Hedy Fry

[1996 Census, May 6th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is very well recognized around the world as the leader in measuring and valuing unpaid work. It was decided at Beijing that we would strengthen that commitment and that all the other United Nations countries would more accurately examine the amount of unpaid work done by women, which means child rearing and housework.

It is interesting that in 1961 Statistics Canada measured unpaid work at $14 billion and in 1992 it was $234 billion. Using the census, we will be able to get small area demographics and reach every household so we can use this in future policy and planning of the government.

[Business Of The House, May 1st, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. An agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the committee stage of Bill C-33, an act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice of my intent to propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

[Canadian Human Rights Act, May 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am dividing my time with the member for Ottawa West.

I rise with pleasure and pride to speak to Bill C-33, an act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to add sexual orientation as a prohibited grounds of discrimination. I congratulate the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister for bringing this amendment forward at this time, because there has never been any doubt about the government's commitment to this principle.

This amendment is about the principles of justice and equality which have always been the bedrock of the Liberal Party's belief. They have always been the bedrock of Canadian values that we hold dear, values of tolerance, respect and social responsibility.

Today more than ever we need to emphasize and set strategies to promote equality. Today more than ever we need to name in legislation what we mean by equality and how we intend to implement that equality.

Today we see attempts by some groups to erode fundamental Canadian values, groups like the Reform Party which speaks of equality and yet its members espouse discrimination. They speak about representing the grassroots of Canadians yet seek to divide Canadians into different classes of citizens, those who would be relegated to the back of the bus or the back of the shop, those who would eat in different establishments eventually or go to different schools. I thought that ended with apartheid.

The third party, which will undoubtedly vote against this bill, as it has been saying, will have proven yet again that apologies or not, its record is clear. It has voted against every equality seeking piece of legislation the government has put forward.

Let me speak about the ugliness of discrimination. I know because I am a member of a visible minority. I was a family physician who listened daily to the pain, the anguish, the shame and the loss of self-esteem that each patient of mine who was a target of discrimination told me about, whether it was because of their religion, colour or sexual orientation. These people lived with that loss of self-esteem, with their mental health, with their ability to walk proudly down the street, damaged and harmed with the pain of discrimination.

Discrimination kills the soul. The idea of optional discrimination is the antithesis to the fundamental values we hold dear. It is the antithesis to the whole idea of equality. In a fantasy world, which one day I hope to live in, where we are all equal under the law, where it has been established that we no longer need to seek equality, then the hon. member across may have something to say.

It is interesting to look at what history has taught us. It is interesting to see how at every point in history and at every stage where the fight for equality and freedom has been fought arguments have always been made by majority groups against the equality and the freedoms of the groups seeking equality.

Arguments have been made giving quasi-logical and legal reasons for denying those freedoms. There were arguments for slavery based on the fact that blacks were mentally inferior. All the excuses were made on the mass genocide of Jews. People were told there were economic arguments for ensuring the Jews were put down.

The equality of women was denied consistently for centuries based on the fact they were merely chattel and lacked the intellectual ability to take an equal place in society.

I would not be standing here today in the House of Commons if these kinds of legislation were not put into place to ensure I had the same fundamental and basic equality as the other people sitting in the House of Commons.

I have listened to the arguments made by the third party to deny this amendment. The arguments go on about groups and that equality means we should all be treated equally. Equality can be achieved only by removing barriers.

I am disabled and I cannot achieve equality if I cannot get into the building to participate without a wheelchair ramp. That is a special measure taken to ensure the equality of disabled people.

Today we know, and it has been well documented, that gays and lesbians in this country are denied the right to employment based on sexual orientation.

As a physician I have seen on a Friday or Saturday night gays and lesbians who were beaten purely because of their sexual orientation, taken bloodied into an emergency room.

The fundamental amendment we are discussing seeks to give equality of access to employment and housing. I know what it is like to be denied housing. When I was a medical student in England I sought an apartment. Because I came from a Commonwealth country I sounded quite British on the telephone. When I went to the door, about one minute later because I telephoned from around the corner, the woman took one look at me and said: "I am sorry, it's gone".

People have to know what it is like to feel that way, to suddenly feel inferior, subhuman, dirty and disgusting. That is what we mean when we talk about the reality of the lives of people who are discriminated against.

I do not hear the third party talking about equality in terms of "then let us not let gays and lesbians pay taxes. Why should they be equal and pay taxes?" We know this group belongs to one of the highest income groups in the country and pays an extraordinary amount of taxes.

We talk about equality and I do not think members of the third party understand the reality of people's lives because they come from a privileged majority. We sit here and listen to them espousing very warm, fuzzy and logical arguments, sot to speak, based on airy-fairy ideas. They do not understand. They seek to represent true Canadians and I do not think they even understand the reality of the lives of ordinary Canadians.

The statements repeatedly made in the House by the members of the third party tell me they represent only a particular group in the country. They do not know what it is like to be a person of colour. If they did they would never talk about some of the things they do. They do not know what it feels like to be disabled. If they did, they would talk about special measures to be taken to ensure that disabled people are able to take their places in the workforce. They would support the kinds of changes which would give people the ability to seek equality opportunity from a level playing field. That is what the amendment is about.

The amendment speaks to the fact that 71 per cent of Canadians have supported the bill in poll after poll and survey after survey. Canadians are fundamentally and basically people who espouse freedom, justice, equality and who talk about respect, not just tolerance. Tolerance means to put up with people. Respect means we know that person belongs and that they have something to share, something which will enrich the lives of Canadians. This country is based on respect. We are the role model to the world.

The third party talks about discrimination. Name any country that within the last part of this century has understood discrimination better than South Africa? Yet as soon as it got rid of apartheid and formed its first democratic government, one of the first things it did was put into its constitution lists of all those people who had been held back and who have a long way to go to achieve equality. In that list the South African Parliament put sexual orientation.

There was not a debate. The reason there was not a debate was that people who have been downtrodden, people who have been seeking equality understand the reality and do not seek to keep anyone from that basic fundamental freedom we talk about when we speak of equality in this country.

Equality and justice are based on the fact that the greatest of us in society will always seek to lend a hand to raise the smallest and the least of us. This is what we are talking about. This is what this party stands for. This is what this government stands for. This is what the third party opposite does not even begin to understand.

I am proud to stand here and I am proud to support this bill. Every Canadian looking on today, the 71 per cent of Canadians who continue to believe in the things that hold us together, the common values that hold us together as Canadians, will be applauding in their homes today when they see us speaking to this bill because they believe in it.

It is no coincidence that we have been seen as a role model to the world. It is no coincidence that when Boutros Boutros-Ghali met the Prime Minister at the 50th anniversary of the United Nations he said: "Your country is the greatest country in the world because you have learned how as a diverse people to live together, respecting differences, sharing equally, seeking constantly to bring equality to the world. It is you who will lead us into the 21st century". This piece of legislation is beginning to do exactly that.

[Racism, May 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for this question because the incident to which the hon. member refers has created extremely deep wounds in the visible minority community of the country, wounds that no apology could erase for a very long time.

This country has been based on some very fundamental values such as respect, tolerance, justice and equality. The government has been committed to those values with our proposal of Bill C-41 dealing with hate crimes and our employment equity bill, both of which were voted against by the Reform Party. It voted against those issues of fairness and equality.

The department of multiculturalism has fostered racial tolerance and inter-racial harmony by working among youth, with the police chiefs and with the Teachers Federation of Canada to bring about racial harmony in the schools and among young people. We have continued to work with the public to increase awareness. Around the world we have been recognized as a country-

[Supply, April 23rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, we are recommending substituting for the word "genocide" the words "tragedy which claimed some 1.5 million lives". Genocide is a specific term. We do not feel we can use that term at this time. We are mentioning the deaths of 1.5 million people. We are supporting the motion, but we are broadening the scope of it.

[Supply, April 23rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has said very clearly that Canada has given aid and brought its own particular principles to areas like Rwanda, Bosnia and other parts of the world where there has been inhumanity to man.

We are supportive of the hon. member's motion. We are just changing the words to express the tragedy of the 1.5 million people who were killed. We are also widening the scope of the motion to make the week one of remembrance for all people, such as April 15 to commemorate the holocaust and April 27 for the death of apartheid. We are just trying to widen the scope of the motion so that it will be a commemorative week for all people who have suffered over the years.

[Supply, April 23rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank the member for Ahuntsic for tabling this motion in the House.

The points raised by the motion deal with universal rights, equality, and the fight for freedom the underprivileged peoples of the world have been waging since the dawn of civilization.

I support the principles in the hon. member's motion. In fact I applaud them. It is for this reason that I would like to propose an amendment to the motion. I move:

That the motion be amended (1) by deleting the word "genocide" and substituting therefor the words "tragedy which claimed some 1.5 million lives", and (2) by inserting immediately after "1915" the words "and in recognition of other crimes against humanity"; and (3) by deleting all of the words after the words "as the week" and by substituting the words "of remembrance of the inhumanity of people toward one another".

I would like to see the scope of the motion broadened to cover all peoples who have suffered in their quest for justice and freedom.

Therefore I would like to see us acknowledge a tragic systemic massacre and degradation of the Armenian people which began in 1915 under the Ottoman empire and recognize the day April 24 as a day to mourn for those who suffered. Yet on April 15 we also mark the holocaust as a day to remember with sorrow the slaughter of millions of Jews and on April 27 we celebrate the death of apartheid, the triumph of freedom over the decades of legislated racism, bigotry and murder of black South Africans.

This amendment seeks to remember all of these peoples and more. It proposes to set a week to mourn man's inhumanity to man, all the women who for millennia have been raped in the name of power, all the children who have been orphaned in the struggle for freedom, all those who have been humiliated, degraded, imprisoned, killed because of their religion, the colour of their skin or their sexual orientation.

To narrow this motion to recognize the plight of one people is laudable in its intent but it misses the opportunity to make a statement on behalf of those who do not have a special day of remembrance but who have suffered similar injustices over the history of humankind.

The shameful history of man's inhumanity has never been selective, nor has brutality ever been focused in one place, one community or one people. The tragedies such as we mourn on April 15, 24 and 27 may have been brought on by discrimination, bigotry and the misuse of power but it has not been limited to a particular race, religion or ethnic group. The brutal murder and incarceration of women, men and children simply because they wished to worship their own god or walk side by side in equality and justice with other members of the human race in kinship and respect is a tragedy the entire human family must bear with shame.

The motion moved by the honourable member for Ahuntsic reflects the fundamental values of the people of Canada. As a people we have opened our arms and our country to victims of pain, tyranny and injustice.

We are recognized the world over as a people who not only believe in peace, justice and respect but we practise it. We have legislated it. Our multiculturalism policy has ensured that all of the diverse people who make up our nation must live in respect of each other's culture, religion, race or ethnicity. We seek not to assimilate others but to allow for the ultimate freedom of the individual to pursue what makes him or her unique and special.

We believe that all Canadians can be one people united under one flag and one nation and yet celebrate and respect the diversity of our geography and our people. Multiculturalism is part of making sure we are sensitive to the pain of those Canadians who may at one time have been victimized by the inhumanity of war or by bigotry and oppression. Multiculturalism promotes healing and fosters a cohesion of people.

By and large we are a country of immigrants and refugees within an aboriginal country. We have come together from each corner of the world to build a society, recognized not for a particular language or a specific skin colour but by the values that bind us together, values of justice, equality, respect and peaceful resolution to conflict.

We are a unique nation. We are the global nation and we wear the title with pride. We stand as a role model to the world of a nation where all people can find peace, order and good government, can co-exist in harmony with intercultural understanding and sharing, with respect for differences.

Here in Canada this motion will strengthen the way we hope to build a nation. It will send a message to other nations and people who struggle under the yoke of oppression that in Canada there is a policy of respect, that here they can be free to worship their god and walk down the street equal to other Canadians, equal under the eyes of the law, free from fear of discrimination as enshrined in our Constitution, free to dress in the manner of their choice, free to participate in the benefits of this society fully, and to accept and fulfil the responsibilities of a Canadian citizen in equality.

If we are to change our world, if we are to hope that one day humankind can live together in peace and respect, we must always be mindful of the cruelty of tyranny, of the massacres of peoples, of the incarceration, degradation and inhumanity that man has wrought on each other in the name of power, intolerance and religion.

This motion would enshrine the week of April 20 to April 27 as a week to remember, to mourn and to celebrate the martyrs who have gone before in history, like the Armenians we remember today, so that the pursuit of freedom and justice will remain clear in our hearts and in our legislation, so that we may remain on guard wherever human rights are in jeopardy, as we have done whenever we have traded. We have taken the opportunity to speak to leaders of regimes that do not hold the same human rights values which we hold dear. We have a reputation as peacekeepers around the world.

We will learn from the lessons of the past. It is fitting this motion is placed before the House of Commons of the Canadian Parliament. As Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali said to our Prime Minister at the United Nations 50th anniversary, the world has always looked to Canada with hope, as a people who have lived together in diversity with respect, as a people who have sought peaceful resolution to conflict.

Let us not disappoint them. Let us remain true to the mandate of our unique policy of multiculturalism which seeks to strengthen a cohesive, respectful, inclusive and democratic society and a shared sense of identity reflective of the diversity of Canadian people.

[Racism, March 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I want the hon. member to know how much I am concerned with that finding by B'nai Brith. I share her concerns on this issue.

There are a number of things my department is doing with regard to this issue. March 21 is the day United Nations has set for the elimination of racism in the world. For weeks prior and for weeks following there will be a series of events set up to bring to the attention of Canadians, especially young people, the issue of racism in this country.

We do not concentrate on racism only during that period. All year round the department of multiculturalism looks carefully at how we set up projects and programs in order to assist social cohesion. We work with the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Human Resources Development and with the solicitor general to ensure Canadians are all treated alike.

This will continue to evolve and change so that we meet the continuing needs of the country with regard to the very important issue of racism.

[The Budget, March 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to respond to my hon. colleague's questions. My colleague has forgotten some things and probably has not read the full budget.

How can my colleague say that in the budget we have not put into place anything for women? The obvious concern of everyone is that putting money into programs is the only answer. We have made some fairly creative and innovative changes in the budget. We have changed tax structures. We have increased the ability for many more women, especially single women, to have access to day care, including single women who are parents attending high school. This a very innovative budget.

I was at the United Nations last week. When we talked about some of these tax initiatives, countries in which fiscal restraint is the order of the day were extremely excited to see some of the ways we were able to give women economic independence and ensure their equality in times that are tight.

The hon. member maybe should stop looking at the old ways and start looking at some creative, innovative ways to go about changing things.

The hon. member speaks of summer jobs as if the program is something which is not worthwhile. Imitation is the best form of flattery. British Columbia has just embarked on a summer job program that echoes ours exactly. Therefore it tells us we are on the right track to helping youth.

[The Budget, March 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to speak in support of the recent budget brought down by my colleague, the Minister of Finance.

This is a good budget. It is a balanced budget and a Liberal budget. It continues to support the government's commitment to prudent fiscal planning and to a deficit target of 3 per cent of GDP while creating opportunity highlighted in the red book for youth, women, children and seniors. It continues to secure the future of social programs for all Canadians regardless of region. In fact, it sets firmly the infrastructure essential to the building of a nation as it embarks on the new millennium, a strong, economic and social union. It was a pleasant coincidence that the budget was tabled during International Women's Week because the budget has many initiatives that will advance the economic independence of women, albeit in a time of economic restraint.

There were creative new policies that showed how equality can be served when there is a strong political will to do so. The budget serves women in all stages of their lives; as students, as youth, as mothers, as entrepreneurs, as seniors. It does so by using a variety measures from enhancing access to education and training, to investment of actual dollars toward low income families, many being single mothers.

Let me point out some of the creative measures in the budget that show how the government understands the reality of women's lives. The initiative that received the most media attention has been the child support package. The object of this reform is to place the well-being of the child first. It is based on the clear principle that support of one's child is not discretionary but is a duty.

It makes four specific changes. The first is a non-inclusion, non-deduction tax policy that not only puts more money in the way of the child but levels the playing field between divorced parents and those families that stay together.

Second are specific guidelines that will set payment levels based on the gross annual income of the non-custodial spouse with room for relief if there is hardship to that parent.

Third are enforcement measures that would ensure the compliance of a non-custodial parent who wilfully reneges on payments by denying access to passports or other federal licences. The data base of Revenue Canada will be utilized to track these parents who try to evade provincial jurisdiction.

Fourth and most important, the moneys realized by Revenue Canada from this change in tax policy will be used to double the working income supplement to 700,000 low income parents, one-third of whom are single parents.

The Prime Minister spoke in his reply to the throne speech of creating security for older Canadians. The budget made good on that promise. The new senior's benefit which will combine OAS, GIS, the tax and pension benefits into a single tax free payment will benefit nine of out ten single women. Almost 60 per cent of seniors are women, many of whom live in low income situations. In fact, 80 per cent of seniors, single or couples have low incomes of under $45,000 and they will get the same or more money under this new plan. Also, this new seniors benefit is fully indexed.

This innovative move which targets low and modest income seniors is the only way we can ensure the future sustainability of the old age security which today represents one-fifth of federal government spending. The government continues to show its commitment to fairness. While securing the future of low and income seniors we have also given assistance to those future seniors who will depend mostly on private incomes by removing the limits on RRSP carry forwards.

The child care expense deduction has been expanded so that it applies more widely to parents pursuing full time studies while raising their families. This will help women get an education or training, to enter the workforce and secure their economic independence.

Single parents will now be allowed the same deductions available for couples pursuing full time studies, and the age limit for day care has been increased from 14 to 16. These simple initiatives

have recognized the reality of women's lives and that of their children and has levelled the playing field so that women's access to education and training can be expanded.

The budget is not only about women, it is about the government's continued recognition of the importance of small and medium size business and how they play a role in job creation.

Concerning the new world of technology the 21st century Canadian must face and master about the globalization of putting in place policy initiatives that would improve the access of small business to global markets, policies that would increase access to the Internet, that would enhance research into environmental and biotechnologies, in every way the budget has moved Canada into the competitive starting line for the new millennium. I am gratified to see that my province of British Columbia, the leader in environmental and biotechnology, will benefit from these policies.

Women, seniors and entrepreneurs represent today's world. How do we build a tomorrow? How do we ensure our productivity increases and that we can ensure our continued evolution as a world competitor? The answer lies in our youth, and by making youth a priority the budget has again shown itself to be forward looking and progressive.

I can go on about partnerships with the private sector to give youth their first jobs and to get them out of the catch-22 situation of no job without experience, no experience without a job. I can talk about the doubling of summer jobs, the increased Youth Service Canada initiatives for community work or I can speak to the increase in RESPs or the increase in the tax credits for education, but there is not enough time.

Liberal governments throughout Canada's history have put into place the social infrastructure we have come to take for granted: medicare, social security, post-secondary education subsidies, student loan programs.

It is appropriate that a Liberal government spearhead the evolution of these programs so that they are relevant to the needs of the 21st century Canadian and to the new federal-provincial partnership.

When the CHST was brought in as a positive alternative to the established programs financing and CAP in the last budget, I saw it as a positive step in a new decentralization of management.

Stabilizing the cash component in the budget at $11 billion and setting in a five-year plan that would see an increase in the transfer of payments in the last three years are other moves in securing a future for Canadians which will ensure Canada continues to have a strong social and economic union as we move into the next millennium.