Mary Clancy

[National Sleep Awareness Week, October 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to remind the House that the week of October 23 to 29, 1994 has been designated National Sleep Awareness Week.

Thousands of Canadians suffer from sleep/wake disorders. Sleep-Wake Disorders Canada meets the needs of people who have various sleep/wake disorders, from insomnia to diseases such as narcolepsy, excessive drowsiness and sleep apnea, where the person stops breathing several times during the night.

Sleep/Wake Disorders Canada is a national voluntary health organization devoted to helping people who suffer from sleep/wake disorders through the development of educational packages and the establishment of self-help groups in local communities across the country.

When we turn our clocks back at the end of this week, let us think of the difficulties some of our citizens have with various sleeping disorders and remember the efforts of Sleep/Wake Disorders Canada which sponsors National Sleep Awareness Week.

[Remembrance Day Act, October 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to follow my hon. colleague from Stratford to speak in support of this bill.

Several years ago I had perhaps one of the greatest experiences that one could have as a member of Parliament. I had the honour to go with the Canadian delegation to the 75th anniversary of the battle of Vimy Ridge in the company of 14 of the veterans of that battle, which was Canada's first. Many of us say it was perhaps the battle that forged our country. All of the veterans were over the age of 90.

I remember one, a mere lad of 93, chasing one of his comrades age 95 around one of the monuments. I was astounded at the energy and the drive of these people at their great ages. I guess one had to have the constitution of a tank to survive in the trenches of 1914, 1915, 1916, 1917 and 1918.

I saw some of the cemeteries that my hon. colleague talked about. I remember going through the largest Commonwealth cemetery. I cannot remember whether it was in France or Belgium. There were rows and rows of those little white headstones with maple leaves that said over and over again: "A Canadian soldier known only to God". I defy anyone not to be in tears after going through that.

I also briefly went with some veterans of World War II on this trip to Dieppe. I saw that fearsome and frightening beach where young Canadians fought and died in such great numbers.

Consequently, I would like to add my voice as the member for Halifax, the largest navy base in our country, a place where from all corners of Canada we remember with thanks and respect. I think that we should see Remembrance Day as a statutory holiday so that never, ever will we forget and so that the children and future generations will also know what Canadians have done to preserve their freedom and their heritage.

[Department Of Industry Act, September 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his comments and give a very brief response, as the member's statement did not relate specifically to the question he had asked at the time.

As we all know, the situation in Rwanda has been in turmoil for months. The world watched horrified as thousands were butchered, most of them Tutsis targeted by Hutu rivals. Now there are reports of Hutus being tracked down by vengeful Tutsis. In such a situation it is obviously very, very difficult to operate under the normal conditions of the immigration and refugee process. There is no question that Canada is deeply concerned.

The hon. member asks us to see the peaceful relocation or return to their homes of those who are in neighbouring countries. That may or may not as yet be possible because of the turmoil and difficulties. As he says, a great many of the refugees or those who would be refugees to Canada are not able to get to the Canadian offices in Zaire or neighbouring countries. There is the problem that there are dangers for Canadian personnel as well.

The situation is extremely tumultuous. The minister and the government are looking at it very closely. We are very aware of our humanitarian duties and will carry them out as best we can.

[Department Of Industry Act, September 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Waterloo for his question. Indeed I would agree most particularly. As the hon. member is aware, my riding of Halifax as well has universities that have been part of the kind of development that his well respected University of Waterloo has been.

Without an industrial strategy such as the one proposed through the Department of Industry in concert with the Department of Finance and other departments, we will not be prepared for the next century. I know this perhaps better than some because I come from an area of the country that suffered a great deal when we agreed to choose Canada and become part of this great country in Confederation.

We had a north-south bias. We had the days of wooden ships and iron persons as we now call them. Many things happened in the way of transportation, the passage of goods and other things that were not always to the financial benefit of Atlantic Canadians.

However, being part of this great Confederation has always been to the benefit of Atlantic Canadians. We are perhaps not the proudest but among the proudest citizens of this country. We are glad we chose it and would do so again and again.

We also know that to ensure our region is healthy, to ensure that Ontario, the engine that drives the country, is healthy and to ensure that the great Canadian west and north are healthy, an industrial strategy is an absolute necessity.

I applaud the minister and the department for the work they are doing in this area.

[Department Of Industry Act, September 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take a few minutes to speak on the subject of Bill C-46, the Department of Industry Act. This is very comprehensive legislation providing for a department with far-reaching responsibilities and a wide array of instruments to carry them out.

The department it creates is a necessary tool in the agenda of the government to generate economic growth and job creation and to prepare for the innovative and, indeed, very different economy of the 21st century.

Bill C-46 recognizes once again what are the real needs of the new economy, what is demanded of Canadians if we are to continue to enjoy the economic well-being that a resource rich past has made possible.

This bill provides the organizational structure to permit a consistent, coherent focus on those strategies which will assist Canadians in the transition from a resource based to an information based economy.

This organization will have the lead role in generating the consensus and gathering the studied advice of the main players in the economic development game, whether they are business people, scientists, engineers, educators, consumers or other governments.

The bill recognizes that at the heart of economic development and job creation are science and technology, research and development, technological and managerial innovation, areas that have for far too long been neglected in this country.

Attention to these issues and approaches to the challenges they present are long overdue. Canada has been slow to recognize the importance of innovation and technology to competitiveness. Technology has transformed the economy dramatically with increasing growth in the knowledge and information based industries.

Also technology is revolutionizing the way we do business in manufacturing, in resource industries, and the service sector. Thus innovation has become the key to growth in both the new and traditional sectors of the economy. Our performance in embracing innovation has not been spectacular.

For example, the percentage of Canadian firms that carry out any research and development activities is less than one-half of 1 per cent of Canadian enterprises. That is unacceptable.

Further, not only do we have too few leading edge firms developing new technologies, we do not have enough Canadian firms searching the world marketplaces to find technology and bring it home, using it here to build our innovative capacity, in other words adapting it to the Canadian experience.

Canadian businesses, scientists, and Canadian workers are becoming increasingly aware of these needs and yet they cannot meet such challenges by themselves individually and separately.

Somehow the concerted, co-operative effort of all the participants must be brought to bear in addressing the problem. That is precisely what the government has recognized and is taking steps to bring about.

The red book that first outlined the agenda that the government is following pointed out the need for an innovative economy. It also pointed out that innovation does not just happen. It thrives in countries that consciously understand the innovative process and take measures to create a national system of innovation.

It stated that the role of the federal government is to work with the private sector, to identify strategic opportunities for the future, and then to redirect existing resources toward their fulfilment. Common sense, a hallmark of the government.

That is the spirit in which the government has approached the science and technology sector as a key to development of an innovative economy. The February budget illustrates that spirit in action. Again, common sense.

The federal government spends about $6 billion per year on science and technology. Tax expenditures account for about $1 billion more. One of the measures announced in the budget is a true strategy to maximize the benefits of these expenditures, a strategy for research and development with priorities, direction and review of results.

The Minister of Industry was charged with the task of preparing a paper on science and technology clearly stating the government's priorities, to set the stage for a national dialogue on a new national science and technology strategy. This paper was released on June 28. In the meantime a full review of science and technology programs is under way.

The February budget also announced a number of initiatives to further the cause of an innovative economy. The Canadian technology network to help small businesses get access to new technology to compete in world markets was announced, as was a technology partnership program to help smaller firms gain access to research results done in government and university labs.

An engineers and scientists program will help small businesses get the technological expertise they need. Development of a Canadian strategy for the information highway was announced. Again, common sense.

Other decisions and initiatives have followed. Negotiations were completed with the United States for participation in the space station resulting in an excellent deal for both countries.

A new long-term space plan was announced. The National Centres of Excellence funding was extended, 10 networks renewed and the second round of competitions for new networks launched.

A new president of the National Research Council was appointed and the council's declining budget was stabilized, as were those of the granting councils.

Initiatives aimed at helping young Canadians adapt to an innovation economy such as SchoolNet, Computers for Schools and Innovators in the Schools have met with great success.

The evidence is clear to me that the government is on the right track and well-launched on the route to assisting in the creation of an innovative economy. The bill which officially establishes the chief instrument of the federal government's role in this task is yet another step along the route.

The Department of Industry created by this bill will be uniquely equipped to become the workshop in which the major players in the innovative economy can forge their weapons. This is the organization that will be able to provide the listening post, host the consultations, lead the discussion and develop the resultant policies.

It will be able to provide the consistent, continued attention required to develop and implement coherent strategies over the time required for them to be effective. Common sense once again.

I have every confidence in the abilities and creative energies of Canadians. I do not find the idea of common sense funny. I find it, again, common sensible. I am sure we have the capacity to create an innovative economy capable of competing in the global marketplace well into the 21st century, as long as we do not spend a lot of time laughing.

What Canadians need to get the job done is the kind of common sense leadership that the government is providing; leadership with clear objectives and concrete measures to achieve them. Bill C-46 is one of these concrete measures. I firmly recommend its approval by the House.

[Immigration Act, September 23rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear from our discussions that there are still a number of misconceptions regarding persons who are HIV positive or have AIDS. Despite extensive efforts at public education it is clear that prejudices about this terrible disease and the virus associated with it remain entrenched. The motion before us reflects somewhat this unfortunate attitude.

Although I do not-and I want to make it very clear-question my hon. colleague's intentions, I do wonder if the motion is not based on certain mistaken and preconceived ideas. I would like to point out that it is incorrectly assumed by many that a positive result on an HIV test means that someone has AIDS. It

is also incorrectly assumed that AIDS can be transmitted by simple contact. What is even worse, it is sometimes incorrectly assumed that someone who is HIV positive has no further contribution to make to society. We all know that these ideas are false. Nevertheless they unfortunately continue to influence certain public perceptions.

Misperceptions about diseases, disabilities and afflictions are not new to Canada. All we have to do to find evidence of this is to examine the Immigration Act of 1952. If we examine it we will see that the question of obligatory HIV screening of immigration applicants has certain historical parallels.

Back in 1952 protecting public health and safety was a key objective of legislators concerned with immigration to Canada as it is today. This was before Canada adopted a system of universal health insurance. The issue at hand was not a concern over an excessive burden on the health care system. Nevertheless the act listed various diseases and deficiencies that in themselves constituted sufficient grounds to deny someone admission to Canada.

The act is far from subtle. It reflected the common prejudices of the time. It denied admission to Canada "to idiots, imbeciles and the feeble-minded, epileptics, lunatics and individuals who are mute, blind or otherwise deficient from a physical point of view". It denied access to Canada of "immigrants who are dumb, blind or otherwise physically defective". Attitudes about disabilities were different back then.

In 1952 they did not consider an individual's capacity to live normally with a medical condition. They did not consider the possibility of calling on medical science to control a medical condition.

Epilepsy, for example, was considered a ground for exclusion even when it was controlled. When a new Immigration Act was proclaimed in 1978 it offered, thank goodness, considerable progress over the old act, especially with respect to medical grounds for exclusion.

Two important changes were made. First, the criterion of excessive demand was added. This measure was intended to protect the universal health insurance system that had been created nine years earlier. It was designed to protect the system from becoming overrun by people who had not paid into the system.

Second, the list of illnesses and deficiencies that automatically made a person ineligible was eliminated. Inadmissibility was now decided by medical officers. These doctors now decided whether a person's condition represented a threat to public health or whether their condition would present an excessive demand on health or social services. For example, people with epilepsy could now be admitted to Canada if their condition was controllable.

We have made much progress since 1952 and I believe we should continue to progress. Unfortunately it is my belief that the motion before us today would take us back to the attitudes that prevailed in 1952.

The motion before us would specifically make a positive HIV test grounds for inadmissibility to Canada. This denies the progress in attitude toward diseases that has been made over the years. It denies the progress in medical attitudes and practice that has also changed. Above all, it denies the progress in our approach to AIDS that has also evolved.

Our laws and our institutions must reflect this progress. As legislators we must take care to dispassionately analyse and reflect on issues that are too often fraught with prejudice and discrimination.

As dedicated legislators we must take pains to avoid imposing our value judgments on others. We must take care to resist ill informed and preconceived ideas. We must be very careful to avoid being stampeded into adopting a policy that is more based on fear than it is on fact.

I want to make our position very clear. The facts are unambiguous. People who have tested positive for HIV can live for many years without developing AIDS. AIDS is not a disease that can be transmitted by simple contact. People who are HIV positive can make a significant contribution to our society. Many of us have worked relentlessly to destroy the myths surrounding AIDS. Any decision that marks a step backward threatens to compromise the considerable progress we have made over the past few years.

Our decision on this important issue has the potential to critically damage our international reputation for openness, fairness and justice. We must avoid this at all cost.

At the same time I appreciate the concern expressed about not imposing an excessive burden on our country's social and health services. This is a priority for the department of immigration and for the minister.

I am confident we can arrive at a decision that is both fair and economical. That is why the government is reviewing the extensive information we have on HIV. We will be announcing our decision soon.

I am sure my hon. colleague agrees this issue deserves our careful attention. The last time the medical provisions of the Immigration Act were reviewed was in 1978. That is why we are not about to rush into a hasty, ill conceived decision on this matter. We are devoting considerable care and attention to medical inadmissibility issues once again.

I assure the hon. member that our decisions will appropriately reflect the health care system, social justice and economic matters that concern us today. I know the hon. member, with his very great concern in this area, would not want us to act hastily. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, the House and the hon. member that we will not.

[Immigration, September 23rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am at a loss to understand. I am sorry that the hon. member did not feel my previous answer was clear. I attempted to be clear.

I will be clear again with regard to his first question. At the time there were no reasons for officials to bar the gentleman in question.

As to his second question, the hon. member who participated in the debate on Bill C-44, come next Tuesday when we vote on this bill will be here on our side and will vote for just those kinds of amendments that do the kind of thing the hon. member is asking for. We look for his support and we expect it now.

[Immigration, September 23rd, 1994]

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

Indeed the minister did not fail to answer. As the minister stated, when the gentleman came into Canada there was no reason for officials to refuse his application at that time.

[Human Rights, September 23rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal members of Parliament stand strong in their support of human rights. We stand firm behind the principles of Bill C-41 which include sexual orientation as a ground to be protected when an aggravating factor in sentencing for criminal offences.

The Government of Canada stands firm behind this bill as it stands firm in its belief that human rights acts and the charter protect Canadians from all forms of discrimination.

Sexual orientation is one of those protected heads. We promised in the red book to amend the federal Human Rights Act. We look forward to the fulfilment of that promise to make human rights the Canadian hallmark of true civilization.

[Gun Control, September 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, indeed we do understand the link very clearly. That is one of the reasons Bill C-44 was brought in today.

Consequently because of the hon. member's concern with matters like this, because of his concern about crime and justice issues in this country, those that relate to immigration and those that do not, I hope he will rethink the issue and support Bill C-44 on Tuesday.