Mary Clancy

[The Environment, October 4th, 1995]

Table it.

[Employment Equity Act, October 3rd, 1995]

I apologize, Mr. Speaker. At any rate I have used this phrase in a somewhat humorous vein but I will use it in truth here in this Chamber.

A number of my colleagues in debates on gender equality, employment equity or in whatever particular area you want said to me: "There are women's groups, where are the men's groups?" I say not at all in jest there is a men's group and it is called western civilization. That is the men's group.

If you go to any legislative assembly in the western world with the exception of two of the Scandinavian nations, the majority of elected members are white males. This is not to say that white males do not do a good job. Sure they do. But it is not the only face to be represented. Nor is it the only face to be represented on television stations, in radio stations, in fire stations, in whatever areas of employment, particularly those that come under the purview of the federal government.

It was my great pleasure and to my great benefit in the area of education that in the last Parliament I was the vice-chair of the committee that reviewed the employment equity legislation. I listened to a number of well-meaning white males who came before the committee and bragged. For example, in one organization-I will not name it but it has something to do with horses and red coats-in 24 years of an employment equity program it had added to the very highest echelons something like 20 women. Mr.

Speaker, I think you will sympathize with me that I found that statistic a little wanting, not to say a little daunting as well.

There is not a homogeneous culture in this country. There are any number of phrases that can be used to describe the beautiful face of Canada. The one that I heard most in my childhood was a vertical mosaic. I still like that one. I think it speaks very well to us.

We have used the phrase multiculturalism over the years and I like that one too. I like the fact, no, I love the fact that in this House of Commons today we see represented a variety, a rainbow of races, religious backgrounds, creeds and so on. That is the face of Canada. Our sorrow, our tragedy and our fault as legislators is that the rainbow is not represented the way it should be in the employment categories in those various institutions that fall within the federal purview.

When we dealt with employment equity in that committee in the last Parliament the big problem was enforcement and teeth. This bill is going to change that. This bill is going to make employment equity a reality.

I can only say that those people who fear it-and I am prepared to explain the difference between affirmative action and employment equity if they have a problem-do not really understand it. There is nothing to fear in allowing, encouraging and promoting the participation in the fullest sense of the word of all Canadians. It is our country. It belongs to all of us. Everyone should have equality of opportunity.

I do not for one instant think that anyone on either side of the House would be prepared to stand and deny that he or she agrees with equality of opportunity. That is something that all of us, no matter what our political stripe, agree with.

Consequently, if one agrees with that, then you must support this legislation. This legislation is not about special rights. It is not about saying to people you deserve something better because you are different. It is saying: "You deserve your share of the Canadian dream. You deserve equality of opportunity. You deserve to have systemic discrimination, unnatural barriers, removed so that with your training and your ability no matter what your skin colour, your gender, your religious background, your regional background, et cetera, you have the same road ahead of you as any other Canadian".

As we stand here and go forward in these pre-referendum days, Canadians are looking to us as legislators to talk about what this country really means. All of us know that what it really means is fairness, a sense of justice and an opportunity even for people who do not know what they are talking about to speak.

[Employment Equity Act, October 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize. There appears to be some problem with the ventilation system in the Chamber. I am not responsible for the noise I assure you.

[Employment Equity Act, October 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by associating myself most strongly with the cogent and competent comments of my colleague. I would continue the alliterative strain by naming her, but that of course would be unparliamentary, so I would merely congratulate the member for Windsor-St. Clair.

I want to say that I congratulate as well the member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, because I know he has worked very hard on the committee. But I think his amendments in this particular vein do not go anywhere to further the spirit of the bill. It is furthering the spirit of the bill that the passage is all about. I guess I could say we want it to go through spiritus intactus, because this is a very important piece of legislation. It is important because it is broadly misunderstood in more than one area.

I heard earlier today, before leaving the House to go to committee, people equate employment equity and affirmative action. I want to talk about that first of all, because employment equity and affirmative action are not the same thing. Indeed, if I could go into employment equity, especially today, when we have all been visited by members and representatives of the Canadian Medical Association, a medical metaphor might be appropriate. When I say that employment equity is preventive, affirmative action is curative.

I might add that affirmative action is something that is enshrined in our Constitution, in our charter of rights and freedoms. Employment equity too has a very respectable and respected history in the House and indeed in the legislatures of a number of the provinces.

When I hear employment equity attacked I constantly hear it attacked on the basis of a new disadvantaged group. I want to make it very clear that I am not speaking now with tongue in cheek. I am not being sarcastic. I am, if anything, being plaintive. As I stand here in the House of Commons in this fall of 1995, I am a little tired of hearing that white males in this society are some sort of endangered species. White males still get 60 per cent of the jobs in this country. Name the profession, name the job category, name the area, and they still do better than anybody else.

Just look at the Chamber when it is full. Look at it tonight when we have the vote. Who are the overwhelming members of this Chamber in all parties? White males, and fond I am of most of you. But there is no question that it does not reflect the demographic picture of this country.

First, if the House were to reflect this country demographically, 52 per cent of the seats would be taken up by females first and foremost. We are slowly but surely getting to that point.

[Employment Equity Act, October 3rd, 1995]

Wrong, absolutely wrong.

[Regulations Act, October 2nd, 1995]

One of the ways we do it is by not electing empty barrels.

By streamlining and simplifying the regulatory process and making it more accessible to the public, the act supports government efforts to make government more transparent and open to Canadians, again a fulfilment of a red book process.

The legislation also supports the government's agenda of promoting economic growth and job creation through a streamlined and expedited regulatory process that will improve the capacity of departments to respond rapidly to the changing circumstances of the global economy.

One thing I find when I go back to my riding and talk with people in small business is the question of not knowing what is expected of them. The passage of the bill will make the problem much less onerous for Canadian operators of small businesses.

I think, for example, of those people who opened small businesses in the city of Halifax. I think in particular of those people who are the most common openers of small business in the country, women. Women start more small businesses in Canada than men do. They tend to stay at it longer and they tend in the long run to be more successful.

One of the problems I hear from women when I go to meetings encouraging women entrepreneurs, talking with them about small business and the relationship between government and small business, is a fear to get into these areas because they are not sure

what is expected of them. They feel they will have to pay accountants and lawyers large amounts of money to interpret government policy to make sure that their businesses are staying within the realms of government regulation.

The bill will go a long way to easing those fears, to opening up for entrepreneurs the ideas of government policy and to telling them exactly what is expected of them.

The whole point of good government is to make the country an even better place, an even more liveable place for the people who live in it. I listened to my colleague from Quebec a few minutes ago. He made the point over and over again that the federal government had nothing to offer to the people of Quebec. I do not believe that, Madam Speaker. I know that you do not believe it. More important, the people of Quebec do not believe it either.

Just recently I had the very good fortune to travel right across the country. As a matter of fact this summer I did it twice, once by stopping off in various places with the immigration committee and listening to people-my hon. colleague from Bourassa was with me on that trip-and once again by returning from the fourth women's conference in Beijing via Vancouver and Calgary to Ottawa.

The ties that bind us together never cease to amaze me, whether we are from Quebec or the maritimes, the north or the west; whether we are from Southwest Nova or Kingston and the Islands; whether we are from the beautiful province of British Columbia; whether we are from the north or the prairies; or whether we are from that beautiful province that is every bit as much my country as it is yours, the province of Quebec.

It is good government that this government offers Canadians. It is good government that will keep Canadians together. It is acts like this one in their plainness that give us good government.

[Regulations Act, October 2nd, 1995]

Not at present. That is all right too because this is the stuff of good government. It also is the stuff of promise keeping. One of the major promises in our red book in 1993 was to simplify and streamline the red tape that affected small business and this act will do just that. For example, it will replace the antiquated and misunderstood phrase statutory instrument with the word "regulation".

In my time practising law, teaching law and commenting on the law in the media before I came to this place, there was the idea that we had to demystify the processes of law and government for most Canadians. It is certainly of great importance that we demystify those processes for those Canadians working in the area of small business.

The legislation will modernize the regulatory process for the information age by providing a legislative framework for the electronic publication of regulations and for public comment, the electronic medium. That is yet another milestone for us on the information highway, an area in which the hon. Minister of Industry and the hon. Secretary of State for Science and Technology have served us so well in recent days.

The act will make regulations more responsive to public concerns by improving the scrutiny role of the Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations.

It was not necessarily one of those committees that members of Parliament from either side of the House rushed to join, but it was one very important to the smooth functioning of good government. One of the reasons the government is in power is that historically and currently we offer good government to Canadians.

[Regulations Act, October 2nd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I must say that it gives me a great deal of pleasure to take part in the debate this afternoon.

Madam Speaker, when you and I were both elected in 1988, among all of us who came into Parliament that year there were probably a number of things we wanted to do here as parliamentarians. A number of issues were of tremendous interest to us: the question of the future of our wonderful country, the unity of Canada, the continued thriving of one united Canada, and issues relating to matters very close to my heart such as making sure that violence against women is eradicated soon.

It is a safe bet to say that the majority of members of Parliament whenever they were elected do not necessarily become passionate over tissues like Bill C-84, the Regulations Act. Yet these matters are very important.

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands will take part in the debate a little later. I think this is something the hon. member understands full well. From his years as a high school student when he wrote a paper about the pipeline debate in the House the hon. member has been very interested in and perhaps one of the most knowledgeable members of the House on questions of process.

When we talk about regulations and the Regulations Act we are really talking about process, if I might wax somewhat hyperbolic, read in tooth and claw, as I am sure the hon. member from Kingston and the Islands would agree.

It is not the stuff of which romantic novels or poems are written. It is not the stuff of overweening rhetoric, but it is the stuff of the day to day operation of government. Most particularly it is the stuff of the day to day operation of good government.

What are the objectives of the bill? There are a number of objectives. It will simplify and streamline the regulation making process because it will clarify existing legal uncertainties in the regulatory field. That sentence probably does not strike huge chords of interest in the populous in general. It probably does not strike huge chords of interest in my colleagues on the opposite side in any of the opposition parties. I would hazard a guess that, fond as I know my colleagues on this side of the House are of me, it probably is not striking huge chords of interest in the member from Miramichi, for example. I do not think it is striking huge chords of interest in my friend from Saskatchewan.

[Immigration, September 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member looks at the citizenship process through jaundiced eyes. The citizenship process in Canada goes on the same for those who wish to become citizens, whether they are from Quebec, New Brunswick, or British Columbia. We have one system. It works well and it will continue to work well.

[Immigration, September 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the question asked by the hon. member relates to the voting process in the province of Quebec. The province of Quebec obviously handles these matters on their own. The Canada-Quebec accord is such that it is an example of federalism at its most flexible and at its best. If the hon. member does not understand that, she does not understand the accord.