Monique Guay

[Supply, March 8th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I would not want to be the hon. member's spouse because the relationship would not last very long.

[Supply, March 8th, 1994]

On this International Women's Day, it is with great pride that I take the floor in this House. This day set aside for us is, in my opinion, essential and it has the added advantage of providing an opportunity to reflect on the situation of women in our society.

Those 24 hours devoted exclusively to women increase the awareness of people and make us more aware of our problems-those very real and numerous problems we are faced with every day.

In a letter dated February 8 to the Prime Minister, the Advisory Council on the Status of Women provides a list of 17 priorities requiring analyses and policies at all levels of government in order to set up a framework based on equality. Equality is the operative word that we should always keep in mind when we are called upon to take a position, to make a choice, to set policies or to initiate action.

These 17 points proposed by the Council deal with well known areas. However, when you group them in some ways or when you try to relate them one to another, you realize that being a woman in our society is a major handicap. Job creation, safety at home and in the community, status of native women, women's health and health care, income security, wage parity, daycare services are areas where we suffer unfairness, iniquities and indifference.

As a woman member, I consider myself privileged to have the tools which allow me to protest on behalf of my sisters. Every opportunity I get, I consider it my duty to draw the attention to the situation of women. I believe all women members should do the same. Moreover, our actions within our caucuses should always be aimed at improving the condition of women.

Despite our demands and our actions, despite the efforts of women's groups, the situation is not improving very fast. The slow pace of reform and the lack of strong and specific measures to deal with urgent problems clearly demonstrate that decision-makers are very reluctant to promote women's causes.

What bothers me most with this passive and indifferent position towards women is that we are failing to respond to the legitimate expectations of 52 per cent of the population. Women are a majority in our society. Given this 4 per cent majority over men, I feel that we have an obligation to meet women's needs. Alas, in actual fact, the reality is something else entirely.

This situation brings us to question the role of women in the system. Power and representation, particularly at the political level. Our presence in legislative bodies.

First finding: 53 out of 295 members of this Parliament are women. Since 1980, our numbers have increased. We went from 17 female members of Parliament to 27 in 1984, 39 in 1988, and 53 today. It is an interesting increase but one that is clearly insufficient.

While women make up 52 per cent of the population, we only constitute 18 per cent of members in this House. On the other hand, while 48 per cent of the population is composed of men, our male colleagues account for 82 per cent of members in this House. These figures show that the current Parliament and those of the past-when numbers were even more disproportionate-do not reflect at all the male-female ratio in the population.

This underrepresentation clearly puts women at a disadvantage. It also raises the whole issue of women's political representation. Before going any further on this, I want to point out that this imbalance also exists in the Cabinet. Only 6 out of 31 ministers and secretaries of state are women. This underrepresentation also prevails in every major sector of activity. Power is certainly not in the hands of women.

Faced with this statistical evidence, this Parliament is certainly not a microcosm or miniature version of our society. This numerical imbalance, combined with long-standing male dominance, affects all women's issues. It has become imperative for us women to show our feminist beliefs and to politically represent women if we want our lot to improve.

Our male colleagues are rather reluctant to embrace the idea of representing the female population.

For the purposes of a study conducted in 1993 by Manon Tremblay and Réjean Pelletier, 24 elected female representatives and 24 elected male representatives were interviewed. Sixteen of the 24 women, or 66.7 per cent, agreed that they had a special or additional duty toward the female population. As for the men, more than three in five, or 60.9 per cent, felt that women representatives had no obligation to maintain closer ties with women voters.

Since the majority of male representatives believe that we, women elected representatives, should not give greater consideration to women, we can only imagine how they must view women in general. The status of women is surely not at the top of their priority list. Far from it.

I also read with interest in the 1993 annual report of the Lobbyists Registration Act that women's issues rank 42 out of 52 in terms of the number of times raised by lobbyists. In other words, this issue is not very important to them. Women's issues do not, therefore, benefit from this important access to the government. While it may be true that women's groups do not have vast financial resources, it is equally true that lobbying is a predominantly male field.

I will say no more about the ability and willingness of men to espouse women's causes. I know that some of my colleagues are not part of the statistics quoted here and are staunch supporters of our cause. However, the fact remains that on a daily basis, women are confronted with serious problems to which no solutions are being advanced.

I have no doubt that if women held 52 per cent of the seats in this House, things would be quite different. Some studies indicate that women show more humanism and develop ethics of responsibility in the performance of their duties. This concern for the person is evident from the remarks of this female member of Parliament who was quoted in the Tremblay and Pelletier report as saying that: "Our management of political power relies much more on understanding and feeling for the human element, the people, I would say, and we are more aware of the consequences of our actions-We see things differently. Our femininity comes into play and gives a much more humane quality to politics".

There should be more women in politics. It is becoming imperative, if we are to see more humanism and feminism in politics, with humanism setting the human being and human values above everything else and feminism seeking improvement of the condition of women in our societies.

When they look at the situation in their ridings, all the hon. members of this House can see that the country is in dire need of humanism and feminism. Poverty, misery, violence and isolation affect an increasing number of people. They are becoming pervasive and, if nothing is done, the process will soon be irreversible. Soup kitchens, shelters for battered women, child abuse centers, housing problems facing families, street children as well as lonely and less and less cared for older people speak loudly of unfeeling governments and their lack of regard for human values.

These serious problems did not crop up overnight. They have been around for far too long already. Lawmakers are aware of them, yet they do not act on these inhuman conditions often, actually very often, affecting the status of women. One day, it is all going to blow up in our faces. And governments will reap what they have sown.

Let us face it, and studies back up this statement, we would be facing a very different situation if more women were and had been in power. Let us have more women in power, by all means. Imagine a Parliament, the make-up of which would be the opposite of this one, a Parliament with 82 per cent women and 18 per cent men. Why not?

The truth of the matter is that women continue to face gender-based obstacles. That is why the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women recommended the reactivation of the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing, with a mandate to review and report on matters raised by women groups in their briefs to the Commission.

In closing, here lies a colossal challenge that we must take on. Fundamental changes are required, and what better place than Parliament to act upon society as a whole! It is up to us, men and women who are not blinkered, to make it happen.

[Status Of Women, March 8th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, how can the Deputy Prime Minister think she is credible when her point of view and her attitude change completely, depending on where she sits in the House?

[Status Of Women, March 8th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. In its recent budget, the government imposed a five per cent cut on all Canadian volunteer organizations. When she was in the opposition, the Deputy Prime Minister vehemently opposed cuts imposed by the previous government to volunteer agencies, including of course to centres for women who are victims of violence.

Now that she sits on the other side of the House, does the Deputy Prime Minister intend to fight with the same determination the despicable cuts imposed by her government to volunteer organizations in its last budget?

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1994-95, February 25th, 1994]

I thank the hon. member. I am well aware of her constituency's problem because I have been studying the situation in all constituencies for the last three months.

However, I think that we could take immediate action when it comes to public housing. Cuts could be made in family trusts, for example, but that is something we do not want to talk about and especially do not hear about. The slush fund, of course! That is the reason. It would take courage to proceed with those cuts and I hope the hon. member has enough influence on his caucus and on his party to make sure that the cuts are made in the right places and not where the money is badly needed.

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1994-95, February 25th, 1994]

Of course not. Did you know that not even one member of the Liberal party was present at this event, which was an important one for all these people.

I guess I will have to keep using every opportunity to raise this issue. I also want to thank the hon. member. I do hope that she will be able to convince the Liberal Party to take positive and concrete action, instead of only using rhetoric as has been the case so far. The government will spend $2 billion, but not on social housing. Nothing is provided for cooperative housing. This is merely a residential rehabilitation plan for owners. It is impossible for a poor person who lives in an inadequate dwelling to own a property.

Therefore, I ask that representations be made by everybody on behalf of these poor people, so that the government will provide funding to help those living in inadequate dwellings and to really promote social housing.

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1994-95, February 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, as you know, for three months now, I have been using every opportunity to promote social housing. Poor people need a place to live and cannot wait for the government to some day decide to act. They need help now, not in a year or two. There are already 1.2 million people in Canada

who live in inadequate dwellings. This is unacceptable. Something must be done to help these people.

Exactly two weeks ago, I participated in a demonstration organized by FRAPRU, a group which supports and helps people living in inadequate dwellings find social housing units. FRAPRU includes all kinds of non-profit associations. Four hundred people participated in the demonstration.

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1994-95, February 25th, 1994]

We, in the Bloc Quebecois, have been demanding social housing since the beginning of this session. Local organizations also put a lot of pressure on the Liberals. Alas, the government has remained insensitive to the needs of the poorly housed. This refusal to improve housing conditions for the poorest is unacceptable.

What happened to the nice promises made to the poorly housed and to local organizations during the election campaign?

Why did the Minister of Finance write this last September to a coalition of organizations advocating co-operative and social housing: "No doubt a Liberal government will help finance co-operative and non-profit housing"? In the same letter, the minister added that it was up to the federal government to ensure that over a million Canadian households are housed decently and affordably. Does the minister remember what he said? It was a smoke screen. It was a lie!

Other members opposite engaged in pre-election opportunism. The present Minister of Foreign Affairs was an ardent defender of social housing. He loudly proclaimed that the real power was in Cabinet. Where is this famous power today? Did he try to influence the government in favour of social housing? Looking at the budget, we must conclude that the Minister of Foreign Affairs has no clout or that social housing is no longer worth it, or maybe both conclusions are true.

The Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of Human Resources Development were also fervent defenders of social housing. What happened to them? They have disappeared into the luxury of limousines, Challenger jets and ministerial pomp. That makes you quickly forget about the poorly housed.

What is the other advocate of the poorly housed, the member for London East, doing now to get his government moving on this issue? After such trickery, there is no need to look very far to see why the people are disillusioned with politicians.

The government made a choice. It chose to say no to social and co-operative housing. In saying no to the 1,200,000 people who are poorly housed, the Liberals are also saying no to many positive aspects associated with multiple-dwelling units.

The social and co-operative housing industry creates jobs in the construction industry and generates spinoffs for construction companies and suppliers of building materials and residential fixtures. It stimulates consumption at neighbourhood stores.

From a social standpoint, the construction of social and co-operative housing generates enormous benefits. Clean, well-heated and well-lit units have a positive effect on the health of the occupants. Health care costs are therefore reduced. People who live in co-operative housing are not isolated. In the long run, social housing helps to lower the cost of social services.

Social housing provides senior citizens with the sense of security they have a right to expect. The Liberals have turned their backs on these positive effects. However, the Minister of Finance has forgotten that there will be a price to pay for this rejection and all of us will be paying it, directly and indirectly. I call this governing without vision and without a sense of humanity. And this is completely unacceptable to me.

I wonder what response the Prime Minister will get in Shawinigan where nearly 41 per cent of households spend over 30 per cent of their income on housing. The situation has grown desperate. Poverty is gaining a toehold in Quebec and in Canada. A total of 1,200,000 Canadians live in substandard housing conditions. In Quebec, the housing crisis is even worst, with 44.3 per cent of rental household, compared to 37.1 per cent in Canada. In Quebec and in Ontario, 194,000 households spend more than 50 per cent of their income just on rent. In Canada, 583,000 households are in the same situation.

In some cities, the problem is even more dramatic. In Montreal, one in five rental households, 19.1 per cent, must spend 50 per cent of its income on rent. Twelve thousand households in Ottawa, 26,645 in Toronto, 22,095 in Vancouver, and 4,940 in Halifax set aside more than half of their income for rent.

Behind these figures are single individuals and lone-parent families, which are increasing in numbers in our society. The people living in the worst conditions are young Canadians between the age of 15 and 24, pre-retired individuals 55 to 64 years old and individuals over 65 years old. The Liberals have abandoned these people. There are children in these households, members of the next generation, living in poverty. In Canada, child poverty affected 1,210,000 children in 1991. The Liberals have abandoned these children too. I strongly believe that we all have to take stock and ask ourselves if children must be left destitute in unhealthy housing.

I would be remiss in not mentioning the homeless. Homelessness has reached unbelievable proportions. More and more people find themselves without shelter, mostly women but also an increasing number of young kids. Natives living in urban areas, of which there are 15,000 in Montreal, are among the worst hit people. To all you poverty-stricken people, the federal government says: no! It is telling you that you can keep living in substantial housing or in the streets. It is telling you that you must continue to cut on food, clothing, and basic care. The government is telling you that you do not exist. Such contempt is unbelievable!

By opting out of new public housing programs, the federal government has badly damaged the social fabric of our country. With the federal contribution decreasing from $113 million in 1989 to zero dollar nowadays, it is obvious that Ottawa has willingly and voluntarily decommitted itself from such programs. The Minister of Finance is well aware of the situation and is depriving people of their fundamental right to a decent and adequate housing.

What is even more upsetting is to see that because the members opposite are so insensitive to the needs of people who have inadequate housing, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation is considering a rent increase of 25 to 30 per cent for social housing. What a shameful idea.

The government is saying to the less privileged: Give us more money and we will use it to provide housing for other destitute people. That is how mean this government is. I firmly believe that the minister could have eliminated the waste and trimmed the fat of the government in order to find some money for the people who have inadequate housing, instead of making the underprivileged pay for the housing needs of other underprivileged people. The minister should be ashamed of himself.

Quebecers and Canadians of all backgrounds, the underprivileged, the poor who live in awful conditions and the elderly all feel betrayed by this Liberal budget. While they do everything they can to stay in the black, to make ends meet, the government does not do its homework, does not take its social responsibilities, and lets the poor live in substandard housing.

In conclusion, we now see the real face of this government which, before October 25, was talking about a better and a fair society, where individuals would regain their dignity and their pride. The government has shown its true colours. The members opposite are acting like robots, like cold and uncaring people.

The government has betrayed those who longed for a better future. This budget is a shame.

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1994-95, February 25th, 1994]

I would now like to address the issue of social and co-op housing that the government has just washed its hands of. In this regard, they are following in their predecessors'

footsteps. The Tories have been kicked out but their policies are still here in this House.

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1994-95, February 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, today, I want to tell the Minister of Finance how disappointed and concerned the government's budget has left my constituents.

I can still picture the finance minister putting on the workboots he was given by the Prime Minister. What a show! What cynicism on the part of the Liberals! The 30 per cent of workers who do not have a job in my riding will not put their workboots on today, nor tomorrow, for that matter.

The members opposite had promised job creation measures.

They went on and on, saying that it was their number one priority. Where are those measures? Where is this plan for economic renewal they have been touting around?

People in Laurentides can now judge for themselves the Liberals' lack of action in the job creation field. The government is falling back on its infrastructure program, totally inadequate as it is to put the unemployed back to work. What lack of realism!

With the number of jobs which will be created in my riding, hardly a few hundred according to a quick calculation, it is obvious that workboots dealers in the Laurentians will not be raking it in.

For workers, it is discouraging to see the government do so little against unemployment. The federal government invests peanuts, and then sits down, hoping for this supposed economic recovery to happen. However, economists agree that this recovery, if there is one, will not bring about the creation of a high number of jobs.

The people opposite are quite aware of this. But they prefer to wait, to stand by, instead of taking action. This new government must not have anything new or original to offer to the 1.6 million unemployed in our country, but a lot of talk and no action.

To people in my riding, the Liberals are not much different from the Conservative government, a government which was rejected, or I should say ejected, because of its inaction and its unacceptable decisions. The message given on October 25 does not seem to be working, unless members opposite have chosen to ignore it. You promised jobs to the unemployed. But what have you done in that area? Do you really believe that your are fully and truly honouring the commitments you made before October 25? I do not think so, and neither do my unemployed constituents. They are asking for positive action that will give them hope and let them see light at the end of the tunnel. They just want this government to resolutely show its will to help them and put them back to work. We cannot say that the finance minister's budget is very convincing in that regard.

The government's attitude toward the unemployed follows a strange sort of logic, one that these people will have trouble swallowing. The Liberals are saying: "We are creating or will be creating jobs". But, in actual fact, they are doing very little in the short term. As for the long term, nothing is planned at the federal level. There is no vision in this budget.

First, there are no jobs, and this directly affects the people who want to work. Second, the government turns around and makes a 2 per cent cut in UI benefit rates on the backs of the unemployed, victims of the incapacity of the people opposite. Third, labour is told: "From now on, you will have to work longer to qualify for these lower benefits". Low and middle-income workers in my riding, several of whom are seasonal or contract workers, have just been dealt three stiff blows by the Liberals.

My fellow citizens who were working hard and were always looking for long-term employment instead of makeshift jobs are going to have to work magic and pray God or providence to get the additional unemployment insurance stamps they need.

Regarding the benefit rate which is being increased to 60 per cent for individuals with modest incomes who support children, an aged parent or other dependants, all those concerned are anxious to know how the federal government will determine who should belong to that category of recipients.

I can see from here UI officers asking applicants whether their children are really dependants and requesting written proof. I can see them conducting enquiries to determine whether there is a common-law spouse or another income-earner in the applicant's household. In Quebec, we have had our "boubous macoutes". Are we about to witness the emergence of a new breed of macoutes, the federal Liberal macoutes?

These measures will affect many single-parent families, often headed by women. I sincerely believe that, by establishing classes of beneficiaries, the government is fostering a climate of distrust that will lead to significant social tensions. It can be concluded that, as far as unemployment insurance is concerned, the Liberal budget is far from brilliant.

Another aspect of this budget a lot of people from my riding contact me about is the tax credit available to people aged 65 and over. Seniors do not accept this unfair decision. The minister tells us that this reduction will affect only 25 per cent of senior citizens, who built this country. It is outrageous to hear from the members opposite that our seniors with a $25,000 net income are rich people. This decision affects once again middle-income taxpayers and 800,000 seniors in my riding, in Quebec and in Canada.

The minister appears to have picked a target that was easier and especially less influential that the family trust lobby. What an unfair and irresponsible choice on the part of the Liberals! True, these seniors do not contribute to the Liberal Party coffers to the tune of $45,000 a year.