[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, April 30, 1996

.1110

[English]

The Chairman: I call the meeting to order.

I would like to welcome Dr. Hedy Fry, Secretary of State for Multiculturalism and the Status of Women,

[Translation]

Mr. Roger Collet, the assistant deputy minister,

[English]

Ms Susan Scotti, Ms Karman and Ms Bergeron de Villiers.

Dr. Fry, you have the floor.

Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State, Multiculturalism and Status of Women): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Translation]

Colleagues, I would like to thank you for having invited me to meet with you today. I would like to share with you the federal government's plan for gender equity and the promotion of mutual respect between Canadian men and women.

[English]

Although I'm going to speak of my two portfolios separately, I hope it will become evident that there is a strong correlation between the two, not only in their shared principles but also in the broad spectrum of their relevance to overall government policy.

I would like to start with the portfolio for Status of Women. The first question people generally ask is why we need a status of women directorate. Surely in today's world of the 1990s, women and men are equal. We see women in every sphere of life working alongside us. Look at all the women in the House of Commons. Look at the women who are physicians, lawyers, etc.

But one of the things we need to know about women is that they still have a long way to go, because they are still not equal. Not since we gave women the vote in 1918, until now - women still have a long way to go.

If we want to look at the reason for Status of Women, it is there to create equality of opportunity across the spectrum, and that means we must work with every single department in government to see how in fact we can affect and promote equality for women eventually. When we look at the fact that Canada has been named for the third time running as the number one country in the world in terms of human development, but we still rank ninth in terms of the gender development index, it tells us that we have a way to go before Canadian women achieve equality.

.1115

We can look at some major spheres in which women still do not have equality. The first one is economic equality and independence for women. When we look at the male-female employment ratio we see that the average woman earns 70% of what the average man in the same job earns. When we look at the ratios of labour force participation we see an increased number of part-time seasonal workers among women who have low-paying, low-security jobs. Women tend to work in what is known as the pink collar ghetto, which tends to be secretarial and service jobs, but the 10% of men who occupy those positions are paid more than women in the same positions.

We see that women, because they work in part-time and low-paying jobs, tend to have fewer benefits and opportunities for retirement income. We also need to look at the fact that in 1992 Statistics Canada told us that 65.9% of unpaid housework is done by women, and by doing this unpaid work they are considered to be providing work that is essential to the functioning of the economy. We need to define and measure that, and we need to determine the value of that work.

We will recognize women add a great deal of value in unpaid work to the economic productivity of the country. In 1994 Statistics Canada told us that there was $14 million worth of unpaid work done in 1992, and that now, in 1996, about $234 billion worth of unpaid work is done by women in Canada.

If we valued housework we would see that women who are single do housework of a value - if you use the formula - of about $16,580 a year, while a woman with children under five does the equivalent of about $26,310 a year in unpaid work. The United Nations did that same evaluation and found that there is $16 trillion in unpaid work done in the world today.

We have to talk about a conceptual framework - and this is what we're working on - that will lead to societal and economic indicators that will assess the progress of women toward economic equality and economic opportunity. That means that in the end Status of Women is committed to looking at improving the access of women to training, to employment opportunities, to participating in business, to getting better credit and to owning property in equal numbers with men.

We must remove some of those barriers and we intend to support women to achieve that. That is one of the mandates of Status of Women Canada. We know that socially, women are probably the poorest in our society - 65% of single parents are women, and 60% of those women live at the poverty level. We know that when women are poor their children are poor, and when their children are poor and women are poor the well-being and the social and economic structure of the country suffers.

So there are some issues that we need to do with regard to women and their equality.

The second one is violence against women. Statistics Canada told us that 50% of women over the age of 16 have had one incident of violence, and that 25% of women have had an incident of marital violence, but that only 14% of those women have ever reported it.

When you take it as part of the social and economic factors, you will see that we spend $4.2 billion in our society to deal with the consequences of violence against women and $1.5 billion to deal with the health care costs as a result of violence against women.

Women will never stop having violence inflicted on them until they can achieve economic equality and independence, because all of the studies we've seen show that violence is part of a power differential that occurs.

We've been doing a lot of work on the women's programs to deal with the violence against women. We've been dealing with the provinces, the territories, non-governmental organizations and other departments on this issue.

So we've started some work on that. I could answer questions about it later on. I don't want to go into great detail right now.

.1120

We also know that poverty is the greatest determinant of health. We know that women experience life very differently physiologically from men, that there are specific health issues that deal with women only, and in the generic health problems that women and men both get, we see that women experience those differently. And all of the research that has been done on general problems such as high blood pressure and heart disease have been done mostly on men. So women have been treated the same way a man would be if he had the same disease. We've found that this is an inappropriate way to give women the best treatment possible.

So that is one of the things we're looking at. We also know that women live longer and therefore form the largest part of seniors. About 60% of seniors in Canada are women, so they take a greater part of the health care resources at the end of their lives. So we need to look clearly and carefully at women's health issues to see how we can improve access to health for women and how we can get women involved in and improve their general health promotion and prevention issues. That is why our department has been working with Health Canada to look at centres of excellence to deal with women's health issues, such as new reproductive technologies, etc.

The issue of unequal access to justice among women is very prevalent in Canadian society. We know that because of their socioeconomic status, women tend to use the civil legal aid system more. As we see the civil legal aid system falling into lower and lower status in the provinces, we find that women are having less and less access to justice. We need to look at providing technical assistance to women in the workforce in terms of helping them to get into the Internet, to become more technologically efficient. They're a target group that is not particularly technologically efficient at the moment.

A second compounding issue having to do with the equality of women has to do with the diversity of women. We know that women, as a gender, suffer inequities in our society, but we also know that disabled women, women of colour and women who are lesbians tend to suffer a double-whammy in terms of discrimination and inequities.

One of the things we are proudest of in Status of Women is that we brought forward the concept of gender analysis, which came up at Beijing. We took this in our plan of action for Canada. Gender analysis has now been written up as a process guideline and will go across the board to every department, so that every single policy and piece of legislation that this government comes up with will be seen through the lens of gender analysis. That will enable us to tell whether that policy will disadvantage men and women or further create a gap between the two. That gender analysis will affect men in a positive way, because we are looking specifically at how that impact will create discrepancies.

We have come a long way but we still have a long way to go. Status of Women is here to try to ensure that one day in this country there will be no need for a status of women portfolio because we would have truly achieved equality between men and women.

The second portfolio that I want to talk about very quickly is Multiculturalism. I am not giving you specifics on either of the two portfolios because it is my understanding that you just wanted to have an overview. I would prefer to spend the time answering questions from you.

As we know, multiculturalism began as a specific government policy 25 years ago, but it has its roots in the beginning of this nation 127 years ago. Because this nation is such a vast geographic area and because it has contained such a diversity of people of different origins, by necessity we have learned to accommodate in this country.

That is what multiculturalism is all about. It is about accommodating, about respecting differences and about recognizing that we can be one strong Canadian people with one flag, which we tend to wear on our sleeves wherever we go because we're so proud of being Canadians. We want the world to know that we are Canadians, yet as individuals and as groups we can continue to foster our traditions and the roots of who we are. I like to see multiculturalism as talking about Canada as a family.

.1125

When two people meet and they fall in love and decide to get married, I don't ever believe one person says to the other, ``If we're going to be married, you have to give up who you are, all the traditions of your family that you lived with in the past, the ways you celebrate different things about you, because I now want you to take on my family traditions and everything I do as a family. That's how you're going to marry me.'' I don't think you're going to find very many people having relationships.

What people tend to do in families is they bring together the traditions of each side of the family. They blend them into one strong, new type of tradition. I think multiculturalism has in fact made Canada be a family, a global nation.

We have also seen over 127 years that what we have is a country that originally had first nations of aboriginal peoples. Then came the French and the British, who developed the country and who were so-called founding nations.

As each new group of people came to this country from every corner of the world, that ability to live together in respect, to suggest people can in fact develop and have relationships together, celebrating their own culture but still being one people, has made Canada the role model for the world.

When the Prime Minister was in New York to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the United Nations, he was told very clearly by Boutros Boutros-Ghali, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, that the world looks to Canada.

He said we are a people who seem to have been founded on some very common values - those values of respect, of compassion, of social responsibility - which have allowed very diverse peoples to live together in harmony and have allowed us to find peaceful resolutions to conflict.

He said if Canada does not succeed, then the dream of every single country in the world will have died. If Canada succeeds, everyone carries the hope that one day, as they become global peoples trying to live together in harmony and with mutual respect, they would have seen that Canada could do and would have shown them the way.

So I think Canada has a responsibility. It is purely because of the unique concept we have had of peoples living together under multiculturalism, to share, to have intercultural relationships, to become a pluralistic society. This is the strength of Canada, and we have turned out to be a people with very common values.

This department in fact is here to continue to foster... The challenge of course in being accommodating means that you continue to be dynamic, you continue to evolve as a society. You must continue to look at how you accommodate each other. The challenges become greater as we move into the 21st century.

This department is here to look at how we can assist with integration services to increase and support new Canadians, first-generation Canadians, who have access to allow them to participate in the society, not only to reap the benefits of the society but also to have the responsibilities and to know how to be responsible citizens, to look at intercultural cohesion, at understanding, at harmony, to decrease racial tensions and racial discrimination.

So, Mr. Chair, that is what I would talk about when we talk about our vision for Canada. I see Canada in the 21st century as being a world leader because of the set of common values that have kept us together. Globalization is here to stay whether we like it or not. I also think the multiculturalism concept that began 25 years ago has been reaping very distinct advantages for us today as a nation.

We have always been a trading nation, but we have seen that in the global economy Canada stands head and shoulders over every country in the world. When we go to trade, we go to trade as Canadians, but we are able to circumvent the barriers most countries find in trade. Those barriers happen to be the language, the cultural differences of the country and the ability to treat the people in that country with respect, as well as understanding the marketplace values.

Now when we deal with Asia-Pacific we have Asian Canadians who can understand the language, the marketplace. We look at eastern Europe as it opens up to become a vast consumer market. Canada will again be at the forefront, able to come with respect. That respect is born of being culturally understanding and culturally relevant to the people we trade with.

I think we will see, Mr. Chair, that this will in fact bring Canada towards an increased role in the world today. We have tourism opening up and people are coming to Canada. They will come here because they will find in Canada a marketplace for all of their needs.

.1130

They will find that diversity that will be reflective of the rest of the world. They will want to come here because our arts, our culture, our theatre, our cinema and all of our tourist attractions will be here. We'll be able to accommodate people and to be respectful of their needs.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I will answer questions.

The Chairman: Thank you, Madam Minister. Madame Gagnon.

[Translation]

Mrs. Gagnon (Quebec): Ms Fry, it is our pleasure to welcome you to the committee this morning. It is unfortunate that the status of women is not discussed much on this committee. In fact, there is no real committee on the status of women. That is unfortunate, especially since the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women was abolished. There is no real forum for debate and analyses on programs and policies put forward by the government.

This morning, you spoke of the reality of women and you also gave figures which accurately reflect their situation. Poverty, health, access to equality and to justice, and gender equity are varied and vast subjects. It is really unfortunate that there is no committee on the status of women to analyze the impact of government policies.

When it comes to your policies, you are judge and jury. The Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women is no more, and this brings me to ask you several questions, one of which deals with a comparative study between men and women. You said this was a most strategic measure on the part of your government.

Madam Minister, the minister of Human Resources Development is about to implement a bill on employment insurance which will clearly have repercussions for women.

This morning, you said that women work in unstable jobs. How do you explain that and how certain departments analyze those policies, when the department in question is about to implement an act which will penalize women?

I also have a second question regarding discrimination and sexual harassment.

The Chairman: Why don't you let Ms Fry answer your first question? Then I will give you the floor again.

Mrs. Gagnon: Fine.

[English]

Ms Fry: Thank you very much, Madam Gagnon. I'm glad you asked that question, because in fact the employment insurance bill is one in which we did participate at Status of Women and we did use the gender equity lens.

If you will remember, women, as I said earlier on, tend to be working very often at part-time jobs. As you know, many people working at part-time jobs tend to be women and youth. They don't have access at all to any benefits, whether they be health benefits, retirement benefits or unemployment insurance benefits. Criteria for those benefits were based on weeks of work, and they never ever qualified even if they worked for 40 years.

By using gender analysis, we changed that to hours of work. So it means that even though it will take part-time workers, most of whom are women, longer to get those benefits, they do. They now can get those benefits, whereas they were shut out completely before.

So that is in fact an example of how, by changing a simple word - ``weeks'' to ``hours'' - you are able to look at a new set of criteria, which would in fact make women especially the beneficiary of that kind of change.

[Translation]

Mrs. Gagnon: I don't agree with you at all on that point. Look at the criticism made concerning the employment insurance policy. It was not a victory for women. On the contrary, they denounced this policy and I deplore that fact. If we still had the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, we would hear that kind of criticism, and the government would take into account those opinions. That is all over and done with.

In any case, the bill is not very... Throughout Canada people have criticized the measures which will be implemented on the back of the least privileged. You mentioned an issue which the Bloc and small organizations reject, namely the first hour worked. Many women work part-time, often less than 15 hours a week. Therefore, they will not be eligible. They'll have to pay UI premiums, which will benefit the government, but the women working part-time will not be eligible because they won't work enough hours.

.1135

Therefore, young people and women will be penalized.

[English]

Ms Fry: Actually, Madam Gagnon, that is not true. They will now qualify, whereas they were never able to do so before. They will take a longer time because they work fewer hours, but they will eventually qualify. Until this new bill, if they worked their whole lives they would never qualify. Now they will eventually be able to get maternity benefits and health benefits and unemployment insurance benefits. That is why I think this bill is in fact helping the majority of women who are part-time workers.

[Translation]

Mrs. Gagnon: We disagree, as well as many women's groups.

I would like to come back to the Ann Raney case. The Bloc québécois raised the issue in the House last week. Have you heard of this case?

[English]

Ms Fry: Yes.

[Translation]

Mrs. Gagnon: Have you spoken to your colleagues from Public Works about it?

[English]

Ms Fry: Yes. Actually, Status of Women Canada is currently working with Public Works and with Labour to look at how we set up future tightening of the administration or of the legislation so this kind of thing will never happen again.

With regard to the specific issue of Ms Raney, as you know, it was settled between the two parties. We cannot have any involvement in a private settlement. But in order for this not to happen again, we are very concerned and we are therefore working closely on this right now with Labour and with Public Works to find a resolution for the future so that it cannot happen again.

[Translation]

Mrs. Gagnon: I can only deplore the fact that the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women is gone, because it would have denounced this situation. It would have asked the government to do something. We haven't heard you say anything in the House. The minister for the Status of Women has not said publicly that she intends to address that issue specifically.

I deplore the fact that the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women has been abolished, because there is no vision and no one is left to criticize the government any more.

The government is judge and jury when it comes to issues related to the status of women. You talked about your plan a little earlier, but you are its judge and jury.

There is no more outside organization to judge the progress of certain policies you intend to adopt and which may need to be adjusted.

[English]

Ms Fry: First and foremost, Madam Gagnon, if in fact the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women is not a legislative body, we can enforce legislation. We can influence the changes in public policy because we happen to be a government organization. All that the Canadian Advisory Council would have been able to do was to flag it. You have flagged it and we have flagged it ourselves. It has been flagged and something is being done about it.

With regard to your concern that there is no input, at the moment Status of Women Canada has been meeting - and I have been at those meetings - in every region in this country with women's organizations and groups to discuss a future vision for Status of Women Canada.

We discuss how we can take on the role of research, a data collection agency and a clearing house, so that women will have access to research. We also discuss exactly how we can do this in an arm's length manner.

We are hearing very fine recommendations from the women across this country as to how we can achieve that arm's length research capability. We have been talking about how we should be directing programs in the future so that they will make a difference to some of the agenda that women require around this country.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Do you have a final question?

Mrs. Gagnon: I don't think the government can be both judge and jury and that it is able to compare the nature and the quality of its work as well as establishing priorities.

When you are judge and jury, it's rather difficult to accomplish all these things and to develop a real policy designed to improve the situation of women.

I will have other questions on multiculturalism during the second round.

.1140

[English]

Ms Fry: I would like to answer that. I think it's very possible to do this. That's what we've been hearing in the consultations around the country. It has been suggested that if we have absolutely nothing to do with the choice of research projects, with the writing of the projects and the research itself, and nothing to do with the outcomes of those research projects - this is handled by an arm's length committee set up to do that kind of peer review and make those kinds of decisions - the government will accept those just as if they were done by a third party.

The point of having brought this into Status of Women Canada, as you can see, is because it was creating a second level. This was a very costly level of administration within that agency. Now it is brought in, and we can still achieve those things with the arm's length committee that I talked about. The women around Canada seem to think that's a good idea.

[Translation]

The Chairman: You can come back later, Mrs. Gagnon.

[English]

I would like to turn over the questioning to the government side. Mr. Peric.

Mr. Peric (Cambridge): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Madam Minister, you mentioned before that women are suffering in Canadian society. Could you be a little bit more specific in what sector, private sector or public sector? Do you have any more information that you can share with us? After you answer that question I'll go back to the multicultural sector.

Ms Fry: I quoted some statistics with regard to violence against women in our society. I also talked about the fact that women were amongst the poorest in our society purely because of their lack of access to training and to equal opportunities for employment. At the same time, women happen to be caregivers.

Women do not have any ability to achieve the same kind of economic independence. When you look at the women who are in the workforce, we now have surveys that show that women lawyers who go to university and who come out as lawyers are having a great deal of trouble finding articling positions in firms purely because they are women.

When you look at the ``glass ceiling'', where women can only reach a particular level in companies, very few women actually make it to the position of decision-making in society. If you look at the House of Commons, only 18% of women are represented there, when in fact women are representative of 52% and are in the majority in Canadian society.

We are not as well-represented in those areas. One of the reasons, of course, is inappropriate access to training, the kinds of barriers... The systemic inequality of women over the years... Let us not forget that it was only in 1918 that we agreed women were people who had the right to vote and that they weren't chattel and possessions. That is not very long ago.

We still have a long way to go to achieve the kind of equality where women can walk alongside men as equals, helping each other and achieving the kind of society that we would like to live in.

The Chairman: Just to interject for a minute, Madam Minister, I think Mr. Peric brought an important point. I was wondering if you or some of your associates would have the statistics with you. Is there a distinction in statistics between women in the public service versus the private service?

Are we doing better in the public service, which, after all, the government controls, than in the private service? I think that was one of his questions. I would be very interested to find out.

Ms Fry: The four target groups brought about in the employment equity bill that was passed last year were women, aboriginal people, visible minorities and disabled persons. We were taking very special initiatives to ensure that the barriers against those groups in the public service were being removed. That is one initiative.

Women have still not achieved that kind of equity in the public service.

As you well know, this bill was brought about specifically to increase and improve the kinds of strategies that would allow them to achieve that kind of equality.

Mr. Peric: I'm really impressed with your views of Canada and the multicultural groups' role to develop even further a better Canada. What is your department doing to nurture multiculturalism in Canada? What is your budget? What is your staff?

.1145

Ms Fry: We have an overall budget of about $18,690,000. We have three specific headings under which we have programs that we undertake to deal with fostering the kinds of social cohesion that we talk about in multiculturalism.

One of them is community support in which we look at how immigrant Canadians or first-generation Canadians are able to participate in society. We try to remove the barriers. We explain the justice system to them, the values, and all of the institutions within this country so that they can begin to participate and be full citizens.

Second, we have a race relations component where we deal with cross-cultural understanding, fostering harmony, and looking at anti-racism campaigns.

The third one, of course, has to do with heritage languages and culture.

There are three basic headings under which many different programs and projects reach the mandate of Multiculturalism Canada overall.

Mr. Peric: Do you feel that $18 million is enough to accomplish what you should or will accomplish?

Ms Fry: Mr. Peric, I think if you ask any minister in the House of Commons today they will tell you nothing is enough.

Mr. Peric: What is your goal? What do you want to accomplish in the next two years with your department and with limited resources? How far can you go?

Ms Fry: I think we can go quite far, because we don't tend to do this in isolation. Our programs tend to be in partnership. We tend to work with business, with non-governmental organizations, with community groups, municipalities, and other levels of government to pool our resources to make some of these projects happen.

In the short period of time that I will probably be here, I would like to deal specifically with some of the racial tensions that are beginning to happen in Canada today. Those racial tensions seem to occur whenever a country feels anxious or feels that its unemployment rates are too high.

I want to look at how we assist young people, especially young Canadians, to be able to live together within the school system, how we assist them in learning to foster that kind of understanding, in learning to come together in a cohesive and interracial or intercultural way.

We do some work with the Canadian Teachers' Federation in helping them to implement curricula that will assist young people. We fund young community groups to talk about how they see themselves dealing with these issues. I think the young people are going to be the ones who will move us into the 21st century and continue to foster the kind of Canada that we have now. This is a major priority for me.

The other one is to look at how we take advantage of the definite advantages that have come about as a result of multiculturalism - the clear economic advantage of multiculturalism within business and how we get involved, and we've already begun to do that.

We have funded some money to produce booklets, and one on advertising is called The Colour of Your Money. It talks about how, if businesses today do not understand the pluralism and the diversity of our society, they're not creating markets to serve the pluralistic society. The only way they can do that is to bring into their businesses people with diverse backgrounds, not just at the sales level but at the level of planning the product, of marketing the product - throughout all stages of the business.

I think that's one of the things we have been very successful in doing. We have in fact been working in many cases with the Conference Board of Canada and with the Canadian Ethnocultural Council to bring the groups together.

The other way that we can deal with this is through tourism and the arts communities. The film communities and the theatre communities have been very responsive to the concept of using the diversity in Canada to build a tourism industry that would have the world coming to our door, not only to look at how we reach international markets through business and the arts but also how we actually serve our own populations.

These are some very real things that I want to see happen so that we take advantage of multiculturalism.

Mr. Peric: Thank you.

.1150

The Chairman: There is some time left.

Mr. Cullen.

Mr. Cullen (Etobicoke North): Thank you, Madam Minister, for your informative presentation. I have two questions, if I may, one on the Status of Women concept or role and one on multiculturalism.

The first question is about the Status of Women. We hear more today about this concept of gender-based analysis. In fact, I gather it's part of the federal plan to use that as a tool, right? Could you describe the tool for us and how you see that tool being used in policy development in the federal government?

Ms Fry: Well, the guide is here, but in a nutshell, it's a proactive model, so... And because cabinet has approved it, whenever any department is considering any policy change or any legislation, we bring the information we have to bear, because it's not simply a process of looking at the current policy and the current legislation.

It also has to do with research, with surveys, with understanding what the status is today, and with looking at how we evaluate and monitor. On the basis of that information we can tell how that new policy or that legislation will have an impact on women or on men, by knowing for starters if there is inequality in that area at this time.

In fact, it means that the Status of Women is a holistic organization, almost an umbrella organization, that works across the board with every department. That is how we can do it. The manual really talks to the nitty gritty of the process, and I would be pleased to leave copies of it with you. We would be glad to send it to the committee, if you so desire, so that you can look at it.

Mr. Cullen: Thank you. My second question...

The Chairman: This is your last question.

Mr. Cullen: Yes, that's right, and this may be too broad to really get into today. I was very interested in your comments about multiculturalism and the role you see it playing in terms of Canadian identity. I wonder if you could expand on how our multiculturalism can foster a strong Canadian identity, because you do hear arguments from time to time comparing us with the United States and their melting pot concept, where they are Americans first. In the U.S. they do seem to have a strong sense of national identity.

I believe, like you do, that we can use our multiculturalism in terms of creating a strong Canadian identity, or reinforcing it. Your perspective - it's a broad topic - based on your experience would be useful.

Ms Fry: I think it's interesting that we tend to compare ourselves with the United States and their melting pot policy or concept. It is a country that has a great deal of racial tension. It is a country where in fact races are ghettoized and tend to be in the lower socioeconomic groups. By and large, I don't think we can suggest that the melting pot has worked.

In fact, yesterday I met with the Minister of Immigration for Israel, who came to speak with us in Canada and to meet with the department and with me to talk about the fact that when they started their policy of immigration they believed in a melting pot. They have now found it hasn't worked.

A melting pot asks people to assimilate, to in fact stop being who they have been - where their traditions and their roots lie - and to try to be like someone else. It has not worked. It has caused a great deal of tension. They are now looking at how they can bring in a mosaic, which is what Canada has fostered.

I think - if I may be permitted, Mr. Chair, to just be a little philosophical here - the accommodating that Canada has done...and by accepting multiculturalism versus the melting pot, we have chosen a difficult route. It is not the easy route. The melting pot is the easy route.

Canada has always chosen the difficult path. From the very beginning of time, when we began 127 years ago, we looked at the little island called P.E.I. when we were creating Confederation and we said it had so few people that it deserved only one seat in Parliament. But we accommodated. We made a difference. We said the people could not have a real voice with one seat and let them have four. We said that British Columbia was so far away and so vast, and there were these mountains... We said, ``Let's get a railroad.'' To provinces who do not have the natural resources other provinces have, we say, ``Let us talk about equalization of payments. Let us talk about how we can assist you to do better and how we can give help from those of us who have.''

That accommodation has made us an extraordinarily unique nation. There is no other country in the world like ours. People judge Canadians today not by the colour of their skin or their ethnic backgrounds, but as a people who have joined together with a set of common values. As Canadians we are proud of those values, and the world looks to us as a role model.

.1155

Mr. Cullen: Thank you.

The Chairman: I'll come back to you, Mr. Shepherd.

[Translation]

We're back with the official opposition.

Mrs. Gagnon.

Mrs. Gagnon: I would like to come back to the umbrella organization you mentioned a little earlier. I would like to know who chose its members and which women's groups were consulted. Aren't you there to represent or denounce certain policies or to reshuffle priorities? In fact, who sets priorities? Is it the government or the umbrella committee? Were committee members appointed by the government? As you know, I deplore the fact that the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women is no more.

[English]

Ms Fry: Well, no, the committee has not been set up because we are still undergoing consultations. We had a pan-Canadian consultation, at which large Canadian organizations, women's organizations, were present. Then we had a regional one in the Maritimes and a regional one in British Columbia and the Yukon. We just finished a regional one in Calgary. We have two more to go. But what we're hearing consistently from these women is that the best way to have a hands-off approach is to look at how we develop the kind of committee that would pick the research topics and have hands off the whole research project itself.

We're still hearing... I don't know what we will hear from the other groups, but I'm suggesting that the groups of women who represent women's organizations and community groups across the country and in different regions have been telling us roughly the same thing, that they believe we can have a hands-off research process going on, and they have been giving us some input into how it could occur. We have yet to listen to what the other regions have to say.

Our Quebec region consultation, Madam Gagnon, is on May 2, 3 and 4.

[Translation]

Mrs. Gagnon: I don't doubt that you want to improve the status of women, Madam Minister, but I question the process which has been implemented. It's hard to make progress when you are judge and jury.

Take the issue of genital mutilation. If the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women had not existed, what would have happened? Minister Rock did not want to put that bill forward. But for women's groups, for the Canadian Advisory Council and for myself, the bill was a priority.

What will happen when the government has to take a position on a similar issue? What will happen if your government or the minister does not want to go ahead? Madam Minister, if you alone had been in charge of that issue, how would you have convinced the government that the Criminal Code had to be amended?

You're in an akward position. You cannot raise these issues in the House. But there is always the opposition. I don't believe in the process you are currently implementing.

[English]

Ms Fry: Madam Gagnon, you've just given an example of how the process actually works. As you know, the Minister of Justice is bringing a bill into the House to deal with female genital mutilation. Therefore, this government is responsive to the voices of people like you,Madam Gagnon, to the voices of women out there in the community who bring this to our attention, and it gives us, Status of Women, who are advocates for women's equality, the kind of support we need to move these issues forward. And it has worked.

I think the process has been shown to work, and it is working.

[Translation]

Mrs. Gagnon: I would not want you to get sidetracked, because you are very well aware that it took two whole years for the minister to change his mind. A lot of work had been done before, and that was one of the recommendations. I remember that the Bloc raised the matter again in the House because the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women had produced a study and made that recommendation.

I would like to change the subject and talk about organizations which have had to deal with cutbacks of 31% over six years. When government starts cutting back, who will object when the people affected are isolated women's groups throughout Canada or Quebec? The Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women played an important role, but it seems that its disappearance has left a void.

.1200

The Council is not there to criticize the government anymore. There is no committee to study the repercussions of the government's policies and cutbacks. There is absolutely no follow-up on issues concerning the Status of Women.

[English]

Ms Fry: I think many of the national women's organizations would be very distressed,Madam Gagnon, for you to say that they do not have a role to play. I think they are very vocal.

We continue to meet with them and we continue to talk with them. They come and they talk to Minister Rock and to Minister Martin. They are constantly watch-dogging what the government does. This is part of the democratic process. It's a good way to get that kind of bottom-up advocacy from the community.

I would think groups such as the National Action Committee on the Status of Women and many of the francophone national groups who have advocated for women all these years would be distressed that you think the only group that has ever brought women's issues to the floor was the Advisory Council on the Status of Women.

[Translation]

Mrs. Gagnon: I see that Ms Fry is a very astute politician. I did not say these groups did not have a role to play. I said that there were consultations between the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women and those groups. Rather, I was referring to the sense of alienation felt by those groups. Madam Minister, don't put words in my mouth. I only said that the Council synthesized the work carried out by those organizations. You get the feeling that this is not happening anymore. Madam Minister, I recognize that those groups are doing their share, but the Advisory Council did consultations and made recommendations to the government. I regret that this is not happening anymore.

Will we be able to ask some more questions?

The Chairman: Yes.

[English]

Ms Fry: Well, I would like to respond to you that those groups, instead of going through another body, are coming straight to the government, straight to Status of Women Canada. The consultations we just had were precisely that, a drawing together of the groups. In fact, the groups said to us that they would like to have the consultations more often because it gave them a direct voice, so to speak, as opposed to an indirect one.

[Translation]

The Chairman: We'll come back to it.

Mrs. Gagnon: It's unfortunate, but I will come back to that matter.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Shepherd.

Mr. Shepherd (Durham): Thank you.

Back to multiculturalism - and I know you talked about maintaining those cultures of groups that come to our country and so forth. I've talked to many people - Polish people, Italians - who have told me that they didn't come to this country to bring their particular culture; they came here to share the Canadian identity.

What are you doing to foster that kind of promotion of a unique Canadian identity in this country?

Ms Fry: I think, first and foremost, one of the things we are doing is making efforts to remove the barriers that would allow Canadians from other countries of the world who have become first-generation Canadians to in fact become good citizens - to allow them to participate in the fullest in this society. That is one of the things we do as a portfolio and as a department. That is one of the things that we enhance and we foster constantly. We do do that.

No one is suggesting that anyone has come to this country to be, first and foremost, someone else other than a Canadian. What we are saying is that we do not tell people that they can come to this country but they must give up who they are. We're saying we will not stop you from being who you are.

That is why I like to use the word ``respect''. What we practise in this country under multiculturalism is respect. ``Tolerance'' is a word that is used always when you talk about harmonization of peoples and harmony amongst peoples. If you look it up in the dictionary, you will see that it means a way of putting up with something. You don't necessarily have to like it, but you put up with it.

``Respect'' means that we give to all the peoples who come to this country and to the peoples who were here before an inherent value. We say you have brought something to us that will enrich our society - that is what multiculturalism is about - but you will also come here and participate fully as a Canadian citizen.

As an immigrant to this country myself, I chose to come to Canada specifically because of the common values that have created a very clear Canadian identity for those of us who live outside Canada. It's a clear identity of what some people have called a kinder, gentler nation - a just society where respect for differences is fostered and where a sense of social responsibility and the ability to accommodate differences are practised in every single way.

.1205

That is why I came to this country, because of that sense of social justice and sharing. The people who come here as immigrants tend to come precisely because they want to be part of that. They could go to the United States. Many of them who come here come specifically because they share that set of common values.

Mr. Shepherd: What does your department do to promote symbols of national unity, things we can all share? What does your department do in that area?

Ms Fry: Well, if you want very specific programs, I think Mr. Collet would be able to answer.

I think the programs, as I said before, fall under three categories. The most important one to bring in this shared identity would be the issue of civic participation, the issue of ``intercultural'' understanding, which we promote constantly, where peoples of different origins come together and build a country. They help build economically, as we can see from the advantages that come from the diversity in business, and they help build culturally and socially, as we can see from the arts and culture we've been building here. This is the concept of the common values we share.

Mr. Collet can give you some specific programs, if you wish.

The Chairman: Please, go ahead.

Mr. Roger Collet (Assistant Deputy Minister, Citizenship and Immigration, Multiculturalism Canada): For instance, in multiculturalism we've developed over the last few years some partnerships and programs with the Conference Board of Canada, to precisely promote diversity as a value when marketing Canadian values in the business world.

We have programs that range from the partnerships that we have with the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police to, as the minister has indicated, influencing institutions in Canada to be sensitive and inclusive in helping new Canadians feel at home. That's part of the reference the minister made to Canadian values.

In other parts of the department, we do the promotion of Canadian symbols. You are well aware of the one million flags initiative. We have Canadian studies, which is an area in which we promote the reality of the history of Canada, not only in written form but also in modern technological form. It's quite often not known, but it's available in the educational system through CD ROM, as we said in front of this committee some time ago. Those are all departmental programs to support and promote the reality and the different aspects of Canadian identity.

We could talk about our official languages programs.

We could use, as I have explained here before, sport. Under our amateur sport program we promote a Canadian value of excellence, how to compete amongst ourselves through the Canada Games, which take place every two years, and then internationally in the Olympics, which is a capacity to express Canadian values and pride in our country and in our accomplishments.

I could go on and on, Mr. Chairman. These are all programs to support the different realities of the Canadian identity, part of which is the reality of diversity.

The Chairman: Mr. Shepherd, I'll allow you to come back after. Your time has expired.

Mr. Nunez.

[Translation]

Mrs. Gagnon: I will ask a question, and Mr. Nunez will take it from there.

I would like to talk about multiculturalism. Some time ago, we met with government officials, including Mr. Collet. We learned that the federal government was implementing a bilingualism policy for the integration of immigrants. In Quebec, there is a policy to introduce new immigrants to the French culture. You talked about respecting diversity. You want Canadian unity to be the nub of this policy. We know that Canadian unity shows a lack of respect towards the founding peoples because they are not recognized.

.1210

There are many people who denounce multiculturalism because it is not a policy of integration but of ghettoization of various cultural communities. This policy does not help new immigrants and those who have adopted Canada - or Quebec - to really integrate into the dominant culture, be it in English Canada or in Quebec.

I deplore the situation and would like the Minister to tell us how she can promote bilingualism in Quebec when, under Quebec law, French is the official language. Aren't you confusing new immigrants? You mentioned racial tension. Do you really believe that this policy helps immigrants understand what kind of country they have chosen to live in? I doubt it.

[English]

Ms Fry: You may doubt it, Madam Gagnon, but I think it in fact does the exact opposite. One of the things that marks this country is our official bilingualism policy. It is a policy that is set out so that francophones who live outside of Quebec have the ability to access services in their own language. This is clearly so money is set aside to enable that to happen.

Similarly, in Quebec there is a policy that would enable anglophone Canadians to access services, etc., in their own language. So I think that is what the whole policy of bilingualism and of having two official languages is about.

The point is these are the two official languages in which trade, commerce, government decisions, policy making, and legislation are carried out in this country. So I think it is a very good idea for Canadians to have access to speak both of those languages, or either one of those languages, and that is what we promote.

[Translation]

Mrs. Gagnon: You are trying to sell a policy about Canadian unity, when we all know that there is a certain uneasiness within the committee on national unity. Several federalists star-players have denounced the government's policy on Canadian unity, but you are still selling it to the newcomers.

[English]

Ms Fry: We're selling a policy to immigrants, in fact, of acceptance and of respect for differences. Madam Gagnon, you don't agree with respect for differences? You do not agree that we should respect differences. You do not agree, therefore, that different people should learn to live together in harmony, in understanding and in racial cohesion. You do not agree with the concept of a pluralistic society and of an intercultural exchange amongst peoples. Do you? Those are the things that we do in this concept of multiculturalism.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mrs. Gagnon, please.

Mrs. Gagnon: I would not want to give her a bad impression.

The Chairman: Yes, Mrs. Gagnon, please.

Mrs. Gagnon: I agree with diversity...

The Chairman: Mrs. Gagnon, please. If you continue, Mr. Nunez... Please, go ahead.

Mrs. Gagnon: We agree on diversity, but your policy does not reflect what's happening in Canada.

Quebeckers are a tolerant people. We also have an immigration policy, but you are not helping Quebec reinforce its Quebec's specificity nor its distinct society by promoting bilingualism with immigrants to Quebec.

The anglophone community in Quebec is respected and has its own institutions. The situation is different in English Canada; we know very well that francophone Canadians living in English speaking provinces have very few rights.

If the rest of Canada did as much as Quebec, we could talk. That's all.

[English]

Ms Fry: Madam Gagnon, it's obvious that you don't seem to know that we have policies in which we fund the concept of giving francophones who live outside of Quebec the ability to communicate with each other in their own language.

In fact, I recently signed an agreement with the francophone community in my riding for the sum of about $7.5 million so that they could continue to do some of those things, including setting up the francophone schools in the francophone school board in which they could have some ability to set curricula, to set their own authority amongst the schools.

.1215

These are the things that we work with when we live outside... In fact, you would know that many young anglophone people outside of Quebec are making a choice to take French immersion classes, and we support all of these initiatives.

So we're back to respecting differences and giving Canadians the ability to have a choice and the ability to enjoy the linguistic duality of this country.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Bélanger (Ottawa - Vanier): I find it interesting that Quebec, which denounces North American homogeneity, wants to apply it to its own territory.

I would like to say a few words about francophones living outside Quebec, since the Bloc québécois seems to be concerned about them these days.

It is true that over the last few decades, francophones - I will refer to Ontario because I am most familiar with that province - were not in charge of their own institutions. What the member for the Bloc québécois does not seem to want to recognize is that this situation is improving.

I would like to thank the current premier of Quebec, the former leader of the Bloc québécois. He is the one, in the name of the federal government, who signed an agreement with Ontario to create the Cité collégiale. We can thank him for that. Obviously, at the time, he recognized that helping franco Ontarians instead of using them as a means to his own end was worthwhile.

Can the minister and her officials tell us a little about the francophone immigrant population living outside Quebec and how it fits in our multiculturalism policy? What is her department doing to help this community?

[English]

Ms Fry: [Inaudible - Editor]...but Mr. Collet will give you some of the details.

[Translation]

Mr. Collet: In Ontario, where there is a large population of francophone immigrants, four or five years ago communities on their own became involved in an effort whereby the Canadian francophone community would work with the francophone immigrant community.

The government supported this rapprochement through its multiculturalism and official languages program in order to build into Ontario the notion of respect for diversity, as was mentioned by the minister.

We are working to the best of our abilities to foster cooperation where numbers warrant it. This has been going on in Ontario, and so much progress has been made that ACFO has included representatives of francophone multicultural communities at its consultation table.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

Mr. Bélanger: I have a question for the minister. In listening to her speak, one could almost come to the conclusion that the driving force in all we're doing is altruism. I would rather believe it is enlightened self-interest. I wonder if the minister would care to elaborate a bit on what is the driving force to help people who come to Canada. You've touched on it quite at length, but perhaps you would care to elaborate on whether it is altruism that drives us or enlightened self-interest.

.1220

Ms Fry: That's a little difficult to answer because I wasn't there at the inception to know what went on in the debate around the table and in people's heads.

But I would think, as I said before, that when this country first began, the roots of this confederation came out of the understanding and belief that if we respected each other's differences and if we learned to live together using those differences to enrich society, it was in fact the only way out of necessity that a country this vast, with so many diverse people, would be able to live together in some harmony and in some peace. That sense of accommodation may have begun as a necessity. It may not even have been altruistic, it may have been necessary at the time, but over the years it has turned into a value. That respect for differences has become a common and shared Canadian value.

Out of it we have seen the spin-off that has given us a distinct economic advantage in the world today that puts us ahead of any other country in terms of trade.

When you look at the fact that France has gone off to Asia and has come back with $2 billion worth of trade and they're very thrilled and yet a country such as Canada, which has half the population, has come back with about $20 billion worth of contracts, from what the Prime Minister is saying, that is an astounding trading accomplishment. So there's a distinct and definite economic benefit for us.

The social benefit has been that we have created a very harmonious global society where we have tended to find peaceful resolutions to conflict. One of the things that Boutros Boutros-Ghali said to the Prime Minister was that we have learned to live together and find peaceful resolution to conflict. The very fact that we talk about peace, order and good government, that we constantly seek accommodation...so we get a peacefully cohesive social society in which every time tensions arise we seek to accommodate and to balance the differences.

Of course, economically, again, we can see that this would be of great benefit as part of the tourism industry.

Because of the diversity of our country, we also have internal marketplace economies that we can foster. Instead of having in the future to serve our own diverse marketplace within Canada by importing from other countries, we now have critical masses where we can build an industry so that we can have the arts, culture, food, books, everything we will need to service our own internal markets. So this is also a distinct economic advantage.

When people look at multiculturalism in Canada, and when around the world they look at Canada as a country and a nation, they don't talk about the economic advantages, they talk about the fact that we are in fact a very unique nation because we have this wonderful ability to have lived together. As globalization is occurring in the 21st century, when we have global entities trying to live together, I think Canada would have found its place in a leadership role in the world at that time.

Mr. Bélanger: So Laurier might have been wrong, although we don't admit mistakes lightly these days, that Canada...the 21st century.

Ms Fry: I think he missed it by a century.

Mr. Bélanger: He missed it by one.

The Chairman: Mr. Peric.

Mr. Peric: Madam Minister, I have to agree with Madam Gagnon when she said that multicultural groups are still closed in their own small ghettos. From my own experience in my community in Cambridge and in the community where I would culturally come from, which is the Croatian community, unfortunately they are closed in that small ghetto somehow. I don't know what the formula is to get them out, to be involved more with the rest of Canadian society, and to share their values and respect the values of other groups.

.1225

I'm not in favour of supporting multicultural groups with money to dance and exhibit their foods and so on. To be identified as such... Of course I love the foods and I respect the dances from different groups, but I think we should go further; we should encourage them to be involved in everyday Canadian life. Do you have any plans to invite them to be involved?

Ms Fry: Before I tell you about the plans, I'd like to address the concept of ghettos. There is no country in the world where people do not live in ghettos. When you go to San Francisco, one of the places everyone likes to go is Chinatown. If you look at the United States, Harlem is a ghetto.

Why do ghettos exist? I would suggest that in Canada we do not have ghettos, because ghettos tend to have people who are joined together as a social entity, who are ostracized and who tend to live in very different socioeconomic conditions from their counterparts around them.

That is distinct from people who choose to live close to each other because they share some common traditions. If I went to a cocktail party and I walked around the room, I might head to somebody and talk for the rest of the evening if we shared common interests - if they played golf and I liked to play golf, or if there were physicians, parliamentarians or even British Columbians in the room.

People tend to do that. That is a natural human phenomenon, I think. That is distinct from ghettoization. Multiculturalism has fostered the ability for people to reach out to each other. The ability to become a clear participant in the society of Canada is what multiculturalism is about. Removing the barriers would stop people from being able to do that. That is clearly what is distinct in terms of the groups of people who live close by, as opposed to a ghetto in Poland or in the United States.

In program review we have been looking at ways to do some of these things better. I think the concept of song and dance went out with the horse and buggy. That's not what we fund in Multiculturalism. The fact that we're evolving means the strategies that worked 20 years ago aren't going to work today. We're changing strategies as we go to accommodate the different society and environments that we now live in.

We're finding that many groups of different cultures are now forming themselves into associations where they work together to achieve that kind of cross-cultural understanding, intercultural harmony and intercultural relationships - working together to build businesses and communities and to participate. Communities are wanting and trying to do that.

We've talked to young people in schools and they have talked about how they, in the school system, can assist people to integrate into their society when there is a newcomer to the group. This is part of what we're looking at - how we evolve our strategies and how we move forward in our program review to resolving this, given that we're getting larger and larger critical masses of people.

Mr. Peric: Are you consulting with the groups and getting their input and ideas?

Mr. Fry: Yes, in each region I go to I meet with the communities and the groups, and many of them have already begun to work together to look at the economic and social issues, to create interracial harmony and to fight racism. So those are the things that are happening.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mrs. Gagnon.

Mrs. Gagnon: I will let Mr. Nunez speak.

Mr. Nunez (Bourassa): Unless I am mistaken, you said that a French school in Vancouver received a subsidy of $7.5 million. Is that right?

.1230

Mr. Collet: That concerns an agreement between the community of Canada and the francophone community of British Columbia involving $7.5 million spread over four years.

Mr. Bélanger: It's a little more compared to the people of Quebec.

Mr. Nunez: Very well. Three weeks ago, I visited ethno- cultural communities in Saskatchewan and I also met with representatives from the Association culturelle franco-canadienne de la Saskatchewan. One of the harshest and most acerbic criticism I heard concerned government cutbacks. I went to the language department of the University of Regina which has suffered dramatic cutbacks. We were told that the assimilation rate in Saskatchewan was 70%.

I met Joe Fafard, a very well known sculptor, whose son does not speak French any more. He wanted to send his children to cégep and universities in Quebec, but there was no money available for that purpose. How do you explain these dramatic cutbacks in subsidies for francophones outside Quebec?

[English]

Ms Fry: Roger will answer on the exact amount of money and specifics, but I would like to follow him on some of the concepts that you're talking about.

[Translation]

Mr. Collet: It all depends on when you were in Saskatchewan. Mrs. Copps signed an agreement with the francophone community in Saskatchewan last week. It was pure coincidence. It involved $6.3 million spread over three years. Furthermore, through the management of the school system, the government of Saskatchewan paid for the entire implementation of the province's education structure, which happened since the cut you are referring to were made.

Mr. Nunez: If that's true, congratulations. However, I did hear a lot of criticism.

During your presentation, which I appreciated, you said that women still had a long way to go; I agree and I would add that minority women, especially women from visible minorities, have an even longer road ahead of them. Their salaries are lower, especially in the private sector. They are more often victims of violence, especially family violence, and racism. It's often harder for them than for men to take language courses. Our immigration point system favours men.

Women who work as servants face terrible problems. Why doesn't the government do anything? Some women are practically treated like slaves by their employers. They don't have the freedom to work in another sector outside the home. What is your department doing to help these women, women from visible minorities and specifically servants?

[English]

Ms Fry: As you pointed out, women in visible minority groups carry a double burden of inequality. We have been working through our regional departments to assist community groups to learn how to better access some of the programs that are available to help them. Our regional offices don't just look at program funding. We are used as technical resource groups. We tend to be consultative groups and we help some of these women learn how to access programs. We even help them to get there. We walk them through it. So there is that kind of hands-on assistance in the regions for these groups of women.

.1235

With an employment equity bill that is a government act now, governmental organizations are ensuring that none of these kinds of discriminations are fostered within the language of the law as well. Many of these women have access because we have reinstated the court challenges program in Canada. It was cancelled by the last government but we reinstated it, so many of these women do have access to seek justice under the court challenges program. That is one of the tools they use to ensure that their voices are heard and that they get equality under the law.

[Translation]

Mrs. Gagnon: I have a question for the Secretary of State regarding anglophone groups who are promoting the partition of Quebec and who receive subsidies from her department under the Official Languages Program. Do these groups receive subsidies from her department under Multiculturalism Program, which include official languages?

[English]

Ms Fry: If you name specific groups we can tell you whether those groups received a subsidy under Multiculturalism for specific criteria to do with the promotion of the multiculturalism mandate. I don't know who the groups are, but I'm sure that if you tell us we will be able to give you an answer.

[Translation]

Mrs. Gagnon: If the minister learned that these groups were subsidized by her department, would she intervene and put an end to the subsidies given the objectives of these groups?

[English]

Ms Fry: Grants are provided based on a specific project or program that a group is going to undertake, and it must fulfil the requirements of the department of multiculturalism in keeping with our mandate. So whenever a group applies for a grant, it is given based on their fulfilment of multiculturalism mandates, and in the end there is an evaluation of the group's work to see if they did fulfil the criteria. If they did not fulfil the specific criteria for which they asked for money, and they ask for money next time, obviously one would feel they didn't use the money in the manner in which they had asked to use it.

The Chairman: Mr. Shepherd, do you have a question?

Mr. Shepherd: That's a very interesting question. I wonder if we should consider changing our transfer payments to the Province of Quebec given some of their objectives.

To go back to Mr. Peric's statement, perhaps he was trying to get at the question of the chicken and the egg sort of thing. Does funding multiculturalism actually ghettoize people in the sense of the amount of money in your budget that is given to organizations to maintain other cultural identities, as opposed to providing them with conduits to act within the general polity? In other words, how much of your actual spending is concentrated in areas to more or less celebrate the culture of the societies they came from, rather than the society they're in?

Ms Fry: I don't think any money was given for that kind of process. Say a person was a new immigrant to the country and they availed themselves of settlement services in their own language so that they could become a participant in society. We would look at how to assist them to remove the barriers that lie in their way of becoming full Canadians and participating in society. So if we ever give money to a particular group, it would only be to assist them to integrate and achieve civic participation, and it may be to a particular group that came in and found itself isolated. The concept is always to move them into participating as part of Canadian society.

Mr. Shepherd: The suggested changes to the oath of allegiance to this country - is that consistent with recognition of how our country has changed?

.1240

Ms Fry: Can you elaborate on the suggested oath? It has not been suggested by the Government of Canada. The oath of allegiance - what particular aspect of the oath of allegiance are you referring to?

Mr. Shepherd: Currently, the oath of allegiance in Canada is to Queen Elizabeth II. The proposed changes have been to simply swear allegiance to Canada as a country. Is it consistent with your policy that this be a general objective, recognizing that those people from other cultural identities possibly do not share in some of that distinctness of the past and possibly are looking for some changes in the future?

Ms Fry: Historically, I suppose Canada was once a colony of England. Then historically Canada became a nation of its own and a member of the British Commonwealth. However, we begin to see that even members of the British Commonwealth, such as Australia and New Zealand, are wondering, as they forge their identities as a nation, whether or not they would like to make their first priority allegiance to the monarch.

The whole issue and debate about the monarchy versus a different type of democratic society is one that is going on in a lot of Commonwealth countries today. I think it is going on here.

I think this is part of evolution; this is part of the way people begin to see themselves. I think Canada is recognized around the world now as a nation, as a distinct nation in its own right, a unique people. I think Canada must need to ask itself whether it wants to be a nation in its own right or to continue to bear allegiance to someone who may or may not have any relevance any longer.

I don't know. That's part of the societal question we will have to look at as we evolve into the 21st century, along with other Commonwealth countries.

The Chairman: Mr. Shepherd, in fairness to the present minister, I think your question should be directed to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, under whose portfolio this falls. Maybe you could attend the relevant committee and ask that question of the minister when she appears.

Mr. Peric: It was a good question, and I support his motives.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Are there any other questions?

Mr. Nunez: Madam Minister, would it be possible to receive a list of the organizations which receive subsidies under the bilingualism program?

[English]

Mr. Collet: I'm sorry, I didn't hear...

[Translation]

The Chairman: Can you please repeat your question?

Mr. Nunez: I was wondering whether we could possibly obtain the list of organizations which receive subsidies under the bilingualism program?

Mr. Collet: The promotion of official languages.

Mr. Nunez: Of official languages.

Mr. Collet: Of course.

[English]

Ms Fry: Not multiculturalism.

[Translation]

Mr. Nunez: No, official languages.

Mr. Collet: We will provide you with it. Should they go back to the turn of the century?

Mr. Nunez: Oh, no, that's going too far back.

An honourable member: This year.

Mr. Collet: Absolutely, it's in the public domain.

Mr. Nunez: Perfect.

The Chairman: If you send Mr. Nunez a copy, perhaps you can also send one to the other members of the committee.

Mr. Collet: Certainly.

Mr. Nunez: In the estimates for 1996-1997, under Grants and Contributions, ``support for voluntary organizations'', it says that your department is spending $10,605,420 less than last year. Why was this decision taken and how is the money now being spent?

[English]

Ms Fry: Are you speaking of the Department of the Status of Women, or Multiculturalism?

[Translation]

Mr. Nunez: I am referring to multiculturalism. I don't know if you have the information in front of you. I believe that Mr. Collet mentioned it at a previous meeting; you could probably look it up in the committee's minutes of proceedings. I think Mr. Collet said that the money almost ran out.

.1245

[English]

Mr. Collet: Mr. Chairman, the question is about our program within the department on voluntary action, which is not part of multiculturalism, I'm sorry. In the main estimates it is put within the larger area called ``Citizenship and Citizens' Participation and Multiculturalism''.

[Translation]

I could give you an answer if you want. But at the moment...

Mr. Bélanger: I'd like to raise a point of order. The minister is here to make a statement and answer questions on two subjects: multiculturalism and the status of women. The question does not address either of those issues.

The Chairman: I apologize. I happen to be speaking with the clerk when the question was asked and I didn't hear it.

Mr. Bélanger: I want to know if the question...

The Chairman: But what was the question? I didn't hear it, since I was speaking with the clerk.

Mr. Bélanger: The question addressed an item in the estimates which falls under another department's section and it has nothing to do with the issues at hand.

Mr. Nunez: We can ask the minister what the budget is for Status of Women Canada. Has money been earmarked for interracial relations, intercultural understanding and support for voluntary organizations?

The Chairman: Allow me to ask the minister and Mr. Collet to only answer questions which fall under the minister's jurisdiction, since the Minister of Canadian Heritage will appear before the committee on Thursday. At that point, she will be able to answer all the other questions.

[English]

Ms Fry: Are you asking about the overall budget for Status of Women?

Mr. Nunez: Yes.

Ms Fry: Well, the overall budget is $16.563 million. You also asked whether we have been putting money into any immigrant women's programs. Yes, we have.

Mr. Nunez: How much?

Ms Fry: We have been working with immigrant women in the communities for quite a while, dealing with issues such as their ability to access training and employment. We're looking at issues of female genital mutilation with them. We have been working with immigrant groups. In each region funding has been to immigrant groups of women. As for the exact amounts, I don't know whether we can give you that right now.

Mr. Nunez: Okay. Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mrs. Gagnon, one last question.

Mrs. Gagnon: What is the Multiculturalism's budget for individual groups?

Mr. Collet: What do you mean by ``individual groups''?

Mrs. Gagnon: It's what you referred to during a previous meeting in answer to my question. At the time, I said that the policy of multiculturalism allowed groups to recreate, in Canada, certain aspects of their culture. You said that they received almost no grants.

I tried to identify the grants given to these groups. I found the figure of $10,600,420 on the sheets I got out; this represents the largest support budget for charitable organizations. I tried to understand your answer, as well as the multiculturalism budget.

I found that this was the largest budget. Are the $10 million spent on individual groups or on race relations and cross-cultural understanding? I'm trying to understand.

[English]

Ms Fry: The overall budget for multiculturalism is $18.690 million. We have three specific headings under which we tend to do funding. One is community support and participation. In order to foster that, $10.6 million is put into programs fostering that specific component. Race relations and cross-cultural understanding is $5.4 million, and the third one, heritage languages and culture, is $2.6 million.

If you want a further breakdown of what these specific groups are, I think that would take us much more time than we have, but we would be glad to send you that information.

[Translation]

Mrs. Gagnon: Fine. Thank you.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

.1250

I would like to extend our hearty thanks to the minister, Mr. Collet, Ms Scotti, Ms Bergeron de Villiers, and Ms Karman for their appearance here. I think we are much wiser today than we were before they came. I appreciate it very much.

[Translation]

I would like members to stay another five minutes.

[English]

We have some housekeeping work to do. Would the regular members of the committee stay for a couple of minutes, please.

[Translation]

It won't be long; we only have two points.

I would like to apologize on behalf of Mr. Gaston Leroux, the official opposition critic, who was not able to make it today.

Mr. Leroux has asked me to defer his motion until Thursday's meeting. The motion concerns an invitation to the National Film Board.

I think everyone agrees with that.

[English]

Second, for your information, the minister is appearing before us on Thursday. The program for next week is that on Tuesday of next week we have the Bibliothèque nationale du Canada. On Thursday, May 9, we have the Musée canadien des civilisations and the Museum of Nature. I will advise you further from May 14 on. We have the program established now for the minister this week; for next week, May 7 and 9, you'll be receiving confirmation.

[Translation]

Mr. Bélanger: Last Thursday, we considered the CRTC's estimates.

The Chairman: Yes, that's correct.

Mr. Bélanger: Should our committee recommend supporting the estimates and report to the House?

The Chairman: Absolutely, yes.

Mr. Bélanger: Will we study the department's estimates on Thursday?

The Chairman: It will be up to you to ask questions of the minister at that time.

Mr. Bélanger: If she decides to make a motion.

The Chairman: Yes, certainly.

Mr. Bélanger: Thank you.

The Chairman: The meeting is adjourned. Thank you.

Return to Committee Home Page