36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 8
CONTENTS
Wednesday, October 1, 1997
1400
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | RALPH CAMPBELL
|
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul DeVillers |
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PACIFIC SALMON FISHERY
|
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gary Lunn |
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TOM EDWARDS
|
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Judi Longfield |
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUEBEC PREMIER
|
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BREAST CANCER
|
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Jean Augustine |
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INTERNATIONAL SENIORS DAY
|
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos |
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENTS
|
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Inky Mark |
1405
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TARYN LAING
|
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FRANCOPHONES
|
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUEBEC PREMIER
|
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Denis Coderre |
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BREAST CANCER
|
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Val Meredith |
1410
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUEBEC PREMIER
|
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Patry |
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
|
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Wendy Lill |
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUEBEC PREMIER
|
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Marlene Jennings |
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AIDS
|
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Greg Thompson |
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
1415
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | REVENUE CANADA
|
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
|
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
1420
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1425
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PAY EQUITY
|
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | RCMP INVESTIGATIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. André Bachand |
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. André Bachand |
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1430
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
|
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jack Ramsay |
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jack Ramsay |
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INFORMATION HIGHWAY
|
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. John Manley |
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. John Manley |
1435
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CUSTOMS
|
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
|
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Loubier |
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Loubier |
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
1440
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE
|
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ALGERIA
|
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Réal Ménard |
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ASBESTOS INDUSTRY
|
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sergio Marchi |
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEALTH
|
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
1445
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FISHERIES
|
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
1450
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Matthews |
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Matthews |
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | LAW OF THE SEA
|
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Charles Caccia |
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted McWhinney |
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CRTC
|
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Abbott |
1455
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POLICING OF AIRPORTS
|
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Guimond |
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CSIS
|
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Mancini |
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEALTH
|
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Greg Thompson |
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SUPREME COURT
|
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Nunziata |
1500
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NAMING OF MEMBER
|
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
1505
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | VACANCY
|
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Port Moody—Coquitlam
|
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
1510
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
1515
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POINTS OF ORDER
|
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Decorum in House
|
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVILEGE
|
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Standing Committee on Industry
|
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
1520
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POINTS OF ORDER
|
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Question Period
|
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Greg Thompson |
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
1525
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Presentation of Motions
|
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-220
|
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted White |
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1530
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MAIN ESTIMATES, 1997-98
|
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CRIMINAL CODE
|
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-224. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tom Wappel |
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MARRIAGE (PROHIBITED DEGREES) ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-225. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tom Wappel |
1535
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CRIMINAL CODE
|
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-226. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Pierrette Venne |
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
1540
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MAIN ESTIMATES, 1997-98
|
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Referred to Standing Committees
|
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Criminal Code
|
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi |
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Canada Pension Plan
|
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Philip Mayfield |
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Family Trusts
|
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Pauline Picard |
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Rights of Parents
|
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
|
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1545
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | APPOINTMENT OF A SPECIAL JOINT COMMITTEE
|
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
1550
1555
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
1600
1605
1610
1615
1620
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Amendment
|
1625
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Réal Ménard |
1630
1635
1640
1645
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
1650
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1655
1700
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
1705
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
1710
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
1715
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Price |
1720
1725
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted White |
1730
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Marlene Jennings |
1735
1740
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dennis J. Mills |
1745
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Val Meredith |
1750
1755
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Réal Ménard |
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Proctor |
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
1800
1805
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Réal Ménard |
1810
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul DeVillers |
1815
1820
1905
(Division 5)
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Amendment negatived
|
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
1910
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Infrastructure
|
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Casey |
1915
![V](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stan Keyes |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 8
![](/web/20061116193526im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, October 1, 1997
The House met at 2 p.m.
Prayers
1400
The Speaker: As is our practice on Wednesday we will now
sing O Canada, and we will be led by the hon. member for
Souris—Moose Mountain.
[Editor's Note: Members sang the national anthem]
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
RALPH CAMPBELL
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
take this opportunity to pay tribute to Ralph Campbell, a
constituent in my riding, for his work as a volunteer with
Canadian Executive Services Organization.
CESO is a non-profit, volunteer based organization which
transfers Canadian expertise to businesses, communities and
organizations in Canada and abroad. As a volunteer with CESO
International Services, Mr. Campbell contributed to a review of
the Asian Institute of Technology's administration procedures.
The institute is located in Bangkok, Thailand.
[Translation]
On behalf of all Canadians, I congratulate Mr. Campbell for
the altruism he has shown in contributing to the economic
development of Thailand.
* * *
[English]
PACIFIC SALMON FISHERY
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this Liberal government treats the aspirations of British
Columbians as grievances. The fact of the matter is that British
Columbians have lost faith in Ottawa and who can blame them?
British Columbians are crying out for federal leadership and this
government is failing them miserably.
Nowhere is this better displayed than in the Liberals'
mismanagement of the Pacific salmon dispute over the past four
years. The sustainability of the Pacific salmon fishery is at
stake and the minister of fisheries sits on his hands and does
nothing except criticize his own citizens.
Having witnessed the Tory government destroy the Atlantic
fishery a few years ago, this government seems intent on doing
the same to the Pacific fishery.
It is a simple case of Liberal, Tory, same old incompetent
story. This government had better wake up to the concerns of
British Columbians. A good start would be to resolve the crisis
in the salmon fishery before it is too late.
* * *
TOM EDWARDS
Ms. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to recognize the outstanding municipal career of Mr.
Tom Edwards who announced Monday that he will not be seeking
re-election as mayor of the town of Whitby.
Mayor Edwards has a long and distinguished career in public
service spanning five decades. After faithful service to his
country in the armed forces he became involved in the labour
movement and served as either president or vice-president of the
Oshawa and District Labour Council for 18 years.
Entering politics in 1960 Mayor Edwards was elected to the
Whitby Public School Board. In 1964 he was elected to the
council for the county of Ontario where he served in the
capacities of reeve and councillor. In 1980 he moved to Durham
regional council and in 1991 was elected as mayor of the town of
Whitby.
As a rookie councillor in 1991, I often turned to Tom for
guidance and advice. He was never too busy to help a newcomer
learn the ropes.
Tom Edwards has served his community well over the years and
Whitby is a better place for it.
* * *
[Translation]
QUEBEC PREMIER
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, for some
days federalist circles have been on red alert, because Mr.
Bouchard's economic mission to France has been a success on all
counts, which disturbs the federalists across the way.
Yes, this mission is a real success. Again yesterday, Mr.
Bouchard spoke before 500 world business leaders, and a few minutes
later some 30 economic agreements with a total value of $170
million were signed between French and Quebec businesses.
The ultimate goal of the undertakings by Mr. Bouchard and the
ministers accompanying him is to make Quebec a focal point of trade
exchanges between Europe and the rest of America, and we believe
this project has every chance of success.
This unprecedented support for Quebec democracy and the
contracts and jobs for Quebecers arising out of this mission by our
premier ultimately benefit all of Quebec. Anyone who would dare
minimize this good news would be showing bad faith, nothing more.
* * *
[English]
BREAST CANCER
Mrs. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I wish to inform the House and all Canadians that
October is breast cancer awareness month.
Breast cancer remains a major health problem for women in
Canada. We estimate that approximately 18,400 new breast cancer
cases will be diagnosed this year and that 5,100 women will die
of this disease.
The federal government is concerned about the suffering caused
by breast cancer in our society and has taken steps to address
this present situation.
In 1992 Health Canada launched a five year $25 million
initiative on breast cancer, a collaboration among breast cancer
survivors, health care professionals, NGOs, provincial
authorities, researchers and support groups.
Borrowing from the ideas generated at the landmark National
Forum on Breast Cancer in November 1993, federal leadership
mobilized concerted country wide efforts around breast cancer
through five linked components: the Canadian breast cancer
research initiative; and the Canadian breast cancer screening
initiative; clinical practice guidelines; the professional
education strategy; and five breast cancer information exchange
pilot projects.
* * *
[Translation]
INTERNATIONAL SENIORS DAY
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to salute the millions of Canadians who are celebrating
international seniors day.
[English]
The riding of Ahuntsic has one of the largest concentrations of
seniors in Quebec. I wish to pay tribute today to the
organizations and volunteers who work toward improving the lives
of all seniors in my riding and the quality of life of all of my
constituents.
[Translation]
The Association des retraités d'Ahuntsic, the Association
québécoise de gérontologie, and numerous seniors clubs such as the
John Caboto, Henri Julien and Notre-Dame-de-Pompei clubs are all
active in my riding.
We owe our high standard of living and our enviable quality of
life in large extent to them.
Our thanks to the volunteers and the organizations.
* * *
[English]
MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENTS
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the throne speech neglected to acknowledge and invite municipal
governments, the governments closest to the people to help keep
Canada together. There are over 4,400 municipal governments in
Canada who are the first order of government, again the
governments closest to the people. Who better to consult on any
subject, including national unity.
That is why I have written to every Canadian municipality
inviting their ideas and input on how to renew a united Canada.
1405
Many hon. members in this Chamber began their political careers
in municipal government. There are at least 60 such members in
this Chamber today. In 1996 at the Federation of Canadian
Municipalities convention in Calgary, many including myself heard
the prime minister acknowledge the importance of municipal
governments and that it was time to recognize the municipal
governments in their right.
The prime minister made a pledge to municipalities and
municipalities want him to make good on that pledge in this
Parliament.
* * *
TARYN LAING
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
today I am pleased to welcome my constituent, Miss Taryn Laing
and her family who have come to Parliament today to visit the
prime minister.
As a grade eight student, Taryn wrote an essay entitled “If I
were the Prime Minister of Canada”. She is the grand prize
winner and will have an opportunity today to present her essay to
the prime minister.
In that essay she encourages Canada's leading edge technology,
the importance of working together as a nation, the importance of
educating our youth and the importance of our health care system
to us all. She closes her essay by saying, “Finally, if I was
prime minister, I would hold my head high because after all,
Canada does have a lot to be proud of”.
Congratulations Taryn and thank you for your inspirational words
on behalf of the youth of Canada who are indeed our most precious
resource.
* * *
[Translation]
FRANCOPHONES
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, some
journalists and some members opposite claim I have treated French
Canadians as second class citizens.
What I said had already been said by the Fédération culturelle
canadienne-française in its criticism of the federal government's
unfair treatment of francophone culture. The Fédération said: “We
must reject this treatment as second class citizens too long
accorded us by governments”.
I say that, if francophone Liberals are happy that there is no
longer a francophone hospital west of the Outaouais region and if
they are happy that health services are not available in French in
British Columbia, they are happy being treated as second class
citizens.
The 600,000 people outside Quebec who still speak French need
a party to represent them and not one that kowtows to the majority.
They can count on my support.
* * *
QUEBEC PREMIER
Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, who would
think that I too would be a member of the perpetually humiliated
club.
I thought this exclusive club was limited to members of the BQ
and the PQ and separatists of all stripes. I was wrong. I too
have become a humiliated Quebecker and I too have rent a number of
items of clothing after seeing the Quebec premier grovelling before
the French government in an effort to get a yes he never got.
It was sad to watch Lucien Bouchard clutching a bit of paper
telling journalists what President Chirac had just told him.
Imagine: “I have just told you what President Chirac has just
allowed me to tell you”.
I am disappointed and embarrassed to watch the premier of
Quebec asking for a favour from France as a cat might come asking
to be patted. It is pathetic.
Quebeckers deserve better than this deplorable colonialist
spectacle. When is the next statue due?
* * *
[English]
BREAST CANCER
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, today marks the beginning of a month of
mourning for over 5,000 women who died of breast cancer in 1997.
Every woman who died this year was someone's wife, mother,
daughter, sister, grandmother, aunt or cousin. Whenever I hear
of another death from breast cancer I cannot help but think there
might be some young child who is growing up without a mother.
Breast cancer takes one life every two hours in this country.
These statistics are alarming and discouraging for the 18,600
women who are diagnosed each year.
In its throne speech the government announced that it will
expand the Canadian breast cancer initiative. However there are
no details about how and when the Liberals plan to do this.
1410
The numbers speak for themselves. The time has come for action
by this government to prioritize research dollars.
To the families who have suffered the loss of their loved ones
to breast cancer, I extend—
[Translation]
The Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. The hon.
member for Pierrefonds—Dollard has the floor.
* * *
QUEBEC PREMIER
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for
several days now Bloc Quebecois members seem to have been on cloud nine
following a statement made by President Chirac.
I would like to bring them back to earth to tell them that France's
Prime Minister, Lionel Jospin, confirmed that, in the very unlikely
event of a yes vote in a hypothetical referendum in Quebec, France would
have to assess Quebeckers' decision, as well as Canada's assessment of
it, before taking a decision.
That is a clear and precise statement consistent with the 1995
Helsinki agreement guaranteeing the territorial integrity of
participating states.
It should be noted that France and Canada are signatories to this
agreement.
* * *
[English]
PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in light of
last weekend's tragic incident in a Toronto subway, I want to
address the desperate plight of the thousands of mentally ill in
our country, people who have been deinstitutionalized without the
support needed to allow them to lead safe and productive lives.
The federal government has consistently denied its
responsibility for the disabled. It abolished the Canada
assistance program, disproportionately affecting those with
disabilities. It cut $4 billion from medicare, ending important
community programs. Cuts to provincial education have left
thousands of children in supposedly integrated classrooms without
support. Almost half of Canada's four million people with
disabilities remain without jobs.
The government's decision to wind down federal support for
Canadians with disabilities will mean repetitions of the Toronto
incident as the divide between the elite and the street widens.
It is time the government made more than a passing reference to
persons with disabilities. New Democrats hold the Liberal
government accountable for not maintaining our social safety net
and ask it to now assume its responsibility for all of those in
our community.
* * *
[Translation]
QUEBEC PREMIER
Ms. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is often said that travel broadens the mind, but I did not
think that the Premier of Quebec could be so transformed after fewer
than two days away.
I had to keep rubbing my eyes when I read in the paper this morning
that Lucien Bouchard boasted to his French hosts about the bilingual
nature—I repeat, the bilingual nature—of the Quebec labour force.
One might think that the leader of Quebec's separatists, who never
misses an opportunity to do battle on the linguistic front, has two
different personalities: one international and one local.
Outside the country, he recognizes the virtues of bilingualism, while in
Quebec, he is against it.
If he goes on like this—
The Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. The member
for Charlotte has the floor.
* * *
[English]
AIDS
Mr. Greg Thompson (Charlotte, PC): Mr. Speaker, this week
is AIDS awareness week. Canadians from all parts of our country
are volunteering their time, money and compassion to increase
public awareness of this disease. I am extremely proud of the
thousands of Canadians who have chosen to participate.
Almost every family in Canada has in some manner been touched by
this disease. We all know people who have been infected with HIV
through blood transfusions and who have since passed away. To
their families I express not only my compassion for their grief,
but also my assurance to do everything possible to guarantee that
all future blood supplies are safe.
The red ribbon has become the symbol for AIDS, the commitment to
end this tragic disease and a memorial to the children, women and
men who have died from it.
Research and awareness are key in our fight for a cure. Let us
all work together toward that end.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the big news out of the Middle East today is putting
Canada on the world stage in a very unfortunate light.
Two people charged in an attack on a Jordanian Hamas leader were
carrying Canadian passports.
Today it appears the attackers may have been Israeli Mossad
agents.
1415
Will the prime minister tell Canadians what the Government of
Canada knows about this attack and about these two Canadian
passport holders?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have been informed that there are allegations to the
effect that two persons were carrying Canadian passports in this
situation. We are at this moment in communication with the
authorities in Israel and in Jordan to find out if it is true.
It is completely unacceptable to this government that anybody
authorized by a government would use a Canadian passport to
perpetrate any illegal action as they have done.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the reports in this instance seem to imply the
involvement of a number of foreign governments, the Israeli
government, the Jordanian government and perhaps other
governments.
Would the prime minister clear the air and tell us precisely
with which foreign governments he or the department has been in
contact with respect to this incident?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am informed that the Minister of Foreign Affairs is in
touch at this moment with the Government of Jordan and the
Government of Israel. I do not know of any other governments
that have been involved. If so, I will inform the hon. Leader of
the Opposition.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this incident occurred almost a week ago. Yesterday the
minister promised more information in the House today. Canada's
reputation must be upheld. This government must protect the good
reputation of the Canadian passport.
Can the prime minister advise whether the Department of Foreign
Affairs has ever been approached directly or indirectly by
foreign governments to provide Canadian passports to non-Canadian
operatives?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): I have
never been informed of any such request by any government.
* * *
REVENUE CANADA
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
looks like FedEx is the courier of choice at Revenue Canada. Not
only does Federal Express get special treatment at the border,
but Revenue Canada employees are actually going on temporary
leave to work at this private company.
What does the minister plan to do to stop this blatant conflict
of interest?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the hon. member and the
House that Revenue Canada staff provides no preferential
treatment to Federal Express over any other carrier involved in
the departmental courier program.
Under the department's collective agreement with our unions
employees are entitled once in their career to apply for unpaid
personal needs leave. They are reminded also of the conflict of
interest guidelines should they choose to take outside employment
during this unpaid leave.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it is funny he should talk about personal needs. I am not sure
what the qualifications for personal needs would be to go work
for FedEx during the time they are unpaid.
I want to ask the minister something specific. There is a
veteran customs officer we have just heard about who is going to
be blowing the whistle on the corruption at Revenue Canada. It
is not just an isolated case like the minister would like to talk
about. Documents are about to be filed. This officer reports
that when the minister's staff members were supposed to be
searching aeroplanes at Toronto's Pearson airport they were
actually pulled away from their jobs to expedite FedEx shipments.
There is no excuse for this and I want to ask—
The Speaker: If the minister would like to answer the
preamble he is welcome to.
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member has anything
substantial rather than rhetoric and cheap political points she
is trying to make she should table it in the House right now
instead of making these types of accusations which are incorrect
and not true.
* * *
[Translation]
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, today
the Prime Minister appointed a new justice to the Supreme Court of
Canada, Mr. Justice Michel Bastarache. This is obviously a patronage
appointment made under a system that allows the Prime Minister to
appoint whomever he pleases depending on what he wants done.
Does the Prime Minister not find it unacceptable, as much for the
sake of the Supreme Court's credibility as for that of the judicial
system, that the members of the highest court in the land are appointed
by a single person without any sort of public consultation?
1420
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of
Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to announce today the
appointment of Mr. Justice Michel Bastarache, of the New Brunswick Court
of Appeal, to the Supreme Court of Canada.
[English]
It is with very great pleasure that I announce to the House
formally this afternoon the appointment of Mr. Justice Bastarache
of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court of
Canada. I made that recommendation to my colleagues in the
government after a lengthy consultation process with interested
parties in the Atlantic region.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in
anticipation of the upcoming farce in the Supreme Court about Quebec's
right to decide its future, the Prime Minister has appointed an amicus
curiae to speak on behalf of Quebec without any mandate from Quebec to
do so. That takes some doing.
Does the Prime Minister think that he has boosted the Supreme
Court's credibility by appointing to it the former co-chairman of the
national yes committee in the 1992 referendum on the Charlottetown
accord?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to reassure the House
that the hon. Mr. Justice Bastarache is a man of extraordinary
capabilities and an extraordinary background. As a legal
scholar, as a business person and as a judge, Mr. Justice
Bastarache has proven himself to be exemplary.
Perhaps my friends in the Bloc would be interested to know
something.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister has just appointed Michel Bastarache to the
Supreme Court of Canada, not long after this same Liberal government had
appointed him to the New Brunswick Court of Appeal.
Does the Prime Minister not find it indecent to appoint to the
highest court in the country a former colleague, someone very close to
him, someone close to the Liberal Party of Canada, someone who
co-chaired the national committee for the yes side during the referendum
on the Charlottetown accord?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is
referring to the fact that the hon. Mr. Justice Bastarache worked
for three years at the distinguished Canadian law firm of Lang
Michener where the prime minister also served for some period of
time, we do not deny that. Why would we?
I am deeply offended that anyone would suggest that Mr. Justice
Bastarache's service at that law firm would in some way disqualify
this distinguished individual from his appointment to the—
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister's silence on issues as important as this one is quite
telling.
Does the Prime Minister recognize, and I hope he has the courage to
rise and respond to the question, that in addition to using the Supreme
Court of Canada for strictly political purposes, he has just undermined
its credibility with this highly partisan appointment?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
there is someone who has fought for the French fact before every court
in Canada, it is Justice Bastarache.
When a seat became vacant on the Supreme Court, I asked, as is the
custom, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada to
inquire and find the most competent person to fill this important
position.
1425
The minister did just that. She held discussions with judicial
authorities in the maritime provinces and came to the conclusion that
Justice Bastarache was currently the most qualified person for the job.
* * *
[English]
PAY EQUITY
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the President of the Treasury Board. For the
past 20 years it has been illegal in Canada to pay men and women
different wages if they are performing work of equal value.
For 13 years this government has been evading the law, dragging
its feet and wasting our tax dollars through tribunals, hearings
and court challenges on pay equity.
Citizens must comply with the law. Unions must comply with the
law. Will the President of the Treasury Board inform the House
whether this government intends to comply with the law and honour
its obligations to women without resorting to legislation that
would water down and diminish the rights of Canadians?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is of course false to say that the government has been evading
the law.
The government has been applying the law and the government has
been paying over $1 billion over the last 20 years in applying
the law. The government has also offered $1.3 billion to the
unions that represent the women involved in order to give justice
and pay equity in the country. This government has been a model
in the application of pay equity.
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
minister has not answered my question. Pay equity is an issue of
human rights and basic fairness.
The federal government must decide if it wants to continue
forcing those lowest paid to pay personally for sexist
discrimination by their employers or if it wants to end the
discrimination today and honour the law on human rights.
If government can evade the law and refuse to honour the finding
of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, how can Canadians trust
this government not to change the law, any law which it finds
inconvenient?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member is obviously misinformed if she believes that the
government has not been applying the law.
There is at present a case in front of the human rights tribunal
and we are waiting for that judgment to be rendered. Once again,
we have been trying to negotiate with the union to get a fair
settlement. We stand ready to apply the various judgments once
they are made final.
* * *
[Translation]
RCMP INVESTIGATIONS
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Solicitor General of Canada.
Can the Solicitor General of Canada confirm in this House that
an RCMP investigation is currently being conducted in the Montreal
area into allegations of conflict of interest and influence
peddling relating to the Liberal Party of Canada's fund raising
practices in Quebec?
[English]
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am not aware of the allegations that the member has
made, but the role of solicitor general is not to interfere with
the operation of the RCMP.
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to inform this House that I have been given confirmation
that an investigation is indeed under way, and that ministers of
the current government might be directly or indirectly involved.
If this is the case, can the Prime Minister assure this House
that this investigation will not be delayed or interfered with in
any way, and that if any members of his Cabinet are involved in any
way, he will take the necessary steps to relieve them of their
duties until it is completed?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
as the Solicitor General says, RCMP investigations are not the
responsibility of political authorities. The RCMP must perform its
duty, and it will.
If the police make recommendations, the government will act,
but making such unfounded accusations before the police
investigation is completed is totally unacceptable in our legal
system.
* * *
1430
[English]
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, a retiring
supreme court judge, Gérard La Forest, called on the Liberal
government to select his replacement through an open review
process. Obviously the prime minister did not heed the advice of
a man with almost 50 years' experience in the practice of law.
Today, the prime minister appointed one of his law partners.
Why did he insist on making this appointment without
parliamentary review?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have said in the House
before, the appointment process of supreme court justices has
served the country very well for 130 years.
However, I have also indicated that if there are ways in which I
can develop a broader consultation process to receive the views
of those interested in supreme court appointments, there may well
be merit in that and I would be willing to consider the
possibility.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, perhaps
the justice minister could take the advice of the retiring
supreme court justice.
The supreme court is preparing to hear the legal reference
determining whether or not Quebec has the right to separate
unilaterally.
Given that he is a party in this court case, has the prime
minister considered that he may have put the court in a conflict
of interest position by personally appointing his old law partner
to the Supreme Court of Canada?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have informed
the House that I have never been a partner in that law firm. I
worked two or three days a week in the law firm and was paid for my
services. I had nothing to do with the management of the firm. I
was never a partner and I did not know anything about the
relationship among any of the lawyers in the firm.
* * *
[Translation]
INFORMATION HIGHWAY
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Industry.
The advisory committee on the information highway tabled its
final report in September. It contains no specific reference to
Quebec or to Quebec culture.
Would the Minister of Industry not expect Quebec to play a
principal role, in the North American context, in setting up the
francophone information highway?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to congratulate my hon. colleague on her first question
as the Bloc Quebecois' industry critic.
The report of the advisory council is a committee report. It
is not a government report. Its purpose is to advise the
government.
I agree entirely that, in promoting the French language on the
information highway, Quebec artists and technological firms will be
at the forefront in creating content.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, seven of
nine provinces have yet to have a single word in French at their
Internet site. However, the committee gives them responsibility
for producing a critical mass of French content for francophones
outside Quebec.
Does the minister recognize how awful this situation is in
view of the importance of the information highway for the future?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
support for the French language here in Canada and around the world
must include participation in the new technologies of the
information highway. However, I must point out that it is by
creating national networks, like SchoolNet and the community
programs we have created, that we can develop a network where there
is a place for the French language throughout Canada. That is
vital.
* * *
1435
[English]
CUSTOMS
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Dennis Coffey, a veteran customs inspector, has alleged that the
former head of customs at Pearson airport cut secret deals with
certain trucking firms to bypass customs clearance. In fact he
alleges that the revenue department has knowingly allowed over a
million shipments of commercial cargo to escape customs control.
My question is for the Minister of National Revenue. Given that
the government has known of these allegations for two months, why
has his department missed over a million chances to protect
Canadians from illegal drugs, contraband and firearms?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I know the Reform Party often has trouble
with the facts, as we have seen in the House quite often.
I can assure the House that our customs people are professional,
committed and do an excellent job of protecting our borders. In
fact, some of the new technology we have helps us to do our job
in an excellent way. We have effected a tremendous amount of drug
seizures crossing the border. We will continue to do an excellent
job.
On this matter, unless the member has some facts to put on the
table he should not rely on reports and allegations which are not
true.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the minister seems to think that his officials are flawless.
Evidence has been introduced at a hearing and Mr. Coffey has made
the allegations publicly. I would be happy to table them in the
House.
We have learned also that the minister has instructed his
lawyers to muzzle and intimidate Mr. Coffey to prevent him from
making these allegations of fraud, nepotism and abuse public.
What is the minister trying to hide? Rather than trying to gag
a 25-year veteran of his department, why does he not fully
investigate these allegations today?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the matter to which the hon. member
refers is before a quasi-judicial review board. The hon. member
knows that a minister is not able to respond to matters that are
before a quasi-judicial review board.
He also knows that the appellant is in a hearing right now for
someone who was dismissed.
Customs does an incredible job. I have had the opportunity to
go to the borders and see the type of job they do. If the member
has more facts, table them in the House.
* * *
[Translation]
GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Government of Quebec has repeatedly demonstrated the validity of its
demand for $2 billion as compensation for harmonizing the GST. But the
federal government is still refusing to listen to reason and to consider
any amount at all in this connection.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. Given the two
diametrically opposed interpretations, would the Minister of Finance
agree to let an independent arbitration board settle the disagreement
between Quebec City and Ottawa, as our leader suggested during the last
election campaign?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I
have said repeatedly here in the House, the Canadian government is
prepared to offer compensation to those provinces who have lost money.
Quebec did not lose any money. In fact, Quebec made money when it
harmonized. This is based on figures from the Quebec government.
Information was exchanged with representatives of my counterpart, Mr.
Landry. It is very clear.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, is the
Minister of Finance telling us he is afraid to put his arguments up
against those of Bernard Landry, that he is afraid to have to admit he
was wrong and that he owes Quebec $2 billion?
I would call on the Quebec members across the way to stop acting
like colonials and to help us out.
Is he afraid his arguments will not stand up to ours?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would
suggest that the member across the way keep his shirt on and take a look
at the facts.
The fact is that Quebec has not lost any money. The Canadian
government is not in the habit of paying compensation to those who have
lost no money.
Furthermore, when we look at other areas, such as research and
development, technology, technological partnership, and so on, the
Government of Canada is certainly prepared to give Quebec more than its
fair share.
* * *
1440
[English]
CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister responsible for the solicitor general's
department has admitted to approving wide-ranging Canadian
Security Intelligence Service wiretap warrants, allowing CSIS
investigators to conduct electronic surveillance on Canadian and
foreign nationals not named in the warrant.
Will the minister tell the House how many Canadian citizens and
how many foreign nationals were subjected to this unwarranted
invasion of privacy and have they been notified of that fact?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak to this question. I
want the hon. member to know, first, that CSIS only operates on
court ordered warrants. Second, there are rigorous tests against
national security that apply to those warrants that go through
screening by justice, our department and ultimately the court.
In the case in question, CSIS sought a warrant. It was turned
down by the courts. We respect that decision. Therefore CSIS did
not act.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my concern is the unnamed people that have been
subjected to this investigative technique in the past. These
people should know that they have been investigated, although
they were not reviewed by a judge in the original warrant.
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in response to the question, the people he is referring
to were all investigated as a result of the issuance of a warrant
by the court.
* * *
[Translation]
ALGERIA
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
Given the recent massacres of innocent civilians in Algeria, the
international community must take concerted action to help the Algerian
population, which is the target of these barbaric acts.
Can the minister tell us if she has taken appropriate action to
speed up the family reunification process for Algerian nationals living
in Canada?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, family reunification for all immigrants who have
already come to Canada is a departmental priority and it goes without
saying that all these cases will receive priority treatment from the
Department of Citizenship and Immigration.
* * *
ASBESTOS INDUSTRY
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is to the Minister for International Trade.
For some months now, Quebec's asbestos industry has been threatened
by the prohibition imposed on this product by France. Could the minister
tell the House what measures he intends to take to strengthen Quebec's
asbestos industry and preserve the jobs of workers in Thetford Mines and
Black Lake?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister for International Trade, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, asbestos exports are a government priority. We are
closely co-operating with our partners, namely the Quebec
government, the companies and the unions.
For example, the federal government organized an international
conference on asbestos in Quebec City last month, which was attended by
300 people from 45 countries. I also hope the Quebec premier, who is
currently in France, will raise the issue with his Parisian friends.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
finally clear why the officials of the health department were
digging around in Dr. Brill-Edwards' file. Just this morning she
revealed that the health protection branch prematurely approved
the migraine drug Imitrex over the concerns of its scientists.
Why does the minister allow bureaucrats to overrule the
information provided by these scientists?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am informed that the drug in question, Imitrex, has been
available in Canada since January 1992.
It has been approved for use in many countries of the world,
including the United States, Australia, and Great Britain. In
Great Britain and Australia it is approved for use in the same
dosage as it is in Canada.
Health warnings have been put on the labels, doctors have been
warned not to use it except as indicated. I am informed by
scientists who know and who have examined the product that it is
safe when it is used as indicated to physicians.
I might say—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Macleod.
1445
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, there is
quite a contrast here. In the States they listen to the warnings
of scientists. In fact a much lower dose is available. They have
sent out warnings to their doctors of the new findings. Both
those reasons are for safety. Here in Canada the health
protection branch is strangely silent.
Why would the minister allow politics and profits to take
precedence over public safety?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is the hon. member whose concern is politics. I am focusing
on science and the protection of Canadians.
The baseless allegations of the hon. member opposite just show
the wisdom of the steps we took last week: announcing that we
were to appoint an independent arm's length science advisory
board; announcing a public consultation on the way the health
protection branch does its job, including the approval of
pharmaceuticals; and a complete freeze on further cuts to the
branch.
That is the responsible way to go about looking after the health
of Canadians.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
Last week I met with representatives of the B.C. Community
Fisheries Development Program who have helped over 3,000 fishers
in recent months to find new jobs for victims of the Mifflin
Plan.
Will the minister explain why this vital program is now almost
out of money? Will he finally stand up for B.C. fishers and
coastal communities and come through with the full $30 million
promised by his predecessor and a commitment to stable long term
funding?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased the hon. member has
seen fit to point out that the programs of my colleague, the
Minister of Human Resources Development, have in fact been very
successful in dealing with many of the problems of those
displaced due to rationalization of the Pacific salmon industry.
The issue concerning the $20 million that has already been spent
by his department in this area was done, as was indicated, in
connection with other organizations including the United
Fishermen.
If the member will be slightly patient, we will make sure that
the continuing programs are in place, as was always intended from
the beginning.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, B.C. fishers have been more than patient. It is their
livelihood that is on the line.
The Liberal government has betrayed the people of British
Columbia by time and again standing with the United States
instead of with the province of British Columbia.
I want to ask the minister a supplementary question. Will he
now withdraw his court challenge of the Nanoose shutdown? Will
he start standing up for British Columbia instead of Washington,
D.C., and will he finally end his treasonous sell-out of B.C.
fishers—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I know question period is very quick and
sometimes we use words which are not parliamentary. In this
context I find the word treasonous is not parliamentary. With
respect, and by not replacing it with any other word, I would ask
my hon. colleague from Burnaby—Douglas to please withdraw the
word treasonous.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I was sent here by
the province of British Columbia and my constituents to—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
1450
The Speaker: I will deal with this matter after the
question period. The hon. member for Burin—St. George's.
Mr. Bill Matthews (Burin—St. George's, PC): Mr. Speaker,
many of the problems being experienced with the British Columbia
salmon fishery have been caused by the present minister of
fisheries and this government.
As the present minister and the former minister know, fishers in
B.C. were promised flexibility in the expense of an income
restrictive area management licensing system.
Will the minister immediately provide that flexibility to the
system so that British Columbia salmon harvesters can achieve
financial viability and at the same time protect stock
sustainability?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member on his
first question in the House and his first question as critic on
fisheries.
The Pacific salmon treaty was in fact negotiated and signed in
1985 during the Shamrock summit in between verses of When
Irish Eyes are Smiling.
The purpose of it was to get it there in a hurry because the
then prime minister wished to have something to show for that
meeting. It was defective then because indeed the provisions
only lasted for seven years and had to be renegotiated on an
annual basis thereafter.
Mr. Bill Matthews (Burin—St. George's, PC): Mr.
Speaker, obviously the minister missed the question.
My question was pertaining to the area licensing system that is
so restrictive to B.C. salmon harvesters that they cannot make a
living.
I ask the minister a supplementary question. Will he
immediately grant the flexibility that he and the former minister
had promised so that British Columbia salmon fishermen can
achieve financial viability with their enterprises?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is not from British
Columbia and does not know that we cannot achieve financial
viability for the industry by having the entire fleet chasing up
and down the coast depending on where the fish happen to be.
By breaking up with regions for different gear types we are
creating a system where fewer fishers are able to fish for longer
periods and be more assured of an income and of a fishery than
would otherwise be the case.
The answer to his question is no, we will not change the area
licensing system. We will maintain it.
* * *
LAW OF THE SEA
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
1982 Canada was one of the first nations to sign the United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
My question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. When will
Canada ratify this convention and thus keep a red book promise
and take an important step toward marine and fishery
conservation?
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member
knows, Canada was one of the leaders and an inspiration to the
third United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
We have also, however, pushed for a UN agreement on straddling
fish stocks. This was opened for signature in December 1995. It
is intended to catch those foreign fishermen and flags of
convenience that try to catch fish stocks that straddle our 200
mile fishing zone.
Legislation to implement the 1995 straddling convention died on
the order paper when the House was dissolved for the election.
We are reintroducing—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Kootenay—Columbia on
one question.
* * *
CRTC
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this summer the CRTC awarded an FM frequency to the CBC after the
heritage ministry interfered in the CRTC process. Naturally the
other applicants were really upset about this matter.
The plot thickens because Perrin Beatty yesterday announced that
he would be making some kind of financial arrangement so that an
FM signal could reach the Toronto marketplace from Peterborough.
Could the minister tell us if this is just an effort to rub out
her fingerprints on her interference in the CRTC process?
1455
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
No, Mr. Speaker.
* * *
[Translation]
POLICING OF AIRPORTS
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
Yesterday, the Minister of Transport once again invoked the work in
progress at Dorval as an excuse to maintain an RCMP presence in
international airports in Quebec, contrary to the practice elsewhere in
Canada.
How can the minister keep using this excuse when we all know that
extensive work is under way at other airports, including the one in
Vancouver, and that the RCMP has nevertheless been replaced by municipal
police forces everywhere except in Quebec?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have answered this question two or three times.
We made a certain evaluation. It is in our power to make that
kind of evaluation and assessment. We believe it is in the
interest of the people at Dorval and Mirabel to keep the RCMP at
the airport during this period of change.
* * *
CSIS
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
am from the proud island of Cape Breton. My question is for the
solicitor general who has already attempted to address this
issue.
The solicitor general has said that CSIS only operates on court
ordered warrants and points to the recent federal court ruling as
proof of a rigorous method. Yet he himself said yesterday “I am
advised this clause has been used and the courts have allowed it
in the past”.
Could the solicitor general indicate how many times CSIS has
wiretapped individuals in the past without seeking proper
judicial authority?
The Speaker: I do not know that any minister could be
expected to have the very precise and specific figures we are
looking for today.
Perhaps an order paper question would be in order. I am going
to permit the hon. minister to answer the question but the
specifics are getting a little bit tight.
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, never.
* * *
HEALTH
Mr. Greg Thompson (Charlotte, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health.
During the election campaign the Liberal government promised a
national pharmacare program but obviously had no idea of how it
could or would be funded. To add to this, it had virtually no
agreement with the provinces or territories with regard to
implementation or compliance.
Is the government serious about its commitment to a pharmacare
program, or is it just another campaign promise—
The Speaker: I would ask all hon. members not to use any
props during question period.
I ask the Minister of Health to answer that question.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we intend to do exactly what we said we would, that is look at
the concept of pharmacare as a long term objective with the
intention of ensuring that everybody in Canada who needs
medication can get medication without price being an impediment.
With my colleague, the minister of health of Saskatchewan, I am
co-chairing a conference in January of next year which will bring
together provincial ministers and other interested parties to
look at all aspects of this issue. I will keep the hon. member
posted.
* * *
SUPREME COURT
Mr. John Nunziata (York South—Weston, Ind.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the prime minister.
Given the enormous power of the supreme court in setting public
policy in Canada and given the fact the court often makes
decisions that should be made by the House, will the prime
minister agree that the appointment process for supreme court
judges should include parliamentary ratification and, if so, will
he refer today's appointment to the justice committee?
1500
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member missed
my response to an earlier question on this point.
Let me first make it very plain that I think the appointment
process in this country has served us very well. One hundred and
thirty years of the most distinguished jurors in this country
have served on that court.
In response to an earlier question from across the floor I did
indicate there may be merit in having a broader consultation
process to help me in making my recommendation to my colleagues
in the government. Therefore I will take that under advisement.
* * *
NAMING OF MEMBER
The Speaker: During question period we had what I
considered to be the use of unparliamentary language. I decided
to put off any action until the end of question period.
I address myself directly to the member for Burnaby—Douglas.
The hon. member is an experienced member of the House of Commons.
Over the years he has served this House well with distinction
and with honour.
I ask the hon. member to stand in his place forthwith and to
withdraw the word “treasonous”, I believe it was. I do not want
any other words added or taken away. I put the question directly
to you, my colleague. Will you withdraw, yes or no?
Mr. Svend J. Robinson: No, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: Colleagues, in choosing me as your
Speaker you have vested me with, in many ways, awesome authority.
This is one of the most onerous tasks of the Chair and surely
one which I do not relish. It is the last thing I would ever want
to do in this House.
1505
However, I believe we are setting the tone for how we are going
to work in this Parliament. I appeal to all hon. members that
when situations such as this arise we should always remember that
we are the members of the House, representative of all Canadians.
As such, Mr. Svend Robinson, I have to name you for disregarding
the authority of the Chair.
Pursuant to the authority granted to me by Standing Order 11, I
order you to withdraw from the House for the remainder of this
day's sitting.
[Editor's Note: And Mr. Robinson having withdrawn:]
* * *
VACANCY
PORT MOODY—COQUITLAM
The Speaker: It is my duty to inform the House that a
vacancy has occurred in the representation, namely Mrs. Sharon
Hayes, member for the electoral district of Port
Moody—Coquitlam, by resignation effective October 1, 1997.
Pursuant to section 25(1)(b) of the Parliament of Canada Act, I
have addressed today my warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer
for the issue of a writ for the election of a member to fill this
vacancy.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I seek the indulgence of the House to provide a brief
explanation of the resignation today of the member for Port
Moody—Coquitlam and pay tribute to her dedication to the House,
to her constituents and her family.
Members will know that the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam
was a tireless advocate for and defender of the Canadian family
both within our caucus and without.
In the House and in committee, Sharon Hayes was a tireless
advocate for tax relief for families, protection for the unborn
and the elderly, protection of the family from violence and state
interference.
In all her work she was supported by her own family, her two
daughters and her devoted husband Doug. However, in April of
this year just before the federal election was called, tragedy
struck her family. Her husband Doug, an insurance industry
executive, suffered a heart attack followed by a number of
serious complications which affected his eyesight and other
faculties. These complications have not gone away. They have in
fact increased Doug's dependence on his family's care and
support.
For five months through the election campaign, through the
summer and the opening of Parliament, Sharon valiantly struggled
to perform two duties, to her constituents and to the House, and
her duty to her husband who needs her more than he has ever
needed her before.
1510
Like many of us when we are confronted with two hard choices or
options, she attempted for a while to pursue both. Just this
week she decided that a real choice had to be made and,
consistent with her attachment to the supreme value of the
family, she has chosen to devote all her time to Doug's support
and recovery.
I want to thank the people of Port Moody—Coquitlam for their
understanding of Sharon's dilemma over these past five to six
months. We assure them that other members of Parliament are more
than willing to help represent them until a successor for Sharon
is chosen.
Today I want to pay tribute to Sharon Hayes, who is now
demonstrating her commitment to family in the most profound way
possible. Our prayers and best wishes are with both Sharon and
Doug.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Sharon Hayes has been a very good member of Parliament,
very dedicated, and an extremely nice person, respected in the
House of Commons.
We all know how close she is to her family and her husband. Her
husband was so proud of her. Every time she made an intervention
in the House he made sure that she received flowers, even if she
was giving me hell.
I want to wish Sharon a lot of strength and good luck. As the
Leader of the Opposition said, we have her and her husband in our
prayers.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on
behalf of the Bloc quebecois, I would also like to extend our best
wishes to Mrs. Hayes, who, I think, has done an outstanding job in
representing the citizens of her riding.
I think it takes a great deal of courage to make the kind of
decision she has made today. It is not an easy decision, but it
certainly shows her nobility of soul. I want to express our wholehearted
support to Mrs. Hayes and her husband.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
on behalf of my colleagues in the NDP caucus, I share in the
regret that we all feel about this vacancy being created in
this way.
Sharon Hayes and her husband will be in our thoughts and
prayers. She has been a friendly and devoted member of this
House.
I was speaking with her the other day and I am shocked to hear
that she will not be with us for the remainder of this
Parliament. Our prayers are with her and her family at this
difficult time.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, Sharon
Hayes was a good friend to me. As I sat alone in the House of
Commons many times, she always reached out to me. She is a very
special person.
I saw Sharon the other day because I was looking for Daphne,
another lady who was very kind to me. I knew at that time
something was wrong because there were tears in her eyes. One of
her colleagues told me after about the illness of her husband and
the difficult times for Sharon.
The prayers of my friends and colleagues here are with Sharon,
her family and her husband. They did not know her like I did but
she was very special. We will reach out to her. She had respect
for every person who sat in this House. We will miss her, for
she did fight for the family and we know that is most important
these days.
* * *
1515
POINTS OF ORDER
DECORUM IN HOUSE
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In light of the
developments of this afternoon I would like to point out to the
Chair that in sitting here along with some of my colleagues I
could not help but notice there was a motion which, from my
vantage point, I perceived to be one of disrespect and even to be
threatening toward the Chair. I am not sure if Your Honour
noticed this but I did want to point that out to the Chair.
Mr. Speaker, in keeping with your efforts to maintain decorum in
the House I felt it was inappropriate that this occurred.
The Speaker: The nice part about being in the Chair is
that you do not always see everything.
* * *
PRIVILEGE
STANDING COMMITTEE ON INDUSTRY
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 48, I would like to
raise a question of privilege regarding the premature disclosure
of a committee report. I am presenting this question at the
first possible opportunity since committees of the House were
only struck yesterday.
Access to information documents reveal that on April 18, 1997
the industry minister and industry department officials were in
possession of draft copies of the fifth report of the Standing
Committee on Industry. The final report of the committee,
entitled “Review of section 14 of the Patent Act amendment,
1992” was reported to the House of Commons only on April
23, 1997, five days later.
I have a copy of that draft report with me. In accordance with
Beauchesne's reference No. 116 on page 29 I would like to table
that document with the House.
Beauchesne's reference No. 877 on page 241 states that “no act
done at any committee should be divulged before it has been
presented to the House”. Beauchesne's citation No. 877(2) goes
further to state that “the publication of proceedings of
committees conducted with closed doors or of reports of
committees before they are available to members will constitute a
breach of privilege”.
With respect to the privileges of the House, divulging an in
camera draft report is a breach since it runs against the
tradition that members of the House have the right to first view
reports of committees.
Beauchesne's reference No. 57 on page 18 states “the House has
in the past regarded the publication of the proceedings or
reports of committees sitting in camera to be a breach of
privilege”.
Therefore, I move:
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if I understand it correctly,
the issue brought to our attention by the hon. member is that the
Minister of Industry of the last Parliament saw a document before
it was tabled in the House. Mr. Speaker will know that the
Minister of Industry is a member of Parliament and all members of
Parliament can avail themselves of the privilege of seeing a
document that is before a committee. It is the revealing of it
generally that is prohibited under the rules.
Notwithstanding that, I believe that you, Mr. Speaker, claimed
the privileges of the House for this Parliament on Tuesday of
last week. Prior to Tuesday of last week no privileges were
claimed. You had not previously claimed them on behalf of this
Parliament because this Parliament did not exist.
I believe that one who says that there has been a breach of this
Parliament for an act that occurred in a previous Parliament is
not a question of privilege. There is perhaps a point of order
that could be made were it to be in the same Parliament, but it
is not even that. It was in a different Parliament.
1520
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I would urge you not to be persuaded by the rather feeble
argument offered by the government House leader that whatever
happened in the last Parliament is somehow immune to your
judgment or to the judgment of members of its appropriateness.
Is the government House leader actually saying you can do
anything you like in the dying days of a Parliament because once
the election is called there is no more privilege, there are no
more rules and it is perfectly okay for a committee to vet its
report with the government minister?
The argument that the minister is also a member of Parliament
completely evades the point of this point of privilege. What
should concern us all, if we are concerned at all about the
independence of committees, is that government members on this
committee vetted the report with the Minister of Industry and it
was subsequently changed. This is an affront to our notion of
how committees should work and how Parliament should work. It is
something that the Chair should take very seriously.
The Speaker: First, with regard to the tabling of the
document, I will accept as a submission to myself so I can look
at the document, the draft I believe the hon. member called it.
I would like her to put that in my hands following these
procedures today.
I will of course take into consideration the point made by the
hon. government House leader as soon as I get all of the
information that I need to proceed on this.
I would like to hear, if at all possible, comment from the
minister, but I would reserve even that judgment until I settle
in my own mind the point that the hon. House leader has brought
as well as that of the member for Winnipeg—Transcona.
I will take the information under advisement and I will study
it. I will get back to the House after I have satisfied myself
that I have enough information to proceed to make a judgment.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. Greg Thompson (Charlotte, PC): Mr. Speaker, again it
goes back to question period and the purpose of question period.
Mr. Speaker, correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that
question period is there so the opposition to take the government
to task for deeds it has either done or not done and answer to
the people of Canada.
What confuses me in this whole process is in the last number of
days we have had questions thrown at the ministers in advance. In
other words, backbench members of the government are putting on
average two questions a day and the ministers are absolutely
prepared in advance and actually reading from statements—
The Speaker: The hon. member and all hon. members
will agree that all members in the House, except of course the
parliamentary secretaries and the ministers, have the right to
put questions.
The hon. member for Charlotte can believe or not that the
minister is well prepared. Some people would look at that as a
compliment and other people would look at it in another way.
As for myself, I intend to recognize members on all sides of the
House when they stand in their places to ask questions. I know
all hon. members will accept this in the spirit with which I say
it. It is not my decision to judge either the quality of a
question or the quality of an answer. I leave that to the House.
It is my responsibility to see to it that hon. members' rights
are respected in the House.
Until the House decides to give me a new set of guidelines to
work by, I will try to recognize all members of the House who
feel when they have a legitimate question, that they will get, I
hope, what they feel is a legitimate answer.
1525
PRESENTATION OF MOTIONS
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I wish to
seek the unanimous consent of the House to move three motions
that have been previously discussed and agreed to among House
leaders. They are as follows:
That the Standing Committee on Industry be the committee
designated for the purposes of section 33 of an act to amend the
Business Corporations Act and to make consequential amendments to
other acts (Chapter 24, Statutes of Canada, 1994).
This is a reference of a report to a committee.
The Speaker: May I ask the government House leader if he
is going to include the other two immediately?
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, there have also been
consultations regarding the following:
That the report of the Security Establishment Commissioner for
the fiscal year ended March 31, 1997, laid upon the table April
24, 1997, be permanently referred to the Standing Committee on
National Defence and Veterans Affairs.
Mr. Speaker, I also move:
That Standing Order 104(2) be amended in subsections (h) and (j)
be deleting the word “sixteen” and substituting therefor the
word “eighteen”.
This has to do with adding two members of Parliament to two
different committees.
The Speaker: Does the minister have the unanimous consent
of the House to move the motions?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the
motions. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motions?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker: Agreed to and so ordered.
(Motions agreed to)
BILL C-220
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order. Yesterday I rose on a point of order
during Routine Proceedings after the member for Scarborough
Southwest had introduced a private member's bill which in the
previous Parliament passed all stages in both the House and the
Senate. The process was interrupted by the calling of the
election.
Yesterday I asked for the unanimous consent of the House to deem
the bill to have passed all stages in the House once again.
Consent was given except for one member of the Bloc who indicated
that if I brought the matter up again today when there would have
been time to study it overnight then we could revisit that
unanimous consent.
I might ask, Mr. Speaker, if we might revisit now that unanimous
consent to have that member's bill deemed to have passed all
stages.
The Speaker: Does the hon. member have the unanimous
consent of the House to move this motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Ted White: Mr. Speaker, for clarification purposes,
the bill is to prevent criminals from making profit from the
proceeds of crime from the writing of stories or the making of
films having to do with their exploits in crime. I wanted to
clarify it for all the members.
The Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the motion.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second and third times and
passed)
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1530
[Translation]
MAIN ESTIMATES, 1997-98
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting
estimates for the financial year ending March 31, 1998, was presented by
the President of the Treasury Board and read by the Speaker to the
House.
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister
responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would also like to
table again, in support of the estimates, part I, the government
expenditure plan.
In addition I will table with the Clerk of the House, on behalf of
my colleagues, part III of the estimates consisting of 78 departmental
expenditure plans. These documents will be distributed to the members of
the standing committees to facilitate their consideration of the
spending authority requested in part II.
These documents are identical to the budget documents tabled in the
House on February 20, 1997.
* * *
[English]
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-224, an act to amend the Criminal Code
(offence committed outside Canada).
He said: Mr. Speaker, section 6(2) of the Criminal Code
specifies that, with few exceptions such as war crimes, hostage
taking and hijacking, persons are not to be convicted of offences
committed outside Canada. This results in situations where, as
has happened, two Canadians holidaying in the Caribbean assault
another Canadian. At present there is no way of prosecuting
those people in Canada.
If the authorities in the Caribbean do not proceed with a
charge, the people get away with what would clearly be a crime if
committed in Canada.
My bill closes this loophole by providing that any act or
omission committed outside Canada, which if committed in Canada
would constitute an offence under the Criminal Code, shall be
deemed to have been committed in Canada if the perpetrator is a
Canadian citizen, a permanent resident or is present in Canada
after the commission of the act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
MARRIAGE (PROHIBITED DEGREES) ACT
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-225, an act to amend the Marriage
(Prohibited Degrees) Act and the Interpretation Act.
1535
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill can be succinctly
stated. It would ensure that the only valid marriage in Canada
is between one man and one woman. There are a few cultures and
religions in the world which allow multiple wives or husbands.
That is not part of Canada's history, tradition or values.
There are one or two countries or states which either permit or
are thinking of permitting persons of the same sex to marry.
That is not part of Canada's history, tradition or values.
Canada's history, tradition and values are being challenged in
our courts. The United States has already passed similar
legislation to defend the institution of marriage. It is time
for Canada to do the same.
The bill would ensure that marriage remains what Canadians have
always known it to be: a legal union between an unmarried female
and an unmarried male.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
[Translation]
CRIMINAL CODE
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-226, an act to amend the Criminal Code
(protection of witnesses).
She said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce this bill, which
I had also introduced in the last Parliament and which had received
majority support at second reading.
Unfortunately, my bill died on the Order Paper due to the
dissolution of Parliament and the election call. At the time, it had
been referred to the Standing Committee on Justice.
The purpose of the bill is to amend the Criminal Code so that
every person who testifies in proceedings relating to a sexual offence
or assault, or in which the offender allegedly used, attempted to use or
threatened to use violence, is afforded the same protection as witnesses
under 14 years of age are currently afforded under the Criminal Code.
It would amend the Criminal Code so that an accused can no longer
personally cross-examine a witness in such proceedings, unless the trial
judge is of the opinion that it is necessary for the proper
administration of justice.
Therefore, this bill seeks to protect, under certain circumstances, the
integrity and the safety of those who testify in criminal proceedings.
Mr. Speaker, I hope my bill will again get the support of the
members of this House.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
[English]
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
the House gives its consent I would move:
That the membership of the Standing Committee on Procedure and
House Affairs be modified as follows:
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent for
the hon. member to move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the
motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
1540
[Translation]
MAIN ESTIMATES, 1997-98
REFERRED TO STANDING COMMITTEES
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 81, I move:
That the Main
Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1998, laid upon
the Table on October 1, 1997, be referred to the several Standing
Committees of the House, as follows:
The list of estimates referred to in this motion being long,
I would ask that the House give its consent to have it printed in
Hansard without being read.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: List referred to above is as follows:]
—Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Votes 1, 5, 10, 15,
L20, L25, L30, 35, 40, 45 and 50
—Canadian Heritage, Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, L20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45,
50, 55, 60, 65, 70, 75, 80, 85, 90, 95, 100, 105, 110, 115, 120,
125, 130, 140 and 145
—Environment, Votes 1, 5, 10 and 15
—Privy Council, Vote 30
—Finance, Votes 1, 5, L10, L15, 20, L25, 35 and 40
—National Revenue, Votes 1, 5, and 10
—Foreign Affairs, Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, L30, L35, 40, 45,
50 and 55
—Health, Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30
(11) to the Standing Committee on Human Resources Deveopment and
the Status of Persons with Disabilities
—Human Resources Development, Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30 and
35
—Industry, Votes 1, 5, L10, L15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55,
60, 65, 70, 75, 80, 85, 90, 95, 100, 105, 110, 115 and 120
—Justice, Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40 and 45
—Privy Council, Vote 40
—Solicitor General, Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45
and 50
—National Defence, Votes 1, 5 and 10
—Veterans Affairs, Votes 1, 5 and 10
—Canadian Heritage, Vote 135
—Governor General, Vote 1
—Natural Resources, Votes 1, 5, 10, L15, 20, 25, 30 and 35
—Parliament, Vote 1
—Privy Council, Votes 1, 5, 10 and 35
—Public Works and Government Services, Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20,
25, 30 and 35
—Treasury Board, Votes 1, 5, 10, 15 and 20
—Privy Council, Vote 15
—Transport, Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35 and 40
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
[English]
PETITIONS
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to
present five petitions, all of which are identical in form and
content.
The petitioners pray and request that Parliament amend the
Criminal Code of Canada to set the age of consent at 18 years of
age to provide protection from exploitation and abuse.
CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am honoured to present a petition to the House of
Commons signed by constituents of Cariboo—Chilcotin residing in
Williams Lake, Ashcroft, 150-Mile House and Tatlayoko Lake.
My constituents call upon the government to enact legislation to
wind down the Canadian pension plan and allow Canadians to
contribute to mandatory RRSPs of their own choosing.
[Translation]
FAMILY TRUSTS
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour to present a petition on behalf of the people of my riding.
This petition reads as follows—I shall summarize because it
is rather long:
“We, the undersigned citizens of Canada, wish to point out to
the House of Commons as follows:
Whereas the federal government refuses to initiate a proper
investigation into the events surrounding the tax free transfer to
the United States of $2 billion from a family trust on December 23,
1991;
Consequently, we call upon Parliament to initiate a special
independent inquiry with a mandate to cast light on the events
surrounding the decision of December 23, 1991, and on the
subsequent use of that tax loophole by other rich Canadian
taxpayers”.
[English]
RIGHTS OF PARENTS
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour and privilege to present a petition on behalf of
the people of my riding of Surrey Central.
The petition is signed by 25 people and calls on the federal
government to recognize the fundamental right of individuals to
pursue family life free from undue interference by the state, to
recognize the fundamental right and responsibility of parents to
direct the upbringing of their children, and to urge the
legislative assemblies of the provinces to do likewise.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): I ask, Mr.
Speaker, that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be
allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1545
[Translation]
APPOINTMENT OF A SPECIAL JOINT COMMITTEE
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.) moved:
That the House of Commons do unite with the Senate in the
appointment of a Special Joint Committee of the House of Commons
and the Senate to study matters related to the proposed
resolution respecting a proposed Amendment to Section 93 of the
Constitution Act, 1867 concerning the Quebec school system;
That sixteen Members of the House of Commons and seven Members of
the Senate be members of the Committee;
That the Committee be directed to consult broadly and review such
information as it deems appropriate with respect to this issue;
That the Committee have the power to sit during sittings and
adjournments of the House;
That the Committee have the power to report from time to time, to
send for persons, papers and records, and to print such papers
and evidence as may be ordered by the Committee;
That the Committee have the power to retain the services of
expert, professional technical and clerical staff;
That the quorum of the Committee be twelve members whenever a
vote, resolution or other decision is taken, so long as both
Houses are represented, and that the Joint Chairpersons be
authorized to hold meetings, to receive evidence and authorize
the printing thereof, whenever six members are present, so long
as both Houses are represented;
That the Committee be empowered to appoint, from among its
members, such sub-committees as may be deemed advisable, and to
delegate to such sub-committees all or any of its powers except
the power to report to the Senate and House of Commons;
That the Committee be empowered to authorize television and radio
broadcasting of any or all of its proceedings;
That the Committee make its final report no later than November
7, 1997;
That, notwithstanding usual practices, if the House or the Senate
are not sitting when the final report of the Committee is
completed, the report may be deposited with the Clerk of the
House which is not sitting, or the Clerks of both Houses if
neither House is then sitting, and the report shall thereupon be
deemed to have been presented in that House, or both Houses, as
the case may be; and
That a Message be sent to the Senate to acquaint that House
accordingly.
He said: Mr. Speaker, on April 15, 1997, the Quebec National
Assembly voted unanimously in favour of a resolution for a
constitutional amendment that would end the application to Quebec of
subsections (1) to (4) of section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867.
I tabled an identical resolution in the House on April 22, but the
election call prevented us from moving to strike a committee to examine
this constitutional amendment. That is why I am tabling that resolution
again, so that it can be referred to a special joint committee that is
to report to Parliament in the coming weeks.
As I have indicated on several occasions, the Government of Canada
supports the proposed amendment because it is a good thing for the
citizens affected by it and because it enjoys a reasonable degree of
support from those citizens.
It is one thing to want linguistic school boards and another thing
to want to achieve them by way of a constitutional change.
Although the Government of Canada has noted in recent months the
existence of a consensus surrounding this proposal, including for the
constitutional amendment, we could not flout the democratic traditions
that Quebeckers share with all their fellow Canadians.
The Official Opposition in the National Assembly asked the
Government of Quebec, in vain, to strike a parliamentary committee.
Therefore, we feel it is necessary to proceed, respecting our
parliamentary procedure, by striking a joint committee to which experts,
groups and citizens will be able to express their views. Such a
committee will allow them to make their opinions known while promoting
better understanding of the changes sought by the constitutional
amendment.
For some time now, Quebec society has been secularized and has
become considerably diversified through the contribution of newcomers.
It is therefore not surprising that this society has questioned on many
occasions the appropriateness of a system established on a
denominational basis.
1550
Throughout the consultations and reports that have marked the past
30 years, a consensus has emerged on the need to reorganize school
structures along linguistic, rather than denominational, lines. That
consensus was confirmed during the Estates General on Education in 1996,
which verified that Catholic and Protestant Quebeckers, anglophones and
francophones alike, wanted to establish linguistic school boards.
Quebec's National Assembly acted on that desire for change by
unanimously passing, on April 15, 1997, the resolution to amend section
93 of the Constitution Act, 1867, with respect to its application to
Quebec.
Two months later, on June 19, 1997, Quebec MNAs again demonstrated
their agreement on this matter by unanimously voting in favour of the
legislation that will ensure the implementation of linguistic school
boards and govern the place and role of confessionality in Quebec's
school system. This legislation is the Act to amend the Education Act.
The proposed amendment not only makes it possible to adapt the
Canadian Constitution to take account of the deep-seated changes Quebec
society has undergone, but it also has the merit of allowing for the
changes sought by the vast majority of the citizens that are affected.
First, it is noteworthy that the Quebec government is not seeking
to exclude any reference to religion in education, but rather to
secularize the administrative structures. Many Quebeckers are attached
to religious instruction, and the Quebec government has taken account of
that.
Section 520 of the Education Act, as amended by section 36 and by the
schedule of the Act to amend the Education Act, authorizes schools that
so desire to retain their denominational orientation.
Furthermore, the right to religious instruction is still guaranteed
under section 41 of the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, a
document that has quasi-constitutional status according to the Supreme
Court of Canada.
Such arrangements help explain the support garnered by the reform
sought by the Quebec authorities. While it has not expressed itself on
the means used, the assembly of Quebec bishops has nevertheless publicly
supported the establishment of linguistic school boards and has not
opposed amending section 93.
For their part, many groups and associations have endorsed the
constitutional amendment requested by Quebec's National Assembly.
By way of example, I would mention the Catholic Committee of the
Superior Council of Education, the Federation of School Boards, the
Federation of Parents' Committees, and teachers' associations
representing the entire teaching force of the province.
[English]
While section 93 does not protect linguistic rights, language
and denomination nevertheless have close historical ties. In the
past, Quebec's anglophone minority relied heavily on the
Protestant school boards to ensure its development. The
constitutional amendment proposed today does not run counter to
the interests of that community. On the contrary in effect
section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms will
continue to provide strong constitutional guarantees to Quebec
anglophones.
While section 93 guarantees the existence of denominational
management structures in Montreal and Quebec City and the right
of dissent in the rest of the province, section 23 allows the
minority to control and manage linguistic school structures.
In addition the establishment of linguistic school boards will
allow the anglophone community to consolidate its school
population and thus to establish a more solid foundation for its
rights under section 23.
As things stand now, Protestant school boards serve a growing
number of children whose language of instruction is French. This
phenomenon threatens to strip the anglophone community of its
control over those institutions, institutions which are less and
less reflective of sociological reality and which cannot in any
event address the needs of the Catholic segment of the anglophone
community.
In that regard it is important to note that students who profess
the Protestant faith today account for less than 40 percent of the
school population served by Protestant school boards.
1555
Of course it is normal for any minority group to want to
increase its constitutional rights. We understand the anglophone
minority's concerns about its demographic situation, about the
provisions which limit access to English schools and about the
secessionist orientation of the current Quebec government.
In this light we understand why some groups in the anglophone
community are using this opportunity to call for the full
application of section 23 in Quebec. Nevertheless the Government
of Canada believes that this issue raises a whole other debate.
While the proposed amendment does not go as far as some might
want, it nevertheless deserves to be passed because it is in the
interests of both the minority and the majority in Quebec.
The government of which I am a member has reiterated on a number
of occasions that any constitutional amendment must be the
subject of a reasonable consensus within the minorities affected.
I am pleased to note that that requirement is met in this case.
The Government of Canada solemnly affirms that the same
requirement would be indispensable in the event that another
province called for an amendment with respect to guarantees for
minorities within its territory.
[Translation]
In conclusion, Quebec society has succeeded in reaching a consensus
on a constitutional issue which touches upon such vital issues for
citizens as schooling, language, religion and the Constitution. For
that reason, and because it will benefit the Quebec community as a
whole, the government believes that this amendment should be passed.
[English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I listened with interest to the minister's remarks
today, which he has made in large part at an earlier time in the
House.
I would like to say at the outset that the official opposition
regards the proposed amendment to be studied by the proposed
joint committee as an extremely important one. It deals with the
Constitution which is the fundamental law of the land. It deals
with children and education. The manner in which it is handled
may set an important precedent for other provinces with respect
to educational reform. It deals with majority and minority
rights. Of course it also involves Quebec-Canada constitutional
relations and is therefore part and parcel of the national unity
issue.
Reform is generally supportive of the establishment of a
parliamentary committee to study the proposed resolution and
amendment and to report to the House. We note that the
government's motion directs the committee to consult broadly. We
like those words. We want to encourage the government to consult
broadly on any constitutional initiative.
In order to give the committee more time to do its work, we will
propose an amendment to the government motion that the committee
make its final report no later than the last sitting day in
December.
We have some reservations about the proposed committee. For
example, we share the view expressed by the member from
Saint-Hubert in the last House that it is absurd to have senators
who have no democratic legitimacy in either Quebec or Canada on a
joint committee. However until the Senate is reformed, this
resolution has to pass the Senate as it is, so we do not intend
to quibble over Senate representation on the committee.
We have some further comments to make on the committee and the
process it would employ. These comments will be made a little
later by my colleague, the hon. member for South Surrey—White
Rock—Langley.
Because this subject is so important to the people of Quebec, I
dearly wish that I could be making my principal points en
français. Since that is not yet quite possible, I am pleased
that my bilingual colleague from Edmonton—Strathcona will also
be commenting on the motion a little later in the day.
I would like to take a few moments to sketch the background of
this particular motion and resolution.
As the minister said, on April 15, 1997 the Quebec legislature
voted unanimously in favour of a resolution for a constitutional
amendment which would end the application to Quebec of
subsections (1) to (4) of section 93 of the Constitution Act
1867. This is the section dealing with provincial jurisdiction
over education. This resolution is the latest stage in an
ongoing internal debate in Quebec over the past 30 years on how
to change the province's denominationally based school system,
known as the Confessional School system, into a secular system
based on language rather than religion.
1600
I want to read the text of the resolution passed by the Quebec
Assembly into the record because I think members studying this
should have the resolution in front of them. They might want to
see the section of the Constitution that we are amending. The
Quebec resolution reads as follows:
WHEREAS the Government intends to institute linguistic school
boards as soon as possible:
WHEREAS in so doing the National Assembly of Quebec reaffirms
the established rights of the English-speaking community of
Quebec. More specifically, whereas Quebecers whose children are
admissible in accordance with Chapter VIII of the Charter of the
French Language have the right to have them receive their
instruction in English language educational facilities under the
management and control of this community, as provided by law and
which are financed through public funds;
WHEREAS it is desirable, for that purpose, to amend the
Constitution Act, 1867 so that Quebec may recover its full
capacity to act in matters of education;
WHEREAS such amendment in no way constitutes recognition by the
National Assembly of the Constitution Act, 1982, which was
adopted without its consent;
WHEREAS undertakings were given by the federal government to
proceed rapidly with such amendment, through bilateral action and
with the agreement of the National Assembly,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED
That the National Assembly authorizes the amendment to the
Constitution of Canada by proclamation of his Excellency the
Governor Canada under the Great Seal of Canada in accordance with
the following text:
1. The Constitution Act, 1867, is amended by adding immediately
after section 93, the following:
93A. “Paragraphs (1) to (4) of section 93 do not apply to
Quebec.”
2. This amendment may be cited as the Constitution Amendment,
year of proclamation (Quebec).
It will be noted that the Quebec assembly goes out of its way to
state that its proposed amendment in no way constitutes
recognition by the National Assembly of the Constitution Act of
1982. At the same time, the amending formula which the federal
and Quebec governments propose to apply to this amendment is that
provided for by section 43 of the Constitution Act of 1982. In
other words, the Canadian Constitution is to be amended at the
request of the Quebec assembly by means of an amending formula
which the Quebec assembly does not recognize. Only in Canada
would we have this phenomenon.
The section of the Constitution Act 1867 which the Quebec
resolution seeks to amend is section 93. This is a section of
the Constitution providing for exclusive provincial jurisdiction
over education, subject to certain provisions pertaining to the
protection of minority rights. Again I hate to take the time of
the House but I think it is important to read into the record
that section so members may have in front of them everything that
is being talked about here.
The full text of section 93 is:
This is provincial jurisdiction over education, clear and simple.
(1) Nothing in any such Law shall prejudicially affect any Right
or Privilege with respect to Denominational Schools which any
Class of Persons have by Law in the Province at the Union;
(2) All the Powers, Privileges, and Duties at the Union by Law
conferred and imposed in Upper Canada on the Separate Schools and
School Trustees of the Queen's Roman Catholic Subjects shall be
and the same are hereby extended to the Dissentient Schools of
the Queen's Protestant and Roman Catholic subjects in Quebec;
This is the one subsection that specifically mentions the
province of Quebec.
(3) Where in any Province a System of Separate or Dissentient
Schools exists by Law at the Union or is thereafter established
by the Legislature of the Province, an Appeal shall lie to the
Governor General in Council from any Act or Decision of any
Provincial Authority affecting any Right or Privilege of the
Protestant or Roman Catholic Minority of the Queen's Subjects in
relation to Education;
(4) In case any such Provincial Law as from time to time seems
to the Governor General in Council requisite for the due
Execution of the Provisions of this Section is not made, or in
case any Decision of the Governor General in Council on any
Appeal under this Section is not duly executed by the proper
Provincial Authority in that behalf, then and in every such case,
and as far only as the Circumstances of each case require, the
Parliament of Canada may make remedial Laws for the due Execution
of the Provisions of this Section and of any Decision of the
Governor General in Council under this Section.
1605
If the Parliament of Canada approves the amendment sought by the
Quebec assembly, it will be declaring that these last four
subsections just quoted pertaining to the rights, powers,
privileges and duties of the denominational schools do not apply
to Quebec.
This is the background, the content and the import of the matter
to be placed before the proposed special joint committee of the
House of Commons and the Senate.
I would like to take a moment to summarize what I think the
government's position is. The government will have a chance to
correct me if I do not have it right.
On April 22 the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs proposed
that members and senators analyse the proposed amendment by
asking and answering three fundamental questions. I take these
questions to be the principal test that the Government of Canada
feels members should apply to this amendment.
First, what amending formula is applicable to this particular
case? Second, the government suggests that we ask, is the
proposed amendment a good thing for the citizens affected by it?
Third, does this amendment enjoy a reasonable degree of support
from the citizens affected by it? Those were the three tests
that the government proposed.
The minister then answered those questions on behalf of the
government first, by saying that in the opinion of the federal
government section 93 can be amended pursuant to section 43 of
the Constitution Act, 1982. In other words, this is a bilateral
amendment which can be made with the approval of the House of
Commons and the legislature of the province to which the
amendment applies, namely, Quebec.
The minister answered his second question by saying that the
proposed amendment is a good thing in his judgment because it
acknowledges the secularization of the Quebec school system while
still guaranteeing rights to religious instruction, and because
it permitted the Quebec educational system to be based on
language rather than religion and that the proposed system, in
his judgment, was fair to both language groups.
The minister answered his third question by saying that the
amendment did enjoy a reasonable degree of support from the
people of Quebec.
I would like to outline the approach of the official opposition
to this amendment. First of all, I want to make clear that the
Reform Party believes strongly in provincial jurisdiction in
education. The official opposition therefore neither supports
nor opposes a confessional school system for Quebec. We feel
that this is an issue that the people of Quebec must decide for
themselves by free and fair democratic processes and in
accordance with the rule of law.
The official opposition also wishes to propose that members and
senators analysing the Quebec resolution subject it to three
great tests. I suggest respectfully that our three tests are
broader and deeper than those proposed by the government. I
would like to encourage the government to adopt them as useful
tests.
We propose that if a constitutional amendment proposed by a
province—whether it is the constitutional amendment proposed
recently by the Newfoundland Legislature or that now being
proposed by the Quebec Assembly—meets these three tests, then it
should be supported by this Parliament.
We propose that, if a constitutional amendment proposed by a
legislature does not satisfy these three tests, that legislature
then be encouraged to make such changes in what it is proposing
as would be required to meet those tests.
I want to suggest that our three proposed tests for application
to constitutional amendments are broad enough and deep enough to
handle any proposed constitutional change, including those of the
most radical variety.
In other words, I think it is very important for this
Parliament, which is going to be dealing with constitutional
problems and approaches that have never been dealt with by this
Parliament, to establish tests that will be applicable to
virtually any situation that we may be confronted with, and not
to get into a situation where we apply one set of tests to one
type of constitutional amendment and then another set to some
others.
These then, are the three great tests that we would propose
being applied to this constitutional amendment or any other that
comes before this Parliament.
The first is the test of democratic consent. The first question
we ask members and senators of this joint committee to answer for
themselves is: Do a majority of the citizens affected by the
proposed constitutional amendment, in this case a majority of the
people of Quebec, approve of the amendment?
1610
We do not believe since Charlottetown or since Meech Lake that
any major constitutional amendment should be passed without
public ratification through a referendum. The public has had too
many cases where their governments have said this is what our
people want in terms of constitutional change, and found out
later that that was not the case.
We believe on major amendments that the test should be conducted
through a referendum. We would therefore ask, have a majority of
Quebeckers approved of the proposed amendment through a
referendum process? Was the referendum process fair and was the
referendum question unbiased?
The second test we propose, and this is not something that
should have to be said in a parliament or legislature, but it
does have to be said and that is that the proposed amendment be
subjected to the test of the rule of law. The Canadian
Constitution contains four different amending formulas, each of
which is used for amending different parts of the Constitution.
Most parts of the Constitution cannot be amended without the
consent of at least seven provincial legislatures plus
Parliament, as provided by the amending formula in section 38 of
the Constitution Act of 1982.
Provisions which relate to only one province can be amended by
the less rigorous section 43 amending formula which requires only
the consent of Parliament and of the relevant province's
legislative assembly.
The government says, and I gather with the concurrence of the
Government of Quebec, that section 43 is the relevant amending
formula. Members and senators, however, on the joint committee
will want to satisfy themselves that this is in fact the case. I
will return to this point in a moment.
I would also like to point out that the intent of the Fathers of
Confederation with respect to section 93, the one that is amended
by this Quebec amendment, was to provide exclusive provincial
jurisdiction over education, subject only to certain provisions
for the protection of minority rights. Section 93(1) as it
currently stands does not prevent Quebec or any other province
from reforming its educational system or from implementing
reforms that affect minority rights, but conformity to the rule
of law as provided by section 93(1) does require that the Quebec
government demonstrate that any proposed reforms do not
prejudicially affect the rights of those who desire a religious
orientation in the education of their children.
Members and senators on the committee should be asking
themselves and asking the representatives of the Quebec
government, does the proposed Quebec constitutional amendment
prejudicially affect in any way the rights of those who desire a
religious orientation in the education of their children?
There is a third test which must be applied to any proposed
constitutional amendment and that is the test of the Canadian
national interest. I suggest that is a test that in the final
analysis only the Parliament of Canada can apply. The actions of
one province affecting minority and majority rights in education
may set important precedents regarding educational rights of
majorities and minorities in other provinces.
Members and senators on the committee will therefore want to
assure themselves that the passage of the proposed Quebec
amendment in no way establishes a precedent prejudicially
affecting minority rights in other provinces.
Having outlined those three tests, and I could say a lot more on
each of them but I have said enough already, I would now like to
make a preliminary application of those tests to the amendment
that has been put forward by the Quebec assembly. I am not
saying this is the last word in that analysis but I want to
illustrate how these tests might apply to the amendment that the
committee will be studying. It will be up to the joint committee
of course to apply these tests and other tests to the Quebec
resolution.
Let me apply first of all the test of democratic consent as we
understand it. In the case of the recent request from the
Newfoundland legislature asking the House to amend section 17 of
Newfoundland's 1949 terms of union, the Newfoundland government
has conducted two referendums and a majority of those voting
voted on both occasions in favour of the proposed amendment. In
our judgment that therefore meets this test of democratic consent
in a virtually indisputable way.
In the case of the proposed Quebec amendment, no provincial
referendum has been held. We would suggest the test of
democratic consent has not yet been fully passed. If the
provincial government is confident as it says it is that there is
a broad province wide consensus in favour of the amendment, it
should conduct a referendum in order to demonstrate that fact
beyond a reasonable doubt to this House and to other Canadians.
1615
With respect to application of the test of the rule of law, the
government says that section 43 of the 1982 Constitution Act is
the appropriate amending formula to apply to the Quebec
resolution. We want to be absolutely certain of that because if
we proceed on that assumption and the courts end up saying that
no, we have applied the wrong section, we have done more damage
than we have good.
It is clearly understood by everyone that the section 43
amending formula can be used to amend the Constitution of Canada
in order to place further restrictions on any individual
provincial government's freedom of action. In practice whenever
that is done, a sort of provincial constitution with additional
safeguards for the rights of the citizens of that province is
being created. This is what was done for example when several
sections were added to the charter of rights requiring the New
Brunswick government to offer services in both French and
English. Similarly, it is presumably acceptable to use section 43
to remove any such special restrictions.
However it is not clear that it would be acceptable to use the
section 43 amending formula to remove a restriction from one
provincial government when that restriction is still in place for
every other provincial government in the country, since this
would have the effect of extending the powers of one province
into an area henceforth outside the jurisdiction of any other
province.
Such an amendment could potentially require the use of the
general amending formula, the seven and fifty formula. At the
very least any provincial government demanding an amendment of
this sort should be expected to refer the proposed amendment to
the province's supreme court for a ruling as to whether the use
of the section 43 amending formula is legally acceptable. If the
provincial government fails to do so, the Government of Canada
should make a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada on that
point.
These facts relate to section 93 in the following way. Paragraph
(2) of section 93 was clearly intended to apply only to Quebec
which is mentioned by name in the paragraph, the only place that
it is mentioned. Therefore paragraph (2) is in practice part of
the provincial constitution of Quebec and can be amended using
the section 43 amending formula.
But paragraphs (1), (3) and (4) are intended as sections of
general application to all provinces. These paragraphs apply to
all provinces except Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and
Newfoundland. In each of these four provinces, section 93 has
been replaced by a section which restricts the provincial
government's ability to prejudicially affect denomination schools
at least as much as section 93 would have done had section 93
applied to that province.
For example section 22(1) of the Manitoba Act corresponds to
section 93(1) and uses almost the same wording, but it contains a
further restriction on the province's freedom of action. That
section says:
Nothing in any such law shall prejudicially affect any right or
privilege with respect to denominational schools which any class
of persons have by law or a practice in the province at the
union.
My argument therefore is it appears that it is probably not
constitutionally permissible to use the section 43 amending
formula to amend the Constitution in the manner proposed by the
federal government and the Quebec assembly. This matter could be
resolved through a supreme court reference by either the
Government of Canada or the Government of Quebec.
The Reform Party strongly believes in majority opinion and
majority rights as expressed and exercised through referendum.
However the Reform Party also believes that the majority has an
interest in minority rights. We are all part of some majority in
some situations, maybe an election or something else, but
virtually all of us are part of a minority one way or another. It
is therefore in the majority's interest to have protection of
minority rights and minority interests and the best way to do
that is through rigorous adherence to the rule of law.
In raising this point I am not trying to be obstructionist in
any way. I am trying to wave a red flag. I think the last thing
that any of us would want, whether we talk about the people in
Quebec or people from outside Quebec, is for an amendment like
this to pass through the Quebec assembly and to pass through this
Parliament and then to have it be overturned in the courts as
unconstitutional. That would be bad for us. It would be bad for
Quebec. It would be bad for the process of educational reform in
that province.
1620
Let me make a preliminary application of the test of the
Canadian national interest to this amendment. As previously
noted, the actions of one province affecting minority or majority
rights in education may set important precedents regarding
educational rights of majorities in other provinces. That is why
we take so seriously the amendment coming from Newfoundland. Yes
it pertains only to Newfoundland but does it have precedent
application for other provinces?
For example parents in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba with a
keen interest in ensuring a religious based education for their
children are watching both with interest and apprehension the
precedents being set in educational reform and changes to
minority rights in both Newfoundland and Quebec.
As I said, Parliament will want to assure itself that the
passage of the proposed Quebec amendment or the Newfoundland
amendment in no way establishes a precedent prejudicially
affecting minority rights in other provinces. Even if the
supreme court were to determine that it is acceptable to use the
section 43 amending formula to give Quebec powers that are not
available to other provinces, the use of an amending formula that
excludes most Canadians in order to grant special status to one
province violates the principle of equality of provinces.
If this were to be permitted, a dangerous precedent could be set
under which restrictions that had been placed on the powers of
all provincial governments could be stripped back unilaterally
from one province or another. Under such conditions Canada could
become a patchwork quilt of provinces with different powers. No
other federation in the world permits such a situation although
all federations allow provinces, states and cantons to establish
their own constitutions so that citizens of each of these units
can impose further restrictions on their own governments if they
choose.
While no one questions that an improved educational system for
Quebec is in the Canadian national interest provided Quebec
remains in Canada, it appears that the form of the proposed
amendment and the precedents which it may establish do not yet
fully satisfy the test of the Canadian national interest.
We want to be constructive. We therefore want to conclude with
some suggestions for repairing the possible defects in the Quebec
constitutional amendment which may make it impossible for this
House to approve it in its current form.
The children of Quebec and provisions for their education are of
great importance to all Canadians. They are of great importance
to the official opposition in this Parliament. Reform believes
most strongly that education is a matter of provincial
responsibility and that provincial jurisdiction over education
should be respected and enhanced.
The principal interest of the federal Parliament in educational
reform is mainly that such reforms do not prejudicially affect
the rights of minorities which Parliament has an obligation to
protect. Parliament should discharge these responsibilities by
applying to constitutional amendments allowing for educational
reform the three great tests of democratic consent, the rule of
law, and the Canadian national interest.
The chances of the Quebec government's constitutional amendment
satisfying these three tests would be greatly enhanced and its
prospects for gaining the support in this Parliament of the
official opposition would be enhanced if this constitutional
amendment were to be accompanied by three things:
One, clear evidence of majority support for the Quebec
constitutional amendment through the results of a province wide
referendum. Two, compelling legal evidence, preferably a supreme
court ruling, establishing that both the proposed approach to
amending the Constitution and the constitutional amendment itself
conform to the rule of law. Three, clear evidence demonstrating
to this Parliament that Quebec's educational reforms do not
prejudicially affect rights previously granted and thus in no way
establish precedents which may be damaging to minority rights in
Quebec or in any other province.
To give effect to these arguments I therefore move:
That the motion be amended: by adding immediately after the
words “concerning the Quebec school system;” the following:
“more specifically the matter of applying the following three
tests for such a proposed constitutional amendment: the test of
democratic consent, the test of Canadian national interest, and
the test of the rule of law”;
and by replacing the words
“November 7” with the words “the last sitting day in
December”.
1625
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Madam Speaker,
allow me to congratulate you on your new duties.
We are on the verge of a truly historic experience. I want to
thank all the parties in this House that will join with the Quebec
National Assembly to permit, and this is the core of the issue, the
implementation of a resolution passed by the only francophone
parliament, the only one controlled by a majority of Quebeckers,
the National Assembly, of course.
I would first like to give three warnings. The resolution
that will create the joint committee does not concern Quebec's
language rights.
The debate concerns obviously Quebec's ability to withdraw from the
effect of section 93, especially subsections 1 to 4.
We would be hard pressed to find reference to Quebec's
language rights. If we want to consider language rights, we would
have to consult section 173 of the Charte de la langue française
and of course the Charte québécoise des droits de la personne.
In our minds the matter involves—and I see that the Privy
Council agreed—a bilateral amendment. I hope the Reform Party
will understand that the five options offered by the Constitution
Act, 1982 are clearly worded so that we can make no mistake as
parliamentarians that we are right to put Quebec's resolution into
effect according to the bilateral amending formula.
Perhaps the leader of the Reform Party does not fully grasp what
one may call the consensus in Quebec. As for linguistic school boards,
because that is what this is all about, the resolution says that
religious beliefs have no bearing on the way Quebec will be organized or
the selection of an administrative or management method. There is
therefore no connection between people's religious beliefs and the
method of management we will adopt for school boards. This is what
dividing school boards by language is all about.
Why has a referendum on this issue not been held in Quebec in the
past 15 years? Because of a lack of democracy? Of course not.
The reason we have not had a referendum is, first, that the main
stakeholders in education, regardless of their sympathies, have
expressed exceptionally clear support for dividing school boards by
language.
Let me remind the hon. members—as the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs indicated, I think—that, in Quebec, we have
had a consensus on this issue since 1982: the Conseil supérieur de
l'éducation and the Assemblée des évêques are in favour of the proposed
change. When the Assemblée des évêques makes a pronouncement on an
issue, it usually does so solemnly. Bishops being at the service of the
Lord, they generally give a great deal of thought to any decision they
make. They take every necessary precaution.
I can assure the Leader of the Opposition—and I am prepared to
table a list of organizations, if he wishes, to help him better
understand the reality in Quebec—that every player in the area of
education, organizations such as the Alliance des professeurs, the
Fédération des cégeps and the Council of Universities, were in favour
and still are in favour of dividing school boards by language.
The leader of the official opposition should also know that, since
the Parent report was tabled, both sovereignist and federalist
governments have attempted on six separate occasions—yes, six
occasions—to reform the education system in Quebec.
Each of these attempts was blocked by the requirements, the obligations
under section 93.
1630
So, what will we do as parliamentarians when, before the holiday
season—indeed Christmas is coming, but I am confident and also
grateful to the government for its diligence—we pass a motion
allowing the National Assembly, therefore the people of Quebec, to
modernize, thanks to the existing consensus, its school system, so as to
have linguistic school boards? This is the fundamental issue that must
be understood.
Does this mean, assuming we proceed, that religious or pastoral
teaching will no longer have its place in schools?
Of course not, because the Education Act requires us to provide such
teaching, and because section 41 of the Quebec charter of rights
expressly recognizes such rights.
Therefore, I ask the Leader of the Opposition to make a careful
reading of Quebec's reality. For goodness sake, there is no betrayal of
democratic principles here. The Leader of the Opposition rose to say
that education is sacred. We Quebecers have known that since the
Tremblay report. Every Quebec premier has always said that education is
sacred, primarily because it has to do with one's identity, culture and
training.
The Quebec National Assembly adopted the resollution unanimously.
As parliamentarians, we all know how difficult this is to achieve, that
unanimity in Parliament seldom occurs. So, let us rejoice at the Quebec
National Assembly's unanimous stance on the establishment of linguistic
school boards.
The Leader of the Opposition should never forget that six attempts
were made to reform Quebec's school system. Again, who, in this House,
can claim that, in Quebec or elsewhere—but we speak for Quebec—there
is a link between the religious convictions of individuals—which
we respect, given their noble character—and school boards?
There can be no links between the religious beliefs and convictions of
individuals and the way we will, or want to, set up school boards.
We all know that the worst thing that could happen to this
Parliament would be for there to be a slippage, a sideways skid,
and for there to be an attempt to link this constitutional
amendment with the language rights of anglophone minorities,
something which, as you know, all hon. members hold dear.
Why this attachment to the anglophone minority? First of all,
because the anglophone minority is part of our history. There
were Thompsons, there were Jeffersons, in our history, and we
know very well they had a hand in building the province of
Quebec, the country of Quebec, and we acknowledge their special
role. None among us can claim—I see that the hon. member for
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine is nodding her agreement—that the
English Quebec community, the anglophone community, and the 90
some-odd other groups co-existing in Quebec, can be put on the
same footing.
We therefore recognize—and I am pleased that the Leader of
the Opposition has read the National Assembly motion—that the
anglophone community, or the English speaking community as they
chose to put it, is entitled to its educational structures, to
schooling from kindergarten to the university level, according to
a criterion found in article 73 of the Charter of the French
Language. No one is challenging this. Moreover, generally
speaking, I do not believe I am mistaken in thinking that the
anglophone community, via a number of spokespersons, has been
rather favourable to the point that, when it comes down to it, what
it will get from the linguistic school boards is an enhanced
control over its institutions. That is what it will mean to the
anglophone community.
There are some, of course, who link this amendment with
section 23(1)(a).
Let us be accurate about it. To repeat, what we are dealing with
today is an amendment which invites us to follow up on a unanimous
resolution by the National Assembly concerning denominational
schools and not—and I repeat—a debate addressing language rights.
1635
We are not creating a precedent here, and I hope the Leader of the
Opposition is going to share our enthusiasm and agree that we are doing
the right thing, as parliamentarians, in relying on section 43 of the
Constitution Act, 1982. We know full well that in the recent history of
the Constitution, no precedent has been created.
The Parliament was asked on four occasions to use this amending
formula, and you will recall that two of these cases concerned
Newfoundland.
In the first instance, it was to grant the Pentecostal Church the same
rights the five other churches had in Newfoundland, and to that end
section 42 was used. The Leader of the Opposition spoke at length about
the most recent case involving Newfoundland.
The same section was applied to New Brunswick to enshrine the
equality between the francophone community and the anglophone community.
Closer to us—and at the time I was a member of this House—we used
section 42 with regard to the construction of the bridge linking Prince
Edward Island to the mainland.
Members should know that, as we speak, there is a bill before the
national assembly, Bill 109. It is the result of the consensus I have
been talking about for the past several minutes.
I say to all my colleagues from every party that should we not be able
to pass and proclaim this motion and the resulting bill due to a twist
of fate—passing them is not enough, they have to be proclaimed—the
national assembly would have a major problem. Bill 109 will create
linguistic school boards across Quebec, thus bringing the number of
school boards from 158 to 70, and making the Quebec education system
more coherent.
If it were not passed by December—and this is why it is
important that all political parties, the government, the Reform Party,
the Conservatives and the NDP co-operate—it would create a problem
for the National Assembly, because its legislation provides that
everything should be in effect at the start of the next school year,
including the administrative provisions dealing with the boundaries of
the school boards' territory, student registration, and the sharing of
existing facilities between the new school boards that will be created.
In any case, the act still provides that school boards will be created.
However, if it were not passed, it would complicate things and the
provincial government would have to reopen collective agreements with
the unions.
Such a situation would not benefit anyone, and certainly not Quebec
students.
I want to make it very clear—and I am grateful to the minister
for pointing it out—that in no way will the right to religious
teaching be marginalized or diminished when linguistic school boards are
created. As I said earlier, that right is clearly stated in the
Education Act and in section 41 of the Quebec charter of rights, which
is a quasi-constitutional provision.
Again, it is the National Assembly's prerogative to act upon this
consensus.
There is a consensus among all those who have expressed their views on
the issue. We are talking about a large coalition.
If I took the time to mention all those who have been interested in
this issue since the early eighties and who hope we can modernize
Quebec's school system, you would see that everyone in our province
supports this change.
The National Assembly approved the resolution unanimously, which
means that all parties agree. This is no mean feat, considering it is
the parliamentarians' role to debate, to challenge ideas, sometimes to
reach a consensus. We are talking about a group which includes some very
knowledgeable people, such as the MNA for Marquette who was at one time,
albeit for a very brief period, chairman of the Montreal Catholic School
Commission. Again, there is a consensus in Quebec's National Assembly,
in fact, there is unanimity.
1640
I would be lying if I said we are happy with the fact that seven
senators will sit on this committee. The Government of Quebec believes,
and we agree, that a strong enough consensus has developed and that the
amendment only concerns Quebec and the federal government. Therefore, we
would rather have done without the joint committee.
However, we respect the government's prerogative to conduct such
consultations. We hope they will be carried out with all due diligence,
but we will take the process seriously.
We will listen to those who wish to make presentations but, again, we
must bear in mind that we are dealing with education and what this
amendment is about is enabling the National Assembly to rearrange the
way school boards are managed. We think there is a strong enough
consensus to allow this to proceed.
Similarities with the situation in Newfoundland make it necessary
to exercise some caution.
First, when we read about what happened in Newfoundland, we see that a
referendum was held, the results of which were unequivocal—let us
hope this will happen again—but still, the case of Newfoundland is
somewhat unique, as I am told that it is the only Canadian province
where the six religious denominations each controlled their own
institutions and that the amendment passed by referendum in Newfoundland
is designed to establish a public education system across the board so
to speak, which is obviously not what Quebec is asking for. The
amendment it is seeking is more administrative in nature.
We should therefore be careful not to make hasty comparisons with
Newfoundland. I think it is important to reiterate our deep attachment
to the anglophone community. We believe it has historically played a
role in Quebec and we look to a future that includes the anglophone
community. We are strongly committed, and I want to make it very clear,
to rights.
I find this a good test of democracy. I think it was the
philosopher Valéry who said a civilization must be judged on the
way it treats its minorities. Minority rights are, of course, an
important element in the balance of a community.
Madam Speaker, you would not find the same thing anywhere
else, if you and I were to agree, in a burst of generosity, to take
a trip across Canada in order to try to find somewhat comparable
examples elsewhere of how francophone minorities outside Quebec are
treated. I think no Quebecker need feel ashamed of how the
anglophone community is being treated, and we must continue along
that path, as we have in the health system. An anglophone living in
Quebec has access to institutions, to a public education system
from kindergarten to university. That is something.
Contrary to section 223 of the 1982 legislation, there is not
even a numerical criterion. The Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs knows very well that we have never subjected anglophone
rights to a clause such as “where numbers justify”.
I think that these are the facts the Reform Party ought to
read, and I hope that our debates will run smoothly. I greatly
fear we will get sidetracked and I am calling upon the maturity of
all parties, of course. As you know, I shall keep my distance from
any such sidetracking because what the debate must be about is
denominational schools. The debate must be about the right of the
province of Quebec, and the country of Quebec, to organize its own
school boards, as the National Assembly wishes, and must not be
about language rights.
I think a great effort must be made to keep that in mind.
In closing, I would like to state that what strikes us as very
important for the future is that the National Assembly must be
respected and that we must be able to modernize the Quebec school
system.
1645
There is, moreover, certainly a connection to be made with all
of the work currently being done in Quebec to ensure that programs
to be implemented in the schools are such that they will prepare
Quebecers for the society of the year 2000.
Madam Speaker, since you are indicating that my time is up,
let me conclude by hoping that the debates will be calm ones and
that the wishes of the National Assembly will be respected.
I would also like to remind the leader of the Reform Party
that he need not look for a flawed democracy where it does not
exist. If ever he would like to improve his French by coming with
me to meet those who are actively involved in the Quebec
educational system, I would be only too pleased to do so.
[English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): I
would like to thank the member for his speech and his invitation
to serenity. I did not realize that serenity was part of the
Bloc's platform but I am glad to hear that it is.
I have just one question that I would like him to perhaps
enlighten us on. He appealed in his talk to section 43 of the
Constitution Act 1982 as this would be an appropriate formula for
amending the Constitution in the way that Quebec desires. But the
very resolution that Quebec has brought to this Parliament says
that this in no way constitutes recognition by the National
Assembly of the Constitution Act 1982. In other words we are
being asked to amend the Canadian Constitution in compliance with
a section of the Constitution that the Quebec assembly does not
recognize.
Would the hon. member explain how he reconciles those two
positions?
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Madam Speaker, may I say to the leader of the
official opposition that calm is to my party what openmindedness is
to his. This is what leads me to think that the debate will be
calm.
That having been said, the Leader of the Opposition knows very
well that the motion tabled in the National Assembly states very
clearly that we do not recognize the Constitution Act, 1982, for a
number of reasons, and with the support of a number of analysts in
English Canada, who studied its impact. What did it mean to
Quebeckers to have a charter of rights and freedoms?
It meant that whole chunks of the only law of national redress ever
to be passed by the National Assembly, Bill 101, were invalidated,
as concerns display in administrative terms, and of course the
Canada clause versus the Quebec clause.
That having been said, we are governed by a constitutional
order and contrary to our will we must, in order to modernize our
school system in Quebec, face this obligation before us to use the
amending formula.
I think the Leader of the Opposition is above making
simplistic links. We are democrats and here we are in a national
parliament where each member was elected by the people in his or
her riding.
There is a constitution, which we did not sign for all sorts
of reason, but the first—and I would propose to the Leader of the
Opposition that I give him for Christmas a book written by an
intellectual by the name of Mandel of the University of Toronto,
who proves the point clearly. He is an anglophone who is not a
sovereignist. I am sure this book is in the Privy Council library.
The author demonstrates in his book that the basic reason why in
1982 we adopted a charter with language rights incompatible with
those of the National Assembly was to invalidate Bill 101. And he
made no mistake, because, as you know, entire chunks of Bill 101
were invalidated.
That having been said, the Leader of the Opposition should never
forget that we are democratic. There is a Canadian
constitutional order that will apply until international law
takes over. As part of the process, we are obliged to use the
amending formula, a bilateral formula. To achieve our goal, we
must respect this state of affairs.
1650
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I enjoyed the hon. member's speech but his reply did not please me
nearly as much. He launched into a debate that was completely off topic.
The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that the Constitution Act of
1982 applies. It does. The reasons put forward by the PQ government in
Quebec and other political parties for not recognizing the Act of 1982
are very shaky. This is a debate I have taken part in on several
occasions already, but we could also have it in this House, I guess.
[English]
Since we speak about the rule of law, 1982 is the rule of law in
this country and I am very happy about that. Some parties might
be unhappy about that, but it applies.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Mamdam Speaker, if I pleased the minister with my
speech at least, that makes me happy. He must realize however that my
reply was directed to the Leader of the Opposition.
Incidentally, I would like the Université de Montréal to organize
a debate opposing the minister and myself. I was a student of his. I
hope he has a fond memory of those days.
Does the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs agree with me that
legislation was properly and duly passed in the Quebec National
Assembly, which is said to be the only national redress act ever to have
been passed in Quebec, and I am referring to Bill 101?
Does the minister recognize that there are those who claim that the
Charter of Rights and Freedoms could potentially weaken the authority of
the National Assembly, by invalidating entire chunks of the act;
does he agree that I am right when I rise in my place to make that
argument, and does he agree that it is not desirable that francophones
who have a unique responsibility on this continent could see their
language rights weakened by a Constitution that was never recognized by
the National Assembly?
That is what I am saying and I am prepared to argue my position in
any forum and debate it with the minister in the forum of his choice.
Hon. Stéphane Dion: Madam Speaker, I am ready when he is, but this
is not the right time.
The hon. member is contradicting himself. While in his first speech
his heart went out to the anglophone community, he is now bothered that,
under a charter of rights and with the support of a large majority of
Quebeckers, a support which they have expressed in one poll after the
other, the use of English on commercial signs has been allowed.
This is obviously a serious contradiction, one that is furthermore
irrelevant to the debate on the issue before us, which is the fact that
Quebec wants linguistic school boards and, as far as the government is
concerned, that is no problem.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Madam Speaker, it is true that we must distinguish
the two. I agree with the minister. However, the minister will realize
that I was responding to a question from the Leader of the Opposition.
He knows full well that, as a man of principle, I simply must reply to
the opposition leader.
In short, the debate must be conducted in a dispassionate manner.
I thank the government for its intention to act diligently regarding
linguistic school boards, because such is the wish of the National
Assembly.
I hope we make the necessary distinctions between denominational
and linguistic rights. I want to reiterate, on behalf of all Bloc
members, our attachment to that founding minority, the English
community, whose rights will be maintained in the future.
I am confident that, in the future, the dialogue will always be
conducted in a spirit of generosity, as it has been in the past.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Thibeault): It is my duty, pursuant to
Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be raised
tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for
Cumberland—Colchester—Infrastructure.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Madam
Speaker, I will try to be brief and serene and just say a word or
two as to why the NDP caucus will be supporting the motion to
send this matter to committee.
1655
Regardless of what unanimity may exist in the National Assembly
in Quebec, obviously a variety of concerns if not viewpoints have
been expressed here this afternoon that point out the reason why
we have due constitutional process in this place.
Constitutional resolutions which are to be considered by the
House of Commons are as a rule considered by a special joint
committee. It is only appropriate despite the obvious
anxiousness on the part of the Government of Quebec and perhaps
the National Assembly of Quebec that this be expedited as quickly
as possible, that we observe this due process and have the
opportunity to consult broadly with all Canadians who may be
concerned about this particular constitutional resolution.
I share the perspective of the Reform Party with respect to the
continuing inappropriateness of the role of Senate, not
individual senators but of the Senate, in so far as its
undemocratic nature is always a procedural contaminant in our
proceedings here, especially when we are required to do things in
the context of a special joint committee.
I would also remind the Leader of the Opposition that long
before the Reform Party darkened these halls or lit these halls,
depending on one's perspective, the NDP and before that the CCF
were calling for the abolition of the Senate, precisely because
it offended our democratic values and our feeling that whatever
institution we have, whether it be no Senate or a new Senate,
that it be democratic in nature.
There are a variety of reasons why this is a very important
matter. Many of them have been touched on already. It does have
the possibility of setting a precedent, if not a legal precedent
at least a political precedent with respect to how similar issues
will be dealt with in other provinces.
I think there is legitimate concern among the religious
constituencies not just in Quebec but outside Quebec as to how we
deal with these issues. We are mindful of the fact that we will
be dealing with another not identical but nevertheless related
issue, that of the future of denominational schools in
Newfoundland. Therefore how we deal with this both in terms of
process and in terms of substance is very important.
It has to do with the whole role and relationship between
minority rights and the role of the majority. This is a very
difficult question. It always has been and always will be. It
needs to be sorted out as well as can be in respect of this
issue. It has to do with national unity. We need to deal with
this sensitively in respect of Quebec but we also need to respect
due process. We want to do that in a way that can be respected
by the National Assembly in Quebec and the Government of Quebec
in so far as that is possible.
We also need to use this and other opportunities that will be
presented to us to have if not a full debate, at least a
preliminary debate about the future of the education system in so
far as religious values are concerned.
There is an underlying concern, and the minister himself has
referred to this as the secularization of the school system in
Quebec. It seems to me that for a lot of Canadians, whether they
are looking at the situation in Newfoundland where the government
is considering getting rid of denominational schools altogether,
or in Quebec where the denominational school system is being
transformed into a linguistically based school system, there is
an underlying question. That question is on the future of
education as it pertains to values and how we continue at the
same time to recognize that we no longer live in what might be
technically called Christendom while on the other hand we want to
live in a society where the appropriate role of religious values,
religious instruction and religious world view are taken into
consideration and not relegated to the realm of something purely
private, something that exists only after hours or in some
special segregated way.
1700
It would seem to me that we all want to be pluralistic. On the
one hand we want to recognize that we no longer live in what can
be called Christendom but on the other hand we do not want to
accept that we will live with our schools under the illusion that
there is no such thing as fundamental values, that there is no
such thing as something in which everything we do has to be
grounded.
I will stop the theological dissertation at this moment, but
this is something we need to pay more attention to when we are
talking about education.than we have.
We support the motion. I will reserve judgment on the Reform
amendment but on the face of it I do not see why the amendment is
necessary. I sometimes think the Reform Party has a talent
for moving the obvious in this House when it comes to certain
things. I would hope that the committee would not have to be
instructed to take into account the matter of democratic consent
or the rule of law or the matter of whether or not it is in the
Canadian national interest. It seems this would be something
that I would hope parliamentarians would do without instruction.
The only thing that remains to be considered is whether the
postponement of the reporting date is appropriate. The member
from the Bloc raised some of the concerns that the Government of
Quebec has with respect to any postponement beyond the date. I
feel that has to be taken seriously although the concern does
prejudge the outcome of what the hearings will be and what the
fate of the resolution will be. However, we know what the fate
of the resolution will be because the government has said that it
intends to pass this resolution. We presume that its majority
will be effective in that respect.
There are a couple of things I cannot resist commenting on. Much
was made of the patriation debate or the Constitution of 1982. I
think I am the only member of Parliament in the room at the
moment who was here during that debate. I say to my Bloc
colleagues that this was not passed without the consent of
Quebeckers, at least in so far as those of us from outside Quebec
perceived it at the time.
There were 75 members of Parliament from Quebec in this House at
that time. At least 74 of them voted for that package. It would
be wrong in the mythology of the sovereignist movement in Quebec
to imagine that somehow members of Parliament from outside Quebec
at that time did something in the face of opposition from Quebec
as they understood it. They did it in the face of the opposition
of a particular government in Quebec at that time, but they had
no reason to believe that there was anything in the way of
unanimity in Quebec in opposition to that package because they
could see every day members of Parliament from Quebec getting up
and urging other members of Parliament from outside Quebec to
pass that patriation package.
Keep that in mind when telling the story because the story ought
to be told in full and not just selectively.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
am going to make a comment and, if he wishes, the member is welcome to
pick up on it.
He says that, at the time the Constitution was patriated, there
were members who voted in favour. In fact, 74 of the 75 members
from Quebec were Liberals.
1705
However, I have news for the member. This is why the Bloc
Quebecois is here, to prevent this dual legitimacy in Quebec.
The Bloc Quebecois, and increasingly all of Quebec, is very
clearly unanimous on this as well.
Even the Liberals in the National Assembly, those close to the
federal Liberal Party at the time, were unanimous in disagreeing with
how the federal government wanted to proceed.
I think he should take another look at his history, including
that of Quebec, because just because there were Liberal members
from Quebec who were in agreement or who voted in favour of
patriating the Constitution does not mean Quebeckers were in
agreement. They were not in agreement. There was a Liberal party
line and they toed it.
But in the National Assembly, and this is what counts, they were
unanimously opposed to patriating this Constitution.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Madam Speaker, I thank the member for
the question. It does not seem to me that it contradicts what I
said. The point I was trying to make is that it would be wrong to
set up what happened in 1982 as something that Canadians, members
of Parliament or Canadians from outside of Quebec did to Quebec.
But rather that there were 74 members of Parliament in this House
who voted for it. There were Quebecers who were against it, who
were part of the PQ government at the time and others. I agree.
The fact is, and this is a continuing dimension of the debate
which is frustrating for those of us outside of Quebec, it was a
family fight. It was a fight between Quebeckers about the
appropriateness of the patriation package.
If the Bloc and others are looking for the culprits, if there
were culprits because I think there were legitimate positions on
both sides and it is wrong to sort of demonize either side, it
was other Quebeckers who were holding this position and who were
telling people outside Quebec this was okay and had the support
of the people of Quebec.
To pretend there is not that in-house dimension to the debate
which goes on and which I have watched in the House for 18 years
between various sets of Quebecers, federalists and sovereignists
and nationalists, it gets very frustrating after a while when
positions are attributed to the rest of Canada which are
positions which arise out of the debate between Quebeckers
themselves.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's remarks. He suggested
that maybe the committee does not need any instruction, although
I would suggest that a committee with some senators on it might
at least require instruction on the subject of democratic
consent. Maybe he would concede that.
He supports the amendment which has come to us from the Quebec
legislature which includes asking Parliament to strike down
section 93(1) as it applies to Quebec. The section says nothing
in any such law shall prejudicially affect any right or privilege
with respect to denominational schools which any class of persons
have by law in the province at the union.
The hon. member's province has a very similar quotation in the
Manitoba act. It is virtually identical. I am wondering what his
position is.
Does he support striking down that section of the Manitoba act
as it applies to Manitoba? Does the member have any fears that if
this section is struck from 93(1) it might create a precedent for
striking that section from the Manitoba act?
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Madam Speaker, all I indicated on
behalf of the NDP was that we supported sending this to the
committee so that all the various concerns could be examined. I
did raise the matter of what precedence this may set for other
provinces. It is something the committee has to discuss and
arrive at a position.
1710
There is no such request from Manitoba and one finds it hard to
imagine a unanimous request from Manitoba on such a matter.
Clearly this is a concern that people in other provinces have
both in respect of the Newfoundland situation and the Quebec
situation.
To the Leader of the Opposition, in terms of the three tests it
seems this represents some development in Reform thinking when it
comes to democracy. It has always seemed to me that until today
there has been a more simplistic attachment to the result of
referenda than we see today.
It is not just democratic consent, it is also the rule of law,
which I would have assumed. Then comes the matter of Canadian
national interests, obviously a very political matter in the best
sense of the word, what is good for the body politic.
That may mean from time to time that parties and their leaders
may have to say on occasion there may be a conflict between what
the will of the people appears to be and what is in the national
interest. That is when political leadership is really tried,
when one has to go beyond appealing to the crowd and saying will
it be Barabas or will it be Christ, saying it is up to the
people and making a choice of your own as to what is right.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Madam Speaker, members
have been speaking about the 1982 patriation of the Constitution
for the last few minutes.
I have been listening to what has been said. The Leader of the
Opposition, among others, mentioned that, because an amending
process is involved, thought should perhaps be given to a
referendum to validate the democratic basis.
I would like to point out that in 1982 there was not all this
nitpicking about a referendum. For Quebec, it meant the loss of
a number of powers conferred on it by the original Constitution.
Imagine for a moment, and I ask the Leader of the Opposition to
picture this, that the American Congress decided, without
consulting one quarter of the American states—California,
Florida, New York—to change the American Constitution. Imagine
for a moment that that were to happen. There would be a second
American revolution.
Faced with an identical situation, since Quebec represents one
quarter of the Canadian population, Quebec looked for an
accommodation. Even now, with the demand from the National
Assembly, Quebec is looking for an accommodation, without
recognizing the Constitution, which was the result of a process
from which it was excluded.
The NDP member mentioned that it was in good faith that he
supported patriation of the Constitution in 1982 because, he
says, 74 Liberals representing Quebec said it was all right.
First of all, since Liberal members were involved, he should have
been on his guard. Am I not right, Madam Speaker?
When all parties in the Quebec National Assembly say that they
are taking a particular stand, it seems to me that this House
should take notice. I await my hon. colleague's comments.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Madam Speaker, I am not sure. It seemed
the hon. member was asking questions of the Leader of the
Opposition. I have given my account of what I think happened in
1982. It ought to be taken seriously.
The points the member makes are legitimate, but I was simply
trying to point something out for the purposes of historical
accuracy and, for that matter, for a kind of emotional accuracy.
1715
What was done in 1982 by members of Parliament from outside
Quebec was not done in the face of the absence of a strong Quebec
opinion that what we were doing was the right thing.
There was a division within Quebec about it and we had to choose
which among the different Quebec opinions we would adhere to. We
would have been equally open to the charge that we were—
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am sorry to interrupt
the hon. member. Resuming debate.
[English]
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Madam Speaker,
I rise to speak to the motion put forward by the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs on the establishment of a joint
committee of the House of Commons and the Senate to study matters
related to the proposed resolution respecting the amendment to
section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867, concerning the Quebec
school system. That is just to be clear on what we are
addressing today. We seem to be wandering a little bit.
I commend and congratulate Madam Speaker on her appointment as
speaker. The Right Hon. John G. Diefenbaker once said to
parliament “Parliament is more than a procedure. It is the
custodian of the nation's freedom”. Madam Speaker, you are
charged with a very important duty in the House as members seek
to serve their constituents. I, on behalf of my constituents,
look for your assistance in the pursuit of serving Canadians.
[Translation]
First of all, I want to thank the constituents of
Compton—Stanstead who entrusted me with the important task of
representing them in the House of Commons. It is an honour for
me to be their MP.
Compton—Stanstead is a half urban, half rural riding. It is a
dairy farm region. It is also an area full of lakes and hills
where one can do some sailing, boating and trekking during the
summer and ski or go on snowmobile tours during the winter.
Finally, it is a region where everybody loves the great outdoors.
I would like to invite all the members to visit this wonderful
region where people have never stopped working towards a stronger
Canada, a part of Quebec where anglophones and francophones have
rubbed shoulders for many generations and have learned to live
and work together.
As a representative of this Eastern Townships region, I have
some experience in the issue before us today.
The Eastern Townships have been used as a test area for
linguistic schools in Quebec for the last 10 to 15 years and I
must say we are very pleased with the results so far.
Linguistic schools were tested in the Eastern Townships in
preparation for their implementation all over Quebec. At first
there were some real concerns, because people did not know how
this system would work and they wondered if it would be fair.
[English]
In fact it worked. It worked quite well. We were the test
case. We went through it. At present I have lived through the
experience personally. It has been a good working system.
This committee, however, will examine something a lot larger
than the test case of linguistic schools in the eastern
townships. At present the rights of minorities are guaranteed in
the Canadian Constitution. They are guaranteed under the
Constitutional Act, 1867 and 1982.
It remains my opinion that amending the Constitution is a very
serious matter that should not be taken lightly, which presents
the House with a dilemma.
The National Assembly in Quebec City has voted overwhelmingly in
favour of instituting linguistic school boards as soon as
possible. It is desirable for that purpose to amend the
Constitution Act, 1867, so that Quebec has full capacity to act
in matters of education.
As I said earlier, in my experience this probably makes good
sense. Yet it concerns me. Is it the role of the House to stand
in the way of what seems to be the overwhelming will of the
people of Quebec? Or, is the role of the House to ensure that
the rights of all Canadians are protected under the law? Can it
do both?
I am new to this debate. I have much to learn about the
Constitutional nuances of my country. What I do know is that the
Reform Party's proposal to have a referendum on this question is
without merit.
1720
At some point we have to trust elected officials. On this
particular matter there seems to be consensus in the national
assembly. The Reform Party is proposing to have a constituent
assembly comprised of the entire province of Quebec.
[Translation]
As a constitutional amendment must not, it seems to me, be made
with a nod of the head, I intend to ensure that the committee
examines all the repercussions of the proposed amendment on
Quebec and on the Constitution of Canada.
I would like now to speak of my immediate concerns and the
questions this committee must answer.
The matter is a complicated one, but it concerns a very basic
right. I believe that, in the context of the debate on these
issues, we must first and foremost answer the following question:
will these decisions best serve the interests of young Canadians?
Still on the subject of education, let us look at a few other
concerns. First, minority rights and specifically the rights of
the anglophone minority in Quebec.
The legislative report of the Government of Quebec indicates
that, in order to protect the rights of linguistic minorities
within denominational school boards, the bill would have language
councils in each. I quote:
The parents of students of the linguistic minority in question
will sit on these councils. As appropriate, the language
councils will have sufficient authority to ensure constitutional
guarantees to anglophones are honoured.
The language councils are to be consulted prior to the
establishment of the schools needed for the students of the
linguistic minority. They will ensure the school boards provide
the minority with an equitable distribution of human, material
and financial resources. In the event the school boards conclude
service agreements, these agreements shall also be approved by
the language councils.
All that seems reasonable. The minorities will have their
language councils. That seems perfectly reasonable. However,
the document continues, and I quote:
The foregoing provisions are contained in a specific section of
the bill, which indicates clearly that denominational school
boards and the right to dissent shall remain in force until such
time as the Government of Quebec regains its full legislative
powers in the field of education.
[English]
In other words once the Constitution is amended that is it for
language councils.
Second, it is important to note that not all francophones are in
favour of linguistic school boards. I have a stack of letters in
my office from very pious, observant francophone Protestants who
are concerned they will lose their own schools and no religion
will be taught.
I will read one letter as an example.
[Translation]
We have three children, two of whom have attended and one of
whom still attends a French Protestant school called Le Sentier.
I am writing to express my disagreement with the request of the
Quebec government to amend section 93 of the Constitution Act,
1867 to make school boards non-denominational in the province of
Quebec. I am very satisfied with this school for which we fought
for well over 15 years before it finally opened six years ago. I
am totally opposed to the fact that we can be denied our right to
an education that is tailored to the needs and aspirations of our
community.
Therefore, I urge you not to allow our Constitution to be
amended, particularly section 93.
I want to keep the right to dissent, which to me is synonymous with
freedom, and I am counting on you.
And this letter is signed by Mr. and Mrs. Béliveau of Rock Forest.
[English]
In my experience in the eastern townships there has been a
chaplain in all the schools. These chaplains are trained to
teach and handle issues arising from different religions. This
will satisfy the needs of very religious people, but will there
still be chaplains?
1725
Another concern raised by some is that without religion in the
schools there is nobody to teach and instil values in Canada's
young people. This has to be addressed by the committee.
The last concern to which I will speak today is crucial. The
Government of Quebec is devoted to independence for Quebec. It
is imperative that any decisions regarding this issue be made for
the right reason, not to appease that government or because we
feel threatened by the separatist government in Quebec.
Similarly we should not make a decision that only serves to
frustrate the Government of Quebec. The interest of Canada's
young people must be the guide.
I would like to point out something that I found very
interesting. When the Quebec minister responsible for education,
Pauline Marois, issued the notes for the press conference to
introduce the bill she made reference to several objectives in
it.
The number one objective in notes of the Quebec minister was to
promote the integration of immigrants into the francophone
community. While it is important and necessary to ensure
immigrants are welcomed and integrated into the Quebec community,
it seems that bettering the education of Canada's young people
might be a more important first objective for a government
serious about education, not just talking about taking Quebec out
of Canada.
I would like to address the differences between the situation in
Quebec and Newfoundland, and I say differences because there are
very few similarities. The people in Newfoundland have spoken
clearly on the issue. There has not been full public
consultation in Quebec. The public needs to be consulted and
this committee will ensure that the public will be consulted.
In Newfoundland two school systems are being combined to create
one public school system. In Quebec it is proposed that two
school systems change dramatically to create two new school
systems. While the principle might be similar, the realities
vary. For this reason it is important to look at the issues of
Quebec and Newfoundland separately.
I am pleased that the House is getting around to considering
this matter in a serious fashion. It was completely unacceptable
for the government to forgo any real consideration of the last
constitutional amendment that came its way. Thankfully the
Senate did an admirable job last year in travelling to
Newfoundland to hear all the views and concerns of interested
parties. The House should not have dispensed with its
constitutional duty so cavalierly, without debate and without
concern.
A last concern is that it has come to my attention that this
committee will not be permitted to travel. This seems strange.
I hope I have succeeded in outlining the importance of this
committee. It should be given the resources to conduct its job
properly and efficiently. This will almost certainly mean
hearing from witnesses who would not come before committees if it
meant being unreasonably inconvenienced.
The eastern townships was a test case and it worked out quite
well.
[Translation]
Let us look now at what we can accomplish together for our country
and especially for our youth.
[English]
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to question the member about one thing in his speech.
His wording was something like there was a time when people had
to trust their representatives or their officials.
How does the member distinguish the times when he would trust
his constituents as opposed to trusting himself? Does it have to
do with self-interest or an academic qualification? How does he
define his representation of constituents? Does he represent
them? Does he represent himself or does he represent his party?
Mr. David Price: Mr. Speaker, it is quite straightforward
that I represent my constituents. They elected me to do a job. I
do not think they expected to come here every time there was a
separate vote, that they would have to vote individually. I am
here representing them and that is the job we should be doing.
1730
[Translation]
Ms. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I take part in this
dispassionate debate on the creation of linguistic school boards.
I say with “great pride”, because the constitutional amendment
proposal introduced today by the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs, whom I will not name, is an important step in a debate
which, in Quebec, lasted 30 years before a consensus could be
reached. Therefore it is not with indifference that we should
welcome this day but rather with a deep satisfaction.
On April 15, the National Assembly voted unanimously in favour
of a constitutional amendment to section 93 of the Canadian
Constitution. The aim of this amendment was essentially to
restructure the school system along linguistic rather than
denominational lines. Our government supported this initiative
and, on April 22, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
introduced a motion to that effect here in this House.
However, because an election was called, which brought us back
to power on June 2, it became impossible to pursue this
initiative. This government is therefore addressing the situation
today.
[English]
We should not only be pleased that the debate is entering a new
stage today but also that a majority of Quebeckers, francophones
and anglophones, support the establishment of linguistic school
boards.
A consensus has been forged, and as the intergovernmental
affairs minister has noted that consensus is sufficiently broad
for us to go ahead with the proposed change.
[Translation]
Today, in tabling the resolution for a constitutional amendment
to section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867, the Minister
announced that it would be referred to a special joint committee
that would report back to Parliament in the next few weeks. This
is a logical initiative that should have the support of all hon.
members of this House. We should certainly be glad that all
stakeholders were able to achieve a consensus but, in accordance
with parliamentary custom, we have to provide an opportunity for
these stakeholders and others to be heard on such an important
constitutional amendment.
This is so obvious that no one can object in good faith to the
approach taken by our government without flouting the democratic
values of Canadian society from coast to coast. I would certainly
not accuse any of my colleagues of having such intentions.
[English]
Dissenting voices have the right to make themselves heard. We
as members of Parliament have the right to inform them and to try
to convince them of the merits of this constitutional amendment.
For those who already support it, striking the joint committee
will give them the opportunity to reiterate their support. This
is a democratic exercise that is not only healthy and necessary
but also respectful of the opinions generated by all sides in
this debate.
[Translation]
A minute ago I was talking about our democratic values.
Quebeckers have always shared and espoused these values. In fact,
if our country is so widely respected throughout the world, it is
partly because of its respect for this heritage that generations
of Canadians have preserved over the years. The motion before us
today seems like a golden opportunity to emphasize our respect
for democracy and our institutions.
There is another reason for creating this joint committee, as
the minister has pointed out in the past few weeks. Some time
ago, the official opposition in the National Assembly asked the
Quebec government to set up a parliamentary committee on this
issue. That request was rejected. All the more reason to create a
committee that will allow the various groups, experts and
concerned citizens to express their views.
1735
This approach would allow us not only to comply with
parliamentary procedure but also to promote a better
understanding of the changes that would be effected through this
constitutional amendment.
[English]
Despite the consensus forged on this issue, obviously some
groups and citizens are worried about the disappearance of
denominational school boards. Our government is sensitive to
that aspect of the issue. Moreover, we are fully aware of the
uncertainty felt by some groups and citizens in Quebec's
anglophone minorities.
For example, in light of a disturbing demographic situation we
are well aware of provisions that limit access to English
schools. As the minister has pointed out so well, we cannot
ignore the secessionist ambitions of the Government of Quebec.
In these circumstances is it too much to offer those groups and
citizens a forum so they can make themselves heard? Not at all.
That is why our government will go ahead with its proposal to
strike a joint committee.
I now come to the main point of my comments. Certain Quebeckers
are worried about this constitutional amendment. However, as the
minister has said, the proposed changes do not run counter to the
interests of the anglophone community.
Section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which
guarantees linguistic minorities the right to instruction in
their own language, will continue to provide solid guarantees to
Quebec's anglophones as it has in the past.
Moreover—and the minister has highlighted this reality—the
Government of Quebec is not seeking to root out religion from
education but rather to secularize the administrative structures.
This debate has not arisen for no reason. In recent years the
repositioning of Quebec's society has been modified by the
contribution of newcomers at the same time as secularization has
increased. At that point the need has been felt to reorganize
school structures along linguistic rather that denominational
lines.
The constitutional amendment tabled by the minister takes
account of that evolution.
[Translation]
Such debates are nothing new; it is not the first time Quebec
society has felt the need to review its school system. But the
evolution of Quebec society with all its characteristics has seen
a consensus emerge in both the francophone and the anglophone
communities. We should seize this opportunity to set up school
boards along linguistic lines.
One last question, if I may, before I conclude. It concerns
co-operation between both levels of government. Being used to
recriminations from the Quebec government, we see in this debate
a meaningful example of what we could all achieve if the
secessionist rhetoric gave way to true co-operation.
Another important point deserves to be mentioned. This
constitutional amendment on linguistic school boards is
considered a bilateral amendment in constitutional legalese.
There is some irony here. While the 1982 Constitution is still
being condemned by secessionist leaders, this same Constitution
allows them to request this amendment today.
Clearly, we can achieve a consensus, change our federation and
even our Constitution without tearing this country apart. I urge
all my colleagues in this House to support the motion before us.
I forgot to tell you I was sharing my 20 minutes with my
colleague for Broadview—Greenwood.
1740
[English]
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Broadview—Greenwood, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my friends in the Bloc always get a little concerned
when I speak on these issues. It is no secret to members of this
Chamber that I came here almost 10 years ago from downtown
Toronto because my constituents wanted somebody to make sure they
had a voice that would always speak up for a strong national
government.
They wanted someone who would be outspoken at the appropriate
time on minority rights. When disadvantaged regions of our
country needed financial support or extra support as they were
going through difficult times and did not having the necessary
infrastructure, they wanted advantaged regions to be there to
help them.
I have always tried to be consistent on the primary reason I was
elected. That was why I originally opposed the Meech Lake
accord. The Meech Lake accord essentially dismantled the
national government. It was essentially a process that promoted
offloading on to the province's national government
responsibilities. It has been like a litany of transferring of
powers over the last many years.
I would like to say to the minister I applaud the fact that he
is putting this motion into committee where over the next few
months we can have broad based support from both sides. Members
will have an opportunity to speak on the amendment. Even though
the amendment is different from term 17, make no mistake. It is
inextricably intertwined with what is happening in terms of the
constitutional amendment process in Newfoundland.
Again I say to the minister that it is a good thing it is going
to committee. I appreciate that the prime minister has also said
the vote on the amendment would be a free one.
I do not have all the answers in terms of the process today.
That is why we will be going into a joint committee over the next
few months. In the last little while we have moved so quickly on
so many offloadings and dismantling of national government
responsibility that I would appeal to members of the House, as we
head into a new term, to remember the Chamber is not a rubber
stamp for the provinces.
The Chamber has always been the custodian of minority rights. It
has been here from time to time to stand up to the provinces and
say it will not agree with them on a particular program or policy
thrust.
A few of us in Ontario have concerns about what the amendment
will mean, could mean or might mean in terms of setting a
precedent in the province of Ontario and the separate school
system that exists there, which is recognized as an efficient
system.
In spite of that efficiency we have a government in the province
of Ontario right now that in the name of a dollar would save
putting up the Ontario flag on a day. It is a very tight, cost
cutting government.
Some of us are concerned this could set a precedent that could
affect our educational system, especially those of us who do not
believe in a total secularization of the school system.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit: Are you willing to cut the transfers?
1745
Mr. Dennis J. Mills: The member talks about transfers and
economics. One of the reasons given by the province of
Newfoundland for changing its entire separate school system was
that it wanted to save $9 million to $11 million. I for one
think that is a pitiful sum of money to shut down an entire
system and a tradition that has always been a part of this
country.
I want to repeat that it is important that Canadian who want to
speak out on this issue, those who want to make representation,
have an opportunity to appear before the joint committee between
now and the end of November.
I have always accepted the outcome of any vote in this House but
between now and then it is very important that we reflect on what
is the responsibility of this Chamber. I urge members to make
sure that this Chamber does not become a rubber stamp for the
provinces.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, today as we debate Motion No. 3 we are
embarking on a debate that has a number of interesting aspects to
it.
On the surface the motion is relatively straightforward. The
motion calls for the creation of a special joint committee of the
House of Commons and the Senate to study matters relating to the
proposed resolution respecting a proposed amendment to section 93
of the Constitution Act of 1867 concerning the Quebec school
system.
At this time I will not go into any great detail about the
proposed amendment as the government will be introducing the
amendment as Motion No. 4 which will be debated after the special
joint committee reports.
Toward the conclusion of my speech I will briefly touch on a
couple of areas of concern. I would first like to concentrate on
the special joint committee itself. Reformers involve themselves
with the Senate with some trepidation. One of the basic tenets
of Reform Party's principles is to reform the Senate. We believe
in a triple-E Senate where the Senate is equal, elected and
effective. We believe that such a reformed Senate would go a long
way in legitimizing the upper Chamber.
It is the fact that all the members of the Senate have been
appointed by the prime minister of the day that causes Reformers
such grief in dealing with the upper Chamber. The appointment of
any political representative is an archaic practice that should
have been forever consigned to the history of the 19th century.
Yet here we are, almost on the eve of the 21st century, and the
prime minister is still indulging in this patronage riddled
practice.
It is not that there are not good people in the Senate. There
are. I have met with a number of talented individuals from the
upper Chamber, many of whom perform admirable service to the
people of Canada. But since they are unelected and therefore
unaccountable to no one but the prime minister who appointed
them, they have no legitimacy.
Reformers are reluctant to convey any legitimacy to that
unelected upper Chamber by working with them on a special joint
committee. But Reformers are also pragmatists. While we will
constantly strive to reform the Senate, we recognize that the
reality of today is that Canadians have a Senate that is
unelected, unequally distributed by any measure and whose
effectiveness and legitimacy are questionable.
But the Senate does have some constitutional powers. One of
those powers is that it must ratify any constitutional amendment.
Since the ratification of the Senate is required under section 43
of the Constitution Act of 1982, it must play a role in this
exercise. The question is: Should it play a joint role with the
House of Commons?
If there was not a special joint committee with members from
both the House of Commons and the Senate, then the alternative
would likely be that both chambers would hold committee meetings
on their own. This redundancy would undoubtedly lengthen the
time that it would take for the two chambers to deal with the
amendment.
The other concern the Reform Party has with this motion is the
amount of time that the government is providing to the committee
to complete its work.
1750
The motion states:
That the Committee be directed to consult broadly and review
such information as it deems appropriate with respect to this
issue;
The motion goes on to state that the committee is to make its
final report no later than November 7, 1997. That is only 38 days
from now.
Is it possible for the committee to consult broadly, as the
motion calls for, and meet the November 7 deadline? That of
course will depend on the number of people who want to address
the committee.
If there is near unanimous support for the amendment in Quebec
and few individuals or organizations are interested in appearing
before the committee, then the deadline will not be a problem.
If, on the other hand, the committee is deluged by people who
wish to appear before it and the committee can only hear a small
portion of them, then the short timeframe becomes a major
problem, as many Quebeckers would be denied their right to
express their views on a constitutional amendment.
Under different circumstances I would be horrified that the
government would even suggest putting such a short timeframe on
the committee. However, in this instance I acknowledge the
government's desire to have a short timeframe. If the committee
were to undertake a prolonged and detailed review of the
amendment, then the separatist government in Quebec and the
separatists here in the House would probably use this as an
example of the federation being dysfunctional.
However, I would caution the members of the proposed committee
to ensure that what they are doing is in the best interests of
all Canadians and not just worry how their actions will be
perceived in Quebec.
It is for that reason that we put forward the amendment to
lengthen the timeframe for the committee until December 31, 1997,
to ensure that all Quebeckers who have a desire to make a
representation before the committee have the opportunity to do
so.
If it becomes apparent to the committee that it can hear all the
interested parties in a shorter period of time, there is nothing
preventing that committee from reporting earlier.
Another reason for the extended time period is to ensure that
the committee has sufficient time to consider the three tests for
such a proposed constitutional amendment, as delineated earlier
by the leader of the opposition.
Before I conclude my remarks I would like to repeat those tests
which the committee must address.
The first obligation of the special joint committee must be to
ensure that the amendments meet the test of democratic consent.
Does the amendment have the consensus of the Quebec people?
When Newfoundland amended term 17, which affected its
educational obligations under the Terms of Union, it held a
province-wide referendum on two separate occasions. There has
been no such universal consultation with the people of Quebec on
this occasion. Thus, the committee must feel satisfied that
there is substantive evidence to ensure that the people of Quebec
are behind this amendment.
A second concern for the committee is to ensure that the
amendment meets the test of the rule of law. While there are
various legal aspects of this process that must be considered, I
would like the committee to consider this one. Section 93(1) of
the Constitution Act, 1867, states:
Nothing in any such Law shall prejudicially affect any Right or
Privilege with respect to Denominational Schools which any Class
of Persons have by Law in the Province at the Union.
While I am not a constitutional expert, I take that to mean that
although the provinces were given exclusive jurisdiction over
education, they could not make laws after Confederation which
would prejudicially affect any right with respect to
denominational schools that a person had by law in the province
at the time of union.
We must remember that at the time of union there were not four
provinces, but rather only three: New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and
the united province of Canada.
Therefore, the committee must be satisfied that Quebec can use
section 43 of the Constitution Act, 1982, without the consent of
Ontario. This could set a significant precedent because if this
amendment is passed without Ontario's consent now, will Quebec
separatists use this to further their argument that they can
unilaterally alter the Canadian Constitution without the consent
of their partners in Confederation? This is just one of the
questions of law that the committee must address.
1755
The third and final issue that the committee must address is:
Does this amendment meet the test of Canadian national interest?
Does this amendment give Quebec unique powers in amending the
Constitution? Would it lead to Quebec gaining the power to opt
out of the Canadian Constitution one clause at a time? Is there
sufficient protection for minority groups not only in Quebec but
across Canada if this amendment should pass? Again, these
questions must be addressed by the committee.
The official opposition is endeavouring to ensure that this
process is done correctly. I call on the government and all
members of the House to heed our concerns.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
wish to congratulate you on your new responsibilities. I had
absolutely no intention of participating in this debate but I
think that I must set the record straight, with the benevolent
and informed support of the hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm.
You know that, according to the amending formula of the
Constitution Act, 1982, there are five ways to amend the
Constitution. In some instances, the federal government may act
alone. There is the well known 7-50 formula, that is to say that
an amendment needs the support of seven provinces representing at
least 50 percent of the population. Furthermore, provinces can
act alone in their own areas of jurisdiction. There is also the
bilateral formula and the unanimity rule, which applies to the
position of lieutenant governor, the Queen's representative, and
to the redrawing of some boundaries, among other things.
I think that the hon. member, who is well versed in and loves
constitutional issues, cannot make a parallel and argue that a
bilateral approach would create a dangerous precedent by
supporting the legitimate sovereigntist option to act
unilaterally.
Let us be clear: there is absolutely no doubt that, in this
case, the bilateral formula applies. When Quebec decides in a
democratic way to declare its independence, it will be on the
basis not of Canada's legislation but of international law as the
Constitution makes no provision for such a scenario.
So I would ask the hon. member to make the necessary
distinctions, for these are two distinct debates with nothing in
common at this time and I wish the hon. member did not really
want the committee to proceed as she is suggesting.
[English]
Ms. Val Meredith: Mr. Speaker, many of us are concerned
that any constitutional amendment passed under section 43 or any
of the other provisions might set a precedent. We want to make
sure that the Constitution is amended under the rule of law. It
has yet to be determined whether this is the right amending
formula to be used in this case.
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have a
brief question for the member of the Reform Party.
I listened with interest to her comments on the reform of the
Senate. I wonder whether she could confirm for the House that
the senator from Alberta who died a few years ago, the former
Premier Ernest Charles Manning, was the father of the current
leader of the Reform Party in this House?
Ms. Val Meredith: Mr. Speaker, I am proud to say that yes
he was the father of the present leader of the official
opposition.
[Translation]
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it is a pleasure to support the motion to amend the motion to
refer to a joint committee the proposed amendments to section 93
of the Constitution Act, 1867. It is also a pleasure to know that
I am done with this long and complicated sentence.
1800
The amendment put forward by the hon. member for Calgary
Southwest draws attention to three important principles on which
constitutional amendments should always be based: democratic
consent, the rule of law and the national interest.
Through you, Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my comments to
those of my colleagues from Calgary Southwest and South
Surrey—White Rock—Langley concerning the joint committee to
which the proposed amendment to section 93 of the Constitution
Act, 1867 will be referred.
First of all, I would like to commend the Bloc for its comments
on the illegitimacy of an unelected Senate. This shows that its
democratic instinct is similar to that of the Reform Party. This
shows once again that the Reform Party and the Bloc both want our
federal system to be changed in order to give more autonomy to
the provinces in areas that directly affect their cultural and
economic characteristics.
Of course, I do not have to remind the House how much the
objectives of our parties differ. It is obviously possible to
obtain provincial autonomy by becoming sovereign, at a very high
cost to all parties concerned. We would, however, better serve
the national interest by changing the way our federal system
works.
I would like to point out to the House that the national
interest is precisely the third criterion on which we should
judge constitutional amendments. I hope that by pointing out this
fact to the House we will be able to instil these principles into
the collective political conscience of the House.
It is our attachment to the objective of national unity that
worries us so much when a constitutional amendment is
contemplated in a more or less judicious manner.
As the hon. leader of the official opposition said, using the
amending formula of section 43 may not be not totally legal. It
is clear that this amending formula applies to subsection 93(2)
of the Constitution, but not to subsections 1, 3 and 4. The
legality of this approach should be determined by the Superior
Court of Quebec. If not, the federal government should ask the
Supreme Court's opinion on this issue.
This having been said, our caucus continues to believe that,
before amending the Constitution, the three tests referred to
must be done. The test of democratic consent is the first
principle we feel should be applied, under the circumstances. Do
the majority of Quebeckers support the constitutional amendments
proposed? The best way to answer that question is to hold a
referendum, which is why my hon. colleague has recommended that
the Government of Quebec hold one. If Quebeckers support the
amendment, the provincial government has nothing to lose. If
they reject it, this government has everything to lose. One need
not be a populist to realize that it is never wise to go against
the voters' wishes.
The second test is the rule of law. As my colleague from
Calgary Southwest has clearly stated, section 43 may not apply
here. I will go no further with this, but I would like to address
the question of minority rights.
Since the political discussions on unity have essentially
focussed on the decentralization of powers and the subsequently
greater provincial autonomy, the question of minority rights
becomes all the more important.
1805
By giving increased powers to the province of Quebec in areas
such as language, culture and education, are we not abandoning
the anglophone minority of Quebec?
This is not an easy issue, but I believe it draws our attention
to the very important role of the Constitution in regard to the
protection of minority rights. If Quebec is not bound by section
93(1), the Superior Court of Quebec should rule that this
proposal will have no adverse effect on minorities in Quebec. I
cannot overemphasize the importance of this.
The third test relates to the national interest. Does the
proposed amendment meet the national interest? From a certain
point of view, the answer is no.
The use of section 43 in this instance will allow all provincial
governments to question the limits of their jurisdiction.
The Reform Party strongly believes that provinces need more
autonomy. They need powers which will allow them to create
institutions that are truly representative of the economic and
cultural realities of the regions. However, all provinces must
have the same powers. The way they will exercise those powers
will depend on the will of their respective population. It is not
appropriate, however, to create a precedent which would allow
Quebec to be exempt from the law of the land.
Constitutional change is a necessity in this country. We must
create a new balance of powers if we want the Confederation to be
adapted to the needs of its provincial partners. These are the
goals that our caucus hopes to reach. However, democracy is more
a matter of process than result and I believe it is important to
review carefully the process to amend section 93.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
as some people spoke to me very highly of this new member, I
cannot resist the temptation and ask him two short questions.
The notion that a referendum might be held cannot apply here for
the two following reasons: first, as the hon. member will
understand, what this is all about, from A to Z, on the X
as well as on the Y axis, in any way one tries to look at it,
involves only the education sector. We are not dealing with an
amendment that is going to change the balance between
communities, between francophones and anglophones.
We are dealing with an amendment that will enable the province
of Quebec, the country of Quebec—I should never use the words
“Quebec” and “province” in the same sentence—to modernize
its school system. That is the basic and sole purpose of this
amendment.
The member says there has to be equality among the provinces. I
should probably take on the challenge of convincing him of the
contrary before the end of the year.
If the member thinks that all the provinces are equal, therefore
that Quebec is equal to Prince Edward Island, in spite of all the
beauty that Prince Edward Island has to offer with its beaches
and the ingenuity of its people, it essentially means that the
member thinks that we are not a nation, that there is only one
nation, the Canadian nation, and that he does not want things to
change to recognize the fact that we speak French, that our
political system is different, that our justice system is
different, that we have a vernacular language, that we have a
collective desire to survive and, most of all, that Quebec is the
only state in the world that is controlled by 82 per cent of the
population. That is what the specificity of Quebec is all about.
1810
So, I hope that, by dint of rubbing shoulders with him in very
parliamentary settings, I will convince the hon. member that we
cannot in all honesty say that all provinces must be equal, for
that would be denying the fact that Quebec is a nation.
[English]
Mr. Rahim Jaffer: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentioned
a point that I would like to clarify. Despite the fact that
there are differences in Canada—I mentioned that—we are all
equal. That is fundamentally what we in the Reform Party are
fighting for. The size of the province does not matter, whether
it is Prince Edward Island, Quebec or Alberta. We are all equal,
and that is what we are trying to accomplish.
With this amendment we are saying that it is still important to
respect the views of the people who have elected us, even in the
province of Quebec. That is why we propose holding a referendum.
I think the hon. member would agree that there is no harm in
doing so. There is no harm going to the people in his province
and asking them what they think about this amendment. I firmly
believe that we stand for that view of equality.
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to speak in support of the motion to strike a parliamentary
committee to review the proposed constitutional amendment to
reorganizing Quebec's school boards along linguistic lines.
We know that the proposed amendment enjoys a reasonable degree
of support from those who will be affected by it. Indeed, the
reports and consultations that have taken place in Quebec show
that a consensus has emerged. Quebeckers clearly feel that,
while denominational school boards adequately reflected the
reality of Quebec before the quiet revolution, today linguistic
school boards would correspond more closely with the values and
sociological realities of the province.
[Translation]
It is clear that Catholic and Protestant Quebeckers, anglophones
and francophones alike, share this point of view. When a society
reaches a clear consensus regarding the administrative structures
required to educate its children, it is then up to the government
to react.
Accordingly, in April of this year, the National Assembly of
Quebec voted unanimously in favour of a constitutional amendment
that would replace the Catholic and Protestant school boards with
francophone and anglophone boards.
The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs wasted no time
presenting an identical resolution in this House on April 22. We
were then prevented by the federal election from setting up a
committee to examine the constitutional amendment, but we are in
a position to do so now.
Some may wonder whether it is necessary to set up such a
committee, given the unanimous vote in the Quebec National
Assembly and the consensus that exists in Quebec in favour of
this amendment. To these people I would point out the
importance, in a democracy, of hearing from everyone. It is
clear that, although the great majority of Quebeckers support the
proposal, some people who favour linguistic school boards are
less certain that a constitutional amendment is the route to go.
Democracy requires that all citizens be able to express their
views on the important issues of the day. Parliamentary
committees have been part of the Canadian democratic tradition
precisely so that experts, groups and citizens may express their
points of view and so that citizens and their elected
representatives can reach a better understanding of important
issues.
The official opposition in the National Assembly asked that
similar hearings be held in Quebec, but its request was turned
down. The decision by the Government of Quebec not to set up a
parliamentary committee to discuss the switch to a
non-denominational school system makes it doubly important today
to vote in favour of creating such a committee.
1815
[English]
A parliamentary committee will allow those with qualms about the
proposed changes to voice them and it will give those who
advocate the new system an opportunity to allay these concerns.
If a stronger consensus in favour of a constitutional amendment
thus emerges it will be surely helpful to the Quebec government
as it charts a new course for the educational structures in the
province.
I have mentioned the concerns of those within Quebec about the
proposed amendment but I should like to take a moment to address
briefly the concerns of other Canadians, Canadians who wonder
what implications this constitutional amendment might have for
them. In particular, I think that for those Canadians in other
provinces who enjoy rights to denominational schools there has
been some concern expressed, for example, by certain Catholic
groups in my home province of Ontario. This is another reason to
support the striking of a parliamentary committee.
I am sure that in its discussions the fact that the changes
proposed by the Government of Quebec have no bearing on minority
educational rights in other provinces will be raised and
reinforced.
It is important that we stress today very clearly that this
amendment would be a bilateral one involving the governments of
Canada and Quebec City. As the Minister for Intergovernmental
Affairs mentioned, it is a proposal that has been endorsed by the
Catholic committee for the superior council of education, the
federation of school boards, the federation of parents committees
and teachers associations representing all the teachers of the
province.
It is clear that should another province bring forward a request
to replace its denominational school system or to otherwise
change the constitutional guarantees of its minorities the
Government of Canada would once again insist that a reasonable
degree of support be demonstrated by the affected minorities.
The proposed amendment responds to the particular reality of
Quebec. It is one of the strengths of our federation that it is
flexible enough to accommodate the different and diverse needs of
each of our provinces. What is appropriate for Quebec may not
necessarily be appropriate for Alberta or Ontario or vice versa.
[Translation]
Our federal system allows us to rally our forces for the common
good, but it is flexible enough to facilitate the full expression
of regional identities.
[English]
Similarly, our Constitution is not a strait-jacket that prevents
change. Rather, it is a framework that allows change to take
place in an orderly and timely manner. It is an evolving
reflection of who we are as Canadians.
[Translation]
Quebec, no less than the other provinces, flourishes within our
federation and it will continue to do so in the future.
This brings me to a point mentioned earlier, but which certainly
deserves to be re-examined. I am afraid that these secessionist
leaders who contend that our Constitution of 1982 hinders
Quebec's development will have to find other arguments. After
all, this constitutional amendment, which would allow the
government of Quebec to change the very foundations of its
education system, was made possible by the patriation of the
Constitution.
If the Constitution had not been patriated 15 years ago, this
debate would be taking place in the shadow of Big Ben and not of
the Peace Tower.
[English]
It all goes to show that our federation has evolved a great
deal. It is still evolving. As our government stressed in the
recent Speech from the Throne, we are committed to working
collaboratively with our provincial partners to strengthen and
modernize country. The proposed amendment clearly demonstrates
that we can work side by side with the Quebec government to
modernize the federation, a federation which belongs to us all.
1820
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the amendment. Is
it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the amendment
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say
nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
1905
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Bailey
|
Benoit
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Cadman
| Casson
|
Duncan
| Elley
| Forseth
| Gilmour
|
Goldring
| Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Hart
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Hoeppner
| Jaffer
| Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
|
Kerpan
| Konrad
| Lowther
| Lunn
|
Manning
| Mark
| Mayfield
| McNally
|
Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Obhrai
|
Pankiw
| Penson
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
|
Ritz
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
|
Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Vellacott
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
White
(North Vancouver)
– 49
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Anderson
|
Assad
| Asselin
| Augustine
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellehumeur
| Bennett
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bertrand
| Bigras
| Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brien
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
| Canuel
|
Carroll
| Casey
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Crête
| Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
|
Desrochers
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis)
|
Duceppe
| Duhamel
| Dumas
| Earle
|
Easter
| Folco
| Fontana
| Fournier
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
| Gallaway
|
Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Grose
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Harb
| Harvard
| Harvey
|
Herron
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
|
Lastewka
| Laurin
| Lee
| Lefebvre
|
Lill
| Longfield
| Loubier
| MacAulay
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Mancini
| Manley
| Marceau
| Marchand
|
Marchi
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
Massé
| McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Muise
| Myers
| Nault
| Normand
|
Nystrom
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Perron
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Pillitteri
| Plamondon
| Power
|
Pratt
| Price
| Proctor
| Proud
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
|
Riis
| Robillard
| Rocheleau
| Rock
|
Sauvageau
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Shepherd
| Solomon
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Stoffer
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Vautour
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood – 193
|
PAIRED
Members
Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Finestone
| Lebel
|
Torsney
| Turp
|
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the amendment defeated.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, earlier there were
discussions among all parties. I believe you would find that
there is agreement among all parties to deal with the main motion
now and to dispose of it on division.
The Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the proposal of
the chief government whip. Is there unanimous consent for the
proposal?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the main motion.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Motion agreed to)
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
1910
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved
INFRASTRUCTURE
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
on Friday I asked a question of the Minister of Transport about
untendered contracts on a highway 104 project in Nova Scotia
which is being done under a federal-provincial agreement. The
minister's reply was basically that it is a provincial issue. I
take exception to that. It is not a provincial issue.
Under normal conditions perhaps a highway is a provincial issue,
but this deal is anything but normal. It is not normal because
the federal and provincial governments have contributed money to
set up a business to operate a highway at a profit of $151
million.
It is not normal because the province of Nova Scotia gave up
control of the speed limits and fine amounts. It gave up control
of who can drive on the highway. It even gave up the right for
the financiers, Newcourt Credit, to establish their own police
force on this highway. So it is not normal.
It is not normal because this is the only highway in and out of
the province of Nova Scotia and it will affect every person in
Nova Scotia and also Newfoundland because it is the only highway
that serves Newfoundland.
This is a screwball agreement. The reason we have it is because
there is no national highway program, which we will get into
later. If we continue with projects like this one, we will have a
hodgepodge of agreements all across the country if we do not have
a national highway funding program.
Today the issue is the untendered contracts. The minister said
that it was a provincial issue. I will read from the agreement
where the federal government and provincial government put $55
million into it.
Clause 5.1 states that the $55 million agreement will be managed
by two members of a management committee, one member appointed by
the federal minister and the other appointed by the provincial
minister. It goes on to say that all decisions of this
management committee will be in writing and shall be acted on
only if they are unanimous. So every decision had to be approved
by the federal government, it had to be unanimous and it had to
be in writing.
Also leading on into the agreement another clause states that
all contracts shall be awarded to the qualified and responsible
tenderer submitting the lowest evaluated bid.
Considering it is very clear that all the contracts had to be
tendered and also it is clear that all decisions had to be agreed
to by the federal government, did the federal government agree to
issue $113 million of contracts untendered, or did the province
circumvent the terms of the agreement and do it by itself? It is
either one way or the other.
If the feds did agree, we would like to have a copy of that
decision because in the agreement it says that all decisions will
be in writing.
There are a few other little things we would like to have from
the hon. minister concerning this agreement.
Section 5.3 says that the management committee will be
responsible for issuing annual reports to the minister on the
progress achieved by this agreement. We would really like to
have copies of those progress reports.
Section 5.5 says that decisions of the management committee will
be in writing and will be acted on only if they are unanimous. We
would like to have copies of all the decisions.
Section 11.2 says that progress reports will be made public
frequently. We would like to have all those progress reports. We
would like to have copies of the untendered contracts. We would
like to know exactly how the $27.5 million of federal money was
put into the Atlantic highways improvement program.
1915
Basically we want to know if the federal government agreed to
allow $113 million of untendered contracts to go through and, if
so, why.
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Transport
stated to the hon. member in question period on September 26,
under the Constitution of Canada responsibility for highways,
including highway 104 in Nova Scotia, falls under provincial
jurisdiction.
For the clarification of the member opposite, I would like to
explain it a little further.
Transport Canada's only involvement in highway 104 is to match
dollar for dollar $55 million with the province. That amounts to
$27.5 million each.
The highway 104 western alignment project is one of a few
projects funded through the Transport Canada/Nova Scotia
strategic highway improvement program agreement signed in 1993.
This agreement makes provisions for both the federal government
and the province to each set aside about $70 million, for a total
of $140 million, for highway improvements in Nova Scotia.
It is important for the hon. member to note that Transport
Canada's involvement in the highway 104 project ends right there.
The province of Nova Scotia is the responsible authority for the
project. It is the province that decides on the alignment,
design, construction standards, tendering process and how to
finance the construction costs of the provincial highway system.
The province of Nova Scotia chose to use a public-private
partnership concept as a means to construct and finance highway
104. Nova Scotia decided the developer would be allowed to
charge tolls as a means of recuperating costs directly from the
users of the new highway.
The federal government is neither party to nor responsible for
Nova Scotia's public-private agreement with the developer. As
the minister has stated to the member, the government's only
involvement is to match the funding provided by the province.
The hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester also expressed an
interest in the tendering process for the highway. According to
the officials in Transport Canada, the province of Nova Scotia
went through an extensive selection and tendering process for
highway 104.
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry but the hon. member's time
has expired.
A motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been
adopted. Accordingly the House stands adjourned until tomorrow
at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.17 p.m.)