Mary Clancy

[Supply, May 30th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to deal with the hon. member's question. I have not been following the election in Ontario perhaps as closely as I should because with the greatest of respect to my colleagues from Ontario, some of whom are here in this Chamber now, Ontario is not always the centre of the universe for those of us from Atlantic Canada.

If Mrs. McLeod has indeed made these comments that is Mrs. McLeod's outlook. I suggest the hon. member for Fraser Valley East should discuss that with her.

[Supply, May 30th, 1995]

I know she is Madam Speaker. She is not going to get upset with that. We know each other very well.

This law is an effort to address problems that are still very much with us as one last fact will prove. Max Yalden, the Canadian human rights chair, recently noted that while white male Canadians make up just 45 per cent of the workforce, they account for 55 per cent of all the hirings. I think that is discriminatory.

I urge my hon. friends to put away their ideological blinders and listen, really listen to the needs of all Canadians. I reiterate my offer to help.

[Supply, May 30th, 1995]

Right, you and whose army? The unemployment rate for white males with university degrees was just 4.1 per cent in the 1991 census. Compare that with 7 per cent for university educated aboriginal peoples and 10.9 per cent for persons with disabilities with the same academic background.

The situation facing people with disabilities is particularly bad. They are being hired at a rate that is only one-quarter of the representation in the Canadian workforce. They experience an unemployment rate of 18.5 per cent, double the national average. Is it any wonder their labour force participation rate is only 60 per cent?

I could go on: the situation facing aboriginal people not just on isolated reserves but in our cities; the situation facing women who are disproportionately found in clerical, sales and service occupations, what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and I in our years as feminists-and proud we are to use that term-know as the pink collar occupations, the job ghettos. Stories of these people have been told eloquently already.

During the recent hearings of the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons approximately 60 witnesses came forward to share their experiences and expectations. They came from many backgrounds but the vast majority supported this legislation based on their real life experience, not some theory they posit in their group of white males getting along just fine and do not want the hoards of those people knocking at their gates.

Look out, the gates are being knocked on and they are being knocked on hard.

The committee heard stories of broken dreams. It heard stories of sincere desires to become full participating members of society. Witnesses did not appear before the committee to seek a special deal. Witnesses appeared before that committee to seek fairness. That is what we as members of Parliament have to start giving. Those people on the other side of the House need to learn a little bit about that.

Witnesses did not ask for redress for the wrongs of the past. They wanted attention to the wrongs that are happening right now. These are not the kinds of wrongs human rights commissions can address through individual complaints. These are systemic discrimination that can only be got at by being rooted out and dug out through things like the Employment Equity Act.

The problems have little or nothing to do with evidence of overt discrimination. They have everything to do with removing barriers and implementing innovative solutions.

Mr. Speaker, Reformers seem to seize on the odd statistic that this law has had some impact. They see one improvement in some indicator and declare that the war on inequality has been won: strike down the law and send home the troops. Well not so fast. The battle is not over.

[Supply, May 30th, 1995]

They certainly would not. They are telling Canadians they are to blame for whatever fate befalls them in the labour market unless they can prove a specific act of discrimination.

When I come to give my seminar to the Reform Party-in the interest of the Canadian way I might even do it for free-I will be happy to explain the concept of systemic discrimination, what it means and how we differentiate between quotas and numerical goals. We have learned that change does come but it comes slowly and needs regular reinforcement and constant support by government and legislation.

As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister has already said and I can only reinforce, one cannot legislate attitudes. If members need an example of this, look across the way.

Many employers have taken their role in employment equity quite seriously. They have taken a hard look at their practices and they see they are not fair. They have moved from simply trying to eliminate blatantly unjust policies to developing ones that correct problems.

People like my hon. colleagues have brought forth in their idea of jest the question in so far as it relates to women and employment equity. They ask about men's groups, are there any men's groups? Yes, there are. It is called western civilization. There is a long way to go. There are still inequalities that deserve to be addressed.

I bring these to the attention of the hon. members opposite. I will focus my remarks on the cold, hard statistical facts that show we have a problem when it comes to equality. They can bury their heads in the sand but all they will do is get sand up their noses.

Let me start with one piece of good news. Members of visible minorities who graduated from universities and community colleges in 1990 earned approximately the same average salary in 1992 as others who graduated that year but they did not fair as well in the other three measures of disadvantaged. Those

graduates were more likely to be unemployed, had lower participation rates and were more likely to be concentrated in lower level occupations such as clerical work.

There is plenty of other evidence that members of visible minorities face overwhelming difficulties in employment. The 1991 census showed these people tend to be better educated than the general population. Eighteen per cent reported a university degree compared with only 11 per cent in the general population. Again, they tend to have higher unemployment rates.

The unemployment rate of visible minority university graduates was 9.4 per cent in that census, whereas in the general population it was 4.1 per cent. Does that say something to my friends opposite? Heaven knows.

Among those who were working, visible minority university graduates were twice as likely to be in low levels, clerical, sales and service occupations, as non-visible minority men. That imbalance was reversed when the census looked at employment in upper levels, middle levels and other management jobs.

Some of my hon. friends might argue it was just the kinds of programs these people took. Even here the facts provide no comfort to their narrow view. When we look at the census data for people with degrees in commerce, business or management we are looking at people with degrees in tangible skills regardless of race or colour.

Why were 28 per cent of non-visible minority males with this kind of useful education in management occupations compared with only 16 per cent of visible minority members with similar degrees? Why were the earnings of visible minorities only 60 per cent of what the others made? It is ludicrous for anyone to stand in the House and suggest all this comes back to bad choices.

I hope enough facts will show hon. members of the Reform Party their glib explanations do not work in real life. I remind them, especially those who want to make inroads in my part of the world, that in Atlantic Canada we understand the questions of inequality. If they want to make inroads there perhaps they had better listen to some of this.

[Supply, May 30th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I make an offer to the Reform Party if it is serious.

In my former profession one of the things I did was gender sensitivity training, particularly for large organizations. I explained concepts such as this to St. Francis Xavier University. I am sure the members for Fraser Valley East and West would be happy to attend. I would be happy to do this if hon. members could afford me because my fees were fairly high in those days. However, we can always negotiate.

It is wonderful to be back after a week's break and share in the cloud cuckoo land sometimes perpetrated on us by our hon. friends in the third party. They seem to be saying by this motion that there is no discrimination in Canadian society except for specific and regrettable incidents here and there.

To hear them talk, we have reached a state of blissful equality. They tell us that after a few decades of human rights law any of the many and obvious differences in representation in the workplace are now really a matter of personal choice. By their logic, visible minorities, aboriginal people and people with disabilities like being unemployed more, to the tune of sometimes more than twice the national average.

They talk about women. There are a lot of us sitting on this side. We want to make less money than men. Maybe we as members of Parliament should suggest women members should not make as much money as men. That might be a good idea. Women want to make 67 cents for every dollar men make.

[Immigration Enforcement Improvement Act, May 12th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by stating the obvious. There has always been crime in Canada. It is an unfortunate part of our society and of every society. Let us face it, there always will be an element within any population that disobeys the laws which govern the land.

However, we have the good fortune of being spared, for the most part, the violent criminal activity that goes on in other parts of the world. Despite what some newspapers and television shows would have us believe, we really are a peaceful and law-abiding people. But that does not mean that nothing bad happens here. Let us not delude ourselves, such incidents can occur and indeed already have.

Fortunately, we have a strong judicial system to deter crime. It is a system that I like to believe is impartial and fair. It is not perfect. Nothing is perfect in this world. But, in my opinion, the system works reasonably well.

Times do change. What may have been relevant 10 or 20 years ago may not be adequate to deal with the realities of the mid-1990s. New technologies are creating new types of criminal activity and new challenges for enforcement officials. The government recognizes that times change and that legislation must follow suit. Take, for example, the justice minister's proposed gun legislation. That is but one example of how the government is acting to curb crime. That is an example of good legislation; thoughtful legislation which weighs the pros and cons and comes up with a reasoned, rational and workable solution to a problem which faces us all.

It is with a similar intention that my hon. colleague and friend, the hon. member for Cambridge, has introduced his proposed legislation today. He is to be commended for his commitment to keeping the streets of his community and his country safe. No one here can doubt that his heart is in the right place. However, I cannot support the motion before the House today, for unlike the aforementioned legislation on gun control, Bill C-316 is not workable in its present form.

While on the surface some of its proposals may sound persuasive and may even make some sense in practice, they would simply cause more problems than they would fix.

We are all in agreement that we must deal firmly with violent criminals. We must deal firmly with those who come to this country to commit crime. Canada is a generous and welcoming place but we will not be used as fools. The Canadian government will protect Canadian citizens and institutions from becoming the target of foreign criminals.

When someone comes to our country and betrays our generosity and good nature with criminal activity we must not allow them to remain. The message is clear: Play by the rules or leave. However, Bill C-316 does not give us the tools we need to remove these people. If anything, it would complicate an already complex removal process.

First, the legislation raises some serious constitutional questions. The Supreme Court has established that deportation is not a form of punishment but rather an administrative decision taken by Canada. Bill C-316 seeks to change this. By making deportation a sentencing option, it suddenly becomes a criminal punishment. If this were to be the case, then there are no fewer than three constitutional clauses that could be used to argue against the sentence.

Section 15 of the charter is one example. It could be argued that two tiers of punishment would be available to judges if Bill C-316 came into effect, one for citizens, the other for non-citizens. There would be a case where people commit the same crime, yet the punishment would be more harsh for one than for the other. This goes against the fundamental idea that Canadian justice treats everyone fairly and equally.

It could also be argued that removal from Canada would represent a second form of punishment in addition to any other sentence. In effect, non-citizens would face the prospect of being punished twice for the same offence.

Finally, if deportation is seen as a criminal punishment, it could perhaps be construed as cruel and unusual punishment. It could be argued that removing a permanent resident from Canada is tantamount to denying for life that person's right to be with family and friends, to earn a living or to communicate freely in the course of daily living. This would put it in direct opposition to section 12 of the charter.

As you can see from this brief overview, the legislative provisions raise serious potential problems. If they are adopted, there is a strong possibility that even the most minor matter will give rise to constitutional free-for-alls that could last years and cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars, even millions.

Using measures that, in all likelihood, would slow down the enforcement of the law when the public is clamouring for better,

faster and more efficient government management of the country seems irresponsible.

We have to find a way to speed up the deportation process and not to paralyze the judicial system with excessive legal considerations.

I have touched on the constitutional arguments against this bill. Now let me discuss broader reasons that I cannot support it. If it were to pass we would be transferring the responsibility for removing potentially dangerous criminals from the federal immigration department, whose representatives are experts in the field, to provincial crown attorneys and judges. We should not dilute federal responsibility for something as important as the deportation of violent offenders.

I am not questioning the competence of provincial crown attorneys or judges, far from it. However these individuals already have exceptionally busy dockets and in many cases do not have the time or the expertise to deal with complex immigration cases.

As well, the international obligations Canada has with respect to immigration matters are not well known to judges acting in criminal matters. As a result it would take both time and money to train lawyers and judges to deal with immigration cases.

Furthermore, we must recognize that recommendations to the provincial court may take into consideration many factors which should not be part of a deportation hearing. Plea bargaining could become a convenient way for people who should not be in this country to stay in this country. Who is to say that deportation could actually be carried out?

Once a judge orders an offender removed, is it the court's responsibility to deport the individual? What would happen with the order of a judge that cannot be executed because the individual cannot be received outside Canada? Is the court to find a suitable country? Is the jurisdiction to be transferred back to the immigration department after the order has proven to be impossible to execute?

Deportation can be a complex process requiring travel documents and international co-operation. These are affairs that are best handled by the immigration department which will continue to be responsible for all other deportations of persons who have entered Canada illegally, have been convicted of serious crimes in other countries, or have otherwise violated the Immigration Act.

This is not the only part of the bill which neglects to take into account the fact that Canada cannot unilaterally remove people to other countries. The section concerning changes to the Transfer of Offenders Act also seems to forget that we need international co-operation to have an effective removal system.

The purpose of the act is to accommodate non-Canadians serving sentences by making it possible, on the basis of an arrangement between states, to transfer offenders so that they can serve time in their homeland. The act is not meant to support orders that may have been made by courts. In fact the act has nothing to do with the legal system. It is based on arrangements of an administrative nature between sovereign states.

Bill C-316 wants to change this. It proposes that the act be amended to allow Canada to remove any foreign criminal serving time in a Canadian prison. This just is not realistic. What would be the incentive of a foreign country to pass a treaty with Canada whereby we would transfer to them the cost of punishing offenders who have committed crimes here? The answer is simple. There is none.

The legislation may also be potentially unfair to a defendant in a deportation hearing. The government wants to ensure that all dangerous foreign offenders are ordered removed. We also want to ensure that humanitarian concerns which are an important part of the immigration system are consistently applied to all persons subject to removal orders.

I think we would all agree it is generally pretty easy to stand and criticize something. What is difficult is to work hard to find alternatives that do work. I am happy to say that we in government do not just sit and listen. We act.

Many of the proposals the bill would seem to resolve have already been dealt with in Bill C-44. As members know, the legislation was recently approved by the House and is currently before the Senate. Bill C-44 is good legislation. A serious criminal element, no matter how small, that has infiltrated our immigration system can be handled by Bill C-44.

In closing, the government is making progress in tackling the small number of criminals who have infiltrated our immigration program. The system works but it could work better. We recognize this and as a result we have taken action. I can assure members that we will continue with the progress, but we must take measured steps and weigh our options carefully. All too often there is a difference between what sounds good and what is practical.

We congratulate the hon. member for Cambridge for his initiative, but at this time Bill C-316 just does not fit the situation.

[Citizenship, May 12th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

I am absolutely delighted to have the opportunity to advise the House that on April 21 the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration announced the Northern Star Citation to recognize public service and responsible citizenship among Canada's youth.

The new citizenship citation will pay tribute to youth who have contributed in their schools, neighbourhoods, and communities. I can tell the House that the Northern Star is an initiative that is very close to the minister's heart. It recognizes the exemplary citizenship contributions of Canada's young people, anglophone, francophone and allophone, the people who will build the multicultural Canada of tomorrow.

[Breast Cancer, May 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, there are times when I weep for the lack of understanding on the other side.

As the hon. member knows, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration does not have the power or the authority under the Immigration Act to overturn a visitor visa application. These were individual visitor visa applications, judged on their individual merits and on the basis of the information provided by the applicants. It is the responsibility of the government to facilitate the entry of genuine visitors to Canada.

A visa officer is required by regulation to refuse a visitor visa if he has reasonable grounds to believe the applicant will not leave Canada when the visa expires. A visa officer is bound to uphold Canadian law and to protect the interests of this country; and well my honourable friend knows this.

An applicant who is refused may make a new application and ask the visa officer to consider any new information they may wish to present. I would remind the hon. member that this is exactly what happened in the case involving the Algerian filmmaker, Ms. Koudil, who made a reapplication after she was invited to do so here in this House by both the minister and by me. Lo and behold, when the new information came forward she was admitted and went to the film festival.

[Breast Cancer, May 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it sounds to me as if my hon. colleague from Saskatchewan is talking about privatization if necessary but not necessarily privatization.

We on this side do not think that the report chaired by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River which followed nationwide consultations was out of date. We think it was quite up to date. It supported full commercialization of CN including participation by employees.

A range of factors has been considered in the process of commercializing CN, not the least of which is that the greatest possible value for taxpayer should be generated in the process.

I think all members would agree that commercializing CN must not impose restrictions on the company that would reduce its value or its competitiveness. Ideally it should be placed on a level playing field with its competitors and positioned to remain a viable force in Canadian transportation, to the benefit of our shipping community.

As the minister said, the sale of the government's equity will constitute the largest share issue in Canadian history. Through a public share offering the government, in seeking to generate the greatest value for taxpayers and to provide all Canadians with an opportunity to participate in this unique opportunity, wants to ensure a broad shareholder distribution throughout the issue.

Farmers as well as all interested Canadians, perhaps even a few people who live by the ports, will have an equal opportunity to invest in CN.

[Immigration, May 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the minister of immigration has announced a number of reforms to the immigration system. We have announced a number of changes to the Immigration and Refugee Board. It is a shame that the hon. member cannot see his way clear from time to time to support these changes and reforms, as well as to support such bills as Bill C-41.