Mary Clancy

[Business Of Supply, March 17th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to take part in the debate today. I would like to commend the hon. member for Crowfoot on his comments. I did not know until he spoke just now that he was formerly a member of a law enforcement agency. I would like to say that in my years as a practitioner of law, both as a defence counsel and as a prosecutor, I worked extensively with members of various police departments; municipal police in Halifax and Dartmouth and the RCMP, and I have great respect and admiration for them in what is a very tough job. I know that the hon. member has obviously worked in that area and knows what a tough job it is.

I want to make perfectly clear that I am not specifically referring to the member for Crowfoot here, I am referring to the resolution itself but when we debate these matters we tend to forget the basis on which our law is built and the fact that the system which we live under and the system that governs us is, at best, faulty. But it appears to be in the evolution of both politics and law enforcement the best thing we have come up with thus far.

I look at the words of the resolution: "That this House condemn the government for its inaction with regard to the reform of the criminal justice system, in particular its allowance of the rights of criminals to supersede those of the victim".

I guess I have to say that the resolution is almost charming in its naivety. I am not going to get into the question that the government has been in power a scant four months and that there are many things that have to be done within the legislative calendar to ensure that the government runs as it should and that the government fulfils its promises, which it has done to date and will continue to do. I want to talk about the phrase "the allowance of the rights of criminals to supersede those of the victim". As always I like to declare my prejudices early in any debate.

As those on this side of the House know, I represent the city of Halifax in the province of Nova Scotia. There is a name that will ring down the annals of criminal justice in Nova Scotia for many years to come, and that is the name of Donald Marshall Jr. I do not know whether my hon. colleagues on the other side of the House are aware of the Marshall case-they certainly should be-but I can tell them that for a period in the province of Nova Scotia, finishing in 1989-90, this case was a preoccupation of a great percentage of the legal profession, both prosecutors, defence counsel, the judiciary. There was a special royal commission to look into what had happened.

Donald Marshall was a young man who served 11 years in prison for a crime he did not commit. Some terrible things were uncovered in the Marshall inquiry in the way criminal justice worked, or conversely did not work, in the province of Nova Scotia.

We have talked a lot in the House lately about questions of racism and bigotry. There is no question that one of the reasons Donald Marshall served 11 years for a crime he did not commit was racism. One of the reasons was bigotry. There were police officers who suborned perjury, there were dreadful miscarriages of justice, a complete lack of accommodation for cultural and lifestyle differences in the fact that even the ability to communicate on the part of the accused was ignored and so on. Evidence was suppressed. It is a black mark on the escutcheon of the province of Nova Scotia.

The Marshall inquiry report is 26 volumes. I know I have a copy in my office and I have read major parts of it, but in the life of a member of Parliament it would be hard to read the entire thing. But it is something that most practitioners of criminal law in Nova Scotia have availed themselves of and have read.

Over and over again what rings through your mind when you read the reports of the Marshall inquiry, when you read the reports of what happened to Junior Marshall, the words "innocent until proven guilty", "the rule of law", "due process" come back again and again.

I want to make another thing perfectly clear. In my years in the courts and practising law, particularly in my years as an advocate for women's rights and for the protection of women who are abused and battered and of children who are abused and

battered, I probably spent more time enraged at the lack of protection that our system has for victims of crime than anything else.

This country is littered, as unfortunately are other countries of the west, with the detritus of violence against women and children. Nonetheless we have to look to the whole picture to solve the problem and not merely zero in on one side and what I think, with the greatest of respect to the framers of this motion, what is ostensibly an inadequate response.

We have talked here about lowering the age of young offenders and with the greatest respect I do not think that is the answer. I can tell you as someone who has thought long and hard about this, someone who has served on committees dealing with criminal legislation in this House over the past five years, the situation that I think we must all remember is those two little boys in England who murdered the baby. This a situation that must come to the fore when we are talking about this very thing today.

I was discussing this in the lobby just a minute ago with one of the minister's staff. On the one hand we both agreed that we are horrified at the actions of those two boys, 10 years old when they killed the baby, to even go back and think of the testimony that came forward at that trial of that two-year old who kept getting up when he was hit again and again.

I am equally horrified that two 10-year old boys are found by the courts in English justice to be bad seeds, if you will. I think it very strange and very unlikely, too much of a coincidence, that two innately evil creatures would end up living next door to each other. There has to be more to it than that.

I use that example to illustrate the fact that merely increasing sentences, merely incarcerating for longer periods of time, merely going at the punishment angle is not going to give us the answer.

What we have to do is look at the causes. There are a variety of causes. I know that my colleague from Crowfoot and my colleague from Calgary who is also a former police officer would agree that other things come into the formation of criminal activity, that poverty is a part of it, that lack of education is a part of it, that poor nutrition is a part of it, that lack of education is a part of it, that the cycle of violence within the home is a part of it and on and on and on.

Criminals are made. They are very rarely born.

The whole question of how we deal with victims and how we deal with criminals should not be connected in this death battle if you will that is one before the other. The rights of victims must be respected. They must be listened to. There must be services for victims unquestionably.

The fact that we have not addressed this as a nation and as a society is, I agree entirely with the mover of the motion, something that we have to deal with and we have to deal with soon.

It is not an either-or situation. It is not going to improve the lot of the families for example of the McDonald's victims in Sydney River, Cape Breton, if you extend the sentences for the murderers, now convicted. Revenge is not what the framers of the criminal law should deal in. What we deal with in legislating the criminal law has to be deterrence and protection of society. Those are the reasons that we legislate in criminal law.

If we look at it as redress, how do we redress the families of the McDonald's victims? How do we redress those families? We cannot restore the lives of the victims. We cannot restore shattered families in the emotional sense. No money could possibly come along to fill that terrible void at the loss of young people. No money can do anything to restore the fact that the McNeil girl has major and serious brain damage and that however long she lives, she will never be the bright articulate young woman she was when she went to work in that McDonald's restaurant last May. Nothing can change that. It should not be connected.

Yes, we prove the crime and we have the appropriate response to the crime and we deal with the victims, but we are dealing in a separate theatre. We are dealing in a separate area.

When we talk about the rights of victims vis-à-vis the rights of criminals, I go back again to the Donald Marshall case. To hon. members across the way who I feel think that we on this side are somehow lax on the criminal law, I say to each one of them to remember the adage that those of us who suffered through law school will all remember, that it is a truism in legal education that it is better for a thousand guilty to go free than for one innocent to be convicted.

I wonder whether those on the other side would agree with that or not. I see that my friend from Calgary does not agree. It is an interesting point that that phrase has hung around for a very long time. I wonder if each of those members on the other side would look at that question and if it was not objective, if it were subjective-in other words, if you were the innocent victim-does that phrase become more valid? If it were your child who was the innocent victim, does that phrase become more valid? If it was your neighbour's child-all politics is local, all issues are local-think of it within the context of your own group, your own circle, and whether that makes it more relevant.

It has been talked about here today that we should lower the age of young offenders. I do not have children. I borrow my friend's because I can give them back. I know that most of you on the other side are parents and you do have children and you

know that children get into difficulties. They make mistakes. Is the answer to deal harshly?

[Supply, March 8th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I have a reality check that I would like to bring in. It may well be that a lot of women, and I have said it myself and I could not agree with the hon. member more, are unsafe in their houses.

That does not mean they should live in houses that are unsafe in and of themselves. It does not mean that we should merely fix one problem to the exclusion of another. It does not mean that if we solve crime in the streets we go on to solving the problems of poor housing.

One of the difficulties of governance is trying to solve more than one problem at a time, lest as we throw out the bath water we are also throwing out the baby.

Those of us on this side of the House, those of us who call ourselves feminists, are also proud to call ourselves people who believe in families. I have a family. Most of us have. I love my family and I believe deeply and passionately in the family.

I have another reality check. This may come as an overwhelming surprise to some people. Women work because they want to. They work because they like to, because it gives them personal satisfaction. They work because they often need a second pay cheque but one can be a working woman and be a good mother.

My father had the bad grace to die when I was seven years old and my mother went out to work to support the family which would probably be acceptable in certain circumstances. Let me say very strongly that my mother, who was a very good mother, loved her job. She enjoyed going out and working. God knows her only child grew up to be a member of Parliament which in some cases may be tantamount to ending up in jail but she thought it was a fairly successful resolution to the bringing up of her only child.

Most of my friends, practically all of my closest friends, classmates, women I went to school with, both work and have children. Their children, contrary to the opinion of some people, are not on crack cocaine or robbing stores or doing any of these things. One of them is taking a course in western civilization at the Sorbonne. Another one is in first year medical school and is

also holding down one of the first SSHRC grants ever to be given to a young student. His mother worked from the time he was an infant.

Their name is legion, the mothers and children in this country.

Madam Speaker, I believe you raised four sons. My God, I believe you also went out to work.

It is time we rid the myth that working mothers are responsible for the social problems in this country. Right now the vast majority of women, mothers of families, work because they have to to maintain a certain standard. That is true. They do not work for the colour televisions and the trips to Hawaii, they work to make sure that their families have the standard of living they deserve.

Every woman has the right to self-fulfillment. She has the right to go out and earn a living. She has a responsibility and it is usually shared with the father of those children, if he happened to stick around. In most cases they do stick around and go to work as well and they do good jobs.

I am told my time is up and I hope that this will be the last paid political announcement from this side.

[Supply, March 8th, 1994]

That is not good. I am just using these as examples.

I would not want us to totally iron out our debate if you would. There is a place for the proper use of the English and the French languages in all their majesty in this House with their use of insult as well. I think there is a place for that.

With regard to recruiting women, I was very involved in that process in my party. I am delighted that we were so successful. I think that the language was certainly part of what would have precluded many women from thinking that they would run. However, there is more to it than that. There is more to this being user friendly for women than just the language in the House of Commons.

Sometimes a devastating personal attack can take place in this Chamber with language that one could use in the pulpit of any church in this land. It is not merely what is said. It is how it is said, who is saying it and how it is delivered. I guess I would say that the women who sit in this House, be they Liberal, Bloc, Reform or independent, are probably not frail flowers in the long run. I would suggest to members that any one of us on either side of the House could take anything thrown at us and probably lob it back with pretty good response.

That is not what we should be about here. However, women have to understand that it is incumbent upon them to be here to ensure that the level of debate stays high and does not pander to the kind of thing that we are talking about. If they do not come at all it is never going to happen.

[Supply, March 8th, 1994]

Thank you. Pious windbag-

[Supply, March 8th, 1994]

Okay, a little response here from these benches. Obviously the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands is not paying attention.

Very seriously, there were some very serious breaches in the last House, no question. I will not demean the honour of this House by repeating them but most of the members know the incidents that I refer to.

There were numerous sexist slurs and at least one very totally unacceptable racial slur. It gave rise to a committee that sat in the last Parliament and dealt with the questions of racism and sexism. I am extremely hopeful that the recommendations of that committee will be coming forward as part of a reform package in the House of Commons.

I would like to make another point because I am a very strong believer in the value of debate, of reasonable but not necessarily totally cool debate. There is a place for passion in the deliberations of a nation. If a member on the opposite side makes me angry, I should display that anger, always within the bounds of the decorum that this House deserves and needs.

I recall my good friend and colleague, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, saying at one point in the last House that he would take any insult as long as it was gender and race neutral. There is a tradition coming down to us from the Mother of Parliaments and the tradition in this House of salient debate, of back and forth between members that can add to the whole tenor of the debate if you will. I agree with the hon. member that cat calls and what I can only call dumb stuff is not part of that.

However I would not for an instant want to see us so bland that we would not respond with fairly strong language, not insulting, never racist, never sexist, never pejorative, but there is a place for saying that one thinks that is a pretty dumb thing to say and that that member is going to therefore say it is a pretty dumb thing to say. Maybe the word dumb is unparliamentary. I am not certain.

[Supply, March 8th, 1994]

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

Actually and this is only half in jest, wholly in earnest one of the best things that we did for improving the tenor and behaviour in the House was electing a new government

[Supply, March 8th, 1994]

Thank you. We were born on the same day. That is why he does that.

The importance of politics not being ladylike is that it must be shown, however, that it is not unwomanly. This House is the place for women. It is the place for as many women who have the desire, the nerve and the ability to get here.

It is also important to note that it is the place for women who hold a diversity of views. That is right also. Just as every man in this House does not believe the same way as every other on a variety of issues, neither does every woman and neither should every woman.

There are members on the opposite side with whom I disagree most vociferously on a variety of issues. There are members on the opposite side with whom I might agree just as vociferously on certain other issues. The point is that this is the House of our nation's debate and the voices of women must be heard here and they must be heard as strongly and as passionately and as frequently as the voices of men.

If we do not pay more than lip service to this, if we do not ensure that the pathways are open for women to get to this House, then we are equally not making sure that the pathways for women are open in all occupations and professions in this country. The bottom line is that is what the resolution we are speaking to is about.

I opened my remarks by saying that I was very proud of women I have served with and continue to serve with in this House. I am proud of my party's record on the status of women. Most of all, I am proud of what we are going to do in a whole variety of areas. I am proud of the blueprints in the speech from the throne and in the budget. I am proud that my colleagues were tough enough to make the hard decisions so that this country will continue but it will also thrive and flourish because of policies.

I am most proud because I know that on this side of the House with the wealth of support for women we will continue to ensure that women are full partners because anything less is simply unacceptable.

[Supply, March 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to take part in this debate today. I want to begin by complimenting the movers of this motion from Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. I want to say, however, that there are a few home truths that need to be reiterated on the whole question of gender equality and the topics that we are debating here today.

First of all, I want to say that in this party on this side of the House there is a history of feminism. I speak that word proudly and loudly, again and again. I think of members of this House such as the Deputy Prime Minister, such as the Secretary of State for the Status of Women, such as the Minister of Natural Resources.

I think of members such as the hon. member for Ottawa West, the member for Nepean, former members such as the member for South West Nova who was here today. I think of the former member for St. Paul, Aideen Nicholson, who was here visiting with us today on International Women's Day. I think back to the first woman Liberal to sit around the cabinet table, the Hon. Judy LaMarsh, who gives her name to a fund that raises money for women who run for public office in our party.

I am proud of the tradition of feminism in the Liberal Party. I am proud of the women I have been fortunate enough to sit with in the House for nearly the last six years. I am proud of the new female members who have joined us this time. I am also proud of my male colleagues, but today is a day to celebrate women and I want to celebrate women. Women have not had a whole lot to celebrate. The fact that we are making some small breakthroughs should not, for even the shortest period of time, allow anyone to stand in the House and suggest that the status of women in this country has achieved equality because it has not.

There are a number of us fortunate enough to be here today who because of accidents at birth, hard work and education have managed to make it here. There are thousands, millions of women in the country who suffer every single day from abuse, from poverty, from fear, from cold, from hunger, from things that we should not accept. Every one of us, of whatever political stripe, bears a responsibility for the fact that in a country like Canada in the last decade of the 20th century, that is still happening.

Equality will not exist until women can be free from fear; in their own homes, in their neighbourhoods, in parking garages, in the streets and in malls. Women are dying in those places. Women are being abused, and beaten, and hurt, and left for dead. There is an epidemic of violence against women that is beyond the level of tolerance in a civilized country.

I heard the hon. member across the way-I am sorry I forget her riding, but I know her spirit on this-speak eloquently about Bosnia earlier today. Women in Bosnia are being raped and beaten and degraded on a daily basis, but so are women in Canada, so are women in the United States, so are women in Britain and the European countries. It is a world-wide epidemic and we are not immune.

It is a number of years-and thank God it will probably never happen again-since men in this Chamber laughed when an hon. member brought up the question of violence against women. They laughed. I remember that. I suspect you remember it too, Mr. Speaker. I was not here at the time but I think that perhaps some of the reason for that laughter may have been nervous tension. It may have been, I hope, a total misunderstanding of the situation. That is what I as a feminist and as a member of Parliament and as a woman think is at the root of the problem; a

lack of comprehension by some men and some women. It is a lack of comprehension.

For many good people of both sexes the idea of the abuse of women, violence against women, sexual harassment, sexual discrimination, all of the things that women deal with, if it does not come up and face you, or your wife, or your daughter or your sister on a daily basis, then perhaps it is hard to understand. It is hard to know that it takes place.

Let each and every one of us who are women in this House tell you that you must begin to understand it because it is there. It is your responsibility, each and every one of you, through you, Mr. Speaker, to do something about it, not to merely mouth platitudes, not to merely say something like: "Well, it can't be true that we should have more women because men can't represent women or women can't represent men", or some such balderdash which begs the question.

Until we have a significant, and by significant I means upward of 50 per cent of women in all the legislatures in the country, we do not have true representation. It does not mean that a man cannot represent a woman or a woman cannot represent a man. It means that the way our society reacts is that if women are not there in sufficient numbers, then what is essentially a male patriarchal society decides they are not to be listened to in any louder a tone than their proportional representation allows.

That is not happening by accident. That is not happening because the women who sit in the House in all three parties want it to happen. It is happening because of the way all of us have been brought up. It is happening because of the way life has evolved to this point in the latter part of the 20th century.

It does not mean that we put up with it, and it does not mean that we accept it as the kind of situation that Canadians and those people who we all represent feel is correct.

Men can represent women and do on both sides of the House. Women can represent men and do on both sides of the House. But until all of us take very seriously the whole question of gender inequality, then those who do not take the question seriously, those who do not comprehend it viscerally, are not representing their constituents, male and female, to the very best of their knowledge and ability. That is what every one of us wants to do. We want to represent the people who put us here and even the people who voted against us.

The question of pay equity, the question of employment equity, the question of equality before the law, the question of freedom from fear, freedom from violence, are so basic that when I hear them discussed as debatable issues, if you will, I become very angry. That may have shown itself from time to time both in the House and outside once or twice.

The other day I was having lunch in my riding with a woman activist who happens to be black. We were discussing an article in a national magazine about racism and sexism. I said to her that a young black woman activist in the United States said that sexism made her angry but that racism enraged her. My friend said that put it about as well as she had ever heard it. She said that is how she felt. As a feminist, as a black woman, sexism makes her angry but racism enrages her. I understand that too but you take your battles and I guess you apportion your passions where best you can fit your own beliefs.

We can all understand to some degree another person's pain but I cannot truly understand, or truly experience, anti-Semitism or racism, at least in the context in which we know it in this country. I can and have and continue to experience sexism.

The other isms , if you will, make me very angry but I guess for me the most visceral is still sexism and sexism enrages me. It enrages me because I know the abilities, the hard work, the dedication of so many women who are voiceless; the women who raise their children, run the volunteer organizations, the churches, the PTAs, the home and school associations, the United Way, the volunteer groups all across the country. Yet all of them to some degree walk out of those volunteer offices and suffer from discrimination in the workplace. Almost all of them will suffer from discrimination in the workplace of one kind or another. Over 50 per cent of them will experience some form of violence, and 25 per cent of them will experience significant violent behaviour, usually more than once in their lifetimes.

We have a culture in this country of blaming the victim. We have a culture in this country of wanting to sweep it under the rug. We have a culture in this country of saying it is not as serious, it did not happen, it could have been avoided if she had behaved in a different way.

As with almost every evil under the sun, it is rooted in fear. For some it is a fear of sharing power, for others it is a fear of job loss, for a third group it is a fear of seeming to lose face, if you will, in the power structure that is the family, as wonderful an institution as it may be. In some the power structure becomes the answer as opposed to the loving family that all of us believe in so strongly.

Essentially what we are discussing today is an issue of fairness. What makes me so angry, what enrages me so much, is that sexism, discrimination against women, is unfair and a waste. It is a waste of talent, a waste of ability, and a waste of women power that could be put to work to make this country so much more than it is today.

I have been talking about this a lot in the last couple of weeks to journalists, student groups and young people across my riding and in other parts of the country. I have talked about the fact that the increase in the number of women in this House has made it a different Parliament. It is a different Parliament for a whole variety of reasons and I have talked about a certain joie de vivre among the women, certainly in my caucus, but I feel it across the way as well. We have reached the numbers if you will, not sufficient by any means, but we have reached at least a level where I believe, Madam Speaker-and may I compliment you on your first Question Period-that we have passed at least the level of tokenism. It is still not enough, we still are not representative, but we have passed the level of tokenism.

It was particularly edifying today to see you in the chair, to see all women at the table, with no disrespect to the gentlemen who occupy those seats right now, and to note that our pages in front of the Speaker's chair were for the most part all female during Question Period. It was interesting to note that with the exception of one token gentleman on the government side, the questioners on the opposition side and on our side were female.

Some people will say that is not necessary, or why do you want to do that, or why do you only do that on International Women's Day. I say, Madam Speaker, that we do that kind of thing because symbols are very important. It is important symbolically that women stand up on this day and speak for each other in support of those things that matter to us. We know they matter to men as well. But it is also important that we stand and speak in our own voices without the necessity of speaking through our male colleagues. It is important that young people-and there were a number of little sisters in the House of Commons today who were shadowing many of the women MPs-see women use their voices on a whole variety of issues, economic and social, today. Each one of us bears the responsibility of communicating to the young women of this country that this Chamber is their place too.

Someone once told me that she did not get involved in politics because it was not a very ladylike occupation. I agree that it is not very ladylike. I guess I am fairly glad it is not.

I heard a laugh over there. Thank you. I am not quite sure what it means but I can hazard a guess.

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1994-95, March 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has launched a public consultation process that will help shape the country's immigration policy for the next decade. His intentions are clear, and that is to hear from Canadians.

Family reunification has always been a cornerstone of Canadian immigration policy. We must never underestimate the advantages of family based immigration. Family members help to integrate and settle newcomers successfully with little associated costs.

In a 1991 study the Economic Council of Canada stated that immigration had a positive albeit small impact on the real per capita income of Canadians. Thus if the impact is not negative it cannot be used to argue that levels are too high. Economic neutrality in fact supports the current levels of humanitarian immigration.

In addition the Economic Council also made the point that an increase in immigration did not increase unemployment neither in the short nor the long term. This was verified by examining 12 OECD countries.

We on this side of the House tend to agree with the council's findings when it says that everyone benefits economically and otherwise from immigration.

Another study by Samuel and Conyers in June 1986 entitled "The Employment Effects of Immigration: A Balance Sheet Approach" concluded that the net impact of immigration from the perspective of job creation was positive and that immigrants were net creators of jobs.

Studies using the 1986 census data have concluded that immigrants collect less welfare. Since they also pay taxes they are contributing positively to maintaining our social safety net, which in turn helps pay for Canada's social programs including and perhaps most especially our health care system.

[Black History Month, February 23rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize February as Black History Month.

The celebration of Black History Month is a focal point of pride for black Canadians whose presence in Canada can be traced to at least 1605 when Mattieu Da Costa accompanied Samuel de Champlain as an interpreter to Nova Scotia.

Since that time, politicians, writers, artists, educators, historians and many others have added to the social, cultural and economic fabric of Canadian life.

This is most definitely the case in Nova Scotia where there are many prominent citizens of Afro-Canadian origin whose work affects many Nova Scotians and Canadians. Wayne Adams, Nova Scotia's first Afro-Canadian MLA and cabinet minister, Maxine Tynes, prominent poet and writer, Joan Jones, a recent recipient of the Pearson Award, Dr. Carey Best and Slyvia and Marie Hamilton are just a few Nova Scotians of African origin whose contributions have been recognized by their peers.

Black History Month pays homage to the essential contribution of black people and their collective history to the fabric of Canadian life. Let us pay tribute to this vital part of Canadian heritage, not only during February but throughout the year.