Sheila Finestone

[Journée Internationale De La Francophonie, March 20th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, today marks the beginning of la Semaine nationale de la Francophonie, and this year's theme is ethno-cultural diversity. One of the awards this morning was made in recognition of a multicultural and anti-racist educational project called Leadership Camp.

Tomorrow, March 21, we celebrate the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.

These two events will be an opportunity to celebrate the rich diversity of this country.

The Prime Minister of Canada has often said that the unity of our country is based on diversity, and that diversity is also our strength. It is, in fact, the fundamental characteristic of our nation. A country based on diversity cannot afford to let racism, hatred and intolerance to take root in its soil.

To do otherwise would be to jeopardize a social peace for which Canada is envied around the world. Social peace does not come from wishing it. It comes from hard work and from vigilance. The duty to be vigilant carries with it the responsibility to address racism by public response or by force of law.

The greatest asset of any country is its people. The challenge is not to assimilate this diversity into a simple mould, but to weave its many varied strands into a distinctive national culture. Canadian culture is much more than the sum of its many parts.

From a global perspective Canada is seen as a role model, a country united through common values based on fairness, equity, democracy and respect for human rights.

While racial, religious and ethnocultural discrimination have helped to make the 20th century a byword for inhumanity and violence, Canada is exceptionally fortunate in the extent to which it has been spared the worst of these excesses.

We must do more than trust our luck. We must work very hard to make sure our country is not open to racist sentiments, whatever their form and whatever their source.

It is in this context that I hope all members will see the March 21 campaign on their screens and in their movie theatres. It will be a campaign asking Canadians to stop and think about the harm that racism does to others and to society. Understanding is the key to eliminating racism.

What better way to encourage Canadians to think about the effects of racism than to put themselves in the other person's shoes. Mettez-vous dans la peau des autres. Only then can we learn what it means to live in a society of mutual interdependence. Sometimes we need to be reminded of what we so often take for granted.

Such a reminder came very recently from President Bill Clinton of the United States who in addressing the House lauded our nation: "as a model of how people of different cultures can live and work together in peace, prosperity and understanding".

The message of the March 21 campaign embodies the sentiment expressed by the Prime Minister of Canada, reinforced by the President of the United States.

I urge all members to join with me in carrying this message to the people of Canada.

[Supply, March 16th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I would like to add a few comments and make some observations. First, it is not the credibility of the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women which is being questioned here, but the operating costs, the duplication costs. We are talking about a third of the budget being used for three full time employees, the president and two vice-presidents, and some thirty former part-time employees appointed by order in council. I must say that one third is too much. For the rest of the money that we will keep, that the Canadian Council will keep, we will make a review and consult women to determine how to put that money to good use. I believe this is a better way to ensure that many of the questions you raised on certain points, some important questions, will get at least a technical answer. That is another story.

To conclude on your colleague's speech on health issues, my other mandate, that of multiculturalism, has showed me that we should deal with that shameful and hateful issue of genital organs mutilation through education and not only through a judicial and criminal approach. It is through education that we can reach multicultural groups and various ethnic communities and start an information process. We are making a film on that subject for doctors, nurses, families and centres, and I hope this will also help.

Finally, I would like to bring to your attention the fact that it is not the Advisory Council which studied the issues and data on violence which you mentioned several times in your comments. That research was done by a group on violence appointed and paid by the government. It is also Statistics Canada which conducted a comprehensive research effort, known world-wide, and studied the treatment of women in the context of criminal law. These are the people who brought that to our attention.

And it is I, as the minister for the Status of Women, who brought these data here, with my team. Do not create confusion for society at large. What was the role of the Advisory Council on the status of women? What is the role of the status of women, which I am in charge of? What are the roles of various groups in society at large?

I think that some answers to these questions could clarify things a little bit, so that we will know that equality of women will finally be coming. We know that a strong economy and the participation of women are the key to their independence. That independence is very important. Do you not think that, in the future, if we cannot be treated as equals, if we do not have the right to equal salaries, if we do not have the chance to be equal in society, we could be the victims of violence?

[Supply, March 16th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank the hon. member for being very realistic about the role of women in the political life of a society. They say that when men go into education it is for themselves, whereas women do it for their family, in other words, society.

I am convinced that women, when they see what is happening in Quebec, will certainly get involved in order to maintain their quality of life at an appropriate level and ensure better opportunities for the future in case Quebec separates and becomes independent.

We have travelled the same path. Women respect each other. Redefining borders will not help in any way. It will create a situation where poverty will be worse for women and their families.

I would like to ask a question of my colleague. When she says that we must follow up on what is happening in Quebec because it just ruled that the mutilation of female genital organs is a crime, I wonder if she was absent from the House when the Minister of Justice and myself ruled that our federal legislation would also consider such mutilation to be a criminal act? If we are presented with a case involving such an act, it will be tried and judged according to Canadian laws since it is a criminal act.

I am very happy to see that the Court of Quebec, or rather the Human Rights Commission, has ruled on that issue. I am also happy to see they agree with us on a point that has already been ruled on in the Canadian laws.

There is no need for lengthy analysis to find out that such a practice goes against Canadian values, that it is unacceptable to mutilate female genital organs and that people have to abide by our rules and standards, period. Certainly, for all women, whether they live in Quebec or in Ontario, whether they are from Nova Scotia or Newfoundland or Vancouver, British Columbia, this act of mutilation is unacceptable.

I am asking the hon. member a second question concerning the health issue. In order to eliminate poverty, we took some measures in favour of pregnant women. We also undertook some research on breast cancer, on heart diseases in women and on their prevention. Considering her great interest in that matter, I am convinced that, given her great interest for these matters, if she has other ideas to bring out at one time or another, she will assist the health committee of the House of Commons by making her comments, which will be greatly appreciated.

Is she ready to bring us other suggestions on this?

[Supply, March 16th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague. I am aware of her keen interest for women's issues. I know she speaks from the heart and I respect her for that. While I understand her interest for women's issues, I wish she would reply when Reform members make statements in this House, because it is quite frustrating to hear them sometimes.

I must say that, indeed, the advisory council had a role to play, and it played it well. Perhaps it even took a mother-hen approach at times. As I see it, the council was the driving force behind many activities and initiatives. You cannot say that, over the years, the Fédération des femmes du Québec, the National Action Committee on the Status of Women-the similarity of certain names causes some confusion, I know- the National Council of Women and others-there are a dozen organizations out there that I could name, have not been able to make representations and have not done so. And, through independent research, we will make sure that they can decide for themselves what their priorities will be regarding all the women's groups; I will not interfere. I think it will be in their best interest.

[Supply, March 16th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. I have visited Winnipeg and I have met with both English and French women's groups in the area as well as with multicultural groups. I can assure him I am more than ever convinced the research that needs to be done is proactive research as well as reactive research.

In the proactive field of research today, which we did not have in 1972 with the advisory council's arrival on the scene, there are women chairs of study across the land. Within the universities there is capacity to look at many of the problems such as the problems of poverty, the problems of inequality in terms of education and training, the whole area of change in the percentages of men and women in various institutions, and the need for the diversity of Canadians to be better reflected in the House.

A university study was done on the integration of women and visible minorities into the marketplace. When we see the disparity at least once it is put into concrete terms through research at the university level, or at SHRC for that matter, and we are in a position to be able to speak out and effect change on government policy.

I listened to some of the remarks of members of the Reform Party which I do not share. They say that government cannot make life fairer.

If we did not do research through the Canadian Federation for Independent Business, would we know that women who have an excellent record with respect to the creation of jobs in small and medium size businesses are far more effective and far more efficient or that over 40 per cent of the jobs are created by the small businesses in which women are the most successful after five years?

That research was done by the private sector, the CFIB in this instance, not by a university. It indicated that despite their success 20 per cent more women were refused loans at our banks and institutions than men and that when women obtained loans, 95 per cent of them had to pay higher rates with more difficult terms.

That research was extremely pertinent. I am very glad the member asked the question. It is a solid answer to the Reform member on whether or not we need to be doing work on equality for women in the fields of employment and earnings. Yes, we need to reach economic equality. The question was very pertinent. It allows me to thank the member very much.

There is room for research at all levels: through the private sector, through the public sector and through the universities with their great expertise.

[Supply, March 16th, 1995]

Not on their own initiative, I say to my colleague across the floor. From a lot of work by women like me and plenty of others.

The Liberal Party has brought into force a Human Rights Act, a Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and a royal commission on economic equality, all structures of society that express our will to ensure equality for women and that give us the legislative mandate and the tools we need that were not in place when the Royal Commission on the Status of Women first held its hearings.

I appeared before the Royal Commission on the Status Women. I appeared about child care. I appeared about latchkey children. I appeared on the role of the volunteer in society, the needs of the volunteer and the need for recognition for unpaid work. The women here today gained many opportunities right back to the Lavalee case and right through the history of the development of equality and opportunity for women.

The women who think today that there is nothing we need to be concerned about, that violence against women is not a reality, that it is not something society should deal with, and that the Minister of Justice who has been doing a fine job addressing many of the issues should not be doing it, have missed the point that 52 per cent of the population require attention. All those issues in society need to be addressed.

I thought it would be worthwhile to address some of the points raised in my absence this morning. I was attending other duties and could not get back to the House on time. I gathered from what colleagues in the Reform Party said concerning women's equality and the consolidation of the federal government's organizations for women that they accused the government of not taking enough action on equality. They referred to us as a special interest group. They talked about us as a particular bunch in society.

Quite frankly this bunch in society, this gender called women, females, wives, mothers and grandmothers, happen to make up 52 per cent of the population. They are not a special interest group. The gun lobby is a special interest group. The banking institutions are a special interest group. Certainly women are not a special interest group. They are an integral part of society. Their concerns need to be addressed through research, through public meetings, and through advancing their concerns on the floor of the House.

Members of the House should make sure they consult their ridings to find out the concerns of women, their husbands and children. They might be more reflective of real society and stop worrying about the peculiarities of a just society from their perspective which seems to want to throw everybody in jail and throw away the key.

They have called for the government to get out of child care, that women should stay at home and look after children. If all women in the workforce stayed at home over 20 per cent more of the population would be living under the poverty line.

They do not recognize that women go to work not only because they like to and not only because they have confidence and want to but because they need to in order to keep their families above the poverty line. I do not expect the Reform Party to understand that.

They also talked about the question of the lack of need for any special action. There is plenty of need for special action so that the women of the country will be ensured of special action.

I would now like to talk about the project to merge these institutions, a project I have just tabled, and the action the government has undertaken with respect to the three groups serving the interests of women, because I think it a bit unfortunate that this was not well understood. Perhaps the opposition party, the Bloc, did not have an opportunity to carefully read the document I tabled and the time perhaps to read what I said in the House. In this regard, I would like to draw their attention to certain facts.

Through in-depth research undertaken by this government to ensure that it gives careful attention to fiscal matters-and, with all sorts of new things in our society, and with the need to be careful with the deficit as well, we must manage our society very carefully-as part of my mandate with respect to the status of women, I looked at the three major institutions, government institutions. This has nothing to do with the private sector and the organizations in the private sector, which have their own sets of problems. That is another issue. It was not the issue I dealt with; I tried to ensure that they operated better and in a way that would see to their interests from the grass roots right up to Cabinet and from Cabinet back down with the information required.

It was discovered that everything was in triplicate. We had three separate administrations and three levels of duplication, and I took those steps to streamline all these resources, to concentrate our efforts and to reinforce our capacity to achieve equality.

By merging the three groups, we will eliminate confusion and facilitate access to government. This initiative will also provide a more direct link with women organizations at the local, regional and national levels as well as with non-governmental organizations and universities. What is more important is that I get to keep the $700,000 so that-yes, the Bloc member is

surprised, but I want him to have peace of mind, I do not want him to worry-the money previously earmarked for the Advisory Council on the Status of Women will be reallocated to research conducted by Status of Women Canada and by women's groups, universities and other organizations.

We are going to see what happens, and we are going to consult on the reallocation, but the money for independent research will be-and this is a commitment I made yesterday-given to arm's length institutions and the results will be published in the interest of women, for women, and will not be touched by the government.

I needed that. Did you think I was going to take this money away from women's organizations? No, you started this for petty political purposes. I must say that this kind of system will be much more efficient. I also find strange that my opposition colleague would criticize the action of the federal government when the Province of Quebec recently restructured its own department on women's equality and she did not say a word. This demonstrates, on her part, a great interest in the status of women in Canada and I commend her for that.

I should make it clear that by consolidating all women's programs into Status of Women Canada we are working in the best interests of all women.

I know that some women are concerned that merging the advisory council with my department would essentially mean that the government could help itself to its funding. Far from it. I will not be a minister all my life. I have worked long enough not to want to pull the rug out from under women's feet, regardless of the government. I worked for ten years on the other side of this House and know how women can be misled and their interests forgotten. Such policies, they are smoke and mirrors; and they did not serve us well. This is not the type of policies this government wants to implement.

This government relies on the public, on women's organizations, to monitor our work and to tell us what they think of our performance. I must say that since my appointment, I have travelled a lot, I have met lots of women all over Canada, more than a hundred or so organizations. I chaired the working group on child care. I listened. This government listens. In Cabinet, we talk about women's interests and we will continue to do so.

We now have a very diversified, very competent network of people who are able to appear before us, whether it be on issues of violence or others. The Minister of Justice and I organized a round table on that subject. Forty groups participated. Some 70 persons came. The government, not the advisory council, paid for these consultations.

When the Minister of Human Resources Development held his consultations, a task force was set up. This cost money, but I insisted on it. No later that three hours after the presentation of the budget, I received a phone call requesting permission to hold consultations across Canada.

As a result of this change, we will no longer have a large office in Ottawa, Montreal and Vancouver. The appointment of women by order in council has become a thing of the past. These offices will be closed, but in each region of Canada, in each city, there are women working closely with the people, who know who should get funded and who should not. They are able to organize gatherings, as they have been doing for me up to now, allowing me to meet people.

I just met with the Quebec women's federation, RESO, Charlotte Thibeault's coalition. These women mentioned that they research the issues they bring forward, but that otherwise they are not involved in research; they complained a lot about the way research is being carried out. I said that, from now on, research will be done according to the needs identified by women's groups and academics, that the choice of who will do it will be theirs, and that results will be published.

You do not like it? Too bad. I believe it is the way it should be done. We will consult women's groups as to the process. It may not be what you want, but I believe that it is the best way for women. Judging by the work women did in preparation for the Beijing meeting, I know that we are making progress. There are still a lot of problems, but we are making progress. Women on this committee held consultations with 2,500 women across Canada. They drafted answers and helped Status of Women to make improvements to the draft working paper.

I believe that the links, the co-operation and the mutual respect we established in many ways are in the interest of everyone.

In this way we are going to improve research and get more out of our consultations. We will be much more direct. We will use a "one-stop shopping" concept, research will be conducted by outside sources, independently, and all aspects of the library, etc, will also be reviewed, as well as distribution, because we will begin using all kinds of new technology. Women are quite advanced in this area.

I know that some people believe that we have stifled the voice of an important women's association and even silenced it. This is not true. This statement only confuses matters. The organization which was closed down was financed 100 per cent by the federal government.

The federal government will transfer close to $2 million for the status of women. I think this is a very good approach and I am very proud of what we just did because there comes a time when we have to turn over a new leaf. The 1970s were different from 1995. We had to closely examine what we were doing, and in doing so, we found a better way to handle women's issues.

Madam Speaker, thank you and I still acknowledge the importance of the role of women. Our political party will persevere, in our interests and in the interests of women-

[Supply, March 16th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the discussion today. I am delighted that the concerns pertaining to 52 per cent of society are being addressed in a thoughtful manner based on the political observations of people.

Politics makes strange bed fellows, if I could put it that way. Each of us chooses the political party that best suits our interests and concerns. Perhaps the way we view society is reflected by the choice of where we sit in the House. We have been listening to a very interesting approach. Much of it reflects the values I consider important. Some of it is totally outrageous and some of it is strictly political partisanship of the weakest form of politics I could possibly think of.

Notwithstanding, it is vital that we enter into this kind of discussion. I am very pleased to respond to the motion of the opposition member regarding federal action to achieve women's economic equality.

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her motion. She is asking this House to affirm a principle that is also dear to my heart, the economic equality between men and women. It is not easy to achieve, but it merits discussion, particularly after the speech by the hon. member for the Reform Party.

Our government is firmly committed to helping women attain equality. There is no doubt that the equality of women, fairness and justice for all hinge on economic independence.

We also know that economic equality is fundamental to the well-being of women and indicative of the status of women in our society. Being affluent and having a good job make it easier to stand up for your interests. If you are at the bottom of the scale, if you are a divorced women, if your parents have lived a life of confrontation accompanied by physical abuse, your life will not be quite the same. Equality will be lacking. I believe it is up to society, men and women together, to take an interest in these vital issues.

In my view, women must be able to take part in the workplace, to receive equal pay for work of equal value, and to contribute equitably to our collective wealth. I must tell you that, as a mother who had sons, would I not have wanted the same treatment, the same equality of opportunity for my daughters-had I been blessed with some-as for my sons, and as for my daughters-in-law today? If they have the same education, the same ability and the same experience, why do they not deserve the same treatment? I have never understood why we cannot ensure that our sons and our daughters live their lives on an equal footing. This situation can change if women decide to have children, and this must be taken into consideration as well.

I feel that it is very important to find a way of ensuring that the equitable contribution to our collective wealth benefits everyone, all members of our society, women as well as men.

I am pleased to be part of a government that is determined to accelerate the advancement of economic opportunity for women not only in the marketplace but also in their daily lives if they choose to work in their homes. I am honoured to serve under a Prime Minister who is committed to exactly the same goal.

The goal of the Liberal Party has not changed. Times have changed. What we saw as necessary many years ago has changed in the new reality of today's world, whether it is the technology

that has changed, the organization of society that has changed or the role and place of women in society that has changed.

We can look at the House and at the number of women who have been able to win "gagner leurs épaulettes au niveau politique, elles siègent ici".

[The Budget, March 14th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I want to assure my hon. colleague that I have not changed my mind or my view of society. I have met with the Rural Women's Childcare Coalition. I have met with the farm women of Canada. I am very much in support of measures that will give them the kind of child care they want. A universal system is not always what they want.

The Minister of Human Resources Development has been working with the provinces. There are propositions out there. I can assure the hon. member that our commitment to the increase in child support and child care is a well founded commitment. It will be met within the term of our red book time. I can also assure him we will not change our minds on gun control either.

[The Budget, March 14th, 1995]

Madam Speaker. Women know how to handle money. They know how to turn a nickel into a dollar. They have been very cautious and careful. They have had to be, because men have not always been very sharing or very open with their wives or their children.

With respect to the pension, my husband thinks the pension is just right, just fair and he has no objection. Quite frankly we all work very hard. I am sorry if the hon. member thinks it is not worth being paid or recognized for working many hours a day. We do not agree with him. I think our pension system with the changes we have brought in is more than fair, more than equitable. My husband is not upset and neither am I.

[The Budget, March 14th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his questions. As a father of two daughters, his interest is clear to me. We are certainly on the same wave length in that both our sons and daughters should enjoy equal opportunities and wage parity. I certainly agree, and I commend him on his position.

I want to say to the hon. member that he should not be too worried about unemployment insurance. So far, no decision has been made. It is still hypothetical. The report drafted by the people who worked so hard to listen to what the public had to say has been tabled, and the final decisions will be made at the appropriate time.

As for female students, if I am not mistaken, in the last two budgets the situation improved, and it is easier for women to get bursaries when they want to do a doctorate. There are certain situations, and I do not remember the exact circumstances, but I will certainly make enquiries and send you the rest of the details, but I know that women have been privileged in this respect, and if we want equality, I hope that the time will come when we no longer have to take this kind of action to ensure that women have the opportunities to which they are entitled.

On the subject of small business, I dare say that for the first time we have, if not threatened, or at least strongly suggested or advised, the banks that if they did not give small businesses the kind of protection they need and did not give them loans on request, we would apply sanctions that would be a little more severe than was previously the case. And when we see that 40 per cent of all businesses started by women have a better success rate than those started by men, I think it is because women tend to take a more thorough approach. They do not take as many risks, that is true, but in the end they have a better success rate.

A study has found that 50.1 per cent of businesses that have been in existence for 25 years are run by women, and these are incredibly successful businesses with sales that are absolutely amazing. I hope that this more or less answers your questions, but I can assure you that we have not yet won on all fronts. We must take action through partnerships with people like the hon. member, and I am counting on the co-operation of everyone, especially here in this House.