Debates of March 3rd, 1995

International Women's Day

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

Mr. Speaker, next week, on March 8, women and men around the world will celebrate International Women's Day.

This day was designated in honour of these early campaigns to improve working conditions for women. This day has become a global celebration of women's accomplishments and advancements. But it was born when women were struggling to achieve the very basics of equal rights.

In the ensuing years women have made many important gains, overcoming many obstacles to achieve through merit their rightful place in the workforce. They have overcome professional barriers in virtually every field of human endeavour. They have overcome many stereotypes and have excelled in fields where doors were closed before such as medicine, law, politics, cultural industries, military, business and so on.

Women have demonstrated conclusively that no task is beyond them, given fair and equitable access. Women have also achieved success in the business world. A recent study conducted by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business found that almost 40 per cent of small businesses are operated by women, up from 30 per cent in 1981.

Women have steadily progressed in closing the wage gap. The average Canadian woman now makes 72 cents of what a man earns. More important, for university graduates the gap is gone. Young women and young men starting out in their careers with the same university education earn the same salary.

Although women have made inroads into almost every profession they still face multiple challenges. Sexual harassment in the workplace continues to undermine and marginalize the position of women. Many still face obstacles to advancement: either the famous glass ceiling that stops women's progress at middle management levels or the corporate philosophy that is overly hostile to family considerations.

The recent Statistics Canada study on the wage gap was quite revealing on this point. While young women start off on an equal footing, wage-wise, when they graduate from university, they steadily lose ground as they get married and have children.

Even most of the independent and ambitious women who go boldly into the business world hit the wall of sexual discrimination. And a study by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business revealed that 42 per cent of women entrepreneurs experience difficulty getting financing. This despite the fact that women entrepreneurs are generally more successful than men.

We must address these issues. After all, women work for the same reasons men do-they want and they have to. Women's contributions to our economy, and to our society, are indisputable and indispensable.

It is estimated that if all employed women were to leave the workforce, the number of low income families in Canada would

more than double. Given their key role, I think it is time society recognized their worth. We must pursue a fair distribution of unpaid work in the home where women still carry a disproportionate burden of work.

We must persuade industries to develop family friendly workplaces to help root out sexual harassment and discriminatory practices. We must urge banks in particular and the financial community in general to recognize the achievements of women entrepreneurs and give them the fair and equitable consideration and support they deserve.

Women do not want a free ride. They want their fair share. I think that has become fairly obvious. Governments must continue to have a role in the drive for women's equality, even in the face of restrictive fiscal constraints.

Violence against women, sexual harassment, inequalities and inequities in employment opportunities, the wage imbalance and gender discrimination must all be addressed. I am pleased the government is continuing to push forward on all these fronts.

I congratulate my colleague, the Minister of Justice, for such initiatives as the sentencing reform bill, the firearms control legislation and his quick action to address the defence of extreme drunkenness.

I congratulate my colleague, the Minister of Finance, for his budget commitment to remove barriers to the success of small businesses and to provide practical assistance to them to survive and grow. It is essential that small businesses have access to the financing they need to continue being Canada's number one creator of jobs.

To this end the budget announced that the government would be working with the banks to develop meaningful performance benchmarks for small business financing, benchmarks that will be used to monitor future progress which will include women.

We must also continue to support women in their family responsibilities. The new Canada social transfer announced in the budget offers the potential for a more flexible framework for child care funding. We need improvements in the accessibility of child care and in the quantity and quality of child care, public and private, in all regions of the land and based on choice in those areas.

As my colleague, the Minister of Human Resources Development, begins his work with the provinces to develop shared principles for the transfer, I know he plans to focus on the needs of women and their families in general and on their requirements for child care in particular.

I will also continue to work with my colleagues to ensure that government policies and programs are examined through a gender equality lens, so that their impact on women is considered at every stage of the policy development process.

A particular focus must be on the needs of women from different ethnocultural communities, aboriginal women, women with disabilities, and those living in rural or remote areas. We must continue to help them achieve their independence. These are all challenges that we must confront if we are going to achieve our ultimate goal of fairness and equality. This September fourth's United Nations World Conference on Women will be a unique forum for advancing women's equality. It will produce a global Platform for Action to accelerate progress towards equality.

I look forward to working with the men and women of the world at this conference as we lay the groundwork for eliminating the barriers facing women around the globe. More important, to all my colleagues I say I look forward to coming home from the world conference, getting to work and collaborating with all our stakeholders at the regional, provincial, federal, private and public levels to implement the platform of action for Canada. Our society, and that includes all Canadian men and women, has a responsibility to begin laying the further groundwork for equality right now.

The ongoing push for equality may be entering its most difficult phase. It will require that women stand up for themselves and boldly take the position that is rightfully theirs. It cannot be done by government alone. It cannot be done by one voice, by the voice of opposition on either side of the House.

It will require them to be forceful and advance their views. It will require men to play their role as full partners in this adventure in growth and development. At the very least I would suggest that men acknowledge the current of history. They must recognize that from now on society will be that of equal partners because we have earned that right from the very start.

While some men may still resist this idea, I say to them that equality of the sexes is not only attainable but is desirable from all points of view and for all concerned. Is this not what we all want both for our sons and our daughters?

We need to leave behind the battle of the sexes where women's gains are interpreted as men's losses. We have to accept that when women finally achieve equality everyone will be better off. We will all stand to gain.

I close in reminding everyone that it is purely mathematical because when women who make up 52 per cent of our population are able to make a full contribution to society, 100 per cent of the population will benefit.

On this International Women's Day I want to send a message of hope to all Canadians, women and men. I say to them that by working together we can reach our full potential, every one of us; by working together we can shape our joint future.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on March 8, women from Quebec, Canada and the world over will celebrate International Women's Day. Some of us will spend the day with our loved ones, our families, our colleagues from work or with the women's groups and organizations that we are involved in.

Others will watch from the sidelines, wondering when governments are going to stand up and take action to improve the living conditions of women.

The federal government would have us believe that it is attentive to women's needs. However, its daily actions speak louder than its words, speeches and policy statements. Let us call to mind just some of the Liberal government's acts.

The Liberals' first budget, February 1994, announced unprecedented cuts to the unemployment insurance system. With one stroke of the pen, they took more than $5.5 billion out of the pockets of the unemployed over three years.

The Liberals decided to take their unemployment insurance cuts in a totally new direction and to hit workers with unstable jobs, who cannot do without unemployment insurance. This hurt women most of all. Women have the dubious honour of holding the majority of unstable jobs.

They reduced the benefit rate and access to them. They dramatically shortened the length of time that benefits can be claimed. They took drastic measures, asking the unemployment insurance fund to foot a disproportionate chunk of the deficit fighting measures.

In his proposed social program reform, the Minister of Human Resources Development went as far as suggesting that eligibility for benefits be subject to a family income test. Since we know that women earn about 72 per cent of what men earn, we know very well who will be penalized by such a measure.

We know that women earn less than their partners and that they often hold unstable jobs. Often, they are the ones who lose their jobs and go on UI. They are maintained in this dependent condition. What a move towards equality.

Women immediately saw what the minister was driving at: women whose spouse's income is above a certain limit are disqualified in spite of the fact that they have been contributing to the UI fund. Attacking financial independence dearly won over the years, the government now wants to turn women into second-class citizens having to depend on their spouses for their every need.

That is why so many women came forward when the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development held its hearings on the social reform package.

They unanimously denounced the minister's proposal, forcing the committee to recommend that he not pursue this issue. We will see in the fall if the minister will choose to ignore the committee's recommendation and implement his proposal anyway. In that case, he can expect fierce opposition on the part of women and the Bloc Quebecois.

Monday's budget also speaks volumes about what this government has in store for women.

The Liberals strike again. Monday's budget contains further cuts, cuts totalling at least $700 million in UI funding and $7 billion in transfer payments to the provinces for welfare, health and education. In reality, what will be hacked is cash transfers to the provinces, with a 40 per cent cut in direct federal contributions to health, education and welfare.

What will these blind cuts translate into in actual fact? Either cuts in health and education services or cuts in welfare, which will mean yet more women losing theirs jobs. Pension reform was also announced. Again, the government is contemplating tying old age pension benefit entitlement to family income. This government is certainly bent on subjugating women to their spouses. Poverty is obviously a sin for which this government wants to make women pay dearly.

The number of public service positions was cut back. Again, women at the lower echelons will be penalized. Also, what is the use of reviewing the Employment Equity Act if it will not be enforced? Coloured, disabled and native women are highly likely to lose their jobs, as they are at a disadvantage to begin with and at the lower echelons. The 160,000 Canadian women on UI and 230,000 Canadian women on welfare were not smiling on Monday night, they were afraid. The 100,000 single parents who rely on social assistance shivered when they realized that they might be deprived of what little they have left.

What about the election promise made by the Liberal Party regarding the creation of 150,000 new day-care spaces? The 1994 budget provided that $120 million would be invested as early as this year. Today, all we know about that promise is that the Minister of Human Resources Development is discussing with the provinces. If these discussions are anything like the ones the minister is having regarding the social program reform, the Holy Spirit will have to step in to ensure that this promise is fulfilled.

Another measure directly affecting women is the increase in the fees for adult immigrants who apply for permanent residence in Canada. This is more or less tantamount to an immigration tax of $975 for immigrants, a number of whom are women, in

addition to the basic amount of $500 which they must pay just to have their application looked at.

This government wants to mark International Women's Day. Great! However, the government is hiding the plight of many women and the fact that it is not giving them any chance to improve their lot. Women must always fight to be treated with fairness and ensure that the organizations which represent them get meagre financial support. By the way, these organizations face new financial constraints, with government cuts of close to $1.5 million directly affecting them. How will they survive? The government could not care less.

I should point out here the courage and the determination displayed by women's organizations in their daily struggle. We have to constantly urge this government to act rather than to make nice speeches, or at least to act according to its rhetoric. This government proclaims to be an international leader in the promotion of equality for women, but it should first ensure that Canadian women are not victims of backward measures because of its own decisions. This government seems to deny women's reality and we wonder about its strategy to ensure that women have better working conditions and can make gains in the workplace?

Some positive measures are needed, including job-creation programs designed for all Canadians, not just 48 per cent of them, such as the totally inadequate infrastructure program.

[Val Meredith, Reform, Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak on International Women's Day. As the secretary of state mentioned in her remarks, this day was designated in honour of early campaigns to improve working conditions for women. I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the efforts of some of these women.

In December 1993 the Manitoba legislature granted Dr. Charlotte Ross a licence to practise medicine. What makes this event unusual is that Dr. Ross obtained her medical degree 118 years earlier. Charlotte Whitehead Ross has links to this House. Her father, Joseph Whitehead, was the member of Parliament for the constituency of Huron North in the Confederation Parliament of 1867.

After being refused entry to any medical school in Canada because she was a female, Charlotte Ross obtained her medical degree in Pennsylvania in 1875. She practised medicine in Quebec for five years and then in Whitemouth, Manitoba, for another 32 years. She was the first female physician in both provinces.

The Manitoba legislature denied a request to license her in 1887 but she continued to practise unlicensed until 1912, four years before her death. She was a true female pioneer, a woman who was forced to confront state sponsored chauvinism with no employment equity or human rights legislation to protect her. In the proud tradition of western pioneers, Dr. Ross did what so many other prairie settlers did when confronted by arcane government regulations, she ignored them. Charlotte Ross' defiance undoubtedly helped make it easier for other women to follow in her footsteps.

In marking International Women's Day I am extremely proud to acknowledge the accomplishments of my great-grandmother.

Another woman who deserves recognition for her contributions in pioneering a role for women in the workforce is a constituent of mine, a friend and a mentor, Mrs. Ivy Pat Dillon. Prior to World War II at a time when the only job most women could get was as a secretary or a clerk, Mrs. Dillon worked as a manager for a company in the fledgling aerospace industry. She did not get there because of any affirmative action program or government initiative. Pat Dillon was a success because of her talents and her abilities.

Many other women of that era had to leave promising careers because they were expected to leave the workforce when they got married and raise a family. My mother was one of those women. She chose to give up a nursing career to raise a family of nine children. While she may not have climbed the corporate ladder, she made an enormous impact on her family, friends and community in many ways as a wife, a mother and a volunteer worker.

These women all overcame the challenges of a society that was very different from today's. Was it discriminatory? Without question, but societies evolve. It is just that some things take longer than others.

The greatest single factor in changing men's attitudes about equality in the workplace is not legislation. Rather, it is the fact that women have shown that they can compete with men on equal footing.

As a female baby boomer I have experienced amazing changes in the attitudes of both men and women toward the concept of equality. My working career has taken me from a clerk typist earning $210 a month to being an owner-operator of a small business, to a senior government administrator, to a self-employed realtor and finally, to a parliamentarian. During my career I have faced a wide variety of attitudes from males and females.

In her speech the secretary of state commented on the fact that women entrepreneurs experience difficulty getting financing. I can attest to that personally. When I approached a bank in 1980 to get financing to expand my business, I was shocked to learn that it wanted my husband to co-sign for the loan. This was required despite the fact that my husband had nothing to do with

the business, despite the fact that the business was successful, and despite the fact that I had been mayor of that community for three years.

I am happy to report that this attitude has changed. Perhaps it is because women are now in management positions. The last two managers of my local Royal Bank have been female.

However some attitudes have not changed. One of the most chauvinistic individuals I have ever encountered I met last month. This gentleman was of the opinion that no woman who is married should be permitted to work. He thought that married women who work are responsible for unemployment among men. Not surprisingly, he did not get a very sympathetic ear from me.

What I did find extremely sad about this attitude was the fact that the male who held these opinions was only 29 years old. He is a product of affirmative action mentality. He believes that as government has legislated more opportunities for women, it has been at his expense. He views himself as a victim of discrimination.

We cannot legislate attitudes. For women to show their male colleagues that they belong, they have to prove they can compete with them on a level playing field.

I am proud of the fact that to gain my seat in this House of Commons I proved I could compete on a level playing field. Unlike some of the female members from the government side, I was not appointed as a candidate. To secure the Reform Party nomination in my constituency, I ran against five male competitors. At a nomination meeting attended by over 600 voting delegates, I won a first ballot victory. In the subsequent election, all other candidates from the major parties were males. Obviously, I won that election.

There was no special consideration because I was a woman. I competed on a level playing field. That is the way it was supposed to be and that is the way it has got to be. If we want a society where men and women are viewed as equal partners, we cannot accomplish this by punishing young men of today for the sins of their grandfathers.

I am pleased to see the statistics that women graduating from university today will earn the same salary as their male counterparts. It is a reality that these women will lose ground when they absence themselves from the workforce to have children. The logical way to address this problem is for these women and their spouses to draw equally upon their registered personal savings plan to make up the difference.

The alternative would be for medical science to develop a way for men to share the joy of childbirth. However, even if science could develop the technology, it would not be of much use. I think all mothers would agree that men do not have the pain threshold to survive childbirth.

In this celebration of International Women's Day, I share with the secretary of state the goal of true equality of the sexes. I just do not accept that legislation is the way to accomplish it. It gives the impression that women are incapable of obtaining equality solely based on their performance.

Yes, women today will experience chauvinism and discrimination in their lives. But as one of my staffers says, a woman has to work twice as hard as a man to get half the credit. Fortunately, this is not particularly difficult. I believe it is a good sign on the road to equality to know that this quote comes from a male staffer.

Committees Of The House

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 65th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the associate membership of standing committees.

I move that the 65th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to.)

Petitions

[Jean Payne, Liberal, St. John's West, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition signed by over 200 residents of my riding of St. John's West. The petition is in relation to a decision to destaff lighthouses in Newfoundland.

The undersigned residents of Canada draw to the attention of the House that Newfoundland and Labrador has one of the most treacherous coastlines in Canada. Even with the latest technology many lives have still been lost while navigating these coastal waters. Many lighthouse keepers have assisted mariners with lifesaving measures above and beyond the capabilities of technology. Therefore the petitioners call upon Parliament to recognize the valuable service provided by light keepers and to reconsider the destaffing of lighthouses.

Earlier this week I made a statement regarding this important issue. I fully support this request and ask Parliament to reconsider the decision.

[Hugh Hanrahan, Reform, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege to present a petition on behalf of approximately 15,000 Edmontonians. I also understand that there are several petitions being presented on the same issue that equal approximately 64,000 names.

The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House the inadequacies of the Young Offenders Act. They request that a complete and thorough review of the existing legislation take place aimed at changing sentencing and repeat offending.

It is my pleasure to submit this petition and to also inform my constituents and Edmontonians that I thoroughly concur with these petitioners.

[Val Meredith, Reform, Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise to present four petitions to the House with a total of 545 signatures.

The petitioners are praying and requesting that Parliament reduce government spending instead of increasing taxes and that it implement a taxpayer protection act to limit federal government spending.

It is my pleasure to support this process and I am pleased to present these petitions to the House.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present a number of petitions today. The first four petitions collectively contain well over 3,000 signatures.

The petitioners are requesting that Parliament not attack the recreational firearms community and support only legislation which severely punishes one who uses a weapon, including a weapon other than a firearm; protects the rights and freedoms of the law-abiding recreational firearms community to own and use firearms responsibly; passes careful scrutiny to see that it will improve public safety in a cost effective manner; repeals present firearms control legislation which features tortuous language and which has been characterized by the courts as one of the most horrifying examples of bad draftsmanship.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the petitioners of the fifth and sixth petitions which I have here wish to draw Parliament's attention to the consequence of legalizing euthanasia.

The petitioners request that Parliament not support euthanasia or doctor assisted suicide.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the seventh petition requests that Parliament oppose amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act or Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which provide for the inclusion of the phrase sexual orientation because such an inclusion will provide certain groups with special status, rights and privileges.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the last petition I present today on behalf of my constituents concerns the Canadian Wheat Board.

The petitioners request that Parliament continue to give the board monopoly powers in marketing wheat and barley for export.

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have five petitions to present today. The first one is signed by Mrs. Sisko Hamer-Jackson and 312 other residents of North Vancouver. The second one is by Mr. F. G. Williams and 26 other fellow Canadians. The third one is by Ross McCarlie and 25 other persons. All three are on the same subject.

The petitioners are praying and requesting that Parliament reduce government spending instead of increasing taxes and implement a taxpayer protection act to limit federal spending.

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on the other two petitions that I would like to present today, the first one is signed by Helen Hughes and 26 other North Vancouver residents.

It calls upon Parliament to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to protect individuals from discrimination based on sexual orientation.

The last petition that I have to present today is sent in by Arlene Boreham and 41 other people in North Vancouver.

The petitioners pray and request that Parliament not pass Bill C-41 with section 718.2 as presently written and in any event not include the undefined phrase sexual orientation as the behaviour people engage in does not warrant special considerations in Canadian law.

[Jerry Pickard, Liberal, Essex—Kent, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege today to present two petitions.

The first petition asks Parliament to ensure the presence of provisions in the Criminal Code prohibiting assisted suicide and make sure they are vigorously enforced.

[Jerry Pickard, Liberal, Essex—Kent, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition wants to extend the protection for the unborn child by amending the Criminal Code to extend the same privileges to them as to born children.

[Harold Culbert, Liberal, Carleton—Charlotte, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition that has been duly authorized by the clerk of petitions and has signatures on it from my constituency in the Woodstock and Hartland area.

Those signing are petitioning Parliament to ensure that the present provisions in the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted suicide be enforced vigorously and that Parliament make no change in the law that would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide or any activity designed to terminate human life.

[Andy Mitchell, Liberal, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions today.

The first one deals with potential changes to the Canadian Human Rights Act in terms of sexual orientation. The petitioners are opposed to that.

The second petition also deals with the sexual orientation issue in the human rights act. These petitioners support that potential government action.

[Andy Mitchell, Liberal, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the third petition relates to the potential firearms legislation before the House. These petitioners express concern about the provisions as presently before the House.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to present a petition signed by numerous residents of the Kingston area requesting that Parliament delete a section from Bill C-41.

Questions Passed As Orders For Returns

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 87, 130 and 132 could be made Orders for Return, those returns would be tabled immediately.

I may say that in respect of Question No. 87, the hon. member for Calgary Southeast has been complaining recently, I will put it politely, that she has not received this information. I am pleased to table it and I hope the week we are not sitting will afford her an opportunity to read the material, given its rather voluminous nature.

I am tabling only one copy here today because of the bulk. The other two copies are in Journals . I am also tabling the Orders for Return of the other two orders agreed to by the House.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Is it the pleasure of the House that Questions Nos. 87, 130 and 132 be deemed to have been made Orders for Returns?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Question No. 130-

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

With regards to the determinate and indeterminate federal employees declared surplus in all the departments and agencies of the federal government, what are the reasons/categories for their surplus status, how many employees are in each category by department/agency, and how many employees in each department/agency are receiving pay without actually performing work?

(Return tabled.)

Question No. 132-

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

With regards to determinate and indeterminate employee reclassifications across all departments and agencies within the federal public service, what was the number of reclassifications by month and by department/agency across the public service from November 1993 to the present, and what were the reclassifications by level, by month and by department/agency across the public service, from November 1993 to the present?

(Return tabled.)

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Shall the remaining questions stand?