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.