Ian McClelland

[War Crimes, February 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, Canada should never again be a haven for any war criminal.

My question again is for the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister doing anything to ensure that no other war criminal will ever find a safe haven in Canada?

[War Crimes, February 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, like millions of Canadians, I was both appalled and embarrassed when Irving Abella of the Canadian Jewish Congress told the television program "60 Minutes" former Liberal Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau would not prosecute war criminals living in Canada.

My question is for the Prime Minister. Does this reprehensible abdication of responsibility continue to be the Liberal government policy as evidenced by recent botched deportation proceedings and foot dragging?

[Finance, December 9th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would give us his impression of the effect of the high levels of taxation, particularly payroll taxes, on the economy in Quebec.

I am speaking specifically of the underground economy. It is the impression of many people that the underground economy is alive, well and thriving in areas of high taxation.

[Finance, December 9th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to acknowledge what a privilege it has been to serve in the same caucus as the hon. member for Capilano-Howe Sound. It has been very illuminating for many of us to have an economist of his world stature participating in the debates of the House and speaking honestly about problems.

We cannot solve the problems of the country if we do not address them honestly. That is what we are trying to do here. We are addressing the problems that the nation has. We did not get into a $600 billion federal debt by accident. We are in this mess because people of good heart and little else took us down this path unknowingly. We are not suggesting that they got up in the morning and said: "How are we going to screw future generations of Canadians?" It just happened. Now we have to deal with mess, do something right and only straight talk is going to get us there.

There is some straight talk but it is not normally found in this House. Early in his comments the hon. member for Capilano-Howe Sound mentioned a very excellent book which should be required reading for all members of Parliament, including members opposite of the Liberal Party. That is the book "Double Vision" written by Edward Greenspon and Anthony William-Smith about the first three years of the Liberal reign at the end of this millennium.

It speaks very eloquently of the battle that raged within the Liberal Party on whether they were going to finally fess up to the fact that our country was and still has the potential to be a financial basket case if we do not stay the course.

I would like my colleague to amplify on page 276 of that book. I remember it very clearly because it was like a lighthouse. It just exemplified what has gone on in this Parliament. On page 276 the Minister of Finance was defending his budget to the bond traders, Salomon Brothers, 400 of them. Their question to him was: "Why should we believe the Liberals have got the forthrightness, the ability, to stay the course on the deficit reduction when they have never had that strength before, when they have never been able to do it. In the face of another election they open their wallets and give away future generations of Canadians' money. It is not their money. It is future generations' money. They have never had the strength to do it before, why should we believe you have the strength to do it now?"

His response was: "In his opinion the political competition in our country is the Reform Party. The Reform Party is committed to getting our financial house in order and the Reform Party will keep our feet to the fire". Would the hon. member for Capilano-Howe Sound respond to this?

[Food And Drugs Act, December 9th, 1996]

Eugene, at least tell the truth.

[Food And Drugs Act, December 9th, 1996]

That is not what she said.

[Constitution Amendment, December 2nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the impassioned presentations of the member opposite and to his colleagues. I also listened at great length to one of my colleagues who is trying to sway my decision to vote on this bill.

My position to vote in favour of the bill and support the government's position is based on my fundamental belief in the words of one of the architects of the American Constitution, Thomas Paine, who was an adviser to Thomas Jefferson. His words were that every generation has the right and the responsibility to govern for its own times and should not bind future generations any more than this generation should be bound by past generations. As a matter of fact, that was one reasons why I was so much against

the Charlottetown accord, because it bound the Constitution for all time because it required unanimity to change it.

It is the genius of the American Constitution: to change, to reflect the times.

I would ask my hon. friend opposite, given what I have just stated: the necessity of each generation to govern for its time, to have the right to do so, not to bind future generations or to be bound by past generations. The Legislative Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador has passed this. There has been a referendum. We know it was a close one, but it was a much closer referendum that brought Newfoundland into Confederation in the first place. Those who say that it passed by a very few votes should have gotten off their butts and voted. Once a vote is done, it is done and you go on from there.

I would ask the hon. member if he would try to convince me, based on my principled position and respecting the position of the people who have already voted, how would he respond?

[John Munro, November 21st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, there is good reason to be concerned about the government's treatment of former Liberal cabinet minister John Munro.

In 1991 Mr. Munro was acquitted of charges of corruption, charges based on allegations that arose while he was a minister of the crown. The defence of his reputation cost Mr. Munro approximately $1 million in legal and related fees. Mr. Munro requested that the government pay his legal fees which would be consistent with previous policy and practice. In 1996, five years after he was acquitted, the government rejected his request for compensation.

In law Mr. Munro is innocent. Yet he has been impoverished because of the unsubstantiated allegations with respect to his conduct while a Liberal cabinet minister. In fairness the Minister of Justice should reconsider the decision to deny compensation to Mr. Munro or at the very least explain why compensation has been denied.

[Human Reproductive And Genetic Technologies Act, November 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to be recorded as voting against this motion.

[The Divorce Act, November 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the next batch of amendments. With the indulgence of the members present I will refresh their memories.

When I was speaking on the last batch of amendments I was quoting from an article in the September 28 issue of The Economist . It discussed the notion of crime, particularly violent crime, by youth. The article dealt with crime in western Europe and America.

It was interesting to note from the article that 50 per cent of violent crime was caused by males under the age of 24. About 24 per cent was caused by males under the age of 18. Males compared to females are far more involved in crime and in particular violent crime. The article went on to make the case that the one overriding consideration which affects those statistics is the two parent family.

I will read a sentence or two: "Ask yourself: What restrains such behaviour?" We are talking about the violent behaviour of adolescents. "The short answer is a two parent home. Without belabouring the complexity of family policies, two parent families are demonstrably better at raising trouble-free children than one parent homes. Fatherless boys commit more crimes than those with a father at home. A study of repeat juvenile offenders by the Los Angeles probation department found that they were much more likely to come from one parent backgrounds than either the average child or juvenile criminals who offended once only".

That is a particularly disheartening statistic. The heartening statistic in Canada is that, much to the surprise of many people, according to Statistics Canada only 13 per cent of children are being raised in single parent homes.

The point I am coming to is this: We know statistically that children who come from two parent homes, particularly young males and adolescent males, are at far less risk of misbehaviour and violent behaviour.

I want to make sure that those people who are watching this debate on television do not think I am coming at this from a holier than thou approach. I am not. I am making a statement of fact. The statement of fact is that even if parents divorce, they do not divorce their children.

As a society we must ensure when parents regrettably divorce, that custody does not go to one or the other. They do not stop being parents. There is no magical dissolution of parenthood; it is a dissolution of the marriage. The laws we promulgate have to promote joint custody. They should not promote disassociation. For the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice to suggest that there is no link between access to children and maintenance and the continuity of maintenance is so patently absurd that it defies reality. How anyone proposing to represent the government of our country could make such an absurd statement so devoid of reality is mind boggling.

On a more positive note we should be doing something that was suggested at a recent town hall meeting on the Divorce Act which was attended by around 200 people in my constituency of Edmonton Southwest. Perhaps we should be putting far more emphasis on reconciliation. This was the overriding positive theme which came out of that town hall meeting.

We should understand the importance of a two parent home. Even when divorce is the unfortunate final decision in a case of marital unhappiness, we must protect and nurture the child. We do that best by not severing the cord between the mother, father and child.

Through reconciliation and perhaps by carrying reconciliation a step further, we should deal with divorce in a unified family court situation. Rather than involving the adversarial nature of lawyers, one trying to outdo the other, I propose a better idea, although it is not a specific part of this amendment and I appreciate the indulgence of members for allowing me to continue with this thought.

Would we not be better off as a society if we used arbitration in a unified family court as the basis of family law? The purpose would be to deal with this kind of relationship. This involves so many different aspects of law, of contract law and of God knows what comes to the table. We are dealing with people who are at times mad, at times hurt, at times vengeful, at times just brokenhearted. We are dealing with people at a time of marital distress, at a most difficult point in their lives. When people are in this terrible situation, that is the time to bring in mediation. That is the time to bring in arbitration. It is the time potentially to bring reconciliation to the fore.

These suggestions have come from a wide range of people including those people who counsel others who are going through divorce. I recognize it is impossible to legislate common sense. We cannot legislate people to have a sense of responsibility for the children they bring into the world but we can develop the attitude. We can develop the culture that says if their marriage is going to break down and they are going to divorce, they cannot absolve themselves of the responsibility they have as parents to nurture their children. No matter how bad the relationship is between the spouses, the children are the innocent victims. The children have to be accorded the decency of both parents being concerned first for their welfare and then for their own.

I am thankful for the opportunity to put these thoughts into Hansard as part of the record of this debate. I cannot think of any single debate that has taken place in this House in the time I have been here that is more important to the future of our nation. I cannot think of anything that is more important to us as a

community of human beings than nurturing the future generations of our country as embodied by our children and their children.

Too often much of what we do here is concerned with the past in that we have our eyes firmly fixed behind us with our feet in the cement of whatever is going on today. We need to look beyond today into tomorrow and we have to do that through the eyes of our children and our grandchildren.