CHER Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CANADIAN HERITAGE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DU PATRIMOINE CANADIEN

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, November 18, 1997

• 0909

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): I would like to declare the meeting open to hear an overview of the Department of Multiculturalism and Status of Women, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2).

[Translation]

I would like to welcome Ms. Hedy Fry, Secretary of State for Multiculturalism and the Status of Women. Would you kindly introduce your colleagues from the department to us.

[English]

The Honourable Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status of Women), Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I would like to introduce Ms. Florence Ivors, the head of the Status of Women in Canada, and Norman Moyer, Assistant Deputy Minister for Multiculturalism.

The Chairman: Mrs. Fry, the floor is yours.

Ms. Hedy Fry: Thank you very much. Mr. Chair. I am really very pleased to be allowed this opportunity to address you and the members of this committee in discussing some of the things we do and the raison d'être of our department.

• 0910

Before I begin, I would like to discuss the environment in which we now live in Canada. This is a country of great diversity. It is a country in which we currently have five million immigrants. It is a country in which the people whose origins are not English or French now make up 42.7% of the population. In fact in the year 2006 that is supposed to be 55%. It is a country whose face is changing as we speak. More than 50% of immigrants who come into this country now are from Asia. We know that women make up roughly 51% of the country. So we are addressing the issues of quite a large segment of our population.

Let us talk a little about our mandate. Given that we live in this diverse society, our mandate is really to foster, reflect, and uphold certain core Canadian values. Those are values of equality.

I would just like to speak first and foremost about the value of equality, Mr. Chair. Equality is core to our Canadian society, and it is core to what we have tried to foster in the country. But it is important to realize that equality does not mean sameness, and that does not mean treating everyone the same.

If you consider that people face many different barriers based on gender, race, religion, colour, ability or disability, sexual orientation, and on where they live in this country, we know, therefore, that fostering equality means looking at the barriers that are faced because of those differences, and setting up strategies that will deal with those different barriers. So we're talking about different strategies to help to foster equality.

Accommodation is key to this. Our ability to respect those differences that Canada fosters, or that Canada sees as a strength, the accommodation of those differences, is key to fostering equality.

The ability to negotiate, to give and take, and to find and accommodate those differences is very key to creating social cohesion, which is our aim. Fostering a society in which everyone feels that they belong, in which everyone feels that they have something to offer, and in which people can live in mutual understanding and respect for each other is a core Canadian value. As I said earlier, that means eliminating the barriers to opportunity we all face, regardless of where we live, or regardless of who we are. It is therefore about empowering Canadians.

So when we talk about what Status of Women Canada and Multiculturalism Canada do, we are talking about working within the framework of the laws of this country, within our Canadian Human Rights Act, within our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, within our Constitution, to assist Canadian society, Canadian groups, persons, individuals and others, and institutions of the levels of government to have the skills and tools that we need to accommodate, create social cohesion, and eliminate the barriers to opportunity.

This is all done under the rubric of good governance. If you consider it important as we function, and it is important to see how we govern in a way that is transparent, in a way that one is able to evaluate what we're doing and to clearly see where we're going, what objectives we are trying to achieve as we move in this direction to foster core Canadian values.... We do this, as well, as a nation, as a country, because we need to look at how we stand, not only to create the society we talk about, but how we as Canadians present ourselves to the world as a role model.

It is no coincidence that for four years running we are the best country in the world in which to live in terms of human development. That is because for many years we have been an experimental, dynamic, and evolving country. We have always experimented with ways of living together, with ways of respect, with ways of accommodation. This has made us the envy of the world. Continuing as a role model to the world is therefore key to what we do.

• 0915

Second, we need to uphold uphold certain international conventions that are part of the things we have signed onto as a country. Those are ones that have to do with discrimination, whether they be under Status of Women Canada with regard to the convention to eliminate discrimination against women, when we look at the United Nations human rights act, when we look at certain other conventions on discrimination with regard to multiculturalism and with regard to the rights of the individual and society as a whole, the rights of the child and the rights of the girl child, women's rights as human rights. We have signed onto all these conventions as a country, and therefore our ability to fulfil our obligations are also inherent in what we do.

The objectives we have recently embarked on as Status of Women Canada have underlined this issue of good governance. We are looking at how we set up very clear objectives we hope to achieve. We can therefore examine ourselves at the end of that time, or very regularly, to see whether or not we are achieving those objectives. Those objectives are threefold: increasing women's economic autonomy and well-being; eradicating systemic violence against women and children; and achieving women's rights through access to social justice, with priority for those facing multiple barriers.

Now, Mr. Chair, I will move back to the issue of increasing women's economic autonomy and well-being.

All the indicators and all the data we have tell us that at this time women are not equal in terms of their economic autonomy. We know that women depend on their incomes, not only on paid work, but on benefits, child support payments, alimony, and pensions. So for large parts of their incomes women depend on other things than paid work, or being in the paid workforce.

We also know that for women in the paid workforce the wage gap now sits at 73%. In fact, children are very key to that gap. We find that single women are earning 94% of an equivalent wage of a single man of the same age, or a man in society doing the same work. But we find that women with children are only earning 69% of the equivalent man doing the same work with children.

We also find that women spend a great deal of their time—almost five weeks, or 182 hours a year—doing work that is not paid. That work includes caregiving, looking after families, childbearing, and looking after seniors and the elderly. That amount of unpaid work women do takes the time away from money they could earn in the paid workforce.

We also know that 82% of single parents are women, and that 65% of these women live in poverty. We know that women's earnings are very critical for dual-earner families that are low-income groups. In fact we find that if women were not earning in certain low-income, dual-earner family groups, that would increase the amount of families living in poverty from about 157,000 right now to almost 600,000.

So women are also critical, even in non-single-parent families. In those families their paid income is critical to the well-being of the family.

These are some of the challenges we face, and some of the statistics we know.

In terms of violence against women, it is pretty clear that there is violence against women in the home, in the workplace, and on the streets. And whatever steps we take, not only legally, not only by setting up laws, but also by looking at how we assist communities to deal with these issues, are key to some of the things we do.

Let me turn to the issue of achieving women's rights as human rights. Again, we need to discuss the barriers women face in terms of accessing social justice. Whether these are issues of access to health care, training, or jobs, or access to any of the rights Canadians have in this country, there are certain barriers women face.

This is not only because of their gender, Mr. Chair, but also because some women have multiple barriers based on the fact that they are minority women, they're women of colour, they may be disabled women, or they may be women who, because of their sexual orientation, are denied equal access to justice under the law.

• 0920

[Translation]

Achieving equality for women is not an isolated challenge. Accordingly, we are working vertically with other levels of government and horizontally with federal departments such as Justice, Human Resources and Development, Finance and Citizenship and Immigration. No one federal department is shirking its responsibilities,

[English]

and because of that we have all set about something called gender-based analysis. That means that every single department, every single piece of policy, every single piece of legislation this government seeks to make will be looked at with a lens that sees whether or not those policies, those initiatives, or that legislation will worsen women's lot relative to men, or worsen men's lot.

So it's called gender-based analysis. We embarked on this last year, in March 1997. This is one of the things we use as a tool in government and across departments to ensure that women's rights are looked at.

If we take multiculturalism, which is the other portfolio, we need to look at the clear objectives we've set about to ensure social cohesion and respect for differences, and to ensure that Canadians feel a part of the society in which they live.

The first objective is a sense of identity and belonging. This is not only a sense of identity within Canada, as a Canadian...the concept that Canadians can be anyone, they can look any way, they can have a different colour, they can have a different superficial aspect to them, they can speak different languages, they can speak with accents.

Being a Canadian means you can be anyone—you can look anywhere you wish—but also to feel that because of your difference you still belong, you are clearly Canadian, you have a place in the society that is yours, a place in which you can feel that this is your home, and you can contribute.

The second part of our objective, therefore, is how to go about assisting Canadians, regardless of their origins, to ensure that they can participate fully in the economic, social, political, and cultural life of our country. So we are talking here again of removing barriers that prohibit people from participating fully as Canadians.

The third component, of course, is eliminating the barriers of discrimination, racism, intolerance, and all the other barriers to building a fair and equitable society. We know, for instance, that visible-minority men in this country earn 8% less doing the same work as non-visible-minority men in Canada. We also know that black men in Canada earn 15% less doing the same work as non-black men in Canada. So there are definitely certain barriers.

We also know that language and cultural differences do prevent us from having access to health care and other things if we don't have a culturally sensitive milieu in which people can work and live.

If we then look at how this overarching concept of what we do at Status of Women Canada and what we do in Multiculturalism Canada addresses the priorities of this government, as stated in the throne speech, we will look.... I just wanted to look at four major components and priorities of the throne speech, the first one being economic prosperity.

If we look at child poverty as one of the key issues and priorities for this government, we recognize that when children are poor—if you remember the statistics I gave about single-parent mothers—nearly always the majority of these children...it is because their mothers are poor. You cannot separate the child either from the mother or from the low-income parents in the household. Therefore, if we're going to deal with child poverty, it is necessary also to look at some of the gender issues, and some of the issues that have to do with difference regardless of what the cause of the difference is.

We know that the economic status of women is also key. When we look at the fact that women do not have access to the same income men do, because they depend for their income on other things, other than paid work, even women in paid work do not earn the same as men. We need to address some of these issues.

We have gone a long way to addressing some of these issues. Recently, in fact, the federal, provincial and territorial ministers of status of women spent two years coming out with some economic indicators that showed we have made gains.

We have found that the whole income tax system benefits women in a very positive way. The pre-tax income for women in paid work is lower than after-tax income relative to men. After the taxes have been deducted we find that women do much better.

• 0925

We also find that in terms of training and access to education, women are in fact doing a lot better in the female-dominated fields. Women now make up over 50% of post-secondary education jobs and they are represented in very high numbers in female-dominated fields such as nursing, teaching, service jobs, and pink-collar jobs.

We're also seeing that women in fact are doing much better in the gender-neutral fields, such as medicine and dentistry and law, but we still find there is a major gap in terms of women's ability to enter science, technology, and engineering. In fact, only 18% of women today are represented in engineering and about 23% of women today are represented in math and the sciences.

Clearly, if we look at the new technology for tomorrow, at our changes and trends in economic growth and at the new economy, women are going to be left behind unless we recognize that challenge and we do something about it today. We will find that in 10 years from now women will not be getting the full-time, full-paid, sustainable jobs if they don't get into the new, innovative economy.

We also need to look at the issue of visible minority youth employment if we're looking at prosperity. We know that when we look at youth unemployment, which is high, in fact visible minority youths have a much higher rate of unemployment, about four to five times higher than non-visible minority youths. We also know that young women have a much higher unemployment rate than young men.

If we look at trade, I think we can look at the benefits of trade in terms of economic prosperity. The Conference Board of Canada and the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada have done some studies. With globalization and because Canada is one of the largest trading nations in the world, depending on trade for over 45% of its gross domestic product, the disadvantages or the barriers to trade in the world today, as we trade with many different countries, are understanding of the language, culture, and marketplace of those countries with which we trade.

Over the last 25 years, multiculturalism has helped to create a society in which people from all countries of the world have been able to maintain their distinctive language, culture, and therefore knowledge of their countries of origin, which is an advantage for Canada as we trade. It is an advantage that we have not begun to use as appropriately as we could and it is one that we wish to try to move forward in terms of using that advantage, which puts Canada at the front of trading issues.

The second priority for the throne speech is children and youth. I think we've already spoken about some of the disadvantages for minority youth and for women in the workforce, but we also need to look at discrimination, racism, not only for visible minority youths and for women, but in terms of discrimination against sexual orientation and disability. This prevents young people from having that equal access, not only to the workplace but to society, that feeling of belonging to society.

If discrimination holds young people back from belonging to society, the challenge we will then find is that we will have marginalized groups within our society who feel they don't belong. That could in fact have an impact on how our society develops and on social cohesion.

So far we have been doing pretty well. I know many of you have seen the recent polls that came out from ECOSOC that showed tolerance. Tolerance is the word that was used in the questionnaire, but I use it very loosely because I feel the word we speak about today in multiculturalism is respect. Tolerance means you put up with something you don't necessarily like; respect means you realize that other people have something to offer that is enriching and that it isn't necessary for everyone to assimilate and be like everyone else. The difference is our strength.

We have noticed that in fact, in terms of “tolerance”, if five is the most tolerant society, there is no city in Canada that falls below four. That tells us that we have moved quite well over the last 25 years into delivering on the kind of society we've wanted to create, but we still know there are challenges. We still have racism. There is still discrimination and there is still a need to do some more about that.

Fostering inclusion and a sense of belonging into Canadian society therefore is key, especially when we look at the fact that our major cities in the world are made up of young people of very different racial backgrounds and we know discrimination is very different for visible minority youth than for black youth.

• 0930

We need to ensure that young people have a sense of being part of our society. Even though we see that the unemployment rates are higher, we need to remember that this may give them a sense of exclusion and not belonging. We need to address these in our inclusive society.

The third component of the throne speech in which Multiculturalism and Status of Women have a role to play is in the component of safer homes and safer streets. Again, we've talked about systemic violence against women in the home, in the streets and in the workplace. There are many initiatives we have undertaken as a government and within Status of Women Canada to deal with some of these issues, not in the least being some of the laws we have set up in terms of looking at issues such as stalking, female genital mutilation and assisting women with transition homes in which they can live so that they can in fact be safe.

In terms of looking at the issue of gun control, we know the majority of women killed in domestic violence are killed with weapons. I think something like 70% of women are killed with weapons by people they know in their family, usually by a spouse or common-law person. So we needed to look at gun control as one of the ways...of safer homes and safer streets; dealing with issues of sexual harassment in the workplace; and dealing with the whole issue of fostering crime prevention in society. Women now say that they feel afraid to walk in the streets at night, and we need to look at how we make changes to that.

The sexual exploitation of children is something we have always believed belongs in some third world country, where people go and use young children on the streets because these children are on the streets. But this is happening in Edmonton, in Vancouver, in Toronto—all of our major cities. Young children are on the streets, being exploited.

We need to ask ourselves why our young children are on the street, being exploited, looking for money or whatever the reasons they've been exploited, whether it be to get them into the drug trade...but somehow being involved in prostitution for young people. One needs to ask a very important question: Why is it young people feel that the streets are safer than their homes? This is the challenge I'd like to ask you to think about.

Looking at the issue of hate and bias crime and activity, we have moved forward to start to have a round table in the spring, bringing together people from Justice Canada; the Solicitor General's office; victims of hate and bias crime and activity; and non-governmental organizations and institutions that have been working on these issues, to talk about a national strategy for hate and bias crimes and activities, which in some segments of and areas of Canada is raising its head.

In fact, in Kamloops, British Columbia, there are crosses being burned on lawns. There is an increase in certain groups—they call themselves white supremacist groups—in parts of Alberta and British Columbia.

These are things we need to stand on guard for. While we have in many ways created this tolerant and respectful society, it does not mean we need to sit back and forget that some of these things are increasing right now. Because of anxiety within our communities about each other we tend to note that when anxiety, unemployment and other economic factors create a sense of concern amongst population, they start looking around for other groups to be the scapegoats.

We need to talk about the marginalized visible minority youth. Again, we have a good sense that young people are participating fully in Canada, but we also know, given racism and discrimination, there is a risk that in some inner-city areas where young black children or people of visible minorities are finding that they are marginalized, there is a propensity for looking at whether that could lead to violence because of this sense of marginalization—not belonging, and being excluded from society.

Finally, the other priority I wanted to deal with in the throne speech has to do with unity and nation-building. Nation-building is a process. It is not something that will ever end. As we continue to change and evolve as a nation, as we continue to see that demographically, changes are occurring, not only in terms if immigrants and in terms of the diversity of Canada but also looking at how all regions are changing and evolving, we need to continue to look at how we foster equality by respecting differences and by accommodating those differences in creating strategies that are different, depending on the barriers and the issues we need to look at.

We talk about integration and inclusion. This is what Multiculturalism and the Status of Women are set up to do—to assist communities and institutions with the skills and tools they need to be able to participate fully and to feel part of our society. We know we've always tried to foster a society in which we see diversity as strength.

• 0935

There's the whole concept of an integrative society versus an assimilative society, which is a melting pot society. That's the kind of society where if you do not become like everyone else.... The concept that if you come here you better put aside who you are and be like everyone else is not what Canada has done.

At the time when Canada began to look at its diverse populations, we had moved in a different way from that of the United States. We tried to respect differences. We have tried to create, through the multiculturalism programs and Canadian Multiculturalism Act, a society in which we saw this diversity as a strength and where we talked about integration. Instead of turning into a melting pot, we actually tried to create a stir-fry in this country. I think we have been pretty successful at doing that.

We need to talk about the future of Canada while looking at the full participation of all Canadians. If the future of Canada lies in developing our human resource potential, remembering that 51% of that potential happens to be differentiated by gender with its own barriers, then we need to look at how we in fact can accommodate and move gender forward as an issue in building our human resource potential.

If we have a society in which today 42.7% of Canadians are neither French nor English, we need to look at how we can assist that human resource potential in developing and integrating into society and participating fully.

There are some key challenges that I would like to put to this committee. I believe we have done a great deal.

I would be very glad to answer questions. This is a very broad topic, Mr. Chair, and I hate to sit here and continue to drone on and bore you, so I would prefer to interact in some way by answering some of your questions.

I would like to look at some key challenges for you to think about. Look at women's income. Look at the fact that women's income does not depend only on paid work. There's the role that good government has to play in ensuring that women have access to benefits, pensions, and all of the other things, like child support and alimony payments, that are fair and reasonable so that they can have access to good incomes.

Look at the issue of unpaid work. How do we value the work that women do in caregiving when we see that this work is almost double the work in other sectors in those terms? We need to be able to question whether we value unpaid work. Is it something we value?

There's looking after our children, rearing our children, taking care of the ill as our aging population increases, and taking care of the seniors in our society. Deinstitutionalization is moving people out of institutions and hospitals. Is the role in that for women going to increase?

If it is unpaid, what does that do to women at the end of their lives in terms of their retirements, when we know that women's attachment to the workforce is in fact determined very clearly by children?

We know that until such a time occurs when we have reproductive technologies such that women are not the only childbearers in our society that women are the ones who are going to have to take time off to have children. As women take time off to have children, they're going to have to decide that when they do so they drop out of the workforce for periods of time. That has an impact on their ability to move up the ladder in terms of seniority and get promotions.

Our indicators have also shown that in fact employers are not spending the same amount of money training and retraining women in the workplace as they do men. That's probably because they feel the women will drop out to get pregnant and not be there in the workforce as they're needed. That impacts on a women's retirement income one day down the line.

We notice that more and more women are becoming entrepreneurs. There are some very interesting facts that show that women are becoming entrepreneurs at three times the rate of men in small businesses. In fact, they are creating jobs at four times the rate of men in small businesses. In fact, last year, according to a Bank of Montreal study, women created 1.7 million jobs in small businesses, which is more than what was done by the top 100 companies in Canada.

Look at one of the challenges that self-employed women face in terms of childbearing, taking time off when they have no maternity leave, and when they may or may not have the ability to put money into pensions as they take time off. They don't have that money to put into RRSPs when they take time off the workforce to raise children or to do caregiving.

These are some real challenges that we need to meet. I bring these challenges to you so that ten years from now there is not hopefully a Secretary of State for the Status of Women sitting here and telling you these same things and bringing these same statistics forward. These are the challenges to act on now, proactively, as we see the trends.

• 0940

We talked about an attachment to the workforce. We wanted to talk about safety for our women, who are in fact children, sisters, mothers, and daughters. How can we prepare and make our society more welcoming to them so they can feel safe?

In terms of multiculturalism, these are the key challenges I would like to put to you. There's the changing nature of our society now that we know our society looks different. What is discrimination going to do to that society? How do we continue to strengthen the respect for difference that has been a hallmark of Canadian society given that the differences are now going to be more visible than before and that people are going to look markedly more different. We know that more than 57% of Canadian immigrants today are coming from Asia.

How do we talk about some of those issues? How do we look at the strategies we need to be evolving and changing so as to deal with some of that? We have to deal with hate and biased crime and activity, and the question of individual freedom of speech. Where does that lie when we look at society as a whole?

Canada has always sought to balance the rights of the individual with the well-being of society. It has never been an either/or in Canada. It always meant that we had to constantly be on guard to accommodate and always be thinking and looking at our structures. That's because they're not black, white, linear, or rigid.

How do we talk about hate and biased activity when looking at the issue of individual freedom of speech and at how this can have an impact on society, belonging, inclusiveness, and making people feel as if they do not belong and as if they are discriminated against?

How do we deal with the issue of marginalized youth as we look forward to the next millennium? This will be a marginalized youth of a different face. This is because of their colour or because of the fact that they may have different sexual orientation. Does that exclude them? What is the result of that exclusion? How do we move forward now to ensure that before this becomes a major problem, we're proactive about it?

Consider the implementation of our new program direction. I told you before that we set up some new objectives. Look at how we fund institutions, groups, and other levels of governments, such as municipalities, so as to assist them with the skills and tools they need.

Some of you are going to hear in your own areas that people are saying these new directions may in fact prevent them from receiving funding. How do we talk about that? I would like to hear from you whether you are hearing that from your constituents, and whether or not there is a way for us to in fact foster that inclusiveness and continue to provide people with skills and tools without excluding them.

Those are some of the things I wanted to throw out to you as challenges.

[Translation]

Our government's vision of society must be based on mutual responsibility, the principle of equal opportunity, respect for diversity and fairness for everyone if we want to take advantage of the opportunities that

[English]

the 21st century to all Canadians.

How do we look at this, given the fact that we are a diverse society and that we constantly need to be on guard as the differences can in fact present barriers to how people participate and become part of our society, and how we develop our human resources?

These are the things that we do in Multiculturalism and Status of Women Canada. These are the things that occupy us.

I hope you can find ways of assisting us and telling us how we can do this better, and dealing with some of the challenges that we know we're going to have as society changes, globalization occurs, and new and innovative technologies and economies move forward. How do we change in a proactive way rather than reacting to things when they happen? How do we prepare ourselves for this 21st century?

Thank you very much for allowing me the opportunity, Mr. Chair, to present to you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Minister.

Mr. Obhrai.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank the minister for attending here and giving us a brief outlay.

• 0945

I'm not going to comment on the status of women. Some of the initiatives she has mentioned deserve our support, so I'm not going to mention that. I'll talk about multiculturalism.

She threw us a challenge, and we can rise to that challenge, but our differences are the way we're going to implement these challenges. The bottom line is, after listening to her, I feel a little dismayed that we are standing at the 21st century and nothing new is coming out of these policies. They're all the same old policies that basically highlight our differences but do not promote our similarities.

She made the comment that for 25 years, multiculturalism has helped maintain our culture. I'm going to very strongly—and I repeat, strongly—disagree with that statement. Culture was and is being maintained in this country—and when I say “culture”, I also mean multiculturalism—by the people themselves, without government intervention.

Actually, multiculturalism, for her information, is really thriving in this country without government intervention. Government intervention plays a very small role in maintaining culture. We can do this maintaining of our culture ourselves; you can give us credit for that.

As for her second comment about immigration and the tolerance level, where she again said it was due to her multiculturalism policies, again, I totally disagree. Tolerance is higher because people in this country recognize the contribution immigrants make to this society. It has nothing to do with the multiculturalism policy.

So let me say this: we agree that Canada is a multicultural society, that multiculturalism is thriving over here, and that multiculturalism has its roots here. We 100% disagree on how to go about it and that her policies have in the past, as she claims, helped multiculturalism. They haven't.

My background gives me extreme experience in multiculturalism. I have been working in multiculturalism for the last 10 to 15 years, and I know what I am talking about. I know how multiculturalism was abused by previous governments to get their votes, which created such a backlash from the Canadian community that today the word “multiculturalism” is not seen with good respect. This is the challenge we have—not the challenge of the programs, but the challenge of the word “multiculturalism” being accepted by Canadians, which has not happened.

My experience and my view of this is that the provinces, all provinces, are involved in multicultural programs. All provinces have some kinds of programs directed towards cultural funding or helping maintain multiculturalism. My comment is that much of this overlap could be eliminated if the federal government transferred the responsibility of administration to the provinces. Although there could be some level of duplication, this transfer of responsibility to provinces would give the boost, making it more responsive to the desires of the various multicultural communities and to Canada as a whole.

The federal government's role should be limited to an advisory capacity. The best way to start is with the elimination of the position of the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism. I've had the privilege of speaking with many counterparts across the province, and I have seen their programs. There's a tremendous amount of duplication, but their programs are more related to the needs of the multicultural community than your programs are, because they are more in touch with the grassroots, the multicultural organizations, than the federal government is.

In listening to this presentation you gave and the objectives you gave, well, yes, they look very nice on paper. There's nothing wrong with statements. But really, when it comes to the implementation of those policies, especially by the federal government, and the interference that has in the past taken place by the politicians in these programs, it's really a matter of serious concern for us, and has resulted in multiculturalism being viewed as unfriendly.

• 0950

However, as I said in the beginning, Canada is a multicultural society. We support multiculturalism, but we do not believe it should be a state-sponsored multiculturalism. It will thrive on its own.

So my recommendation would be that your department seriously look at transferring some of the excellent programs you may have. An ideal example is the visible minority youth development program, which you have identified as a high unemployment area.

Overall, from talking to the members of the community, I feel multiculturalism really is thriving. People are doing excellent work. I think they would be far happier to carry on what they are doing without your intervention.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Ms. Fry.

Ms. Hedy Fry: Thank you, Mr. Chair. The honourable member made some comments, and I would like to respond to them.

The first one is that multiculturalism has been continuing in this country without any intervention or any assistance from government. In October 1996 we celebrated 25 years of multiculturalism in this country. It would be very difficult to comment or to state that this country has been existing without multiculturalism when it has been going on for 25 years.

When we look at pre-multiculturalism—the policy began in 1971—we see some very marked differences, and these are not anecdotal. I would like to refer to some studies that have been done in various universities within Canada and various international studies that have taken as measures of integration certain key indicators.

One is naturalization rates; that means the rate at which people become citizens. Canada has the shortest average period of time in which immigrants seek to become citizens, and that is between three and five years...than they had prior to 1971, especially recently.

It's interesting to note that in today's society, there is not a great deal of difference between being a landed immigrant and being a Canadian citizen, in terms of their rights and responsibilities as Canadians and their ability to have access in this country. They're the same as citizens. So in fact people have fewer reason for wanting to become citizens, and they are becoming so more than in any other country in the world. At twice the rate of the United States, we are finding people are becoming naturalized to be Canadians, with a record high, in fact, in 1995. So we obviously see that people want to be Canadians, in spite of the fact that there is no difference between being a landed immigrant and being a Canadian.

We've also looked at another issue, which is political participation. In this country we find that “ethnic communities”, as they are called, belong and participate at very record highs in the political structures. In fact they belong to mainstream parties, traditional parties that Canada has fostered over the years. No ethnic parties have been set up in this country to which ethnic minorities belong. They have integrated very fully, participate, vote at record rates, and belong to traditional political parties more than in any other country in the world ever.

When we look at intermarriage rates, which is another indicator that was brought up by the universities, we find that pre-1971, 42% of Canadians agreed with interracial marriages. Today 89% of Canadians in surveys agree with intermarriage, and the rates have increased remarkably.

We also find that the two countries in the world that have managed to successfully integrate first-generation immigrants are Canada, followed at a distance by Australia, and these are the only two countries in the world with multiculturalism acts and multiculturalism programs. In fact Australia has modelled their program so much after Canada's that there is a standing joke that in some places they forgot to take “Canada” out of their act.

• 0955

We also know that countries that have been marked by racial segregation—South Africa, for instance—are seeking to look at our multiculturalism policy and the Canadian Multiculturalism Act so that they can adapt it to create a cohesive and integrated society.

So we do stand as a model to the world. This has been done because of programs and projects.

The second thing Mr. Obhrai said, which I thought was interesting, was that every province has a multiculturalism program—

The Chairman: Excuse me a moment, but in order to give a chance to everybody to ask questions, can you perhaps conclude by addressing one of Mr. Obhrai's main questions, with regard to transfer of the program to the provinces? Then perhaps we can move along to another speaker.

Ms. Hedy Fry: In terms of transferring programs to provinces, not all provinces have multiculturalism programs. To transfer them, then, would be to transfer them to non-existent structures in particular provinces.

As well, if we look at our national objectives for multiculturalism, which you would find on our web site if you chose to look, internationally we do have to fulfil certain international conventions that we have agreed to as Canadians. It would be very difficult to transfer those to provinces, especially where the existing programs do not exist and, where they do exist, are funded very poorly, with very few dollars attached to them.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Ms. St-Hilaire.

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): I want to thank the minister for taking the time to come and speak to us this morning. The status of women is one issue that interests me in particular.

The minister raised a number of issues. However, I don't have the impression that many answers were provided. I sense that she is aware of the reality women face, but she did not give many answers.

Pay equity is one area where I feel immediate action is warranted. The minister said that she is working with the finance minister to promote equality and improve economic autonomy for women. I would remind her that the issue of pay equity affects close to 70,000 women. Therefore, I would like to know what concrete action she intends to take to resolve the pay equity dispute.

[English]

Ms. Hedy Fry: Pay equity is a fact in Canada, especially within the federal government and in the public service, which is what we have jurisdiction over. In fact, currently equal pay for work of equal value is being initiated and is being done. It is now part of what happens.

What you're talking about is the question that's being at least considered now by the Canadian Human Rights Commission—a formula for back-pay that we have been dealing with in terms of the Public Service Alliance of Canada.

As you know, we fully believe as a government—and I have been working closely with Treasury Board and the Minister of Finance—that a “yes-yes” solution, a negotiated solution, is always better. We have moved substantially on the issue of coming to the table, moving forward to $1.3 billion on the table right now, with the Public Service Alliance of Canada. We will continue to negotiate with them until we find an agreement while we await the tribunal's decision.

I can't comment any further on the tribunal's decision, but our position is to continue to find a negotiated settlement with the unions in the hope that they can give the women the money they have been waiting so long for, before the tribunal rules.

[Translation]

Ms. Carole St-Hilaire: I hope you will consider going as high as the $2 billion sought by the Alliance, and not limit yourself to the $1.3 billion offered. I also hope that the Minister of Finance has given himself some room to manoeuvre in this matter, but I would imagine that we will come back to this at some point.

I have several questions concerning the Women's Program. Some women's groups have come before the finance committee asking that they receive $2 per Canadian women. Do you think that this initiative will be examined? Currently, only 60 cents per women is allotted.

[English]

Ms. Hedy Fry: I would hate to pre-empt the decisions or recommendations of the finance committee, but given that women's organizations and the whole issue of women's equality have some real challenges coming up, I obviously would be very pleased if this were implemented. But one has to take that kind of recommendation into consideration in the overall fiscal climate we are in, and some of the overall things the government has to implement.

• 1000

[Translation]

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: You spoke about poverty among women. One issue of particular concern to them is employment insurance. Do you have any concrete initiatives in the works to alleviate poverty among women and children?

[English]

Ms. Hedy Fry: We have already taken some steps with employment insurance changes in which gender analysis has been implemented. For example, we know that many women, because they have children, work part-time. In the past, people who worked under 15 hours, even less than 15 hours in three different jobs, never had access to unemployment insurance, maternity benefits, or health and dental benefits. We have changed that so that all hours of work count towards those benefits. Over 700,000 Canadians who never had access to unemployment insurance or other benefits now have it because we've initiated this system.

We've also taken into consideration the fact that women's attachment to the workforce is mitigated by their having children. The amount of time a woman can take off to care for her child and then go back and have access to training under employment insurance—we've increased that to five years. So a woman can leave the workforce for up to five years to take care of her children and still have access to training under employment insurance. In the past it was only one year.

[Translation]

The Chairman: If you like, we can come back to this issue later.

[English]

Ms. Lill.

Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Thank you.

Thank you for coming in here. I notice that everybody in Ottawa speaks extremely quickly. I don't know whether that happens after you get here, but I hope some of this will be written down for us and we'll be able to refer to it later.

I have some questions about women's programs. I've been told that since 1992 funding to women's centres has been cut from $13.5 million to $8.2 million. These would be centres that advocate and educate women. As you said, they're there to level the playing field for women, help them become more independent and have resources at their disposal. The funds have been cut by at least one-third. What is the wisdom there? Can people see a commitment from your department now that the cuts have been so deep?

Ms. Hedy Fry: As you know, no department in the Canadian government has escaped cuts. We had to deal with a huge deficit—$42 billion—and we had to bring that deficit down. In doing so, we did program review. We looked at how all departments could streamline what they do. We looked at cutting administrative costs and at being fairly accountable in what we did and how we did it. This year was the last year of those cuts.

In spite of that, we fund 300 groups out of Status of Women Canada, and that includes partnering with other levels of government and with the private sector in moving forward on some of the initiatives that we need.

We have also been able to include the increasing diversity of women. We know that women face multiple barriers, not only because of their gender but because of the diversity. We've included new groups such as disabled persons within this.

So we have been working very clearly. That's one of the reasons we set out three clear objectives—so that we can evaluate and see where we're moving, how we're doing, and what things we need to do there.

Ms. Wendy Lill: I would like to continue. I agree with Ms. St-Hilaire that we have to see that commitment to pay equity, and we need to see it now.

In terms of the whole idea of punishing women, I think we punish women every time we put GST on diapers and formula. We're talking about the lives of women that I'm running into every day. We punish them by making them the unpaid workers looking after seniors and disabled children. The programs that used to be available for people with disabilities are really taking a beating right now through the transfer of much of that responsibility to the provinces.

I see a world that's quite frightening for women, for middle-aged women, as we move further away from collective responsibility for health care. As the mother of a child with special needs, I wouldn't be surprised, unless I do something right now in terms of organizing and lobbying, that I might end up looking after a mentally handicapped adult without any resources whatsoever within a 15-year period. I know people who are doing that right now.

• 1005

So from personal experience I would say that women do not feel they are part of the agenda of this government.

Ms. Hedy Fry: I think you make some important points, and I think those are some of the things I mentioned when we talked about the challenges for the future.

We have been doing a great deal of work on the issue of unpaid work and the amount of unpaid work that women do. As you will recall, in the last budget the government brought down a great number of tax initiatives that will assist disabled persons. There was $60 million to assist them in access to employment and to the workforce, and to assist people who give care to persons who are disabled.

There have been some initiatives within the income tax system to assist them. I mentioned that in the indicators we found that people who are marginalized tend to do better post-tax than pre-tax. So the tax structures have been assisting in levelling the playing field. That doesn't mean we don't need to take into consideration the concept of choice that women should have in terms of caregiving or going out into the paid workforce. How we deal with that is one of the challenges—to look at the information on unpaid work.

The Chairman: Ms. Lill, I'll get back to you.

Ms. Wendy Lill: I have one final point. Half of the disabled people in this country—that's two million people—have no income, so the tax system has no impact on that.

The Chairman: Mr. Muise.

Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Chairman, I'd like to thank Ms. Fry for coming in today. What she brings to us is very valuable and I think it's important that we have this discussion.

There are many points I'd like to touch on. The government says it has recognized that there are many poor children out there. In speaking with various women's groups in my riding, that has been brought to my attention. Many of these women are trying to upgrade and improve themselves in order to get off social assistance, or better themselves so that they can earn more income, but they seem to be blocked at every turn.

I was speaking to a group that was involved in school upgrading, and they were not getting the support they required. While they were going to school, any income they earned over $200 a month was deducted from their pay. There was absolutely no motivation for them other than their drive to become better people. There was no support for them to get off this roll. I think it's the government's job to finance short-term expenses to relieve this problem on a long-term basis. We have poor children out there because their parents are poor. I think the government should look at this, because it's very important.

If you continue to have poor children, they do not get better as they grow older, so instead of making the situation better, it actually makes it worse. Working with other levels of government, I think it's an area that should be supported. I'd like to get some comments on that.

Ms. Hedy Fry: You make some very good points.

As I said before, children are not born under a cabbage bush. They are poor because their parents are poor. As a government, we have looked at that issue in terms of putting $850 million into topping up the income of low-income working parents. We talked about the dual-income family and how the woman's income is extremely important. In doing so we have been working with provincial governments to look at dealing with other issues as we put that money into topping up the working income supplement for families with poor children. They would also look at some of the benefits and services they provide those families and do their bit at the provincial level to look at issues such as child care and services to these women.

When you look at EI rehabilitation or EI training, we have increased to five years the amount of time women can take off, if they choose to look after their families, and still go back and get training.

• 1010

Some of the new EI money is being put into helping women to become entrepreneurs. We know the money in certain western diversification and in ACOA and in certain areas has been put into women's enterprise centres to assist women who want to get into their own small businesses.

The thing about small businesses for women is that it gives them the flexibility to start as small as they can, to work out of the home, which takes care of the child care areas at the same time, and to work hours as flexibly as they want. The assistance that women's enterprise centres are giving to these women with business plans, mentoring, and help to start up is extremely important.

Also, when you look at the new income tax initiatives that were brought out in the last budget, we are talking about things such as assisting people who are training to deduct twice the amount they used to deduct in terms of child care. We've even moved that into high school now. We have been working not only with the provinces but with institutes of learning to look at distance learning. We have projects out there for distance learning so we can see how women can have access to learning in the home without going to an institution.

The Chairman: Mr. Muise, one last question.

Mr. Mark Muise: I don't want to say that what's being done is not good. What I'm saying is there's not enough of it. The point is if you can give these women some support, I would suggest that what will happen is the government will in turn reap the rewards a few years down the road as these people become self-sufficient and tax paying instead of a drain on the system.

I would encourage the government to pursue this even one step further. As Ms. Lill has mentioned, I also have a disabled child and I see how important it would be. I feel very fortunate that my wife can stay at home and take care of our child, but if she didn't have the support or if there were less support or if she were single herself on one salary, it would be devastating.

Ms. Hedy Fry: I think you make an important point. I am not suggesting that we have all the answers. It will be very important for this committee to respond to some of those coming challenges with suggestions.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Good day, Madam Minister and welcome to the committee.

[English]

I find it interesting that you describe some of the parties around this table as traditional political parties. I'm not sure how they all react to that notion. But that's not the purpose of our gathering here today, is it?

Madame Minister, would you tell us please if Status of Women Canada has analysed the government's proposed seniors benefit through the gender analysis, and what is your conclusion?

Ms. Hedy Fry: We have done analysis of the seniors benefit. As you know, it is extremely important to women because women live longer. We now know that because of their non-continuous attachment to the workforce and the unpaid work and the care giving they do, many women in fact don't have pensions set aside for when they retire. They depend very much on old age security and the guaranteed income supplement, which have been rolled up into the seniors benefit.

There are some positive things. Because of gender-based analysis and looking at how we have shifted and how we will be looking at this issue, single senior women, who are the poorest of senior women, will be doing a lot better than they used to. In fact, it will benefit single women more than any other group of seniors.

You can't take the seniors benefit alone as a means of income support. I think sustainability of the Canada Pension Plan is key. We know the Canada Pension Plan is the only pension system that gives dropout provisions for women to actually have children and to look after children, and that includes looking at all the private systems. So the dropout provision is key and it does assist women.

As you know, CPP sustainability came about in phase one, which has recently been done. In that phase one sustainability part, gender analysis allowed for us to keep those things that are of importance to women, such as survivor benefits, credit splitting for families who are divorced, and the dropout provisions for rent. So those have been kept. In phase two, more gender-based sustainable analysis is going to be done on them to ensure that we make them very important to women's retirement income.

• 1015

In fact, at the federal, provincial and territorial ministers meeting two weeks ago in Halifax, all status of women ministers from the federal government and the provinces made a plea officially to the federal finance minister and to all the provincial finance ministers to do comprehensive gender-based analysis of phase two of the CPP.

As for the seniors benefit, it is non-taxable, which is going to be very important for seniors, especially senior women, and is going to help single senior women more than any other group.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: What about the pooling of income?

Ms. Hedy Fry: The pooling of income—we are looking at both parts of income, all income in the family—or family income testing will benefit women because the cheques will be given equally. We have heard many suggestions from women's organizations that both cheques should be given inversely proportional. In other words, if the woman in the family that's being income tested has zero income, she should get the full cheque. If she has 10% of the income, she should get 90% of the cheque. This might be a way to deal with the unleveling of the playing field that would come about. We have heard that from many women's organizations.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: This is my last question. It will be a brief question. I am not sure about the response, because the question is complicated.

I want to know whether your organization has a position on guaranteed minimum annual income.

Ms. Hedy Fry: No...unless Florence wants to answer.

In Status of Women Canada research is being done by academic groups and community groups on some of the issues that would deal with women's income, given that women's income does not depend on paid work only. Some of that work is happening and some has still to come forward, so we do not have the data that would give us some choice in what we do in the future, but it is something we are very interested in looking at.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Thank you.

The Chairman: For the second final question we have Messrs. Saada and Abbott and Madame St-Hilaire. Mr. Saada.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): I've two or three brief comments as well as a question for the minister.

Firstly, I would like to thank the minister and her assistants, but in particular the minister for her emotional presentation. This is not merely a portfolio for her, but a vocation as well.

She, along with her department, have done some excellent work in my riding. As you know, I represent a multicultural constituency. Brossard was the first city in Quebec to declare itself officially multicultural in 1986 and I had the pleasure of chairing the committee which oversaw this initiative.

I was deeply affected by two of Mr. Obhrai's comments. He said he deplored the fact that the federal government actively promoted multiculturalism, claiming that this was a pointless exercise because people are the ones who maintain multiculturalism. A few seconds later, however, he sang the praises of the provincial government's involvement in the multiculturalism field. Is it the people or the governments that make the difference? Moreover, I'm happy to see that he refrained from commenting on the status of women.

Secondly, the presentation alluded to the fact that firearms legislation was critically important to ensuring the safety of women. I believe there is a welcomed difference between this view and the traditional position of his party on this issue.

Madam Minister, I would like you to respond to those who maintain that we need to do away with the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism and that multiculturalism tends to divide rather than unite us.

[English]

Ms. Hedy Fry: Thank you very much for that question. It is a very important question.

I want to first make a statement that just because I happen to be the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism, it does not really matter who the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism is. I think the department and the work it does is extremely important in continuing to foster the kind of society Canada is now known for throughout the world.

It is not a coincidence that for four years running we have been named the best country in the world in which to live in terms of human development, and I stress it is not the best country in which to live because we are the richest country. It is not the best country in the world because we have the greatest armies. It is the best country in the world because of its human development. For 25 years, if we look at what happened prior to 1971 and at where we are today as a country, we will see we have made enormous steps with multiculturalism.

• 1020

Laws alone are not enough to create the society we hope to create. That is well known. The reality is that because people face many barriers to access to justice, because people have many barriers that prevent them from participating economically and in many ways, as I said earlier through the facts I gave, and there are so many more facts I could give, it's important that if we believe government is a force for good in society—and this is something Canadians very strongly believe in, which is why I said this is a department that deals with fundamental Canadian values—if we believe government has a place in society for making good public policy, their ability to assist not only institutions but also communities, municipalities, and groups to have the skills and tools they need to be able to create from the bottom up the kind of society we wish to achieve in terms of our human rights legislation, our constitution, and our laws is very important.

We were the only country in 25 years, up until Australia accepted multiculturalism about five or six years ago. We are now the number one country in the world. No other country has been able to have first-generation integration the way Canada has. Right now we are participating in a metropolis project with 18 countries in the world, including Germany, Sweden, Israel, Australia, and the United States, for the purpose of looking at how we integrate societies into participating fully. They're talking about how to do second-generation immigrant integration, because they have been able to accomplish only third, and that not fully. They're talking about second generation.

They look at Canada, which has accomplished first-generation integration so well, as if we have come from another planet. They know clearly this has happened because we have had the structures in place to allow government to assist communities, other levels of government, and institutions to develop those skills and tools.

In my office I proudly display a letter from Nelson Mandela, who has said that as they seek in South Africa—a country known for its apartheid, its segregation along racial lines—to put aside that segregation and apartheid and build a cohesive society, they are looking to the Canadian model of multiculturalism and at the way we have brought this structure in not only with an act but also with programs that assist the kind of society we have created.

I believe the facts stand for themselves very clearly, that our method of creating a society has been a very successful one. You have only to look south of the border, where people have been left to decide to integrate themselves, at the ghettoization, at the violence, at the exclusion of various groups in society based on their colour or their race. So I think we have a good society here.

Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Minister, I have two points I'd like your response to. I'll hopefully keep my comments brief.

I agree with you that there is a core Canadian value of eliminating barriers, but I suggest we need to insert a word: eliminating “unnecessary” barriers. In other words, at 6 foot 5 inches, 250 pounds, I don't anticipate getting a job as a jockey. There are necessary barriers.

Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): Get a bigger horse.

Mr. Jim Abbott: I can't tell you how profoundly I disagree with your comment that equality does not mean treating everyone the same. I so profoundly disagree with it that I can't imagine you would have said it.

I speak for a black Jamaican woman, who is about 4 foot 10 inches and a supervisor of a very large workforce. When I was in another ministry, after we had taken a look at the workplace and what was going on there, she took me aside and invited me for a coffee. She said, “Would you tell those well-meaning”—and I won't repeat the rest of it—“people in Ottawa to keep their cotton pickin' hands off?” She said she got her job because of her talent, because of her expertise, because of her skill, and every time the people in Ottawa came forward with those well-meaning policies, they ended up denigrating her and putting her at a severe disadvantage with the people she's supervising.

That's my first question or comment.

• 1025

Ms. Hedy Fry: I think for every story of someone who has in fact not found barriers to their full participation in Canadian society—economically, socially, politically, and otherwise—we have thousands who have found barriers.

The very fact that a black Canadian male who has the same job as his equivalent white Canadian male is earning 16% less in the workforce—and this is clearly borne out by statistics—tells us there is discrimination. The fact visible minority youth have a four times greater rate of unemployment than white Canadian youth gives us the information you need.

It's interesting to note that women.... I don't know how you can talk about women not facing barriers. Until such time as women stop—

Mr. Jim Abbott: Minister, in fairness, I'm simply repeating what this woman and other people have said to me.

I'll quickly go to my second one. I find the word “systemic” really, really difficult. I wrote down from one of your slides “eradicating systemic violence against women and children”, and then on another slide “systemic violence against women in the home, street, and workplace”. That was connected, by the way, to sexual exploitation of children and hate and biased crime activity.

You travelled in my constituency to Preston. We had a problem with a white supremacist group out in Yahk. When I was working with my constituents to try to help them through the terrible situation with that person, I suggested that he was filling a void, that the people in the community had to take a look at what he was doing in terms of enticing the young people to his point of view and his way of doing things to replace that void.

My father always said you can't legislate morality. I suggest to you, Minister, that the word “systemic”—we do have to work against violence against women in the home, street, and workplace, but we have to take a look at the core problem, which is the whole issue of the family and the laws in Canada, such as the tax laws and the criminal laws, that work against the family.

I can't tell you how much difficulty I have with the term “systemic”, because it's such a blanket, broad brush...and I reject it.

Ms. Hedy Fry: You are very free to reject the term “systemic”, but when we look at the statistics we see that the majority of violence in our society is directed at women, that 98% of domestic violence cases are against women.

We look at young women under the age of 16, and we have 50% of women in society who say they have been in fact victims of some sort of sexual abuse.

When we talk about systemic, we're saying throughout society, in the institutions and everywhere, there are certain things we see happening to one group more than to others. I think we are saying very clearly, and you don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand, that violence is about a power differential. Until women have equal economic status, until women have equal power in our society, women will continue to be at the lower end of the power differential.

This is not necessarily saying that you are a bad person. I'm not referring to you. I'm suggesting that this is a fact of life and that we need to move forward so women can have that kind of equal power in society.

These are the things we need to do. We need to look at economic status; we need to look at some of the things that create the power differential in our society for them. This is what we mean by systemic violence against women. When you look at the figures, you see they clearly show there is systemic violence.

[Translation]

The Chairman: I believe Ms. Tremblay and Ms. St-Hilaire will be splitting their time. Ms. Tremblay.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): I would like start with a comment. We often hear it said that Canada is the best country in the world in which to live. This is true because when we are asked to provide information, we keep some of it to ourselves. We do not disclose our illiteracy rate. If we did, we would not be ranked first, but rather fourth. We have to realize that when we mask the reality of the situation, problems do occur. People are under the impression that there are no illiterate people in Canada. The OECD recently revealed that the illiteracy rate in member countries stood at 30 per cent. We're talking about people who are functionally illiterate, in addition to those who truly cannot read or write.

• 1030

Therefore, I think that we would do well to disclose the real figures, that is the truth, to accept the fact that we rank fourth in the world and to do everything we can to claim first place and eradicate illiteracy in our society. That's the comment I wanted to make.

You wear two hats as minister responsible for the status of women and minister responsible for multiculturalism. As everyone knows, multiculturalism evolved under Mr. Trudeau to soften the impact of bilingualism. He brought in his bilingualism legislation to please francophones and his multiculturalism policy to reassure the rest of Canada that bilingualism was no reason for them to worry and that multiculturalism would make everything okay.

Every country in the world, with the exception of Switzerland which must have a secret formula... Some countries have tried to live according to these principles and it has proven to be more divisive than unifying. That's probably the reason why Canada is searching for an identity. It doesn't have one, because 30% of the 30 million Canadians were not born in Canada. Yet they live their lives as if they had never left their native country. They have their own flag, their dances and their culture. That's all well and good, but they are not Canadians first and foremost, but rather Ukrainians living in Canada, or Scotch living in Canada. When we travel across Canada, we learn a great deal about other nations and about the wealth of culture that immigrants brought with them to this country. We need to appreciate this wealth, but personally, I wouldn't mind if the portfolio of secretary of state for Multiculturalism were eliminated. If Sheila Copps wants to promote national unity, the multiculturalism component must disappear. The two do not go hand in hand. In my view, they are incongruous.

We asked you here to speak to us about the status of women. We realized that the issue of multiculturalism would be broached, but we are talking about it more than we thought we would. Personally, which portfolio do you feel the most comfortable with? Status of women or multiculturalism?

Some members: Oh! Oh!

[English]

Ms. Hedy Fry: I feel at ease in both equally, because they both have to do with fostering equality and equal opportunity. In both groups these are very important, core Canadian values.

Madame Tremblay, you spoke about illiteracy, and you're absolutely right, but when you add up all of the other indices that you bring forward to look at human development, illiteracy is one of them. On the other indices, Canada has done so extraordinarily well that when you average it out, the illiteracy rates factored in, we still are number one.

I agree with you, though, that illiteracy is key, and it's extremely important when we have looked at ourselves in comparison with the rest of the world. This is why this government has in fact doubled the money this year that we have put into illiteracy programs, so we can assist Canadians to deal with that particular issue.

It's interesting that you see multiculturalism as divisive when all empirical data, based on all of the indicators, which have not been set up by the Canadian government but by universities and by international standards, show that in fact Canada is the most integrated country.

When you do tests of understanding about Canadian history, knowing the words of the Canadian national anthem, and knowledge of Canada, you find that of non-Canadians who are immigrants and who have come here, the 42.7% you are talking about have a great deal more knowledge of this country.

Canada is defined in a very special way. Canada is defined by the rest of the world as a country of sharing, of caring, a country with respect for differences. And, Madame, the word “respect” is the one I speak of.

When you seek to have people assimilate, what you're doing is suggesting those people will never be acceptable unless they become exactly like you. If we speak of a respect for differences, we are suggesting that the different things people bring enrich us, that they add to the pool of information, knowledge, the evolution of information and knowledge.

• 1035

I don't believe a country is a static thing. Nation building is not a static thing. It's completely evolving and changing. It's a dynamic process. Differences bring to the pot that ability to make us a dynamic nation, to make us a nation that is always on guard, always looking to accommodate, always looking to ensure that we are fair. We do not take ourselves for granted as a nation and I think that is what multiculturalism has brought forth.

The Chairman: Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey: I know one of the objectives of the Status of Women is increasing women's economic autonomy and one of the elements of that autonomy might be greater access to affordable, high-quality child care. I also recall that back in 1993, when you and I and a bunch of others were elected, one of the things we campaigned on was a national child care program. As far as I know, that was not a stale-dated offer; we just couldn't find the provinces to go along with us.

What is the official position of the Status of Women with regard to a national child care program?

Ms. Hedy Fry: We don't have an official position with regard to a national child care program. We believe, though, that child care is important to a woman's ability to go out into the workplace and that it is in fact an important component for women who choose to stay at home and take care of their children.

We believe child care is not simply something you do to look after a child so he or she doesn't fall down the stairs or burn himself on the stove. It has to do with child development. As you know, this government is looking at the concept of child care and child development as one thing at the same time.

Child care is a provincial jurisdiction and the federal government is working with provinces to look at how we can ensure that appropriate child care is available. In some areas we have had pilot projects with provinces. In my own province of British Columbia we are spending about $30 million to $40 million on pilot projects that are looking at various models of child care. Some provinces have not had the ability to say they don't want it. For instance, in the Northwest Territories we have already implemented 6,000 child care spaces.

We can talk about the issue of how we look at the fact that a child or a parent in New Brunswick or in Prince Edward Island can be assured that the quality of child care is the same across the country, that the child development when we look at in the truest sense of the word is the same across the country. Then there may be some issues that one can discuss with the provinces whose jurisdiction it is, such as looking at a sort of uniformity of standards for child care. I think inherent in that is the issue of the woman who chooses to stay at home and take care of her own child's care and development. That is where we come into the issue of unpaid work and the national child care benefit.

As you can see, the $850 million we brought in last year—and we're discussing the possibility of bringing in an additional amount in this coming budget—is key to looking at across-the-board low-income families. Child development is not only about who looks after the child; it's about the money and the ability and the poverty being a clear indicator of child development and of child health.

The Chairman: Mr. Lowther.

Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Madame Minister, you're head of Status of Women Canada, and I'm surprised you didn't bring up the issue that if a women elects to stay home and raise the children at home, currently there is no tax consideration for that woman, but if that woman works outside the home and pays for care for her child, there is a tax consideration for the cost of care. That would seem to me to be an issue that would be first and foremost for someone who's concerned about the equality of women and status and equal treatment.

Certainly as one who is as concerned as you are about the state of children, I would suggest that a mother being encouraged to care for her children, if she should desire to do so, would be one of the first places you would pursue equality in treatment. Yet it is not mentioned. Can you explain that?

• 1040

Ms. Hedy Fry: I am sorry if my mentioning it a few times within my presentation was missed, but I did mention it. When we talk about looking at the work women do, not only paid work but unpaid work.... We talked about caregiving—

Mr. Eric Lowther: Would you endorse equal tax treatment for stay-at-home parents who raise their children, as compared to those who have caregivers outside the home? Do you endorse that?

Ms. Hedy Fry: I was going to answer the first part of your question as well as the second part.

Mr. Eric Lowther: It's the same question.

Ms. Hedy Fry: Not really. You were suggesting one specific way of dealing with the issue.

Equality for women has to do with choices. What I spoke about many times during my presentation was how we place a value on the unpaid work women do looking after children outside of the paid workforce. How do we value that?

Mr. Eric Lowther: Is there an inequality in that today?

Ms. Hedy Fry: You are suggesting one method of valuing that, and it's one worth looking at, but there are many other ways.

Mr. Eric Lowther: I'm suggesting that there's an inequality that you haven't recognized in the tax treatment. Are you acknowledging that inequality in the tax treatment today?

Ms. Hedy Fry: I am acknowledging that we have not placed a high value on the unpaid work that women do. We recently came up with some indicators that showed the extent of the unpaid work. What are the ways in which we value that? You're suggesting one way, but I'm suggesting that it would be a good idea if I could get input from this committee as to the other ways we could value that. This is one way. There may be other ways. It would be an interesting thing to do.

The Chairman: We have ten more minutes. We have two quick items of business to conclude before we close.

Madame St-Hilaire and Ms. Lill.

[Translation]

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: I have two quick questions. Madam Minister, women have lost the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women and you are not a member of Cabinet. Therefore, I have to wonder when, where and how we are going to discuss women's issues with the government?

You stated that $1.3 billion had been offered in pay equity and your colleague, the President of the Treasury Board, informed me in the House that women would have to accept this offer. I don't think women have to accept a discounted offer. Women expect you to defend them, not your government, when it comes to this issue. Therefore, I would like know how you plan to defend them in light of your colleague's position?

Regarding the status of women in Canada, under Plans and Priorities in the 1997-98 Main Estimates, the third priority is listed as doubly disadvantaged women. Am I to understand that if one is a woman, one is disadvantaged from the outset? Could you explain the meaning of this to me? Thank you.

[English]

Ms. Hedy Fry: I think I'll answer your first question, on how do we have input.

The decisions made with regard to government policy are made at cabinet committee. I am at every cabinet committee of social development where we deal with these issues, so I have full input into whatever goes on—into the priorities and the policies. I present to that committee. We also work on working groups with other departments as they set out their policies at the beginning, so we can do gender-based analysis and look at the data we have in factoring in how these different departments bring their policies and legislation to the fore. So I do have equal access to that kind of decision making.

You said that the Treasury Board president said that women had to accept $1.3 billion. I don't think he said that. In fact I know he hasn't said it. We are negotiating. The negotiations started with $60 million on the table. That money has been moved forward each time by the government so that it now sits at $1.3 billion. You should know that we are looking at a negotiated settlement. The other side started with $2 billion and has not moved.

As a negotiator in my other life, I can tell you that negotiation is about moving. It's about both sides dealing with each other in a mutually trusting way in which you talk about how you move. We have moved substantially on this issue.

• 1045

No one has said that $1.3 billion is the final offer. We are prepared to talk with this group and to see how PSAC would come to the table and deal with this issue.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: You know very well that the $2 billion figure is the result of a court ruling. This is not a bargaining position.

[English]

Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): You don't know that at all.

The Chairman: Order.

Do you want to conclude quickly, Minister?

Ms. Hedy Fry: Yes.

You asked another question about doubly disadvantaged women. From all of the statistics we have seen in terms of women's incomes, violence, access to social justice and in many other ways, gender does carry, at this point in our lives, a disadvantage. Doubly disadvantaged is when you add other things on top of gender that create barriers in our society, like colour or race.

For example, we know that 25% of visible minority immigrant women in this country have post-secondary education, as opposed to 13% of native-born Canadian women, yet they are represented in only 6% of the labour force. So we're talking where colour and language are disadvantages. These are some of the things we need to look at as we try to level the playing field.

The Chairman: Ms. Lill.

Ms. Wendy Lill: I'd like to ask you a multiculturalism question, and I'm going to speak for many people who live in my riding. They're black Nova Scotians from the communities of Preston and East Preston. I believe you were speaking at one of the high schools, Ms. Fry.

What kinds of programs are available for black Nova Scotians, who are facing 70% unemployment and very high incarceration rates? What kinds of creative programs are available through Multiculturalism Canada to deal with the problems of Preston, one of my communities?

Ms. Hedy Fry: A lot of work has been coming out of the universities, and some of the information we have is that black Canadians have faced a very different level of discrimination from that faced by other visible minority Canadians. Given that our objectives for funding are based on identity and belonging and civic participation, which is to assist black Nova Scotians and others to participate fully, and to remove systemic barriers.... I don't have the list of projects. There are many projects we have been supporting black Nova Scotians on. If I have a list of them, I can send it to you.

We have worked with the Cole Harbour school and the issue that's going on in Cole Harbour, and we've already put in about $300,000 in assistance by working with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Province of Nova Scotia, the Halifax Regional Police Commission, and Human Resources Development Canada to assist in dealing with that issue of discrimination.

There are lots of other projects that are done in Nova Scotia with the black community, and I would be pleased to get that for you.

Ms. Wendy Lill: So if some of my constituents come with projects that we feel will move ahead because of equality in their communities, are you open to more projects coming from Preston and East Preston?

Ms. Hedy Fry: I think the concept of being proactive in terms of looking at how we deal with some of these issues is very welcome. If they fulfil the criteria for funding, we would be pleased to look at them.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Do you have a very brief question, Mr. Saada?

Mr. Jacques Saada: I have a very quick comment.

With all due respect to Ms. Tremblay, I can't ignore the cliché that the multiculturalism policy was brought in to counter bilingualism. We will have other opportunities to get into this matter, but I can't let it go by without commenting. We have had a multiculturalism policy in place for the past 25 years and when we compare the situation of Quebec francophones today with their situation 25 years ago, we see that they have come a long way. That statement is utterly inconsistent. I simply wanted to point that out, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bellinger: On the same subject, when Ms. Tremblay stated that a court ordered the government to pay $2 billion dollars to settle the pay equity dispute, that isn't quite what happened. No such ruling was made. The union has asked for $2 billion and we are currently in negotiation with them. Therefore, it would be misleading to state that the government has been ordered by a court to pay this amount.

• 1050

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: It was the Human Rights Commission that handed down a ruling on the actual method of calculation.

Mr. Mauril Bellinger: That's correct.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: The government decided to take the matter to court to have it rule on the calculation period.

On the Friday before the break, Minister Massé—we can names here—rose in the House and said to my colleague Caroline St- Hilaire: Instead of asking questions in the House, why don't you ask the union to accept the $1.3 billion offer that is on the table. I think the government is trying to save $700 million at the expense of women in order to come up with the $600 million it needs to buy helicopters.

Mr. Mauril Bellinger: I've believe you're mistaken about this.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: No, I'm stating a fact.

The Chairman: All of this will be on the record.

Madam Minister, I would appreciate it if you could conclude your presentation, as we must move on to other business.

[English]

Ms. Hedy Fry: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Before I conclude I would like to answer a question about the issue of multiculturalism as proposed by Madam Tremblay.

I have met with my counterpart in the province of Quebec, and I am pleased to say that Mr. Boisclair has three clear objectives for his department that absolutely mirror the three objectives for Multiculturalism Canada. So I presume that Mr. Boisclair sees the need for these objectives within his own province.

Mr. Chair, I want to thank you for allowing me the privilege of presenting to this committee. I know that we have discussed many controversial issues. I hope that what we're talking about are core Canadian values. I hope I can turn to this committee for assistance in coming up with ways of looking at some of the information presented. I would be pleased to assist this committee in giving you any information or further detailed data that you require. I would be pleased to come to this committee to answer specific questions on specific issues if you would like.

I hope you will assist me and our department in dealing in a proactive way with some of the challenges that we see ahead of us, and I look forward to hearing from you on that matter. Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Thank you for appearing, Ms. Minister.

We have some business to conclude. I've circulated a letter from Ms. Lill dated 9 November 1997 that will read for itself. I've also circulated a notice of motion by Mr. Abbott. As you know, the rule now is that any presenter of a motion should give 24 hours' notice, which he's giving now, so that this can be dealt with. We're meeting for Bill C-7 tomorrow, and at the conclusion of that meeting we could deal with Mr. Abbott's motion and Ms. Lill's letter. Please read these documents so that we can deal with them tomorrow.

Tomorrow we're meeting at 3.30 p.m. You have the circular in your rooms in regard to the venue of the meeting to deal with clause-by-clause on Bill C-7.

Mr. Abbott.

Mr. Jim Abbott: I received a suggestion that I was grateful to receive. The last line in English, “further to ensure”—the suggestion was that the word “ensure” be changed to “recommend”. So it would read “further to recommend that all future National Capital Commission...”. That would also be changed in the French.

Thank you.

The Chairman: If members agree, we'll change this to recommend and recommander.

Do members have any amendments for Bill C-7 tomorrow? I haven't heard of any. So we'll proceed with clause-by-clause on Bill C-7 tomorrow.

[Translation]

The meeting is adjourned until 3:30 p.m. tomorrow.