Sheila Finestone

[Unemployment Insurance Reform, December 6th, 1995]

No, Mr. Speaker, I do not acknowledge these facts, which are neither current nor true. Our minister has responded to this line of inquiry several times by showing how women in part time and seasonal jobs will fare better in relation to the number of hours worked both for the well-being of their society and for their own families.

I think my colleague would be well-advised to look at the data more closely; she would be very happy with the results.

[Unemployment Insurance Reform, December 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, yes, we have certainly conducted an in depth analysis of all the data affecting the lives of women and men to determine the impact of all the actions taken by the Minister of Human Resources Development in this regard.

I must also tell you, Mr. Speaker, that we considered the fact that, in the end, taking every hour worked into account is a winning proposition for women. I am proud of what we have done.

Furthermore, our government's decisions affecting poor families and children are an important part of our initiatives. We should all be proud and give the right information on what our party has done in this regard.

[Supply, December 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, through you, I would like to ask my hon. colleague the following question: does he not want to spread the news that the Government of Canada is pumping $4.2 billion into the system instead of $4 billion, including more than $500,000 in measures for the unemployed?

Also, of the $800 million $240 million would go to Quebec, for a total of $747 million in extra money, and he wants to take what away. Does he really want to deprive his constituents of that? My constituents want jobs, they want retraining, they want training, they want decent working conditions, they want wage subsidies and remuneration supplements.

Regarding women, does my hon. colleague want benefits for women or does he want to take away benefits that help ensure the financial independence of women? We are talking about individual insurable earnings and basic employment insurance benefits calculated on these earnings that go to the women and not to government, for governance, but to each working woman.

In addition, women who are currently holding more than one job or working part time at different places will immediately qualify, but the hon. member does not approve of this change. He does not want them to be recognized as part of this change or those in need of assistance, like low income families with children, many of which are headed by women, to be afforded protection by the reform. There will be family income supplements, but he does not want to recognize the fact that this may mean an increase of up to about 80 per cent in the basic amount for low income families. He does not want to recognize that fact.

Neither do Bloc members, in spite of the fact that they are taking steps for reasons of efficiency relating to their culture, want UI recipients to be able to supplement their income by earning $50 a week without seeing their benefits adversely affected. They do not want to recognize that maternity leave and parental leave allowances as well as sick benefits and temporary disability benefits are maintained and provide basic support to Canadian workers and

their families. They refuse to recognize the fact that the reform is actually helping women overcome barriers to employment as a result of reinvesting in targeted employment measures, daycare and income support.

I for one would like to know why the Bloc members, who were elected to this place to represent their constituents at the federal level, cannot and will not recognize that the proposals will have the effect of better protecting families, and women in particular, and why they are so intent on not giving the plain and simple facts to their constituents. Why do they not at least have the openness to say that, from now on, anyone who has received UI benefits or a maternity leave allowance in the last three years will have access to job search services? Why do they refuse to spread this good news? Could the hon. member give me an answer on that?

[Supply, December 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the comments made not only by the hon. member but also by the critic who preceded him.

What struck me is the lack of sensitivity to individual Quebecers, whether they live in Montreal, in my riding of Mount Royal, in Trois-Rivières, Quebec City, Chicoutimi, Lac-Saint-Jean, or anywhere else in Quebec, because people who used to pay UI premiums now have a need and a right to receive some money to help them when they are jobless.

What stands out from all their arguments and remarks is that they want the power to make decisions with Canada's money. As usual, they forget to tell the truth. In fact, for every dollar invested in Quebec by an individual in the labour force, this individual receives $1.33 when unemployed. They want to deprive every unemployed person of this 33 cents, which over time adds up to millions and millions of dollars. What a great policy.

They then completely overlook the fact that this change addresses realities in Quebec. Like other Canadians, Quebecers must adapt their skills, attitudes and abilities to the new society. They have completely forgotten this, and they want to set aside a rather significant amount of money. We have injected over $4.2 billion into this program, but they have forgotten this and are unwilling to tell their constituents. I find this very interesting. You do not want to tell-

[Supply, December 5th, 1995]

First of all she leaves.

[Income Tax Act, December 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, first let me applaud the time, effort and extensive research that has been focused on women, on their families and particularly on the children of our country by the very important work that has been done by our colleague, the member for Nepean, in keeping the government focused on the true needs of Canada's children.

I have listened with a great deal of interest to the two speeches by the opposition parties. It gives me a great sense of hope that we will make the kind of enlightened decision that we have been working very hard for over the last number of months. We hope that when the changes are brought forward we will receive the kind of support for the interest and time that we have spent to find the right solutions.

With respect to my friend from Nepean, I think the children of this land can thank her and I personally wish to thank her for bringing this really important and timely issue to our attention today.

I share the concerns of the member for Nepean that Canada's child support system must be improved. In the spring of 1994, following the decision in the Thibaudeau case, which I think came down in May, our task force was organized, on the road and listening to groups by the end of June or the beginning of July. The government named this small task force to hear the views around this very complex and emotional question.

My colleagues, the member for Winnipeg Centre and the member for Saskatoon-Humboldt, and I can tell the House that we spent hundreds and hundreds of hours in a very emotional setting hearing the views of parents, both men and women, grandparents, divorced fathers, divorced mothers, leaders of the legal profession, the accounting profession and those who were impacted, such as those in the social services and health network.

The stories of these single parents, the child support payers and those parents in the intact families were so heart rending that one was moved to wonder how the family had been able to cope with the well-being of the child in many cases.

We saw over 550 people. We received over 500 briefs. The information and views that were expressed shaped the report which I brought to cabinet from this task force on child support. I know, my cabinet colleagues know, and in particular the ministers concerned know that we need to present reforms.

However, this is not an easy country to govern. It is vital that we have co-operation and collaboration. We have been working on that. I can guarantee that we will have that commitment to change for the support system. We have been working very hard, constructively and co-operatively over these many months. We have practically completed crafting the right and fair balance in the final analysis for the well-being of the children of this country.

While the government has been very pleased to receive my colleagues' suggestions for improvements to the taxation of child support payments, we must also remember that a system of child support involves a number of elements. We must recognize the necessity of reforming the system as a whole, not just piecemeal. That means considering much needed changes to the amount

awarded for child support and the method used to enforce those support orders. Some of these issues fall, as members well know, under provincial jurisdiction.

In addition to fair taxation for child support payments, the parents need a more equitable and simplified system for determining those child support awards. Under such a system, awards could generally be higher through more realistic guidelines to the courts based on the real cost of child rearing and the shared ability of both parents to pay. The variation in award levels in similar family circumstances could therefore be greatly reduced. Frankly, many of the inequities could also be eliminated.

Compliance with court ordered support payments also needs to be improved. It is a sad fact that approximately 60 per cent of support orders are not obeyed. I find that totally abhorrent in the interests of the children and also because it is an abuse of our legal system. That means many single mothers in Canada receive no support payments at all for their children. The cost to society is unfair as many of the families have to resort to welfare. That is unfair for the rest of country.

Our government is committed to bringing forward a comprehensive policy solution which will address each aspect of the child support equation: awards, enforcement, and the taxation of child support payments. We recognize that the taxation of child support payments is perceived as unfair. The rules give a tax deduction to the payer, usually the father, while the custodial parent, usually the mother, pays taxes on the payments and he or she, as the case may be, also bears the partial cost of those supports.

This whole issue is seen as accentuating the problem of poverty particularly among single mothers and is seen as unfair to intact families. We also recognize that some changes are necessary in the complete package.

This government is close to completing its work on child support reforms. We propose to introduce guidelines to increase the award levels. We will put forward a program to improve the enforcement of support orders. We are also completing our review of the tax treatment of child support payments. Our objective is to reform the system for child support so that it is fair, consistent across the land and reflects the best interests of the children wherever they live.

The second facet of Bill C-241 consists of amending the Income Tax Act so that it includes child support payments within the meaning of "earned income" for the purposes of the child care expense deduction.

Allow me to explain the rationale behind the provisions of the Income Tax Act with respect to the child care side of the issue, particularly with regard to child care expenses. The purpose of the child care expense deduction is to recognize for tax purposes the child care expenses that taxpayers must incur in order to earn income, to attend a recognized educational institution full time, or to take a vocational training course.

This deduction is a way for the tax system to acknowledge that these taxpayers have a lower capacity to pay taxes than other taxpayers who have identical incomes but do not have child care expenses. With the changing definition of family and because there are families of a variety of shapes, notwithstanding that we must have that fairness principle in there and recognize that the family is the basis of society.

In a sense the child care expense deduction is a recognition of the contribution to our own future as a society through our children. Under this deduction the income used to pay for child care expenses is not taxable.

Including child support payments in the definition of earned income for the purpose of a child care expense deduction would be a precedent that would make it difficult to deny the same treatment to persons in receipt of income from other sources.

All of this information regarding the current tax system is to say that we need to examine changes to the taxation of child support in a comprehensive way. We need to look at not only the tax side, but also review the issue of enforcement and award levels. Any changes must be done in concert one with the other.

Our challenge is to produce a package of changes in the tax rules, in the setting of awards and in the enforcement of support orders, as I have said, that is fair to all concerned and reflects what is best for our children. The government is acting to meet this challenge. We expect to announce specific changes very shortly. While I admire the intent of the member for Nepean and I agree with her wholeheartedly on the need for these changes, I simply remind this House that we need complete change and that we must get it right.

Most important, when we are pursuing options to change the tax treatment of child support, we must consider only those options that go to the root of the problem. Unfortunately, the member's bill also includes additional changes to the taxation of child support which regretfully make it impossible for the government to support her bill without reservations at this time.

[Constitutional Amendments Act, December 1st, 1995]

Listen, do you guys want to have a fight?

We will demonstrate that we are determined to keep faith with both the heritage and the potential of our wonderful country.

We recognize that Quebec is a province with a legal system that is not based on common law, but on the civil code. It is the home of a diverse population of anglophones, allophones, and a majority who are French speaking Canadians who are also diverse. We will not just talk about good intentions. We are building trust by acting on those good intentions. This measure before Parliament is based on the reality of Canada.

Unfortunately, as all Canadians know, anything proposed by the Government of Canada will never go far enough to satisfy the Parti Quebecois or for that matter the Bloc Quebecois. Equally unfortunate, anything proposed by the Government of Canada will never go far enough to satisfy the Reform Party. Those people will never be satisfied.

Thank goodness this debate is not about keeping those people happy. This debate is about keeping Canada together. This debate is about satisfying the people inside and outside of Quebec who understand that the me generation has passed and the we generation has arrived. It is no longer about cutting the best deal for yourself. It is about reaching the best solution for the future of our country. It is about building the new Canada. It is about standing proud and tall for the maple leaf. Canadians from coast to coast to coast must rise above their differences and realize that there is so much more that unites than that which divides us.

We have experienced many problems throughout our history but have always found a way to resolve them, for we understand that compassion is far more humane than conflict.

We understand that tolerance is far superior to intransigence. We understand that allowing our fellow citizens to reach their full potential does nothing to diminish us. Canadians know that we cannot build a big country on small minds.

Canadians know that we cannot build a big country on little minds.

Canadians are not expecting miracles, nor are they looking for heaven here on earth. But they are entitled to expect that the Parliament of Canada will do its utmost, will take the right actions, will adopt the appropriate principles, in order to recognize the modern reality of Canada and to show its true commitment to strengthening the ties among the members of Canada's diversified population.

I hope that Quebecers and non-Quebecers alike will urge members of Parliament from all parties to keep the big picture in mind. I hope they will urge members of Parliament to take meaningful and realistic steps toward progress.

Canadians are people of moderation and modesty. From time to time we are also a people of passion. We try always to be people of principle, of fairness and of optimism. Throughout their history Canadians have overcome their differences and succeeded beyond the wildest dreams of the founders of this nation. We did it in the end after much reflection by appealing to the better side of our nature as human beings and by acting on the better side of our nature as citizens.

Recognizing Quebec as a distinct society, providing a new constitutional veto and bringing government closer to the people are the vital and important issues. Those are the proposals which the government is moving to turn into reality. What is at stake is keeping our word, keeping faith with the dreams of Canadians, re-energizing our national unity and revitalizing the very best country in the world.

When political discourse becomes invective, when rhetoric over reality becomes overheated, it begets intolerance, instability and fear. When political leaders target identifiable groups-and we have had more than enough of that-when they blame specific communities, they are offensive and they fuel exclusion, anger and resentment. They are a blot on the good name, the goodwill and the respect we have built for our society both here in Canada and

around the world. When bigots like Pierre Bourgault and his ilk spew their invective, they show that they have no place in our caring society.

I know that the vast majority of Quebecers reject those exclusionary, racist remarks and recognize that we as Quebecers-and that includes some of you on the other side-are all welcome, we are all included and we are all equal, with equal rights, and that our vote will be respected. We too have contributed beyond measure to the growth, development and well-being of all Quebecers.

I want this understanding of the fair sharing in Quebec to be appreciated. I am a Quebecer. I am proud of my difference. I am not better, I am not worse, I am just different. That is what makes me distinct and that is what makes all of us distinct in Quebec. The environment has formed us in many ways.

I call on all Canadians to join with us in recognizing that despite our diverse geography from the Atlantic to the Rocky Mountains, our many cultures and the aboriginal peoples of our two official languages, we are one country. It is by extending our hands of welcome to one another, by rejoicing and appreciating our differences and our diversity that we grow and prosper. It is through our civility and the unity of all Canadians that we ensure a bright future for our children, for our community and for our country.

[Constitutional Amendments Act, December 1st, 1995]

This resolution is about Parliament showing leadership by saying we will take another step in finding understanding. We will take another step in recognizing the reality of Canada. We will demonstrate that we are determined to keep faith-

[Constitutional Amendments Act, December 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on the Prime Minister's unity initiative. In particular, I am going to address the distinct character of Quebec, the fact that it is different which is an obvious and inevitable reality. There are four simple and straightforward truths members of Parliament must keep in mind during this debate.

The first truth is very clear and it must remain at the heart of our debate: Canada is the best country in the world in which to live. Today we are discussing our future. We are discussing evolution. Anyone can discuss whatever they want in this land because we live in the most free and democratic country in which all of us are equal citizens with equal rights.

The second truth is that the Prime Minister, the government and Parliament have a duty to preserve the unity of Canada as a nation indivisible.

The third truth must be obvious to every member of Parliament. Canadians have called for change and they have called for change based upon goodwill, change based upon reaching out, change based upon open arms, open minds and open hearts. As a member of Parliament from Montreal, I saw this reality with my own eyes, particularly during the unity rally in our city.

The fourth truth is that the Prime Minister of Canada keeps his word. The Prime Minister said he would introduce measures to declare Quebec a distinct society and to offer a constitutional veto and Canadians know that they can count on him to do exactly what he promised to do. He is a man of his word and he has done it. Now we must move forward to close the gap, to bridge the gulf that seemingly divides.

This resolution is not about every person or every province or every political party demanding to get its own way. This legislation is about Canada and Canadians finding a better way.

[Status Of Women, November 30th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, while it is true that the royal commission looked at the economic status of women and related that as well to ensuring that violence against women would be reduced, we also brought in the whole question of employment equity and the right of women with equal competence and merit to have access to fair jobs and to break the glass ceiling, as it is called.

At the same time, we have recognized that the unpaid work of women and men is of great value to our society. It was an issue we brought to the meetings in Beijing. The issue of unpaid work and its value is now part of the platform for action out of Beijing. Canada is the first country in the world that will measure both the work and the value of unpaid work to our society as we push and promote women's economic access to independence in our country.