order to feed two children properly and, in the end, prevent them from becoming trapped themselves in the vicious circle of being poor children. Could the Liberal government not have set aside additional money for direct assistance to public housing, following the tour by the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development on the reform of social programs?

Oh, no. On the contrary. A press release by the minister responsible for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation on February 28, 1995 made a very simple announcement-no fanfare. Nowhere else was this casual approach taken, except with the Advisory Council on the Status of Women, yesterday. Its demise was announced quite simply, without any fuss, during debate. The effect of this approach is just as hidden as in a press release. The press release in question announced a cut in the overall public housing budget of $270 million over three years. What does this say to Helen, the woman I was just talking about, who has a housing unit to pay for and must perform miracles just to survive? What does she understand when she is told the public housing budget is going to be cut by $270 million? So much for the light at the end of the tunnel.

This is a criticism that may be made of the present government. It fails to take solid measures designed not so much as acts of charity but rather to put people in a position to be able to get out of their present situations. The same example applies with respect to the government's continual attempt to use the American model in assisting poor families. The current approach of the government is to say what the Americans have done, basically. The government says it will help poor families, but with the money it currently gives the middle class.

Do you know what the effect of this is? More and more middle class families will become poor families. Then the government can crow over the fact that it sends them a cheque as a poor family. However, the approach in the past in Canada, and the one that worked, was to fight poverty by allowing the people just above the poverty line to continue to hope that their situation will improve and by giving poor families the means to improve

their situation as well. But it will not come about by running in the opposite direction, by helping those in greatest need in order to bolster the government's image, while withdrawing assistance from those in the middle class and driving them into the ranks of the poor.

I think that we have here another example of the present government's failure to act that must not be allowed to go unchallenged. To accompany all these examples I am going to read you an extract from a speech given by the Minister of Human Resources Development before the World Summit on Social Development, just to show you what little connection there is between the speech and reality.

The Minister of Human Resources Development said: "Our programs must increasingly be backed up by concrete measures to get people back to work, rather than focussing uniquely on income support". What are there in the way of measures to allow female entrepreneurs to assume their roles in the market place? There is nothing which corresponds to what was said in Copenhagen.

Second, he also says that affordable day care must be available so that heads of single parent families, especially women, can work outside the home. How can a minister give such a speech in Copenhagen, and on the other hand be a minister in a government that has tabled the budget we have just seen? I think that this proves that the motion by the member for Québec is very relevant and we hope that the government will devote the necessary attention to correcting these major shortcomings in the present budget.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his very relevant comments. I appreciate his way of making concrete proposals to the government regarding economic and wage equality, as well as other issues.

The purpose of the motion is to have the government speak up, not about intentions, but about concrete actions which it might take to improve the situation of women. The secretary of state made a comment to the effect that the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women was established because women had a lot of claims.

She argued that the situation of women has since improved within the government. Women have, indeed, made progress, in education, business, university and in other sectors. But these women are part of an elite group and not all women had the same opportunities in terms of access to such traditionally male occupations.

I wonder if the hon. member could again show, in concrete terms, how the government often takes credit for measures geared to an elite group, while forgetting poor people, women, single mothers and the young who are faced with shrinking job opportunities. What concrete action could the government take?

The government says it wants to stimulate businesses run by women, but again we are talking about an elite. This is fine, but a large percentage of women are left to fend for themselves and the government does not seem to have any concrete plan to help them.

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

Mr. Speaker, in my short experience as a member of Parliament, one of the things that struck me most is how women's groups, in my own riding and other regions, manage to do so much with so little. On very limited budgets, they find innovative ways to help women and their families, and they get concrete results despite their limited resources.

I suggest that we start by listening to these organizations and by giving them the resources to do their jobs without being in a constant state of crisis. There should be a three-year or five-year plan that would make it possible for organizations, that represent women and help to develop women's goals, to continue their work.

In the course of the hearings held by the human resources development committee, we heard testimony from dozens of women across Canada who talked about their experiences and who wanted to provide a better future for their daughters who today are 5, 10 or 15 years old. They want to ensure that 15 or 20 years from now, special programs will no longer be necessary, because every woman will have a chance to develop her potential and equal opportunity will have become a way of life in our society.

The most important thing is to have confidence in women.

[Gilbert Fillion, Bloc, Chicoutimi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am naturally in favour of the motion tabled by the hon. member for Québec, which asks:

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 therefore denounce the government's insensitivity to the situation of women. I would like to take this opportunity to address one aspect, old age pensions, and to show that the present government, despite all the action it has taken in this area, is not preventing an increasing number of older women from falling below the poverty line. The 1995 budget is definitely sounding the knell of the universality of social programs, including public old age security plans.

By way of example, the ceiling on pension benefits based on the previous year's income puts an end to universality. Even though few seniors have incomes over $53,000 a year, seniors far from being rich often may earn higher family incomes in one

year by liquidating assets they have accumulated over the years, withdrawing RRSPs or transferring the latter.

This provision of the budget will affect them directly the following year by reducing their pension benefits. It is a known fact that the old age security programs to which seniors have contributed have virtually stopped being universal since 1989.

I have a hard time understanding why the Liberal government keeps going after this sector of the population, who, we must not forget, built this country. They are the government's preferred target, the one is bent on destroying by imposing unacceptable measures year after year, budget after budget, on these, society's most disadvantaged.

People then wonder why Quebecers want to throw off this federalism and become sovereign. The various old age security programs and the guaranteed income supplement are the principal sources of income of people over 65 years of age. These people, especially women, are much poorer than the population as a whole.

Is there anyone in this House who does not know that seniors are more disadvantaged because they are on pension and have lower incomes if they have not worked outside the home. This is the case of our mothers.

Their work at home was not paid nor used to calculate their retirement pension. Their only income therefore in the years to come will be the Canada pension cheque. And for how many years to come?

It is an injustice and the government amplifies it by declaring that old age security pensions will be based on family income in the future. This measure will force a great number of seniors, most of them women, to hand back their pensions.

According to Quebec's minister for the status of women, this measure would set women back 50 years. During that time, they have succeeded in being recognized by society as individuals, but now, because of budget cuts, they will see themselves forced to be viewed in relation to their spouses and to family income, once they retire.

We can justifiably wonder in what direction the federal government is headed when it comes to women's rights. My colleague from the government of Quebec is right when she adds that the principle of family income completely transforms the retirement income security program, replacing what was an insurance program by a social assistance program for needy families.

Canada made very clear public commitments in favour of gender equality and also took statutory measures to reach this objective. I refer to a Canadian document on violence against women. Section E.61 of its action plan states that Canada is committed to analyzing all of the proposed amendments to the tax system in order to expose all of the discriminatory or negative effects that they will have on women. This principle has now been shelved.

Section E.66 of the same document states that Canada is committed to raising and ensuring full indexation of the threshold at which old age security benefits start being clawed back. Once again, this commitment has not been met.

Canada's commitment is very clear in this document: We are supposed to take all of the necessary measures, in particular legislative measures, to amend or abolish acts, regulations, customs and practices which discriminate against women. Is this what the government delivers in its budget? No. It has thrown all of its principles out the window.

The Minister of Finance offhandedly casts aside studies which have cost taxpayers a great deal of money and ignores basic principles in the name of deficit reduction. On the contrary, instead of going forward and giving seniors, in particular women, the means to attain these standards, the budget places these standards further out of their reach.

Let us be serious. I understand very well that everything has a price and that there is a cost associated with this initiative. However, why not hit banks, tax havens and family trusts and leave seniors in peace. They have sweat blood and tears to build this country which, today, is rejecting them. Is this federalism?

Have seniors not already given enough by working all of their lives and paying their taxes? Who else do you think filled the government's coffers?

In conclusion, I would like to remind you that Quebec's sovereignty does not jeopardize senior's incomes. The threat to old age pensions comes from the federal government. That is the price to be paid for maintaining the status quo, the price to be paid for voting no in the upcoming referendum.

In a sovereign Quebec, a matter like the one mentioned at the beginning of this speech, namely the government's insensitivity to the situation of women, will not even be an issue. Equity will be the order of the day.

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I am quite amazed to see this motion by the opposition. I would have wished for a preamble which could have read as follows: "That this House commend the government for all the measures it has taken to date to create opportunities for women".

My hon. colleague is forgetting that, in our 1994 budget, we reiterated our commitment at the federal level to provide $100 million to the emergency repair program. We also reinstated the court challenges program which provides funding for cases

relating to the provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that guarantee equality rights.

I want to stress that these programs have expanded jurisprudence relating to positive economic action for women. Also, our government announced the establishment of the Canadian Race Relations Foundation, another major initiative on behalf of women facing discrimination both on the grounds of sex and race.

I could cite at least 15 to 18 different initiatives this government has taken to date to create opportunities for Canadian women. Therefore, I am surprised to hear the opposition parties attack the government like this. I would like to tell my hon. colleagues that one year after taking office, we have accomplished a lot for women, when compared to the record of the previous government over ten years. I wonder why my hon. colleague does not rise to commend the government.

[Gilbert Fillion, Bloc, Chicoutimi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have trouble commending this government when the status of women just keeps deteriorating. Women, whether young, middle aged or seniors, see their standard of living going down continually.

Take the freeze on student loans for young people who want to further their education, for example. The point was made earlier that, by the time they get out of school, university graduates will be in debt over their heads. That is what Canada has to offer. It was also clearly demonstrated, with figures to back this up, that no new day care spaces will be opened to allow women to re-enter the labour force.

Again, that is what this government has to offer. Furthermore, there is no indication anywhere that something will be done about social housing. Cuts, cuts, cuts. I say this is a disgrace. In the red book, which in my view has turned black, there is nothing, absolutely nothing, in terms of positive measures concerning the status of women.

Of course, one can argue that the government does have a Secretary of State for the Status of Women. But what does she have left besides her title since the advisory council has been abolished? What can she do? With no budget, she cannot go very far now. So, let us eliminate this title, which does more to pay lip service to the government's intentions than to further the cause of women.

[Ron MacDonald, Liberal, Dartmouth, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on this motion today. Although I have to profess at the very beginning that I do not agree with the motion that has been put forward, I am pleased the member for Quebec has put it forward so that some of the positive moves this government has taken since it was first elected can come to light.

It is important that individuals and particularly parliamentarians are periodically forced to think about issues such as equality, be it between gender, or people of different races or colour, immigrants versus second and third generation Canadians or our aboriginal people.

We come to this place to debate the issues of the day. It is important for us to understand that unfortunately our society is not one that can claim with any purity to practise equality in nearly any aspect of life as Canadians. It is unfortunate that as a tolerant society there is still a tremendous amount of intolerance. It is unfortunate that as a progressive society there is still a tremendous amount of bigotry, a tremendous amount of isolationism and a tremendous amount of hate toward those who are different from us, whoever us is in any particular case.

It is important that we try to put this debate into some context. The Government of Canada, my party, has campaigned for many years on platform of equality. The record and sincerity of the statements of a party or political institution, of a parliament or a government, should be judged by its actions.

The actions we have taken over the last 18 months have been fairly significant. That is not to say they are the only actions that need to be taken. It is quite the contrary. When we are dealing with things like inequality, bigotry and racism we must be eternally vigilant. It has a habit of creeping up and when we take one step forward, unless we are very, very vigilant somebody will push us two or three steps backward.

I suspect this motion came about as a result of some of the budgetary measures. I suspect that some people are concerned, perhaps for good reason, about some of the changes that have taken place because of the fiscal realities of rising deficits and debts and the requirement to try to get our economy moving again.

I suspect that the member for Quebec was concerned that the National Advisory Council on the Status of Women is going to be wound up. I too was concerned when this first became a subject of public debate and consternation.

I note the government has taken the women's program which used to be with human resources development and has folded it in with Status of Women Canada. This is a very significant move by the Government of Canada for two reasons.

In the past when governments thought we had money, when it was thought we had more borrowing authority than we should have had, many times dollars were given to special interest groups. They would be given the money and told to go and represent women in society. That was a terrible thing if we think about it. What was the real intent behind that? Was it to try to say that women's issues were not worthy of perpetual vigilance by

parliamentarians? Did it mean they were to be pushed down to become the purview of a "special interest group"?

I have always had trouble with the way governments have funded special interest groups. Government funds me as a member of Parliament to represent the interests of my constituents. Repeatedly over the years it has become an accepted practice that parliamentarians can hide behind the fact that there are other groups to do this. We use taxpayers' money to front and support interests we are supposed to be raising and protecting in our duties as members of Parliament, as members of legislatures and as members of city councils right across Canada.

I do note this government has a good record with respect to the initiatives it has taken to promote equality, not just within areas of the federal purview. Governments must lead by example.

In my view this government has taken one of the most articulate, forceful and believable individuals in this Parliament and made her the Secretary of State for the Status of Women. Any independent observer would be hard pressed to find an individual in the last two Parliaments who has so consistently, forcefully and sincerely put forward the concerns of women and made it imperative that those concerns be dealt with by governments. It was not a fluke of cabinet roulette when it was decided that the member for Mount Royal would be the Secretary of State for the Status of Women.

Most women, most activists and most feminists in Canada, male and female, would agree that the choice of the member for Mount Royal as the Secretary of State for the Status of Women was clearly an indication of the seriousness with which the new government viewed these affairs.

However there have been other things such as Bill C-64, the Employment Equity Act. We came in and strengthened that act. It was one of the acts I have been extremely critical of in the past. I am withholding my praise to see how the recent amendments will play out in actual fact. It is fine to have a piece of legislation, but unless there is overwhelming and compelling reasons for the reporting mechanisms to be adhered to and some enforcement powers behind it we find it can be hollow words on very shallow paper. At least it is a step in the right direction.

The 1995 budget measures had some provisions to try to increase access to capital for small and medium size businesses. As everybody knows about 40 per cent of new entrepreneurs are women. Anybody who has been involved with public life, particularly as a member of Parliament, would know that women are doubly disadvantaged if they go to a bank or a financial institution looking for a loan. They are usually disadvantaged because it will be a small business proposal and the banks do not seem terribly keen on lending money for small business. They should be chastised and at times condemned for that. There is also sexism at play. Sometimes it is systemic, not overt. Women do not seem to be able to access capital in the same way as men.

More needs to be done. During the pre-election period we talked about establishing special programs for women entrepreneurs. The committee on industry has looked at it. I would encourage members of the committee, with all of the work they have on their desks, to recognize that women are doubly disadvantaged as entrepreneurs. That is one promise made in the red book during the campaign that must be fast tracked. We must find ways to set up women's entrepreneurial institutes and make sure there is real access to working capital for women entrepreneurs.

Anybody who has followed the social policy review, if in favour of it or opposed to it, will know that one of the main components was to try to address women and children in poverty and whether or not the current vehicles, the social programs, are addressing the real tragedy out there of women and children living in poverty.

The proposals put forward in the green book clearly addressed those issues. The proposals were meant to cause debate among the Canadian public about whether or not we had the wherewithal, the courage and the foresight to change social policy programs to ensure that some people who are missed, mostly single parent families headed by females, are no longer doomed to a life of hell and poverty for both themselves and their children. I hope some of the good measures in the green book will come to fruition and we will be able to address the real tragedy of women living in poverty and well over a million children living in poverty in Canada.

The red book commitment on the Canada Race Relations Foundation was fulfilled. Some individuals in the House believe with the fullness of their hearts that it was a waste of money to establish the Race Relations Foundation. All they have to do is go into any minority community in Canada, any black or immigrant community, to find out that the sting of racism still exists in Canada and that unfortunately its sting is no less painful today than it was years ago.

The Race Relations Foundation established by the government is aimed not just at minorities in Canada but at the triple disadvantaged in Canada who in many cases are women. Black women and native women are some of the most discriminated individuals in Canadian society. The Canadian Race Relations Foundation is a tangible example of the government's commitment to focusing government effort and attention to solving the real problems.

There are other matters that I will mention quickly. One is the task force on prostitution. I cannot think of a more violent and abhorrent crime against women than prostitution. The government, through the Minister of Justice, has indicated that we are prepared to take tough and decisive action to stop this heinous crime against society, against women, against our daughters and

against our grand-daughters. We are serious about it. Tough action will be taken either by the minister or people like me putting private members' bills forward in the House.

On the firearms legislation, 50 per cent of women who are killed are killed in domestic disputes by firearms that are kept in the home. We have taken tough and decisive measures.

In conclusion, the debate should not be only about money. It should be about attitude. When I look around this place and I see the quality of members of Parliament, and the quality of female members of Parliament, I know we have come a long way but we have yet a long way to go.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I see that my colleague opposite has also come up with many findings on the status of women. However, the measures he has described are mostly social in nature. They are very worthwhile measures but today's motion deals with the economic measures intended to promote women's equality.

In this regard, I would like to ask the hon. member opposite what he thinks of the proposed labour code reform. I know that in 1993, Bloc members proposed an amendment to harmonize with Quebec's occupational health and safety commission the benefits paid to pregnant women withdrawn from work for precautionary reasons. I know that an internal document is circulating, which totally ignores the motion proposed by Bloc members, even though it was supported by their Liberal colleagues.

Today is a day of action, a day on which we are asking the government to take concrete measures favouring women. In this matter, we see that there are two classes of female workers. Federal public servants who become pregnant and must be withdrawn from work for precautionary reasons earn less than their Quebec counterparts-I think they receive 60 per cent of their salary compared with 95 per cent in Quebec.

Why are they not taking this into account in the proposed reform of precautionary withdrawal?

[Ron MacDonald, Liberal, Dartmouth, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the simple answer is that I do not know why more attention was not given to that measure. I have to be quite honest. I am not entirely up to date on the Quebec legislation about which the member spoke.

However I listened intently and I can tell the hon. member for Québec that I applaud her efforts to bring issues before the Parliament of Canada, the proper venue for such issues to be discussed.

As a member who is here for his second term, let me say that unfortunately far too often good proposals from opposition members are almost treated with dismissal by others in this place. When we are dealing with issues of fairness and equality, particularly issues that affect over 50 per cent of our population, partisanship has to be removed. When good proposals are put forward the government should look at them.

I look forward to getting more information on the matter. However, if it is a progressive measure which seeks to equalize the role of women not just in Quebec but across Canada, it would be the type of measure I would support regardless of the official position taken by my party.

The hon. member for Québec talked about the fact that the debate was on economic equality. The reality is that social equality and economic equality are intertwined. We cannot deny one and expect the other to be a consequence. Clearly we have to move in tandem to take measures, both in legislation and by example as a federal government and as legislators, to ensure that society moves toward not just perceived but real equality socially as well as economically. To deny one is to ensure that the consequences of the second will be that there will not be the equality that is necessary.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Québec has only 30 seconds left if she wishes to ask another question or make a comment.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member opposite that economic reality is linked to social reality. But I would point out that they have cut the budgets of community organizations which operate in different areas and put forward social programs designed to help the most disadvantaged in our society.

I agree with the hon. member. What I would like is a concrete fiscal measure that will also support these community organizations' social initiatives.

For the information of the hon. member opposite, an internal document on the proposed reform of precautionary withdrawal is now circulating, which does not mention the motion adopted by the Liberals.

[Ron MacDonald, Liberal, Dartmouth, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her comment. I will certainly look at that.

The reality is that the best equality is a job, as the member for Western Arctic said. Unfortunately women in our economy do not participate to the fullness of their potential. It is only when we break down those barriers that we will have true equality.

I look forward to working with the member for Québec. I applaud her for her tenacity in raising these issues on the floor of the House. I am sure there are others, such as the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore who has worked tirelessly on behalf of minority women and women in society, who would be prepared to work with her to ensure that these things come about.

[Jean Augustine, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I rise with considerable confidence to speak in rebuttal to the hon. member's motion.

I am proud to be a member of a government and party with a heritage of unprecedented sensitivity and action on real and practical measures to promote the economic equality of women. I will deal with the question of our history and the economic reality of women.

The strength and vitality of the women's movement in Canada today can be traced back to the moment of clarity and power experienced 25 years ago. The occasion was the 1970 landmark report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women.

At that moment women in Canada realized that equality of opportunity had become achievable. It was not just a Liberal government establishing the royal commission against all odds in 1967. It was also the will of women to make it happen. It was the alacrity with which the Liberal government of 1970 moved to respond to the commission's recommendations that inspired women to redouble their efforts to advance their status.

I think the member will agree with me that a Liberal government appointed Canada's first minister responsible for the status of women and the work that took place in 1971. A Liberal government established the office of the co-ordinator of the status of women in 1971 which has now become Status of Women Canada, the federal government's lead agency for government policy co-ordination related to women's equality. A Liberal government created the women's program in 1973 to provide financial and technical assistance to women's organizations and other voluntary groups working to promote the equality of women. The member knows the rich heritage and history of Liberals and their commitment to women's issues.

With the support of the Liberal government today women have succeeded in making the workplace more family friendly. Women are obtaining the support they need to balance work and family responsibilities for young children, for aging parents or for both.

Today with the support of the Liberal government women have also put issues like sexual harassment, pay equity, et cetera, on the workplace agenda. With the support of the Liberal government women are convincing other areas in society that these kinds of employment issues are not just women's issues. They are societal issues and they belong to all of us, men and women.

With the support of the Liberal government record numbers of women have started their own companies. In Canada today women operate 39 per cent of small businesses. According to the most recent survey undertaken by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business women entrepreneurs are doing very well.

Small and medium sized businesses are the major engine driving our economy, creating 85 per cent of all new jobs in Canada. According to my math, that makes women the major players in job creation in Canada today.

What is particularly encouraging is the increasingly dominant role younger women are playing in the creation of new businesses. As Le Devoir noted last week, 51.4 per cent of Canadian business proprietors under age 25 are women. According to 1991 figures complied by the CFIB, this compares to a 1981 figure of 30.6 per cent.

This is a good record and one that speaks highly of the government's support of the economic equality of women. This is the substance of the motion. All indications are that the growing prominence of women in small business will prove to be a major factor in our country's future growth.

I am pleased to note that the small business sector was the focus of several important commitments made in the budget of February 27. The finance minister declared the government is determined to remove barriers to the success of small business. We are equally determined to provide practical assistance to help Canada's small business survive and grow. It is essential that small businesses have access to the financing they need in order to continue being our number one creator of jobs.

To add to this the government will be working with the banks over the coming months to hammer out meaningful benchmarks for small business financing. One of the things we will be looking for is hard data on the success rate of women owned businesses so that banks can come to see that opening their doors and their pockets to women makes good business sense.

The budget also announced that we are substantially reducing government subsidies to business. In today's economy these subsidies are simply not cost effective in terms of job creation, productivity or growth. Nobody knows that case more strongly than business itself.

The government has decided to concentrate on the key engines of economic growth, as I mentioned, looking at the areas of science and technology and trade development. In fact, the government is working to create a policy environment that will

encourage and reward the innovation and flexibility needed to pursue the opportunities of the new global marketplace.

The potential is clearly there. The government recognizes that the women of our country have the imagination and determination to fully participate in the growing world economy.

It is important for the member who is speaking so eloquently on the gaps in the meeting of our specific and individual needs to note that the government and the members on this side of the House recognize the way in which we need to work and the progress we need to make in order to meet all of the requirements in the provision of the quality of life for women and their families.

In terms of the economic question and the motion on the floor, this motion needs to be rebutted. The Liberal government is fully aware of the commitments we need to make to the economic situation of women.

[Translation]

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am in agreement with my hon. colleague when she says that issues surrounding the status of women in 1995 are also societal issues. I agree with her. However, are there not still many women burdened with the responsibility of picking up their children at day care, and then going home to do another shift?

I would ask the hon. member if she is going to be able to get her colleagues to take action on day care facilities, because 50,000 spaces a year were promised and we are short 35,000 spaces in Quebec.

Will the transfer to the provinces take place? We have reached 3 per cent of GDP. It is time the Liberal government delivered on this promise, which was one of the promises in its red book.

I would like to know if we can count on our colleague with respect to this issue, which is a particularly thorny one for women. Without day care facilities, women will not be able to enter the labour market if the government waits too long. There are 2 million day care spaces Canada wide, with a shortage of 35,000 in Quebec.

What we in Quebec want to see is not the enforcement of national standards by the federal government, but the implementation of transfers to the provinces so that the government of Quebec can better respond to a great demand from the women of Quebec.

Furthermore, during the consultations on the future of Quebec, several women's groups asked for this assistance so that women can break into the labour market.

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member across the way that in order for women to fully participate in the economic life of the country, it is important that we begin to address issues such as women as child givers, women as care givers and women who participate in the care of elders in a specific way.

It is also important to note that we have made some commitments. We made a commitment to increase the number of child spaces when we reach a certain percentage of the GDP. That promise is still on the books. We have not reversed our position on our commitment to child care or the commitments we made to ensuring employment equity and the whole series of issues and commitments we made to women.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member, who is also the Prime Minister's parliamentary secretary, is probably familiar with numerous issues, particularly those which concern the status of women. A document is currently circulating regarding the Labour Code reform.

I remember that when the last such reform took place, in May of 1992 if I am not mistaken, I proposed an amendment so that the same conditions would apply under both the federal and provincial labour codes, regarding precautionary withdrawal of work for pregnant women. The Quebec Labour Code provides that women get paid 95 per cent of their salaries, compared to 60 per cent under the federal code.

That was a housekeeping amendment which, of course, reflected the notion of flexible federalism, and the Liberals, then in opposition, supported that proposal. Consequently, my question to the hon. member is: Now that the Liberals are in office, why is that amendment not included in the proposed Labour Code reform which the government will table in the next few weeks?

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

Mr. Speaker, we need the collaboration and co-operation of the members across the way to do a whole series of things. Just as the member is asking for our co-operation in this respect, there are certain ways in which we also should be asking for his collaboration as we move forward.

The issue of the status of women is not just a Quebec issue. It is not just an issue outside Quebec. It is an issue for all women. Therefore we each need to be concerned about the status of women in Canada, to speak about the status of women in Canada and to work for the laws, regulations, policies, equity issues that would bring about the quality of life for all women.

[Jean H. Leroux, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will share my speaking time with the hon. member for Laurentides.

It is always an honour and a privilege to rise in this House, and members should always remember that when they do, they represent those who elected them.

Today, I am doing exactly that, and I am thinking more specifically of the 52 per cent of the residents of Shefford who are women.

The federal budget for 1995 tabled by the Minister of Finance totally ignored the social contract between the government and the majority of taxpayers in Quebec and Canada. The budget brought down by the hon. member for Lasalle-Émard ignores the economic and social realities facing the middle class and the less well-off groups in our society.

This budget denies women the right to a fairer and more equitable society. In fact, the budget is just a smoke screen to hide the real problems.

Left out of the budget altogether are measures to ensure that women get equal pay for equal work and a better standard of living. Last year, the Liberals voted in favour of measures that would be fairer and more equitable. Today, those promises have evaporated.

In fact, in the key sectors of health care, social assistance and post-secondary education, the Liberal government actually decided to make the worst, not the best but the worst of a bad situation. The first to suffer as a result of cuts in transfer payments to the provinces will be women and children.

The federal government has offloaded its financial problems on the provinces and on, Quebec, without considering the impact these cuts will have on women.

In addition, Ottawa has decided to launch a second attack on women who are senior citizens by calculating the amount of their old age security cheque according to the income of their spouses. This reduction comes in addition to the reduction in the age tax credit announced last year.

I deplore the fact that the federal government has offloaded its problems on the provinces instead of eliminating overlap and dismantling tax shelters that deprive the government of hundreds of millions of dollars annually.

The government's priorities are not in the right place and lack vision. You would think Ottawa was managed by a bunch of brokers looking for a good deal and speculating on the short term market with other people's money.

I do not mean to criticize the profession as such, but this is not what we need here in Ottawa. Those who govern us should be responsible people who are prepared to listen to the majority of taxpayers who are sick and tired of being squeezed.

Take, for instance, the Canada Assistance Plan, also known as CAP. Despite the provisions in the assistance plan regarding subsidized day care services, the shortage of adequate and affordable services remains a significant problem for a very large number of families with one or more children.

The lack of day care spaces is a fundamental concern for low and middle income parents.

This is a deep social concern, a concern which was expressed in the red book, this famous red book of the Liberal Party, which we might have thought would lead to some action plan.

We can read on page 38 of the red book, and I quote: "Canadians with young families need a support system that enables parents to participate fully in an economic life for the country- Recent research by the National Council of Welfare indicates that the single best predictor of whether a family has adequate economic resources is whether it has two wage earners. A growing majority of Canadian families need two wage earners to achieve a reasonable standard of living. The availability of good quality child care at an affordable cost makes the difference between a family living at the edge of poverty and a family living with a moderate standard of living".

This is straight out of the red book. A good child care system, affordable for all, is an economic advantage. It allows poor parents to re-enter the work force instead of having to continue to rely on social assistance and food banks. It also creates jobs, especially for women, since on average one job is created for every five children in day care.

Therefore, the Liberal principle of a service allowing access to financial independence remains a promise, it has been shelved, like all the nice sounding election promises which will be conveniently forgotten before the next election campaign.

According to the Liberal red book, in each year following a year of 3 per cent economic growth, a Liberal government will create 50,000 new child care spaces. We have reached this rate of economic growth this year. Since child care which is funded by governments is funded 50/50 by the federal and provincial governments, what will become of the spaces promised by the Liberals, if the government cuts transfer payments to Quebec by $350 million?

What will become of the 40 per cent of the costs of new child care spaces to be assumed by the federal government, which is evaluated at $120 million in 1995-96, $240 million in 1996-97, and $360 million in 1997-98, amounting to $720 million over three years? These figures come from the red book. It has been a long time since the red book, the Liberal bible, has been mentioned. What happened to all the nice Liberal promises?

Let us now talk about social housing. As a whole, the 1995-96 budget puts an end to any new initiative in this area. Since close to 17 per cent of Quebec families and 16 per cent of Canadian tenants spend more than 50 per cent of their income on rent, it is

easy to understand why social housing needs are so huge and why offloading will have enormous long term consequences. Women, who represent an important clientele, or 57 per cent of social housing, will be the hardest hit by these cuts.

The 1995-96 budget also means that the 40,000 people on the co-op housing waiting list of the CMHC-The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation-will have to wait months, even years, before a unit is available. There is no longer any hope of building new ones.

CMHC will close 20 branches across Canada. In Quebec, the Longueuil office will close while in Sept-Îles, Rimouski, Val-d'Or and Trois-Rivières, only one person will remain on duty, working at home. Successive decommitments by Ottawa clearly demonstrate the limitations of administrative agreements between Quebec and Ottawa in cases of unilateral withdrawal.

Today, Quebec is caught off guard by the extent of Ottawa's financial pull out in the social housing sector, because it counted on the federal government as the major source of funds in the agreement. Unable to compensate for this unilateral withdrawal, Quebec must review its plans and cancel the construction of new low rent housing units that had been promised to municipalities.

Because of the community help readily available there and the low cost of housing, the co-op formula was an interesting option for single parent families, which are headed mainly by women.

Community help such as child care is a very influential factor and explains why a much greater number of single parents living in co-operatives are in the workforce. If we do not respond-

[The Deputy Speaker]

Unfortunately, the member's time is up. If there is unanimous consent, the member may continue. Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Jean H. Leroux, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will be careful in my closing remarks.

Access to affordable, quality housing is recognized as a pre-requisite to the fulfilment of other needs, such as education, health, labour force productivity and social security.

In this period of budgetary restraint, Quebec and Canadian society are giving priority to the housing needs of less fortunate Quebecers and Canadians. These are the people who interest us, the less fortunate. Social housing has a particular role to play in meeting these needs. The federal government must continue to give top priority to funding social housing. By maintaining this program as a priority today, we will avoid higher costs in other areas down the road.

The government has no right to sacrifice so many families, so many women and so many years of hard work in an attempt to maintain harmony in a society that prides itself on being just and fair.

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, how can we ever please our Bloc Quebecois colleagues? One day, they want certain federal responsibilities to be delegated to the provinces and, the next thing you know, they say these responsibilities should remain with the federal government.

Housing is obviously an area of provincial responsibility. But if my hon. colleague is suggesting that the federal government should assume more responsibilities than the provinces, I am prepared to join him in making representations because I agree with him that the federal government often does a better job than the provinces in certain areas.

The hon. member mentioned day care. I want to point out to him that, last spring, the federal government announced the establishment of a task force on the tax treatment of child support. As my hon. colleague knows, this task force was presided by the secretary of State responsible for women's issues. The task force held public hearings and travelled across the country to seek the opinion of the provincial and territorial governments.

I am sure that, if my hon. colleague gives this government just a little more time, he will see that we can put in place legislation that will meet this need. Just bear with us.

[Jean H. Leroux, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I will say to my colleague that our top priority in coming to Ottawa was to defend Quebecers' interests. That is what we are doing. Second, we hope to set up our own country. Unfortunately, the hon. member did not understand this.

In response to his question, I remember last year's debate on child poverty. However, it must be understood that if there are poor children, it is because there are also poor parents. Children are not living in poverty by themselves. The poorest members of our society are women, and that is what I am saying today.

They are often single parents with sole responsibility for raising their children. As you know, poor children cannot do well in school. If they do not have what they need at home, they cannot succeed and hope to find a way out. It is important to keep this in mind.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, when the Liberals were on this side of the House, they delivered some great speeches. Now that they have crossed the floor-normally, a party, once elected to govern, has a tendency to sit pat-they have not been sitting pat, they have been lying down on the job. What they should do first

is look at their social policy. As we remember, under Trudeau, they spoke of a just society, an extraordinary society. I think that today's Liberals put all that aside and are now worse than the Tories.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again, it is with great pride that I rise during an opposition day totally dedicated to the situation of women, and more specifically their economic equality.

For the second consecutive year, the Bloc Quebecois, through the hon. member for Québec, tables a motion dealing exclusively with the situation of women. Special days like this one are essential, since they provide us with an opportunity to take a look at our place in society and, hopefully, further our cause.

Today's motion reads:

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.

First, I want to denounce a recent decision made by the Liberals which clearly shows the relevancy of our motion. I am referring to the merging, as of April 1st, of three women organizations. Indeed, the Secretary of State for the Status of Women announced that she will lump together the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, the womens' programs of the Department of Human Resources Development, as well as Status of Women Canada.

That announcement made by a woman is very disappointing. It clearly shows a lack of seriousness and respect for women. The secretary of state should be ashamed and go into hiding for making that decision.

By grouping these services under Status of Women Canada, the Liberal government abolishes the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women. This is yet another centralizing measure of the Liberals, who do not know any better.

By merging the CACSW, the government is depriving women of an independent organization which conducted research and promoted education for women, not for the government. The independence of the council was essential to allow it to fulfill its mandate. The council could exert pressure on the government. It could point a finger and denounce the government's inaction regarding the situation of women.

As of April 1st, this so-called Liberal government will have total control over that organization. Women will be gagged.

April 1 will be a sad day for women. I trust that Liberal women will stand up in turn to denounce this decision. Solidarity among women is much more crucial than solidarity at a political party level.

I will not say more about this anti-women decision.

As for unemployment, according to the February 1995 statistics, 642,000 women were unemployed in Canada, or 9.5 per cent. In Quebec, the rate was up to 11.6 per cent, or 187,000 women. There were also 280,082 women on welfare in Quebec.

What is the federal government doing to lower the unemployment rate among women? Nothing. It sits tight and puts its trust in the economic recovery. It has adopted a laissez faire strategy.

Where are the jobs that Liberals kept promising? Where are all the training and upgrading programs for women? Where are the services promoting women's presence in the labour market? None of these promises have been kept. The only measure touted by Liberals as contributing significantly to job creation is the infrastructure program which was to create 45,000 temporary jobs over a three year period.

The Liberals bragged about this so-called beneficial program. They said it would help men and women get back to work.

The results have been rather disappointing. Seasonal temporary jobs. This program only provided short-term jobs to people already in the labour force and did nothing to create new jobs for the unemployed.

This program completely ignored women on unemployment. Indeed, women's groups had asked the minister concerned to establish certain rules that would allow women to have access to some of these mostly non-traditional jobs.

To my knowledge, the minister did not grant what seemed to be a legitimate request.

Despite all the promises made by the Liberals, we still have women on unemployment, women who work for a while on some project or program, then go back on unemployment and end up on welfare. These women are caught in this vicious circle and will never be able to get out of this difficult situation for good.

The federal government is not helping women, worse, I really think it is harming them. The federal employment, training, upgrading and unemployment programs are not up-to-date, they are not flexible nor creative. The programs, services and conditions have been the same for years now, even though the labour market is constantly changing.

The results of this rigid system are terribly disappointing. Women cannot meet the needs of the labour market rapidly and effectively.

I would like to give you a very concrete example which demonstrates how inefficient the federal system is. A few months ago, I met in my riding office a woman who is a single parent living on a meagre $170 a week unemployment insurance benefit.

To get out of this difficult situation, she wanted to attend classes in bureautics offered by her regional school board. This much vaunted program, which offered interesting work prospects, lasted 18 months. The federal government does not pay for 18-month courses. In fact, it only recognizes programs where students graduate after 12 months.

As a result, this woman continued to receive her meagre benefits till the end.

Once her benefits had expired, she enroled in a program entitled "Introduction to non-traditional trades". Thirteen women registered for this 14-week training course leading to a job. According to the information I have gathered so far-since this program is on now-this program clearly does not work.

Non-traditional trades are not that common and job opportunities in these areas are practically non-existent in a tourist area like mine.

Then, why is the federal government offering this program? Why does it spend money in vain? Could it not carry out some studies to see if the labour market in my region is accessible to these women and if job opportunities are really there? If not, what good does it do to direct these women towards this training program?

Unfortunately, it seems this program is simply offered for the fun of it.

And these women can see after a few weeks that they are involved in something that leads nowhere. And yet, they were ready to invest their efforts and energies in this program to see the light at the end of the tunnel, that is, to find a job.

Instead, they are offered a strangely structured program where they are told about self-esteem and about the need to take their future in their own hands, to go for it. They are almost handed a mirror and told: "Look, you are the only one to blame if you do not work. So, do something about it!"

These women do not want that kind of therapy. They want something concrete, something real. They want to learn something that will help them find a job.

As I see there is only one minute left, I will conclude rather quickly.

Women are worth as much as men. Our society, our lifestyles and our values were such that women were not appreciated for their true worth. It is now time to correct this, and fast.

In light of some of its actions, it is clear that the Liberal government is not ready to take big steps in that direction. In spite of all the promises that were made to women in several areas, the federal government is very hard on women. The announced reform in the unemployment insurance program and old age pension does not augur well.

Thus, I encourage all the women in Quebec to say no to an increasingly threatening federal system.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite has made some remarks that I find very curious coming from her.

Firstly, she talks about solidarity and she belongs to a party that does not promote solidarity among all Canadians, including women. Secondly, with regard to solidarity, we have, on this side of the House, all the women who represent the government who have proven that they are in favour of solidarity. For example, on March 8 of last year, we opened a debate to all women on both sides of the House.

Now, I would like to ask a question of the hon. member. She gave the example of a woman who had come to her office complaining that she did not have access to government programs. Does the member not know that our budget provides for transfers to the provinces so that they can assume responsibility for these programs? They will be the ones who will be delivering these programs. That is what the member's party asked for and that is what we are doing. We both know that when women achieve economic equality, they will have equality in all areas. My question to the hon. member is this: Does she agree with me with regard to transfers?