Sheila Finestone

[Race Relations Foundation, November 23rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member, while we have not proclaimed the Race Relations Foundation as yet, we are a party and a government that believes in its commitment to the people of Canada and is committed to its word.

The member will find in the red book a strong undertaking about the Race Relations Foundation. The Prime Minister announced it in his speech from the throne. It was included in the finance minister's speech in the budget. We are committed and we will proclaim en temps et lieu.

[Race Relations Foundation, November 23rd, 1994]

With the greatest of respect to you, Mr. Speaker, of course I withdraw.

[Race Relations Foundation, November 23rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize. I thought the remarks were without understanding of the wonderful appointments that our leader has made in the past. I am so proud of what he has already done that I was moved to a wrong observation in that regard of the character of the person.

[Race Relations Foundation, November 23rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I guess I really thought she was mean spirited but if that is-

[Race Relations Foundation, November 23rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, in answer to my colleague, I sense a mean spirited approach behind her observations-

[Social Security Program, October 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, first it is not true that the government will cut $15 billion, which I believe is the amount mentioned by the hon. member. This is not true at all and I think the Minister of Human Resources Development provided the real answer. If you read his answer in Hansard , you will see that this is not true.

Second, I will admit that there are problems for women and that these problems represent a big challenge. However, the current situation is simply unacceptable. Everything that is in place right now prevents women from moving ahead; it only keeps them in poverty. What I want and what this government wants is to hold an in-depth consultation exercise, especially with women. We want to get their opinion and find out what changes they would like to see. We simply cannot ask women to keep putting up with the system as it is currently structured.

Women cannot rejoin the workforce when they are on welfare, because all the-I was going to say "les stupidités", but I do not know if you say that in French-constraints related to CAP do not give women a chance to go back to work.

It makes them poorer rather than enables them to become active participants in the job market. I would say to all members in this House and in particular to a fervent advocate for fairness for women-

I say to the hon. member opposite, to answer her question, that she is right. However, this reform will improve the plight of women; it will not make things worse. I have always insisted that all our initiatives be of benefit to women. If this is not the case, I want women to come and tell us. We will then take a closer look at the issue. I am asking you to help us bring about constructive changes for the future of all Canadian women.

[Social Security Program, October 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I did not realize we had gone that long. I appreciate the good grace in this House.

A woman with this kind of education and training upon her return to the work force will likely get a job that is lower paid, of lower status and less secure. She may need language training or Canadian accreditation for education and training from another country. She most likely needs adequate enforced child support payments from her child's father. She will definitely need child care. She needs a workplace that allows her to balance work and family responsibility and she needs social security that recognizes she will live several years longer than most men.

Women have worked for decades to become economically independent, at work and at home. Whatever we do, we must not undermine this hard-won progress to individual financial self-sufficiency. We must recognize the connections between women's economic dependency, inequality and the violence done to them.

We must support women's individual ability to have control over their own lives.

In closing, I want to emphasize that Canadians believe in the dignity of work and we believe in sharing and in compassion. As a society we recognize the interdependence of economic and social well-being. We know that we cannot have one without the other.

Canada, as it is admired around the world for the way we balance these factors of our collective lives, wishes to continue in that effort. We have worked through times of wrenching change before in our history and we can do it again.

Let me quote our Prime Minister once again, because I think it is important: "Change does not mean changing our values on principles. It means changing programs to meet new needs and new realities in accordance with our values and our principles so together we can build a social security system that includes all Canadians and that contributes to a very strong economy. And together we can build a prosperous nation where difference is valued and everyone is included".

After all, Canadians both men and women, want security, dignity and the opportunity to make a decent living for themselves and for their families. All Canadians want to build a brighter future for our children and ensure that they have every opportunity to prosper.

An effective fair, affordable social security system for all of us will certainly help. We look forward to everyone's participation.

[Social Security Program, October 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to address the issue of social security reform. It is a vital one for all Canadians.

Indeed, members of this House and the Canadian people face a major challenge: updating our social security system. Based on the opinion polls, I must say that it seems they are ready and they recognize the need.

For 50 years, successive Liberal governments instituted a series of social programs which shared the wealth of this country among all Canadians.

Women have been particularly concerned about this as some of those programs have helped them and their families, their children, get back on their feet after a job loss. Others help some Canadians get training and an education, while others still have come to the rescue of Canadians who have nowhere else to turn.

However, the world has changed faster than our programs have and the system has not kept pace with the dramatic transformation in the economy, in technology, in the Canadian family, in global competition and in our fiscal situation.

Canadian society is still changing. Women play a much larger role in the workforce and in the paid economy than they did some 40 or 50 years ago. The needs of other groups such as ethnocultural communities, indigenous peoples and the disabled have also evolved rapidly over these years.

The workplace is in transformation. As familiar jobs disappear people are forced to work in unfamiliar situations. Many are joining the growing non-standard workforce of part time, temporary home workers or workers who work in their homes and contract work. These people have to do without the security of traditional company pensions and benefit plans.

As we shift to knowledge based industries, people need more education, training and continued learning. I have witnessed this transformation in my riding of Mount Royal. During the last recession we experienced our share of factory closures where people saw jobs and some permanent positions banished forever.

In many ways the riding of Mount Royal is a reflection of Canadian society. We are a diverse group of people of all religious, ethnocultural and age groups who live and work together in both official languages. For the most part we have worked together in harmony, peacefully with good productive lives full of hope and fulfilment.

Now my constituents are doing their best to adapt to our country's new economic reality. Many are succeeding but too many are falling through the cracks. I know that my riding of Mount Royal is not an exception to the rule. The new challenge people face there exists in every major city across the land.

Since 1981 the number of Canadians on social assistance has doubled to just over three million. Canada assistance plan or CAP expenditures have increased from $2.6 billion to $8 billion annually. Clearly the social support network has not masked societal changes which have occurred over the past 30 years.

The bottom line is that we are facing a fundamental shift in the way we live and work. Therefore we must redesign our social security program to respond to that shift, building on Canadian values of compassion and shared opportunity. At the same time we must ensure they remain sustainable and affordable.

Combined spending on unemployment insurance and social assistance has grown as a proportion of Canada's economic output by more than 75 per cent between 1972 and 1992. Such increases are simply not sustainable. The federal government now spends over $38 billion for all social security programs, but it has to spend $40 billion for interest on our debt.

We are sending that money for the most part to New York, Tokyo and Berlin. This is not the way we want to get our system under control. If we do not get our social security system and others under control, foreign markets will decide what our social programs should look like. That is not what Canadians want.

We want to be able to design our programs for ourselves. Therefore I commend my colleague, the Minister of Human Resources Development, for having the courage to undertake such a fundamental reform of Canada's social programs. I echo his invitation to all Canadians to get involved in this very important discussion, address the green paper, get a copy and work hard to give us the kinds of answers that will reflect their values. I applaud his insistence that our new system should be affordable, effective and fair.

To live up to the minister's commitment we will need social programs that reflect the reality of rural, urban and metropolitan communities. Our social programs must protect those most in need: people who cannot work, people on low incomes in families that are struggling to get by, people who face barriers due to disability or chronic illness, and especially children living in poverty.

We must improve the welfare of our children because 1.2 million of them presently live in poverty. This is totally unacceptable. Children are poor because their mothers are poor. We must therefore ensure that women get the opportunity to train for all types of jobs. We must also help those who rely on welfare to be moved off that cycle.

Too many people spend years on social assistance, even though with the right kind of employment and training opportunities they could find work; but they need a proper support system. Too many disadvantaged families get caught in the welfare trap for the very good reason that they seem better off there. That is really not a very sensible way to have the system structured.

Our future prosperity requires that all people contribute to the best of their potential in order to fulfil their dreams. We have a responsibility to those who depend on social programs to move from dependence to full participation, for the best social security is a job. The essence of our reform is to get people back to work.

We believe this is the shortest route to prosperity. A strong economy is crucial to the independence and equality of Canadians outside the mainstream, especially women, newly arrived Canadians and other groups.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, we must make some difficult decisions. Our choices today will determine the opportunities available tomorrow. The government's No. 1 priority is economic growth and job creation. To succeed in this mission, we must act on many fronts. The reform of social security is one of our most important initiatives in this regard. The reform of our social security system must be based on equality for all Canadians. We absolutely must listen to the communities which for too long have been marginalized in our society: native peoples, newcomers, the disabled and women. The nature and scope of the options we are proposing are fundamental. It is therefore imperative that these groups participate in the consultation process under way.

I strongly urge all groups to participate, particularly women's groups and ethnocultural organizations. I send them a personal message of encouragement. With this reform we will have the opportunity to help shape the future of Canada's social programs together. I believe that groups owe it to themselves and to their constituencies to make the most of this occasion. I urge them not to miss the chance to address this consultation document.

One of the single most important factors to take into account as we examine the green paper is the impact the reforms will have on women. Why? It is because women represent 52 per cent of the population in Canada. Women make an enormous contribution to our society and to our economy, and the future of our children lies in the hands of our women. Today I urge members to consider the important ways to make sure that our new social security system works particularly for women and children who are our future.

First, we must ensure that the voices of women are heard in the consultation process, in our riding and at the committee, for women's issues are fundamentally society's issues. They are issues that concern every one of us in the House. Women are not special interest groups. They represent diverse backgrounds with a full range of interests and concerns.

To succeed in our mission it is essential that we get their guidance. They have to tell us what kind of social programs would give them a sense of security, a sense of well-being, and contribute to their progress toward equality. Women's groups and organizations have been a most important catalyst for progress on women's equality and to ensure our full partnership and participation in the growth and development of the Canada of tomorrow.

As a result we will all benefit from their work. We have to ensure that organizations representing women's concerns, groups that have limited resources and broad mandates, have sufficient time and support to participate in this critical exercise. The Minister of Human Resources Development has to be thanked for facilitating this process.

Everyone must be able to participate in this consultation process because every Canadian will be affected by the final result. The Minister of Human Resources Development has already spoken with many organizations. He and I will pursue discussions with both women's groups and organizations concerned with poverty.

The second important component to building a social security program that serves everyone is to create a system that is gender sensitive. This means a system that recognizes that women and men in Canada experience life differently.

The discussion paper on social security reform outlines the key life streams of Canadians: work, learning and security. These are areas where women have different and too often disadvantaged experiences. They have a different rhythm of attachment to the workforce.

We must make sure changes and initiatives we suggest in these areas reflect that difference, namely child bearing, care for the ill and care for the elderly. The options for reform provide many openings for change. With gender sensitive responses those openings can become doors of opportunity for women and for society. Women may benefit from a review of the unemployment insurance that is sensitive to those in non-standard employment.

We all know the workforce dominated by women and younger Canadians is currently excluded from unemployment insurance coverage. Employment services which are more client centred and user friendly would be better tailored for women.

Enabling Canadians to benefit from lifelong learning is particularly important to women, especially for those who curtailed their own education and training early in life and/orleft the workforce to raise their children, an important function and role in society. Child care is particularly relevant to women whose responsibility for family too often limits their own opportunities.

These examples demonstrate how we can look at every reform option with gender lens to see how it may affect the lives of women.

Lastly today I want to emphasize that to address child poverty we must improve the economic status of women in Canada. The reality is that throughout their entire lives women in Canada are at a higher risk of poverty than men. Large numbers of women live in poverty at some time during their lives. We must recognize the complex interplay of factors that put women and children at risk. Women are still largely responsible for the unpaid work of child care, elder care and housework in the family.

Indeed women are often in a situation that we describe as the sandwich generation. They support their aged parents as well as their children. However women are also increasingly responsible for earning income to keep the family above the poverty line either in two-income families or as heads of lone parent households.

There is a segment of the Canadian women's population that has done quite well. I hope we will see some wonderful improvements. Those are women who have had the benefit of higher education and have benefited from the role that has been played by women's organizations to move toward equality, access and breaking the glass ceiling. They are few and far between and there is much left to do. They can contribute to this discussion as well.

Women remain at a disadvantage in the workplace largely for reasons related to having and raising children. In 1992 women in Canada averaged only 72 cents for every dollar that men made in the workforce. It is a catch 22 for women and it is a recipe for economic dependence and poverty.

A 1990 report entitled "Women and Poverty Revisited" by the National Council of Welfare concluded that the link between motherhood and poverty was clear. According to that report the only safeguard which stands between most married women and poverty is their husbands' incomes. That is not very reassuring.

In fact, the group which is likely to be hit hardest by poverty in Canada is single-parent families headed by women. In 1991, 82 per cent of one-parent families were headed by women. Children who live with a single mother are five times more likely to be poor than those who live with two parents. Nevertheless, we cannot ask women to remain in precarious family situations just for economic reasons, especially when the woman and children suffer domestic violence or are threatened with it. We must also strive to avoid stereotyping single mothers on welfare.

A study of 150 such women in 1991 by Professor Carolyne A. Gorlick of the University of Western Ontario showed that their average age was 32. Nearly three quarters of them had already worked full-or part-time. Forty-one per cent had a university education.

Most had one or two children and almost all had some education or training. As the Prime Minister said so well in Fredericton recently, "The reform is not a question of figures and statistics. It concerns human beings and the challenges they must face every day of their life". So how does one help a single mother make the transition from welfare to employment?

Yes we need to support this woman with education and training.

[Canadian Heritage, October 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, you were in this House when we spent a great deal of time studying section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That was such an important section that we delayed the application of section 15 for three years. It came into effect April 15, 1985.

We do not have time to undertake an extensive examination of why section 15, the non-discrimination section of the charter and the right to affirmative action given equal competence and equal skills is of fundamental value in this country because it is equal to the question of fairness, access, respect and appreciation for differences.

I would suggest, if I may, that the "Equality for All" report be given to my hon. colleague. I am sure he would like to read it and understand why it is not discrimination and is only in the sense of the best action, not only in pay equity but employment equity, that one would want to move forward anyone who has compe-

tence regardless of colour, regardless of language, and it is antithetical to what South Africa did.

It is too bad that this member and the member sitting in front of him did not have the opportunity to read the report that could have enlightened some very biased disinformation that was given this morning.

[Canadian Heritage, October 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the end result of whatever it was that I said-I would have to look at the "blues" because I do not have everything written down-is the fact that I said I am a proud Canadian everywhere and anywhere and that is what I am.

With respect to the freedoms that the member spoke about, with respect to the importance of the federal government lending a hand to groups across this land, particularly new Canadians, Canadians who have arrived from countries where they have suffered terror, trauma, torture and lack of understanding of the role of the police when they arrive here because they have lived in a police state, I would say to the member that as a government, as a people and as human beings it is important for us to help them understand the structure of our society to enable them to integrate into this society.

I have not noticed that without some help major groups have volunteered so quickly to go in and help them. I would also like to point out that if the member is from an immigrant group-and I know from his riding he has had requests and received and given grants for immigrant and visible minority women-I wonder if he would believe that those visible minority women have triple discriminations, have a difficult time adapting to our society and have some skill re-learning to do while at the same time helping their children get settled.

As the member well knows, this country is not famous and businesses have not been famous and are just learning to hire people who are of colour as one of the equality measures as well as on their competence and ability to do the job. We have not recognized skills that are learned outside of this country. We have accredited to them the equivalences of what they have learned elsewhere. Now you do not want to give money to those kinds of groups, the visible minority groups who have come to him, the Abbotsford youth commission that has come to you, the native friendship centres that need money, the anti-racist and anti-hate education councils. These are the groups you would like to deprive of doing work both at the public, the volunteer, and at the institutional level. Well I do not agree with your perspective.