Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, because I know his concerns, which motivated this motion, are genuine.
However, we think this is the wrong venue. The member for Abitibi probably picked the wrong assembly, as the heritage minister knows full well. Family matters should not be raised in this House.
If he wants to help women who deliberately chose to stay home, he should make representations to his own government.
First of all, he could ask his government to reinstate transfer payments. Should I remind the House—the heritage minister knows this even if she chooses to evade the question—that the federal government has cut $42 billion since 1993. Of course, it means that the various provincial governments are less able to offer services. The heritage minister knows it and I wish she would make the necessary representations.
Second, he should know what the Government of Quebec did in its field of jurisdiction. Coming from Quebec the hon. member for Abitibi must know that, since 1994, the Parti Quebecois government in the National Assembly—where it was re-elected with flying colours—has put considerable effort into implementing a family policy.
Let me give you a few examples: day care centres at $5 a day, something very important; the policy allowing children to access the education network with government assistance starting with kindergarten. We have also reviewed the tax legislation as regards income tax. Those are several initiatives that come under provincial jurisdiction.
We could go even farther, if we were able to do so in the National Assembly, with more financial resources. That is why it is very important to understand that the best service we could do, as federal parliamentarians, for provinces that want to put in place a real family policy would be to restore as soon as possible the funding that was unfairly cut.
If the hon. member for Abitibi, whose intentions I do not question, really wants to help women who have decided to stay at home, he must also ensure that his government is fairer to them. How can he not be concerned by pay equity, for instance?
Everyone knows an appeal is now before the Federal Court. If heard, this appeal could mean much less money for women than anticipated because we continue to discriminate on the basis of sex in the public service, and the government was unable to remedy this situation.
It is very important that we be able to improve the employment insurance system. Again, I know very well that the hon. member is sensitive to these concerns but we cannot have this kind of inconsistencies within the same party. The hon. member cannot stand from his seat and ask the government to provide additional money to give women a salary when the policies of his own party have made them poorer.
How can the hon. member ignore the issues of employment insurance and of access to maternity leave? Feminist voices within the cabinet were sadly silent with one possible exception. The qualifying conditions for access to maternity leave have been changed. It is now harder for someone receiving EI benefits to qualify for maternity leave than it was when the Liberals came to power in 1993.
Before, you needed 300 hours of work to qualify for unemployment insurance, compared with 700 today. There is something missing in the hon. member's arguments. He should review this motion to make sure he addresses the real issues.
To conclude, I know that feminist and women's organizations in general believe that saying “We will pay a salary to those women who choose to stay home” would send an extremely negative message.
I do not dare even imagine what it would be like to be deprived of the presence of the Minister of Canadian Heritage if she had opted to stay at home.