Monique Guay

[Supply, March 12th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great interest that I rise today to speak to the motion of my colleague, the member for Trois-Rivières.

This motion condemns the federal government which, because of its disastrous policies, is in large measure responsible for increasing poverty in the regions of Quebec. My riding of Laurentides covers a large part of the Laurentides region, which is subdivided into the Hautes and the Basses-Laurentides. The Basses-Laurentides, closer to the Montreal area, have more heavy industry, while the Hautes-Laurentides further north, rely more on small business and tourism in particular.

My riding, which begins in the St-Jérôme area and ends over 100 kilometres further north, therefore depends for its livelihood on small business and tourism.

I will start off by looking at the tightening of employment insurance eligibility criteria, which will have a major impact on my riding, given the heavy reliance on tourism. Tourism is seasonal and implies seasonal workers.

The new criteria will mean that fewer workers will receive benefits and that the benefits for those who qualify will be reduced. For a riding like mine, where the unemployment rate is already higher than the average for Quebec, this means even less money for workers, even more workers forced to go on welfare. This shortfall in workers' income therefore means more poverty.

In regional economies with high unemployment and poverty, UI reform will make matters worse. The Liberal government is certainly not going to help the regions survive and develop by driving people into poverty. Let us not forget that the Liberals are

drawing money directly out of the UI fund, which consists of money paid by workers and by employers, over $5 billion this year, in order to reduce its deficit. It is utterly shocking.

Another area that is of particular interest to regions in Quebec is that of highway transport. Everyone knows that our highway system in Quebec has deteriorated and is now in need of major investments to keep it in good condition.

Let us look at what the federal government is spending in this area, and what it has set aside for Quebec. Between 1952 and 1986, although Quebecers were paying the same federal gasoline taxes as other Canadians, Quebec received a measly 16.5 per cent of federal spending on roads. Between 1986 and 1988, this fell to 13 per cent. In 1991-92, Quebec received only 4.2 per cent of federal transfer payments to the provinces to help build, repair and upgrade roads. Yet federal fuel taxes in Quebec are close to $1 billion. In return, the Quebec road system receives on average only $30 million annually. Thirty million out of one billion: a windfall for the federal government but grossly unfair to Quebec.

This shortfall in revenue has a serious impact on regional development, since the highway system is an essential tool for development. People from the Outaouais and Ontario who go skiing at Mont-Tremblant in my riding know that the highway system is not good if they take the road north at Montebello. But they do not know that the federal government is not providing its share of funding for Quebec's highway system.

Another issue that directly concerns the people of Laurentides, one that has been in the headlines for several months, is Mirabel airport, a perfect example of the inefficiency and devastating impact of federal intervention in Quebec territory with respect to air transportation.

In 1969, without any consultation, the federal government unilaterally decided to proceed with the most extensive expropriation exercise ever seen in this country, involving 80,000 acres of farm land, to be used to build Mirabel international airport. Twenty-seven years later, we know that 5,000 acres would have been ample for the airport's needs.

The federal government estimated that 30 million passengers would be going through Mirabel by 1990. Today, Mirabel and Dorval together get only 8.3 million passengers annually. When Mirabel was under construction, the federal government said it wanted to make greater Montreal the port of entry for air traffic in eastern North America. A few years later, it awarded the seven largest European carriers the right to land in Toronto. This federal decision was to be the main reason why Montreal never became the port of entry for European traffic in eastern North America.

Add to this the federal government's refusal to proceed with phase II of the Mirabel master plan under which domestic traffic would gradually be transferred from Dorval to Mirabel. We now see the disastrous effects of having two airports side-by-side, with all the communications problems that entails. Twenty years ago, Montreal airport attracted almost as many passengers as Toronto, but in 1995, Montreal dropped to third place, with 8.3 million passengers annually, after Toronto with 20.9 million and Vancouver with 11.1 million.

Out of 53 countries which had access rights to Montreal, only 17 exercised those rights.

Always without public consultation, Aéroports de Montréal, ADM, created by the federal government to manage Mirabel and Dorval, announced in February 1996 that international flights would be transferred from Mirabel to Dorval. This decision is the latest in a series of ill-conceived decisions and mistakes by the federal government, as former Liberal minister André Ouellet was to comment.

During this time, irreparable damage has been done to the volume of air transportation in Montreal, hundreds of millions of taxpayer money has been wasted and more than 10,000 expropriated landowners have suffered.

The federal government's bungling, its lack of vision, and its contradictory decisions in particular, will have accomplished nothing more than to deprive Montreal of its role as air traffic hub, in favour of Toronto.

Other subjects concern the people of the Laurentians, a matter linked directly to the federal government: the federal wish to introduce measures to register, and set fees for, sailboats, rowboats, pedal boats, canoes, kayaks and so on. Ottawa would like to register all pleasure boats, to make their owners purchase licences which would cost from $5 to $35 yearly, to require minimum skill and knowledge levels of all persons operating these boats, and to set up a system of fines similar to those for motor vehicles. For the Laurentians, with their numerous lakes, such a measure would be a total catastrophe. This tax in disguise would be unacceptable, and the proposed monitoring measures unenforceable.

An idea like the one proposed by the Liberals is quite simply buffoonery. There are, I believe, more important things to be doing than going around putting licence stickers on pedal boats and making sure that those using them are pedalling forward, backward, or whatever.

Another thing: the federal decision to require Canada Post to withdraw from delivering ad mail, with the loss of 10,000 jobs. That is surely the biggest single job loss in the country. The government claims that the private sector can easily take over, but that is far from reality for regions with low population density. The costs of private distribution are far higher in these regions. Thus, the federal government's decision means the virtual disappearance of ad mail in many regions, and considerable job losses in those same regions.

Finally, for the farmers in my riding, the federal government keep on cutting back the budgets and services affecting them. In the latest budget, the federal government announced the total elimination of dairy subsidies. This will translate into a $107 million loss for Quebec.

Since you are indicating that I have just one minute left, I will move on to my conclusion immediately.

The various matters I have addressed demonstrate clearly that the Liberals bear a large share of the responsibility for the impoverishment of the various regions of Quebec. Their decisions are unfair to Quebec, and they have the effect of pushing it even closer to the edge. The coming election will show the Liberals what their strategy to isolate and crush Quebec has really done. Quebecers are not blind; they are capable of judging the actions of the little guy from Shawinigan and his gang.

All of this shows Quebecers even more clearly that their future path is the one that leads to sovereignty. Not even Chrétien, Martin, Dion or Pettigrew can deter us from that path, which for us is a natural and a rational one.

[Employment Insurance, March 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, how can the minister justify choosing the criterion of 10 per cent unemployment, when it will mean that the people of Westmount will be entitled to the new measure and the people of Saint-Hyacinthe will not?

[Employment Insurance, March 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.

The opposition has joined with demonstrators in the maritimes and Quebec criticizing the new employment insurance plan, which clearly, makes no sense. The program has barely been implemented and already the minister is having to rush in and make adjustments, because things are not working, and this morning once again, the Minister of National Defence was taken to task in Tracadie.

How can the minister justify the fact that the new measures apply to only certain regions-primarily those that fought his reform the strongest-other than for electoral purposes?

[Supply, March 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the speech by my hon. colleague, for whom I have great respect and who has given considerable thought to social concerns in general.

I would like her comments on the fact that, in Canada, one in five children still lives under the poverty line and the number keeps growing. I would like her comments on the 10,000 jobs cut at Canada Post, the majority of which were held by women.

I would also like to know what she thinks of the cuts in social housing made since this government took office, the fact that housing used to be subsidized but now government no longer spends a red cent on developing social housing. It has passed the buck to the provinces. Add to that cuts in transfer payments, which interfere with the provinces' capacity to maintain their own social safety net.

As she pointed out earlier, initiatives like the child tax benefit were indeed put forward. But, for a single mother raising two or three children, an extra $800 per year is not enough, when the time comes to pay rent at the end of the month, pay telephone bills or the groceries, if she wants her children to be well fed. Without adequate housing, when cuts are made, there is less for health, food, and so on; that is where the money has to come from. I would like to know what the hon. member thinks about this.

I sincerely believe that all the policies that have been put in place will never compensate for the lack of focus on the needs of women, and therefore children, because they are the ones looking after the children. I sincerely think that the provinces should get more, they should get their fair share. The provinces are not asking for handouts. They want what is supposed to be theirs, the transfer payments they are entitled to, and to be able to meet the needs of women and children, within their jurisdictions.

[Breast Cancer, March 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, this evaluation report states that research is often disconnected from reality and recommends that women who have survived breast cancer play a more active role in research.

Does the Minister of Health intend to follow through with this recommendation by modifying the research funding criteria?

[Breast Cancer, March 7th, 1997]

My question is for the Minister of Health.

The red book states on page 81, and I quote: "It is well known, for example, that research into breast cancer, which afflicts one woman in nine, has been seriously underfunded." As a result of the parliamentary report on breast cancer, the Conservative government had committed significant investments for research on this issue, but the program is coming to an end in 1998.

On the eve of International Women's Day, is the Liberal government able to tell us that it intends to renew for another five years its commitment to research on breast cancer in Canada, as did the Canadian Cancer Institute and the Canadian Cancer Society?

[Supply, March 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to see that the minister realizes that much remains to be done for women, politically, socially and economically.

But I would like to see, first of all, how much influence the minister has in cabinet. Her speech was very eloquent, very passionate, but is such a strong stand taken on the status of women, the issue of women and children, in cabinet meetings? What I would give to be a fly on the wall and see how much importance is given to these issues.

I have a question for the minister. She mentioned a number of initiatives she feels the federal government has taken to improve the economic situation of women and, therefore, of children.

Does she realize that, by totally eliminating transfer payments for social housing, making billions of dollars in cuts and cutting 10,000 jobs at Canada Post, the government is affecting a growing number of women, who end up on UI or welfare? Does she realize also that, by abolishing the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, the government has impeded the advancement of women?

I would like her to elaborate a bit on this, because what we on this side of the House are noticing is that this government is tearing the social safety net to shreds. Promises are made that are not kept, except for cuts, cuts, and more cuts. They keep cutting transfer payments.

She mentioned earlier that it was up to the provinces to decide where the money went, but let me tell you that, with no money coming in, it is almost impossible to make up for the shortfalls created by the federal government.

I would like her comments on this.

[Supply, March 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, if I understood the Liberal member properly, he was telling me that women are to blame for divorce. Divorce is very common these days, and women and children are the ones who pay the price when there is a divorce.

Who looks after the children? The women who become single parents. They often do not even have any support payments because the husbands disappear into the woodwork and they cannot manage to get any help from them in raising their children. I am not saying that everyone is in the same boat here, but there are many women who are forced to clothe and feed their children, finance their educations, help them get as far ahead in the world as possible. We see this every day in our ridings. And if there are divorces, this is a choice. A divorce is a choice made by a couple to live apart. People cannot be forced to live together.

I have already spoken to my hon. colleague on this, because I was so angry at this idea of wanting to force people to stay together for the sake of the children. Children would not be any happier living with parents who detest each other, who would happily tear each other's eyes out, than living in a divorced family. It is far healthier for them to grow up with parents who, although divorced, are rebuilding their lives and see eye to eye about their education, their diet, their health and so on. Women's situation is, therefore, precarious. We need to open our eyes.

I referred to social housing. The federal government has completely cut funding to social housing. Today, social housing is being cut back more and more, and the problem is being dumped onto the provinces. Today, we find women living in run-down and poorly heated housing. Is this any good for their health and the health of their children? Really, Mr. Speaker.

Something has to be done somewhere, then. This government is responsible for some of the actions that have been taken in the past three and a half years, and today is the ideal time, perhaps, to wake up to reality and to make the necessary changes.

[Supply, March 7th, 1997]

moved:

That this House condemn the federal government's lack of political will in refusing to take positive action in its areas of jurisdiction to promote economic equality between women and men and cutting transfer payments to the provinces by $4.5 billion, including $1.3 billion to Quebec between 1996 and 1998; and

That, moreover, this House remind the government of the formal commitment it made on March 8, 1994, to take specific measures to improve the socio-economic status of women.

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Laval East, each of us using 10 minutes. It is indeed a great pleasure for me to speak today on this motion. I would like to take this opportunity to say a few words about my vision of International Women's Day.

Many hold the-in my opinion unfounded-belief that celebrating March 8 is unnecessary. Why a special day for women? I must say right off that this day is intended as a day of reflection. It is an opportunity for women of all backgrounds, walks of life and faiths to take stock and see not only how far we have come, but also how long a way we still have to go. This is both a day of celebration and a day for taking charge aimed at examining and improving the social, economic and professional status of women worldwide.

Think that, not so long ago, women did not have the right to vote in Canada. But today, a number of us hold elected office at various levels of government. This is a step in the right direction, but there is still a long way to go.

International Women's Day has its origins in women's demands for decent working conditions. The new realities of the labour market, which are becoming the lot of a growing number of women, are best described by the words insecurity, instability, short term contracts and underpaid work.

The social safety net that had ensured, so far, that women in both Quebec and Canada could keep their heads above water is under direct attack by the federal government, which, under the guise of restructuring, is in fact using social program funding to reduce its deficit. Thus, the government is the primary cause of increased poverty among women and children in Canada because, instead of closing tax loopholes, as requested time and time again in this House by the Bloc Quebecois over the past three years, the government chose to drastically reduce transfer payments to the provinces, restrict UI eligibility and cut benefits, not to mention downsizing, as it just did at Canada Post, by laying off an unprecedented number of employees, the majority of whom were women.

I would like to quote a few statistics on women, poverty and employment. It is very important to acknowledge these statistics today, as this may be an annual review we are doing here. In 1994, 70 per cent of all Canadians living in poverty were women or children; out of 4.8 million poor people, there were 2 million women and 1.3 million children. That is a lot of people. There are now 1.5 million children living in poverty, 200,000 more than when the Liberals took office. That is a clear setback.

Of all the industrialized countries, Canada is the one where the proportion of women in low paying jobs is the highest, at 34.3 per cent, with the exception of Japan, which has a rate of 37.2 per cent.

Let us look at more figures. Only 20 per cent of women have a full time job, throughout the year, for which they earn more than $30,000 per year, compared to 40 per cent of men.

The vast majority of part time jobs are held by women. In 1994, 69 per cent of all part time workers in Canada were women, a figure that has not varied much over the last two decades.

Again in 1994, 1.6 million women, or 26 per cent of those who had a job, were part time workers, compared to only 9 per cent of

men holding a job. Moreover, an increasing number of women are working part time because they cannot find a full time job.

In 1994, over 500,000 women, that is 34 per cent of all women working part time, said they would like to have a full time job. The unemployment rate among certain groups of women is higher than the national average. For young women under 24 years of age, that rate stands at 15.6 per cent.

Here are more figures. The majority of working women hold jobs that have traditionally been women's occupations. In 1994,60 per cent of all working women were teachers, nurses, or had a similar job in the health sector, were office workers, or were in sales and services. By comparison, 31 per cent of the working men had jobs in these areas.

Statistics show that 57.3 per cent of single mothers with children under 18 are poor. Regardless of women's level of education, their earnings are lower than those of men. Even female university graduates working full time throughout the year only earned 75 per cent of what their male counterparts made in 1993.

These statistics show that women are not moving forward, they are losing ground. Women are getting poorer year after year. Moreover, the number of jobs for women is decreasing. We also have to realize that, given the number of divorces and separations, there are more and more single mothers. These women find themselves in charge of a family, but without a job. Sure, they get support payments, but these are never enough to provide children with all they need for education, health, etc.

We are therefore in the process of taking a net step backwards. It is unacceptable when we realize that today in 1997 after all the progress women have made, all the work done by women's groups, all the work done by unions, by all the groups working to advance the cause of women and develop job markets for women that, today in 1997, we are losing ground.

At this point, I would like to remind you of the promises the Liberals made in the red book, and I will tell you what they were.

The Liberals gave us universal health care, unemployment insurance, old age benefits, the guaranteed income supplement, the Canada Pension Plan, the Canada Assistance Plan, the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The failure of the economic and social policies of the Conservatives is obvious: there are 1.6 million unemployed; 4.2 million Canadians, including 1.2 million children, live in poverty; 62 per cent of single mothers live under the poverty line, and their incomes are slipping.

Since 1984, the Conservatives have systematically chipped away at the social safety net built up over the years.

They have cut health care, and assistance to children, seniors and the unemployed by billions of dollars. They have encouraged the development of a two tier society that separates the rich and the poor, those with education and those without, with middle classes gradually disappearing. Most Canadians do not want this kind of country.

It is well known that not nearly enough money is being spent on research into breast cancer, which affects one woman out of nine. Many single mothers would like to find work but, for lack of quality day care, must settle for welfare. They must rely on meagre welfare payments, food banks and inadequate housing. They cannot receive training or find jobs that would make them financially independent. If we look at the cuts made by the federal government in social housing alone, it is truly shocking.

In conclusion, for I see I have used up all my time, I would like to mark this day. I would like to pay tribute to all the parliamentary women who are working today and who, I hope, will see, today, tomorrow and Sunday, in their various regions and fields of activity what remains to be done to advance the cause of women.

[Quebec Arts Week, February 14th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, for the sixth consecutive year, the Quebec Department of Education, in co-operation with the provincial ministry of culture and communications, is organizing the Quebec arts week, which began on February 9 and will end on the 16.

In order to mark this unique event, the whole Quebec school system was invited to organize activities under the theme "Sans mots pour le dire". This means that over one million Quebec students at the elementary and secondary levels are currently exploring the various facets of an artistic project or creation process that includes dance, music, plastic arts, communications and performing arts.

While some may claim, wrongly, that Quebec never spent a penny on its culture, it is not by spending millions of dollars on flags that we will make our young people aware of arts and culture, or that we will give them an opportunity to develop their creativity and their imagination.