Mary Clancy

[Canadian Volunteer Service Medal For United Nations Peacekeeping Act, February 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer my comments on Bill C-258, an act which would establish a Canadian volunteer service medal for peacekeeping.

We on this side must sincerely congratulate the hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands for his diligence in bringing this important matter before the House. We share with him a strong desire to give fitting recognition to Canadians who serve in these vital and often dangerous operations.

However, I regretfully cannot support this initiative and I want to use the time allocated to me today to explain my position to my hon. colleagues.

The first and most fundamental reason is that to create a decoration in this manner would run counter to the customs, traditions and procedures by which honours are granted in Canada.

As hon. members know, the powers of the crown in this country fall into two classes. The first are the powers that the crown exercises under statute law subject to the approval of Parliament. The second class of powers are those that are encompassed in what is called the royal prerogative.

These powers, which have their ancient roots in history, are not exercised with reference to Parliament. This is not to say that they are applied arbitrarily. Normally they are exercised by

the crown acting on the recommendation of the governor general in council. That is the way it is done in this country.

There are problems of substance and application with respect to this bill, not with respect to the spirit. The bill proposes a volunteer service medal. This terminology echoes the second world war. A special medal was created then to recognize those who had volunteered as opposed to those who were conscripted for service. Today all Canadian military personnel are volunteers.

The bill is also retroactive to the first UN mission in 1947. This means that more than 150,000 persons would be eligible. But there is a more basic difficulty. This approach to the creation of honours would confine us to a narrow, tunnel vision view of needs and options. This is a serious practical drawback.

In order for medals, decorations and other honours to be meaningful, decisions about their creation and criteria must be made in context. For that reason many nations have established carefully crafted systems for the creation and award of honours. Canada has done that.

We have a Canadian honours system. That system was put in place in 1967. It includes a committee which advises the government on how the system should work. The honours policy committee has a broad mandate. It looks at the whole roster of occasions for honours and decoration, peacekeeping operations included.

It surveys the total population of potential recipients of honours. The committee makes its recommendations on the basis of certain clear principles. One is the requirement that people be honoured equally in relation to their contribution and that no one be overlooked. Another function of the honours system is to avoid debasing the coinage of honours by duplication or by the indiscriminate authorization of awards.

The honours policy committee can live up to these principles because it is able to see the whole picture. It is a proactive body. It seeks to search out and eliminate any inequities in the system. Periodically it surveys the honours scene in Canada to make sure that all Canadians who contribute to peacekeeping are treated equally and recognized publicly.

The committee makes it its business to consult with veterans and other groups. It looks at these matters in an international context. It is important, as we consider these matters, to remember that peacekeepers, ours and everyone else's, are honoured not only by their nations but by the international community.

The obvious example, but not the only one, is the United Nations which has created 28 medals to recognize the service of women and men from many lands who take part in various UN actions. Medals have also been struck by organizations other than the UN and many Canadians wear them proudly as their own.

I think that, in a way, these decorations are the most eloquent. Sooner or later, after serving side by side in peacekeeping operations, these men and women return to their units in their respective countries.

By wearing these decorations on their uniforms, they celebrate a comradeship in arms that transcends the differences among nations. These decorations proclaim that we are all serving the common cause of peace.

No award system, whether national or international, is perfect.

It is therefore quite possible that, for technical reasons, some Canadian peacekeepers would not meet established criteria, thus missing out on awards recognizing their contribution.

One common example is air crew who quite often fly missions related to UN peacekeeping operations without becoming officially attached to those operations. The Canadian honours system recognizes these anomalies exist and precisely for that reason we have the Canadian special service medal with peacekeeping bar.

To sum up, this bill, worthy though it is in objective, would not in my opinion succeed in the goal of honouring equitably the contribution of Canadians. Indeed it would work counter to that goal. For that reason, with great regret and with very great respect for the spirit in which it has been brought forward by the hon. member, I am unable to support it.

[Atlantic Canada, February 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise to speak in support of the motion put forward by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing who has spent some time in his past life in my riding of Halifax.

I thank him for his motion because it is refreshing to finally hear some understanding of Atlantic Canada being expressed by members on the other side. Also, the motion serves as an important reminder to government members as well as we enter into the final days before our budget.

The motion voices the belief shared by the vast majority of Canadians and promoted by the government that there is a vibrant future for Atlantic Canada and that it has much to contribute, as it always has, to the future of the country. Government has a role to play to ensure a fairer, more equitable and just future for Atlantic Canada by encouraging policies and programs to create jobs through initiative funds for co-operatives, encouraging small business, upgrading municipal infrastructure and diversifying single industry communities.

Never before has it been so important for government to provide the encouragement and framework for economic self-reliance. Given the current fiscal situation, government is faced with doing more for Canadians with ever fewer resources. Canadians expect their government to approach economic development with a keener business sense, expecting greater returns on their investment.

This is why the motion is so important. It underscores the innovative and productive ways in which the federal government, in partnership with the provinces, the private sector, communities and most important of all the people, can kindle and encourage the entrepreneurial spirit in Atlantic Canada.

It is also timely, coming as it does in the wake of the thinly veiled attack on Atlantic Canada by members of the Reform Party with the release of that manifesto yesterday. The Atlantic culture, its way of life, the vibrant entrepreneurial spirit, must be kindled, encouraged and recognized for what it really is: strong, proud and independent. Our national policies must reflect this reality.

Unlike the Reform Party, we cannot afford to base government policies on offensive stereotypes. The Reform Party in past comments by its MPs and in its manifesto on deficit reduction released yesterday attempts to propagate the ignorant stereotype that Atlantic Canada is a wasteland filled with dependent and enslaved welfare recipients and working stiffs who are a drain on the national treasury and economy, and the italics are theirs.

As an Atlantic Canadian I find these gross generalizations very offensive, but then again why should I expect anything different? We hear policies on women, on the family and on race that are a testament to the fact that the Reform Party prefers ideologically driven false assumptions. Sure, if stereotypes held true the world's problems would be a lot simpler to deal with but reality constantly confirms that they are not true.

When a regionally based political party from the west recommends solutions based on untrue stereotypes of a group of people who live in another region of the country we have the makings for divisive, dangerous and destructive debate.

Those of us from the region know that nothing can be further from the truth. By perpetrating these offensive stereotypes the Reform Party is attacking the very foundation of Atlantic Canada. It is maligning the region's hard working men and women. We must recognize that the people of Atlantic Canada are the key to economic development, the people who have lived and laboured and not only survived but flourished in this region over the last half millennium and longer in the case of our aboriginal peoples.

As elected representatives we have a responsibility now more than ever to promote and protect their interests here in Ottawa; their real interests, not those imagined interests seen through the lens of destructive stereotypes.

For the Reform Party the solution to Atlantic Canada is simple. It wants a government sponsored and enforced migration program. Again, this is confirmed in the document released yesterday and in statements made by members of its caucus. They advocate that UI and other benefits be dependent on the willingness to relocate.

The Reform MP from Capilano-Howe Sound is quoted as saying people should be moving to jobs and the rest of Canada is not prepared to foot the bill for the alleged dependency in the Atlantic region.

These approaches would make government a destructive force in the lives of Atlantic Canadians as opposed to a catalyst for economic and social development.

For that reason I would like to speak today about Atlantic Canada, about the diversity of its economy, the aspirations of its people and the real future that we in Atlantic Canada are working toward.

Members of the Reform would do well to listen and perhaps, although unlikely, learn something about the region. The government has a role and I would like to provide some examples of areas where we have been successful.

We in the government recognize that the people of Atlantic Canada are the key. I can think of no greater example of community based grassroots development initiatives than those of the co-operative movement which was founded in Atlantic Canada. It is recognized as one of the region's major economic players despite its modest beginnings. Today co-operatives are involved in financial services, insurance, consumer products, manufacturing, processing, housing projects and in various worker owned co-ops.

Their strength can be summarized in a few words: knowledge of the people and the community. Their innovation is reflected in some recent senior housing developments and the introduction four years ago of a venture capital funding instrument by the caisse populaire movement in New Brunswick, to cite but a few.

Experience in Europe and elsewhere demonstrates the amazing potential for this type of initiative to contribute to economic development.

Approximately 750,000 people, 30 per cent of the Atlantic population, are members of or use the services of co-operatives. Five hundred thousand Atlantic Canadians are members of credit unions and caisses populaires which administer $2.4 billion in assets in the region. They employ 2,000 people. Insurance co-ops have another 477 employees; consumer co-operatives, 2,400 employees. The major co-operative employer, however, is the producer co-operative, with close to 6,000 employees.

I want to stress that a co-operative is more than a business. Its raison d'être is the economic and social betterment of its members and the community. The human aspect takes a central role with the co-operative movement and this is a real asset. Approximately 11,000 Atlantic Canadians are employed in this system; a major employer by any standard.

In the area of small business we have great success in Atlantic Canada. It is the engine of economic growth throughout Canada, most particularly in the Atlantic region. Small business and the growth of new business is alive and well. The rate of small business start-ups has continued to grow. The number of small businesses, those with fewer than 100 employees, grew to 83,000 from 53,000 in the ten-year period from 1981 to 1991. The number of large businesses with more than 500 employees decreased marginally. We are experiencing an unprecedented increase in the business start-up rate and job creation in Atlantic Canada.

The number one priority of this government has been robust in the maritimes with the inception of the Canada infrastructure works program, a program which it seems is singularly difficult for the members opposite to grasp.

As of December 31 over 575 programs have been approved in Atlantic Canada, from installing and upgrading sewer systems to rebuilding roadways. This represents investments of $450 million and will create over 7,300 jobs in the region.

The government has made its number one priority to restore the dignity of Canadians by putting them back to work. This government received an overwhelming mandate from Canadians in every region to do just that.

The minister responsible for ACOA said recently that what is good for Atlantic Canada is good for all of Canada. I know that Reform members have difficulty with this. That is because they do not have a national vision and they do not share the Canadian belief that we must continue to work together in every region of the country toward economic and social development.

I am delighted to speak in support of this motion. I am delighted to stand in this House and explode some of the myths perpetrated about Atlantic Canadians by members on the opposite side. I am delighted to speak, in particular, about co-operatives, coming from the province of Nova Scotia, the home of Monsignor Moses Coady and Father James Tompkins, the fathers of the co-operative movement worldwide.

It is a proud thing to be an Atlantic Canadian. It is a great thing to be an Atlantic Canadian standing in this House representing other Atlantic Canadians. I invite members on the other side who do not seem to understand that pride, that heritage, that culture and that future to come see us. We will show you where the real world is.

[Unemployment Insurance Act, February 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food meets regularly with industry leaders, including l'Union des producteurs agricoles du Québec.

These discussions have led to legislative amendments to the Western Grain Transportation Act which were tabled in December. These amendments will ensure better use of scarce taxpayer dollars as well as protect our producers from potentially damaging trade actions.

While important, Bill C-66 will not be sufficient in itself to fix all that ails our grain handling and transportation system. Broader reforms are necessary for four very strong reasons.

First, we must deal with the harsh reality of fiscal limitations and the battle against the debt and deficit. Second, we must comply with the requirements of the new GATT agreement with respect to the disciplines that apply to trade distorting subsidies. Third, we need to unlock new grain handling and transportation efficiencies leading to a lower cost and faster system overall.

Fourth, we need to foster greater agricultural diversification and a trend toward more value added processing.

To accomplish these objectives the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and the Minister of Transport have been conducting two sets of comprehensive consultations for all the players in the Canadian grain handling and transportation system. This will go far to solving the problem.

[Gun Control, February 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, on February 4 the Ottawa Citizen reported that some hunters savagely killed their hunting dogs by slashing their throats or shooting them at point blank range because the dogs were no longer useful at the end of the hunting season.

Recently the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters responded to this article saying that the federation has advocated mandatory identification of hunting dogs for many years. The federation takes this position so that hunters would be discouraged from abandoning their responsibilities as dog owners and to ensure that lost dogs are returned to the owners.

As we begin the debate on gun control in the House of Commons, I call on the hunters who oppose any firearm registration to help us create a safer Canada and not only support registration of dogs but the registration of guns because, like dog owners, gun owners sometimes abandon their responsibilities, resulting in the loss of life. It is our responsibility as lawmakers to discourage this.

[Nuclear Reactor Finance Limitation Act, February 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, we have already demonstrated our commitment.

In 1994-95 for the women's program of HRD Canada the contribution was $4 million in core funding to a broad cross-section of women's organizations across Canada which carry out a clearly defined program of activities related to the areas of economic equality, social justice and access and participation.

In addition, the women's program and the disabled persons participation program of the same department are involved in the family violence initiative, providing approximately $5.5 million for community based initiatives to raise awareness and promote institutional change.

I remind the hon. member, and I know how very deep her commitment to this issue goes, that in the February 1994 budget, the women's program budget for group funding was spared from the 5 per cent across the board cuts made to other HRD programs. That is commitment.

This government has also moved quickly toward prevention of violence against women. We have taken prompt action in several areas. The Minister of Justice today tabled gun control legislation. As well there are the amendments to the Criminal Code's peace bond provisions to be proclaimed into force on February 15, 1995. These amendments will provide increased protection to women and other victims of violence before the courts.

That is commitment and it is a commitment we intend to carry on with.

[Nuclear Reactor Finance Limitation Act, February 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is universally recognized as having one of the fairest and most generous refugee determination systems in the world.

We were the first country to establish formal guidelines on gender persecution. It would not be, and the hon. member well knows this, appropriate to go into the details of an individual case on the floor of the House. However let me assure the hon. member that the application was reviewed in a most thorough and fair manner and the individual was found not to qualify as a refugee.

Similarly the case was reviewed in the light of our gender persecution guidelines three times and was examined for any special merit on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

As the results of all these reviews were negative, the individual was obliged to comply with the removal order. We carried out the deportation order to uphold the integrity of the immigration system as a whole. The person did not qualify as a refugee but she is welcome to apply to immigrate to Canada through the normal channels.

I understand the Government of Quebec has shown interest in the case and under the Canada-Quebec agreement Quebec officials are welcome to facilitate her application for immigration to Canada for residence in the province of Quebec.

[Income Tax Act, February 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, and I am a proud maritimer who did not go down the road.

It gives me great joy to respond to the hon. member for Fraser Valley West and to remind him that on December 7, 1994 the minister for ACOA delivered an address which charted a new course for regional development in Atlantic Canada. That was the outlining of the Team Atlantic approach to private sector job creation and an end to grants to business.

He said that within a couple of months ACOA would be releasing the policy and hey, guess what? February 7, two months to the day later, ACOA released the new policy this afternoon to make direct assistance to business repayable. I do not know when members opposite will learn that when this minister says he is doing something he does it.

This new direction for ACOA will make 100 per cent of direct assistance to business under the action program fully repayable on a fixed timetable. This new policy was established in consultation with provincial governments and business which support complete repayability.

ACOA will continue to make unsecured risk capital available for small and medium sized enterprises, SMEs. We have heard the concerns of SMEs which stated that access to capital is the key to success. This patient capital allows business to become successful before repayment is required.

I was glad to hear that the leader of the Reform Party supports the government's direction in this matter as he stated on the CTV news in December 1994 that it was a step in the right direction. However, it is unfortunate that the member continues to spuriously attack the only agency of government devoted exclusively to the needs of Atlantic Canadian business. This must reflect some underlying attitude.

I say we should stand and congratulate the minister for the constructive solutions he is offering to the problems confronting the region. We know what the problems are. We know that ACOA, not FBDB, is the answer to those problems and we are going to get on with the job.

[Immigration Act, February 7th, 1995]

People.

[Immigration Act, February 7th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, yesterday when you were in the Chair it was incumbent upon me to explain due process. Today I guess it is going to be incumbent upon me to explain some of the amendments to the bill.

The hon. member opposite talked about unescorted day passes in his speech. With the greatest of respect I would like to let him know that there is an amendment, which I presume he has read, preventing the release on day parole and unescorted temporary absences of inmates who have been ordered removed and who are the subject of an immigration detention order pending their removal from Canada. That seeks to minimize the risk of escape so as to ensure that criminals will be deported at the end of their sentences.

There are a number of things that the member has brought to our attention here this morning that have been problems in a very small but nonetheless serious number of cases. It is a big country guys.

At this point I can only say to the empty barrels on the other side that what they really need to do is read the bill. I find it very interesting that the hon. member who just spoke did not know about the amendment to clause 20 which changes the day parole problem.

I wonder if thus there are other things in the bill that the hon. member has not read and therefore does not support. Certainly his party is not supporting this. I would like to echo the words of the member for Guelph-Wellington who said she was pretty sure that there were members on the other side who had constituents who would support this bill very strongly.

I would like to ask the hon. member a question and he certainly will have a chance to respond. I wonder if the hon. member has read the 11 amendments which came through at report stage and if he has read the bill.

[Immigration Act, February 6th, 1995]

What is wrong with that?