Mary Clancy

[Immigration, May 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, for a long time we have heard the opinions of the Reform Party with regard to refugees and immigrants to Canada.

This government believes in health care for all Canadians. We believe in health care for people who come to this country. We do not cut people off and leave them to be sick in the streets.

[Kent State, May 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, 25 years ago today on a beautiful May morning a young woman put a daisy in the barrel of a national guardsman's gun. A few moments later, nine young men and women lay dead. With them died the dream of peace of the sixties generation.

Kent State's tragedy brought the Vietnam conflict home to the United States, but at the same time it pointed out a great difference between the cultures of Canada and the U.S. That same week thousands of young Canadians graduated from universities and the joy of our success was tempered by the tragedy in Ohio.

In our contemplation then as now, we were grateful for our kinder, gentler nation. We still are. For many of the sixties generation who now serve here, we pay tribute to those fallen youth by promising to stand forever on guard for tolerance.

[Vietnamese Community, May 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to reflect on the courage, strength and determination of the Vietnamese community in Canada. This past week marked the 20th year since the end of the war in Vietnam.

The war was not just a convulsive era in world history. It was a horrific nightmare for its victims. A Vietnamese proverb teaches that if a parent is cruel, the children will choose another.

When the war ended it did not bring peace to the people of Vietnam. Refugees fled a cruel parent in rickety boats, risking their lives to escape. Many of them made it to Canada. In fact, Canada has resettled more than 145,000 Indo-Chinese asylum seekers since 1979.

The boat people, 23,000 of them, came to Canada where they faced new challenges, but as part of a welcoming Canadian family. These brave people have brought success born of their industrious nature. They have also enriched Canada's diverse social fabric.

On behalf of this Parliament I would like to pay tribute to the Vietnamese community in Canada. Vietnam's loss has been our reward. I would like to pay tribute to Vietnamese Canadians and to applaud the spirit of generosity and hope that brought them to us and to give thanks that today Vietnam is a place of peace, not war.

[Immigration, April 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, officials must follow the law when making any decision to accept or refuse a request for visa. This is something the hon. member knows well.

I have been asked by the minister to encourage both the member and the person in question to reapply, to submit any new information. Departmental officials are bound to uphold the laws and protect the interests of Canada. The member knows this well and we await a new application if there are new facts.

[Lobbyists Registration Act, April 25th, 1995]

I am sorry my hon. friends are so disturbed and that my intervention might upset them. Given that the hon. member made comments about route 104, I thought it might be an idea to set the record straight about Nova Scotia. Being born there is not quite as good as growing up there and living there, although it is good to be born there and we are glad he was.

The Nova Scotia solution offers the quickest, safest and most cost effective redevelopment of highway 104 possible. The important issue is safety. I know the highway. We cannot lose sight of the necessity of safety because of those who engage in petty and partisan bickering.

By working in co-operation with the private sector the Nova Scotia government is protecting and promoting the interests of the taxpayers by levering private sector funds, by creating jobs and by providing for a safe and competitive transportation system. I think the people of Nova Scotia-I do not know about my hon. friend-deserve nothing less.

It is not about $26 million. It is about a $110 million project that runs right through Cumberland-Colchester. That is not bad from any standard.

[Lobbyists Registration Act, April 25th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a couple of comments.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1995, April 3rd, 1995]

No she has not and she will not either. You may quote me.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1995, April 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate today. As I commence my remarks, may I add a special word of congratulations to one of our newest colleagues, the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi. We are particularly delighted to have him here in the House of Commons to speak so clearly for the people of his riding and for les gens du Québec.

The Liberal government has introduced a budget that reflects what Canadians want. We are aware of the current economic realities and we have made choices. They were tough choices. However, the choices not only get government right, they get the economy right.

We stated our promises in the red book and we have acted on them. The economy is growing. New full time jobs are being created and we continue to move forward without compromising our integrity or our history. We simply will not tear apart the social fabric that keeps us together. That being said, it does not mean that the social fabric does not have to fit a bit tighter and a bit smaller than it used to.

Canadians have said they want less government, fewer personal taxes and more fiscal responsibility. This is a check-list. It is a list that we not only read but implemented in our budget.

The budget takes fundamental action across government programs and operations. It implements a comprehensive examination of departmental spending. Our focus will be on what is essential. What government does best it will continue to do. What government does not do best it will see that there is a way in which the private sector can take over. We will continue to utilize our resources in the most effective and efficient manner.

We are not living in the surplus 1960s. For some of us who had our political beliefs and, to some degree, our characters formed in those surplus 1960s, it has been a difficult adjustment, but it is one we have made. We must operate our programs with accountability and with conscience. We simply cannot afford to have overlap and redundancy within government programs.

However, spending cuts will be made with compassion. They will be made protecting the most vulnerable. Fairness will be the hallmark and it will ensure that all regions of Canada, all Canadians, everyone who lives in this, the greatest country on earth, will share the burden.

Canadians said they were over-burdened by taxes and could not afford another increase. The Liberal government listened. There has been no increase in personal income tax. We can understand the financial burden that Canadians are facing because each one of us in this House faces it as well, and we refuse to increase their load.

The budget incorporates some tough choices, but it does not forgo compassion, nor does it lack vision. The Canadian vision will continue to glow with strength, opportunity and prosperity.

Over the past year and a half we have seen the creation of 433,000 full time jobs. We have seen a decrease in the unemployment rate of 1.7 per cent. We have observed the strongest growth rate in six years, at 4.5 per cent.

This is only the beginning. It can be seen that the Liberal government has listened to Canadians. We have implemented a budget which reflects the economic realities of our time and also offers hope for a prosperous future. I will mention just some of the things this budget has done.

It has cut business subsidies by 60 per cent. It promised a smaller public service with 45,000 fewer positions. That is something of great concern in my own riding of Halifax which is the third largest public service town in Canada.

There have been major reforms of programs such as agriculture and transport. Programs have been merged, consolidated and commercialized. There is increased cost recovery. Again, this is an area about which I am very concerned, that is, in the department of immigration with the new right of landing fee of $975 per adult immigrant.

There is the new Canada social transfer to the provinces in 1996-97. Unemployment insurance reform will be in place by July 1, 1996. There is a course charted for public pension system reform to make it fairer and more sustainable in the long term.

Tax fairness as I mentioned before will be improved. There will be tighter rules for tax deferrals, foreign and family trusts and R and D incentives. New measures to ensure the collection of taxes owed is a measure the hon. Minister of National Revenue has already spoken about quite eloquently.

RRSP contribution limits will be reduced. Retiring allowance rollovers are phased out. Overcontribution allowances are cut. There will be higher taxes for corporations and large banks. There will be dramatic cuts in departmental budgets. Some will be halved in a three year period.

There are $7 in expenditure reductions for every $1 in new tax revenues. There will be a three year savings of $29 billion, $25.3 billion of these from these expenditure cuts.

It is quite clear the government has followed its promises both in the red book and in the speech from the throne. It is quite clear the Minister of Finance listened, as did his cabinet colleagues. They listened to Canadians and they acted upon the consultations.

It is quite clear the Prime Minister and the Government of Canada stand together in supporting a smaller and more efficient government but also a government that will remain fair, true to its roots and true to its history.

I am delighted that I can stand and say without reservation that I think the majority of Canadians support Bill C-73, an act to provide borrowing authority for the fiscal year beginning April 1, 1995. They know their government is working for Canadians and will continue to do so.

These times are not easy. They are not easy for civil servants. They are not easy for workers across this country. They are not easy even perhaps for members of Parliament. But Canada is a country with a huge and tremendous and glowing future provided that we have good stewardship. It is my belief that this government, this Prime Minister, this Minister of Finance and this cabinet provide this kind of stewardship.

[Crimes Against Humanity, April 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate today. I want to commence my remarks by complimenting my colleague, the hon. member for Don Valley North. His ideas and contributions since he became a member of Parliament, particularly in the area of international human rights, are truly appreciated.

All of the speakers this morning have talked of the horror of genocide. We all know that there is common international condemnation for violations of humanitarian law. Of these violations, genocide is the gravest of all crimes recognized at international law. Indeed, in light of the evidence of the acts of genocide committed by the Nazis in World War II, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was signed by Canada on November 2, 1948 and has been in force since December 2, 1950. Over 100 members of the United Nations are parties to the convention, which creates a binding, legal obligation for contracting parties to punish persons responsible for genocide.

In the convention, genocide is defined as any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part a national, ethnic, racial or religious group as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Canada has long been a leader internationally in the defence of human rights and promotion of humanitarian law. As a signatory to the genocide convention, Canada has undertaken to punish persons for genocidal acts committed in time of peace and in time of war.

Genocide is the worst of crimes. It commonly takes the form of murders, disappearances, torture, arbitrary imprisonment and exile, and often it is committed by governments or rebel groups against its opponents or ethnic and religious minorities. Recent events in the world have demonstrated that genocidal acts are still commonplace.

Most recently, compliance with the obligation to punish persons responsible for genocide has been facilitated by the creation of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, established by the UN Security Council. The international tribunal, though not established in the context of the genocide convention, is an international penal tribunal as contemplated by article VI of the convention. Article IV of the tribunal statute gives its jurisdiction over the crime of genocide committed in the former Yugoslavia.

We are strongly committed to the international tribunal and to ensuring that all those responsible for the atrocities of genocide are brought to justice. We were one of the first countries to call for an international war crimes tribunal and a Canadian is one of the 11 judges elected by the UN last fall. A former member of the National Defence Judge Advocate General's Office is working as the international law adviser to the prosecutor's office, and Canada has contributed over $500,000 to the UN Commission of Experts and to the tribunal. In order to assist the tribunal in its investigations, Canada is in the process of attempting to locate victims and witnesses of war crimes who have resettled in this country.

The United Nations Security Council is also considering establishing a tribunal for Rwanda along the lines of the international tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. This tribunal would be responsible for investigating and prosecuting those persons responsible for the genocide and other atrocities that occurred in Rwanda earlier this year. Again, we support the establishment of this tribunal, which, for the reasons of consistency and administrative convenience, would have links to the Yugoslav tribunal.

In the same spirit, Canada is committed to the creation of a permanent international criminal court that would have jurisdiction for the most serious crimes, including genocide.

The report on the draft statute for the court, submitted by the International Law Commission after receiving comments from many states, including Canada, is being debated at the United Nations sixth committee this fall. In its intervention at the debate, Canada called for the holding of a diplomatic conference next year to establish a treaty, which would create a permanent court with a series of preparatory committees leading up to the conference. Canada intends to fully participate in the conference and provide support for the court once it is established.

At the domestic level we have responded to international obligations by amending domestic laws to give Canadian courts the jurisdiction to try persons charged with committing genocidal acts. Genocidal acts can be prosecuted in Canada using the provisions of the Criminal Code. The definition of war crimes and crimes against humanity in the code make punishable in Canada many of the acts defined as constituting genocide in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Whether the genocidal acts could be prosecuted as war crimes or crimes against humanity depends on the circumstances of each case.

The Criminal Code can apply to acts committed in the past as long as at the time and place of commission they were considered as international crimes. The criminal courts of Canada have jurisdiction if the accused is found in Canada and where international law would recognize universal jurisdiction by any state over the offence.

The Department of Justice crimes against humanity and war crimes section has the mandate with the RCMP to investigate and prosecute cases of genocide committed and prosecutable in such circumstances.

Therefore, Canada will not be a haven for the architects of genocide and will use all the legal remedies available to it to ensure that those who come to Canada are brought to justice. Not only does the Criminal Code provide for the prosecution of genocidal acts, but it also creates an indictable offence of advocating or promoting genocide, genocide being defined as killing members of any identifiable group or deliberately inflicting on it conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction with intent to destroy in whole or in part that group.

I strongly believe that people of the world should be permitted to live in peace and security, free to speak their language, practise their customs and associate with one another. Those responsible for enormous crimes against groups deserve to be prosecuted and, if convicted, punished to the full extent of the law. In Canada, I am proud to say that we have both the legal framework and the moral and political conviction to do so.

My colleague for Don Valley North wants to designate a week for commemorating genocide. I believe genocide is so horrible that the memory of past genocides will always be with us. We should always be aware of genocides currently being committed and we should always be on the lookout for acts that could lead to more of this horrible crime. The commemoration of past genocides must not distract us from new ones.

For this reason, while I share the member's indignation at the most horrible crime against humankind, I must say that I would be concerned if we were to designate a particular period of time for commemorating genocide. Genocide should be a preoccupation in our daily lives. No particular week should be needed to remind us about the human tragedy of genocide.

In conclusion, I am proud that Canada does have the legal means necessary to deal with this crime both internationally and domestically. While I support the spirit of the hon. member's motion, I must in this case be against it.

[Health, March 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to assure the hon. member that questions of health with regard to immigration and refugees are a very high priority for the minister of immigration. We have very stringent tests and the hon. member should depend on the minister of immigration to ensure that Canada and Canadians will be safeguarded.