Marlene Catterall

[Supply, March 8th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased today to join my colleagues in saluting International Women's Day.

I am very pleased to join you today to celebrate the International Women's Day, which gives us the opportunity to acknowledge all the progress made by women as well as the improvements yet to come. We are lucky to live in such a prosperous country as Canada, but Canadian women still have a long way to go to live in all the comfort enjoyed by Canadian men.

While we celebrate the achievements of women and generate new energy and co-operation for continued progress and growth, our commitment to a goal of economic equality for Canada and everywhere in the world must remain strong. We want Canada to continue to be a world leader in the pursuit of this goal.

Canada will continue to set an example for the world in its defence and respect of the rights and freedoms of individuals. The right of women to be treated equally with men without discrimination is enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and specified in the Canadian Human Rights Act.

As we speak about equality, we speak often about social equality and we speak often about political equality. Increasingly however we as policy makers and we as women realize that political and social equality will remain elusive goals until we have economic equality.

In recent years, the pursuit of economic equality for women has been linked to a simple but important concept, equal pay for work of equal value. This concept goes beyond the notion that

men and women should be paid the same when they are performing the same work.

The reality is that men and women tend to do different kinds of work, for whatever traditional reasons that has happened, that is the reality. Whether they are performing the same or different work, they deserve to be paid fairly. We need to find ways to measure and compare the value of work that is significantly different.

I have to ask a question. Why is a dog catcher paid twice as much as a child care worker? How does the work performed by a secretary compare to that performed by an electrician? Is it worth more or is it worth less? We now have the tools required to make that assessment and to ensure that when jobs are found to be of equal value appropriate wages, equal wages, are provided.

The federal government is the largest employer of women in this country. For that reason this government wants to show employers across the country that it is simply good business to pay men and women fairly and to pay them equally if they are performing work of equal value.

After all, a fair wage will allow employers to recruit and retain qualified workers who will contribute to the quality of their service or product into their competitive edge. More important perhaps, a fair wage will enable women to become full partners in the economic growth of our country.

Women expect to receive fair wages for the work they perform. They deserve to receive fair wages for that work and this government is working toward that goal.

Since the proclamation of the Canadian Human Rights Act in 1978 that enacted and enshrined the principle of equal pay for work of equal value or pay equity, the government, the Canadian Human Rights Commission, unions and employees have worked toward making it a reality.

Many complaints have been resolved co-operatively. Many others and far too many others have been the subject of long and bitter battles. This has been a period of learning, a period of trial and error. This government wants to build on these experiences and ensure that equal pay for work of equal value is achieved through the joint efforts of all interested parties.

In 1985 in the public service a joint union-management study on equal pay for work of equal value was undertaken in the federal public service. Today the results of the study are being contested in front of the Human Rights Tribunal. I do not need to tell anybody who is familiar with the whole progress of that case that it has indeed been long and contentious and that we sitting on the other side of the House objected to the strategies and tactics of the previous government in what we felt was delaying the work of that tribunal.

However the Human Rights Commission does have the responsibility to investigate all complaints of violations of the Canadian Human Rights Act and to order corrective actions where it concludes that violations have occurred.

This Liberal government fully endorses the important role of the Human Rights Commission and of human rights tribunals in protecting Canadians from discrimination and eliminating discriminatory practices.

In spite of the continuing debate, a lot of good came from the joint union-management initiative on equal pay. It was the first time that a joint endeavour had been undertaken to implement section 11 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

A great deal was learned. Until now 70,000 employees in predominantly female occupational groups received approximately $317 million in retroactive equal pay adjustments. Approximately $81 million is paid in ongoing annual adjustments.

Overall since the enactment of the federal equal pay legislation over $500 million has been paid in equal pay adjustments in the resolution of various complaints. Much has been achieved and much has been learned. We as a government continue to work toward a full resolution of the issue.

The achievement of equal pay for work of equal value requires the use of a common tool to evaluate all jobs whether they are performed predominantly by men or by women. That tool must be gender neutral. It must not be based on the traditional differences in what roles women have assumed and what roles men have assumed. It must recognize the value of all aspects of the work performed whether traditionally by men or by women.

This is why this government will pursue efforts undertaking to develop a universal classification standard in the federal public service that is gender neutral. Many dedicated persons have already committed their time and effort to this project. It is not an easy task to revamp the whole job evaluation system of an organization the size and complexity of the Public Service of Canada.

We want to ensure that the universal classification standard is the right tool to achieve our goals of simplicity, transparency and fairness. When we are satisfied that it is, we will implement it to ensure we have a durable basis for the resolution of pay equity issues.

After the Canadian Human Rights Act was passed in 1978 many provinces followed suit and enacted legislation on equal pay for work of equal value. The more recent provincial models are more prescriptive and specific than the model we adopted early on at the federal level.

As a result of the growing interest across the country in the achievement of pay equity, there is a growing library of ideas, experiences and jurisprudence in this field in Canada today.

However, equal pay for work of equal value remains a field rife with controversy. Parties in every part of the country debate over the right evaluation tool or plan, the right job data, the right wage comparison methodology.

I can assure hon. members today that this government is interested in results. Government is looking for real, realistic and realizable means of achieving this important goal for the economic equality of Canadian women. We are continuing to address equal pay for work of equal value complaints and issues as they arise. We will use whatever creative means are necessary to ensure that fairness and equity are achieved.

Already the President of Treasury Board has engaged in dialogue with public service unions. We welcome their suggestions on any matter that may enable us to reach a definitive and co-operative solution to pay equity complaints.

Indeed, this government wants to establish ties of co-operation and trust with union representatives in the federal Public Service. We are going through hard economic times and we must co-operate to minimize the impact on employees, while continuing to provide quality service to all Canadians.

Some hon. members know the Canadian Human Rights Act applies to employees of the federal government, crown corporations and private companies under federal jurisdiction such as banks and telephone companies. It covers approximately 300,000 women workers. I am confident the implementation of equal pay for work of equal value in the federal public sector will set a precedent for similar progress in industries across the country. That is why it is so important we get it right.

On this important day I am pleased to play a part in the resolution of the economic concerns of Canadian women. I am determined to help make progress toward the economic equality of women with their male co-workers. Equal pay for work of equal value is only one step, albeit an important one in achieving this economic equality.

I have long been appalled by the wage gap reported in an industrialized country as prosperous as ours. Full implementation of equal pay for work of equal value will not fully close that wage gap, but it will go a long way. Unequal wages do not fully explain the wage gap.

One of the major problems is the concentration of women in certain occupations which are usually low paying. Women remain concentrated in traditionally female jobs. In 1991 over 50 per cent of women in Canada were concentrated in clerical, sales and service jobs whereas just over 20 per cent of men were in those occupations. Coincidentally these happen to be among the lowest paid jobs in our society.

To achieve economic equality equal pay for work of equal value programs need to be coupled with diversification in the work choices available to women. Just as important is the need to eliminate all types of employment discrimination so that women have equal opportunities based on their ability to move into management, to move into any kind of job that is suited to their talents, their abilities and their interests.

We often hear and there have been comments to this effect in this House today that employment equity is discriminatory. Employment equity eliminates discrimination. Employment equity ensures that only one's ability matters in whether one gets hired or promoted or advances in employment.

Economic equality for women in Canada and elsewhere can only be achieved with a combination of programs such as pay equity and employment equity. I personally intend to play an important role in these fields and to challenge all employers in Canada to be models for the whole world of employers who treat their female employees equally.

I thank you for your attention. I compliment all my colleagues who participated in this debate today.

[Defence Policy, February 17th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I will gladly answer my colleague's question and explain what the situation is. He raised a few points when he talked about his concern for the economic well-being of downtown Ottawa.

As the Minister of Public Works and Government Services assured him in the House in response to his question on February 1, it is the intention of the minister to listen to the points raised by the hon. member and those of our national capital region colleagues.

The process of consultation is part of the openness we intend to pursue. With regard to recent media reports on government plans for office occupancy related to the national capital region, I would like to reiterate what the minister has said on the subject. The review is preliminary only. It was developed for strategic planning purposes and allows for all options to be considered.

The government restructuring initiative involved the combining of some 16 departments into 8. This resulted in a need to review their space holdings. It is only part of a normal planning process. It is within the mandate of Public Works and Government Services to provide productive and affordable work places for the federal government. Given the magnitude of inventory of crown controlled space in the national capital region, some 2

million square feet of office space, this can only be achieved through long-term planning, the study of various options, and their impact on not only the departments concerned but on other departments, other governments, the economy, the environment, and the private sector.

We recognize the impact that changes in government have on the economy in general and the real estate market in particular.

After salaries, facilities management is the major public service expenditure. The federal government, just like the private sector, seeks the most cost effective accommodations for its employees but also wants their work environment to be conducive to their productivity.

I can only reiterate what the minister has said. It is a preliminary study. All options are on the table. No decisions will be made until full consultations have taken place.

[Supply, February 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would certainly like to make a comment.

I hope the member opposite recognizes that the motion deals directly with the importance of information, efficiency and effectiveness. The information I provided this House today in my speech deals exactly with those issues. The government is already implementing measures to improve information, efficiency and effectiveness so that the very point of the motion is taken care of and so that we may improve the ability of this House, its members and committees to make better decisions in the best interests of the public, the financial situation and the future of this country.

[Supply, February 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, if members on this side of the House do not understand the motion, perhaps members on the other side of the House failed to explain it properly, but it is quite clear when you read it.

The mandate the motion wants to give this new committee happens to be the mandate of the public accounts committee. In fact, the committee can do exactly what the motion requests. If the committee needs more resources, that is an issue the new chairperson, a member of the Bloc Quebecois, will be able to discuss with committee members.

And I am sure that committee members are listening carefully to the proceedings in the House today. I understand perfectly what the hon. member means. There is a need for a thorough review of our present systems for providing information to members and for evaluating our programs. In fact, in line with the mandate of the President of the Treasury Board, new efforts are being made in this respect, and the same minister is responsible for the Privy Council Office.

I am sure the public accounts committee will be delighted with this opportunity to consider its agenda for the coming months. I may add that the committee is the master of its own affairs, decides what it wants to consider and reports to Parliament when it wishes to do so.

[Supply, February 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this motion today.

As members in the House have heard, the President of the Treasury Board has already commented on the benefit we are already taking of the advice and analysis of the Auditor General to improve the way we do things as a government. At the same time we welcome the scrutiny that the public accounts committee will bring to the report of the Auditor General and to other operations of government. We look forward to its advice on how we can make even further progress.

To this point in the debate we have talked about money. There is no doubt that the preoccupation of many of us in the House and of many Canadians is how we can move toward a balanced budget and how we can better control our spending and ensure value for those dollars that we do spend in terms of service to Canadians and the programs our country counts on.

I want to depart on a somewhat different track to simply say that while we deliver programs and services with money mandated by this Parliament, they are delivered by the people who work for the Government of Canada.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to set out today plans of the government to renew the Government of Canada. My colleague, the President of the Queen's Privy Council and minister responsible for federal-provincial relations, has set out a plan which he aptly calls "Getting Government Right".

Unlike the previous government which felt it could use the public service as the brunt of all its problems, without affecting the services Canadians have come to depend on, we are working closely with our employees to develop new and innovative ways of cutting costs. I intend to talk particularly about our plans to give them the tools to do their jobs in a more efficient and effective way.

Unlike the previous government we believe government can be a force for good in society. By working together with federal public servants and by establishing a harmonious working relationship with our employees we can produce the solid results the previous government found so elusive. We can reduce waste. We can eliminate obsolete functions. We can improve services to taxpayers and create a more productive government.

We have one of the most respected public services in the world. Federal public service employees are ready to rise to the challenge of the coming years.

Under the previous government, Canadians became increasingly alienated from their government. The sense of cynicism and distrust was reaching crisis proportions that were beginning to threaten the health of our democracy and our future prosperity. How can we manage our country's affairs or bring people together to face tough issues when Canadians have so little confidence in the country's decision makers and the decision making process?

The problems we face today, the heavy debt load left behind by the previous government, the dropout rate in our schools, the need to get Canadians back to work, the need to improve our competitiveness in the global economy, all are crying for

innovative approaches and fresh solutions. We have to change the way we have done business in the past.

Let me set out some of the recent innovations the federal public service has developed to provide affordable, accessible and responsive services and programs to Canadian citizens. It truly is an impressive list and members will be as impressed as I am with the quality of the public service we have working for us.

First we are harnessing the computing and networking power of new technologies to improve services to Canadians. There are enormous opportunities for the government to improve its services and program delivery through innovative use of information technologies and we are tapping them.

By its very nature, the government is focused on services and uses large quantities of data whether for the payment of family allowances, pensions and UI benefits or for the delivery of health and safety services. Income tax, scientific research and statistic programs, for example, need very complex information systems. At the same time, substantial improvements in government efficiency, in the quality of services and in the reduction of related administration cost can be achieved by using the new technologies to manage information and design systems.

Recent technological developments in information management systems have considerably reduced the cost of applications while increasing their effectiveness and efficiency. With the new technologies it is now possible to collect, store, manage and distribute data with a high degree of efficiency. The ability to obtain accurate data in a very short period of time provides us with tools to improve service and decision-making.

We are managing this unprecedented rate of change in a way that taps the creative and organizational skills of federal public service employees. They play a vital role in shaping the human face of government and in making government a force for good in the economy of the country. Public service employees are rising to the challenge.

To give an example of the kinds of changes taking place in the public service, one just has to look at the typical work station of a government employee. Today microcomputers are used by one out of every three government employees and networks linking them are expanding rapidly. Program operations and service delivery are becoming increasingly dependent on information technology.

The challenge now is to bring our present systems up to date and adapt them to the new applications which are emerging. We have developed a plan for doing so. It is a comprehensive, integrated approach to modernizing government services and program delivery mechanisms through the use of enabling technology.

In the next few weeks the Treasury Board secretariat will be sending out for consultation a draft blueprint for government service renewal. We are asking government employees and private sector suppliers to government to comment on the plan. That is a very important step in our transition from paper driven bureaucratic processes to modern, efficient, electronically linked business transactions. It is people who can turn ambitious plans into reality.

We are building partnerships with our employees. We are building partnerships between government departments, between the federal government and its clients and between the federal government and the Canadian public.

Employees want to know how they can fit into a new and more efficient way of delivering services. They want to know how they can contribute to this important goal. The plan sets out a vision for a new way of doing business and lets employees contribute where their skills are most needed.

A key principle in the plan is the recognition that the role of government must be dramatically reassessed to live within shrinking budgets.

Another is that we can improve the way services are delivered. To do this we are creating a learning culture in the public service that supports employees in their transition to new ways of doing business. We are committed to enhancing the knowledge, skills and active participation of employees. We believe in partnerships. The advent of computer based networking means that we are becoming increasingly interdependent and so it is only logical that partnerships between the various players must be the starting point of any initiative. The blueprint for government service renewal reflects this.

Program renewal projects are already under way in agencies such as Revenue Canada, Health Canada, and Human Resources Development Canada. These will serve as models. Revenue Canada , for instance, is introducing a single business registration number for corporations paying taxes, duties and GST. This number will make it possible to have a single window access to Revenue Canada and to file and submit a consolidated net payment. In a number of areas in a number of departments single window access has the potential to be a major improvement for people dealing with the federal government.

A government-wide telecommunications network infrastructure will mean that federal public service employees will be able

to contact colleagues anywhere in Canada by electronic mail. The infrastructure will set the stage for delivering public services electronically and it will trigger significant efficiency gains and reduce duplication of networking facilities.

The real payoff from these innovations comes through the synthesis of organizational innovation with technological innovation. Viewing information as a strategic resource that infuses every dimension of government operations and employing information technology in government to achieve the public sector equivalent of competitive advantage provides a framework for this synthesis.

Everyone in the House today will agree when I say that the remaining years of this century will be a period of significant challenge for Canada. A growing and increasingly diverse population, continuing global economic transition and rapidly changing public priorities will require that the government adapt existing programs and create new ones that are more productive, require fewer public resources and increase the timeliness and convenience of public services. Thoughtful strategic uses of information technology will mean the difference between well managed effective programs and programs that are a public encumbrance.

Let me give the House a look at what it will be like to do business with the government in a few years. What will work be like from the perspective of a federal government employee?

First, the information people need to do their jobs will be available at their fingertips. The public will have direct access to government information from its homes. Electronic libraries will be available from libraries and stores. The government will publish a catalogue of software that will be available free or for licensing to the private sector and the public. Service providers will be able to make rapid, on the spot decisions supported by information systems which provide immediate access to all required information and expertise.

Far fetched? Not at all.

Canadians will be able to access personalized services, 7 days a week and 24 hours a day, through terminals-similar to automatic teller machines-installed in convenient locations or through personal computers. Regular communication between government and the private sector as well as within government itself will soon be electronic. This will be reality very shortly. Consider, for example, how quickly Canadians got used to automatic tellers once they realized how convenient they were.

The computer will become just another household appliance, as commonplace as a refrigerator or a stove. It will be able to recognize voice messages, handwriting, be able to communicate with pictures. We will take it for granted. Employees will use computers even more widely in their work. They will routinely create spread sheets, retrieve information from data bases and produce charts and diagrams. Computer assisted translation will support and enhance employees' language abilities, thus improving service to the Canadian public. This is not science fiction.

The government's strategy for moving forward aims to take advantage of five key trends. Employee's attitudes to technology are rapidly changing. Their knowledge, proficiency and confidence are improving at a rapid rate. Employees no longer resist technology. They want more of it and want to be better trained to apply it. The public is getting used to electronic service and is asking to be served in this way. New entrants to the workforce who have grown up with technology expect to use it in their jobs.

It will be much easier to obtain information. Knowledge will be available via expert systems to answer queries as a specialist might. New applications will be less costly and more timely due to the use of packaged systems or modern system development products and it is getting easier all the time. The ability to manage text, graphics, data, sound, video and pictures in the same data base will change the way information is used. The ability to access multiple data bases easily will contribute to this change as well.

Why is it so important to move in this direction? It means improved delivery of service to the public, significantly improved productivity in the public service and increased international competitiveness in a global economy. Partnership with other levels of government, with business, with labour is how it will be achieved. The government's vision for information management is the orderly transition to a seamless technological environment in the home or in the workplace at the service of Canadians.

I add as well that the Auditor General in his report placed great emphasis on the importance of information for parliamentarians. In our decision making we rely increasingly on rapidly available and accurate, well analysed information. The technological revolution that we see in the way government services will be delivered will also be a technological revolution in the kind of information that will be available to us as parliamentarians to make decisions as we move into a new world.

In closing I would like to quote Peter Drucker: "Every few hundred years throughout western history a sharp transformation has occurred. In a matter of decades society altogether rearranges itself: its world view, its basic values, its social and political structures, its arts, its key institutions. Fifty years later a new world exists. And the people born into that world cannot

even imagine the world in which their grandparents lived and into which their own parents were born".

We are going to be ready for that new world because in the words of all my colleagues in our cabinet, we are getting government right.

[House Of Commons Standing Orders, February 7th, 1994]

This dilemma is not easy and I think the hon. member knows that the permanent public service as he calls it can be very resistant to change if it does not agree with it at first. Let me tell the hon. member what I have seen over the five years I have been here and how I think it has to change.

I have seen officials come before committees as they are required to do to defend the position the government has put forward. Unfortunately that position has often been developed in the secrecy of cabinet without the open consultation and discussion we are talking about here.

When we say we are going to send the concept of a bill to a committee for discussion so that the committee can consult with and hear the views of people who will be affected by the issue, that leaves our officials freer to bring forward options for a committee to consider. That is going to be a change for them. It is going to take some time for them to understand they are not defending a particular position and that they are free to advise the committee on options and on the implications of those options.

It also means that members of Parliament must have a new relationship of respect and trust with the public service. It is not the defender of the government now. It is working with members of Parliament and the committee to help make a good bill.

[House Of Commons Standing Orders, February 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important debate we are having and it is going to be extremely difficult and frustrating for me to be limited to 10 minutes.

For the last 20 years of my life I have been practising participatory democracy first as a municipal politician and more recently in Parliament. I have dedicated most of my political career to opening up the processes of government, to making it more truly representative of the views of the people I represent and more broadly of the views of Canadians and their communities. I would love to debate at length why I disagree fundamentally with the member for Calgary Southwest, the leader of the Reform Party.

Let me come to the subject of this particular bill before us because as I see the context of this bill, for nine years we have had a government that fundamentally did not believe in the role of government in society and therefore had a great deal of difficulty governing well and had a great deal of difficulty governing with respect for the people of Canada and their opinions.

I heard many times in the House: "We have to make tough decisions and if they do not like us they can throw us out at the next election". I do not believe that democracy begins and ends at the ballot box. It is something that goes on every day. It is the relationship between an individual member of Parliament and their constituents, it is a relationship between the institution of Parliament and all Canadians.

This motion in my view is a significant step forward in that relationship not because how we conduct our affairs in this Chamber or in our committees is of great overwhelming importance to Canadians, they really are not interested in our standing orders, but they are interested in what our decision making process is and how their views count in that process.

Substantial portions of that bill will allow them to see openly and transparently how this House and how this government reach the decisions that will affect how much they contribute to their society, how it is used and how that will affect much of the pattern of their lives as Canadians. What it will allow us to do individually is to have a more of an input in that process and also to get more out of it.

I do not come here only to represent my constituents. I do not come here thinking that the views of Ottawa West should determine what should happen to the country. I come here to be part of building a nation on their behalf, certainly to represent their interests. The development of this wonderful nation called Canada is in their interest as well. I listen to the people from all parts of this country, from different kinds of communities. Together, certainly in my caucus, we try to come up with what we think is best for the country and best for its people.

I hope that with these more open processes of members of Parliament being able to work together in committees to develop legislation, to consult openly with Canadians, Canadians will feel and will truly have a more active voice in that decision making if they choose to exercise that. They will also have members of Parliament able to engage more actively and dynamically in the exchange of views that allows to build consensus, not only about the specific problems and actions that we are confronted with but about a longer term vision for the country.

We will always have differences of opinions on what those directions are. At least I hope with the measures we are taking today when we complete our work here in Parliament, a new program, that it will better serve the interests of our individual constituents and the country because we have looked at all aspects of it, we have considered all points of view and we have done that wonderful thing of not letting one point of view prevail over all others, but of finding that accommodation of many different points of view.

I want to touch on one thing. As some of the members in this House know, my role in the last Parliament was as critic on public service issues. I want to say one thing that I think is going to become increasingly important. That is going to be developing not only a House and committees but a government in the broadest sense of including the public service that is also more consultative, more open and more capable of balancing those many different interests in society, making good decisions and recommending to us as government and as parliamentarians good decisions.

I know, having seen the transformation over a period of years in municipal government to a more participative democracy, to quote a famous Canadian, that it takes time for the public service to see the wisdom of the people as a useful input to decision making. I know it is going to be difficult for them. I know it is going to be a challenge.

I encourage them to go along with Parliament on this trip to a more democratic society and to see it as a positive step forward for how the public service functions as well.

I have only a few minutes left but I do want to touch on a few things. I want to touch on the issue of free votes. This is the beginning of a debate that will come back to us.

It is very easy for me to know what the constituents who phone or write to me on a subject or respond to a questionnaire think. Do I really know what my constituents think when I know the poorest members of society have less access to being able to respond and participate in a public debate?

Do I have a responsibility to know that even though some people in my constituency are relatively voiceless without the money to organize, their views are, nonetheless, important and how they are affected is important? Yes, I do.

Do I have the audacity to say that on any given vote in this House I know what my constituents think? I do not think so. I know what a small sample of my constituents think.

I also have to know in much broader terms who my constituents are. I need to be in touch with them in a variety of ways and to absorb into myself what the many different concerns and preoccupations they have are so that I can bring all of those to bear as well as what I hear from fellow parliamentarians when I make a decision.

Do I believe in recall? Let me say that I have been married for 31 years. I am sure there have been hundreds if not thousands of days in those 31 years when my husband thought his life would be better off without this woman in it. On those days, he would have chosen to divorce me.

However, on balance of those more than 10,000 days, both of us would say that there has been more good than bad and a lot of in between. We are glad that we did not have the easy escape hatch, that we are prepared to live with the balance of the good and bad. There is a lot of that in democracy.

On any given day I may displease my constituents. My government my displease my constituents. On balance, I hope they will weigh both the positive and the less positive and not look at only their momentary self-interest when they decide whether I and my government have done a good job or not.

[Social Security System, February 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am aware that some people, in some areas, are facing much more serious problems than my constituents.

Indeed, solutions are urgently needed, but when you make profound changes, you must make sure that they are done well, that they will not only remedy the problem for a week or a month but provide a long-term solution.

I am sure that the people concerned have good ideas to suggest and that we will make a better decision if we listen to them.

[Social Security System, February 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I do not need to go to the United States to find examples of good employment programs and good training programs with equal success rates. I find them in my own community and I find them having been started by people in the community who understand our needs, who understand the resources of their community that they can bring to bear.

There is room for a mix of public and private sector involvement as we address these issues as there is in programs in Canada and in my own community. However, I think we need to be cautious of one thing. It is very easy to have a higher success rate in one program if one is very selective about who one chooses and if one chooses only those people who are going to succeed. There are some people who are a much greater challenge whom the private sector, being interested in making the greatest possible profit in the least possible time, might not choose to work with.

For instance, I mentioned young people with a history that has lead them to have fewer opportunities. I mentioned women, many of whom were married at a very young age, who became mothers at a very young age, became single parents at a very young age when their partner left them. Those women not only need specific training, development of skills they have, development of new skills, but they need to develop a whole new level of confidence in themselves and belief that they can make a difference in their own lives.

That does not lead to a lot of profits but it leads to a lot of opportunities.

[Social Security System, February 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have an opportunity to speak on the subject of reform of our social programs.

I have had the great privilege over many years in my community as a volunteer, as an elected representative municipally and as an elected representative federally to work with people in my community to try to resolve some of these problems and to agonize with them about the frustration of programs, rules and regulations that do not allow people to take the steps they want to take to become self-sufficient and to create a better life for themselves and their children.

As I begin speaking today, I want to pay special tribute to many of the women I have worked with over the years. I have found tremendous strength among women living in poverty trying to raise their children and trying to plan to get out of that poverty trap to create new opportunities for themselves and their children only to butt themselves up against a system that makes it hard for them to do that.

The fundamental principle of liberalism is the dignity and worth of every individual. Canadians heard the Prime Minister and Liberal candidates across the country speak on that theme time and time again. It is central to the red book and to the economic and social programs that we put forward in the red book and that we are all now intending to implement through this Parliament.

However, believing in the dignity and worth of every individual also means making sure that as a society we create the opportunities for every individual to achieve their full potential and to use that to their personal benefit, to the benefit of their family, friends, community and country. Far too much inhibits that now.

I had the privilege of attending the pre-budget consultation in Toronto last week and hearing a speech by a former deputy minister of this government, Arthur Kroeger, in which he talked about the rising benchmark of unemployment that has been set in each decade of the last half of this century, rising from approximately 4 per cent in the fifties to over 6 per cent in the sixties to plus 9 per cent in the seventies and to 10 per cent to 11 per cent in the eighties. It obviously seems stuck at that point for the moment.

What has also happened is that the middle class has disappeared into a economic polarization of our society. Some people have moved up into higher paying, more secure, more skilled jobs, and more have moved down into less skilled, lower paying jobs and that bottom level seems to be declining.

I have also had the privilege recently of reading a publication called "The Canadian Women's Budget" which talks about how the policies of the previous government over the last five years have further exacerbated that polarization of Canadians. A family of two parents earning $20,000 a year, a pretty low income we would all agree with two children, is now paying more than three times the taxes it did. A middle income family is paying 15 per cent more and the wealthiest Canadians are paying less than 4 per cent more.

As I look at the need to be frugal, to make the best use of the fiscal resources we have, to move toward a balanced budget, I also want to move toward balance in the budget and who is benefiting from the kinds of programs we have and who is being left on the sidelines in an increasingly harsh world.

The poverty of children in our society is one of those things that perpetuates a poorer and poorer society and fewer and fewer opportunities for people to develop their talents, their abilities and their skills and make the contribution they want to make and are capable of making.

We know that children growing up in poverty are more likely to drop out of school, more likely to be illiterate, more likely to get sick, more likely to commit suicide. Poverty is a fundamental issue that we as a society are not addressing.

I mentioned that I have dealt with poor women, single parents, trying to raise their children, trying to create a better opportunity for themselves. There is no scheme for them to gradually move from dependency to independence. They are punished if they try to. They lose benefits that are essential to the security of their children.

I am a woman who has raised three children. Most of the women I have worked with will sacrifice their own dignity for the sake of the security of their children. We have to make sure that we are not forcing them to make that choice.

We know that more women than men are poor. We have to ask ourselves how we have allocated our resources in the past as a society so that has happened, so that there is a segment of our society consistently poorer and significantly poorer than society at large. It has not happened by accident, it has happened by specific policy decisions. What is there in our social programs and in other programs of government that has allowed that to happen, and in fact that has led to it happen?

I want to talk about the need to look at special needs in our society. In the last government a project sat on the desk of the minister of employment that for $26,000 a person would have taken people with disabilities and trained them to work in the high tech industry in which there is a desperate need for people with the skills that this particular group of unemployed would have been given. The government sat there and did not move on that project.

I have been involved with training programs. I see how desperately they are needed and wanted in communities. I talk about a restaurant that a community group actually started as a business so it could use that business and re-invest the income from that business in training. I can count in the hundreds for a very small investment of federal dollars the young men and women who have come through that program, who have established careers for themselves, who have turned their lives around completely.

I want to talk about something we learned through those kinds of programs. I hope this review goes to some of the fundamental

causes of why young people end up uneducated or undereducated, unemployed or underemployed and unable to integrate themselves into society at large and into the work force.

What we found in common with other similar projects across Ontario was that when we dealt with young people who met these criteria of less than grade 10 education, out of work at least six months, very little job experience to speak of, we were dealing with a large component, over 80 per cent of children who came from a history of sexual abuse.

Until we start addressing those fundamental issues of why our children leave school, why they never quite make it in society, we are not going to solve those problems.

I welcome this comprehensive review. I want to see us be more frugal with our money. I do not want to leave my three children a horrendous debt. Nor do I want to leave them a meaner, nastier society than I have enjoyed.

I welcome this reform. I hope it will do some positive things for a lot of Canadians.