36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 21
CONTENTS
Monday, October 27, 1997
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
1105
| MARINE ATLANTIC
|
| Motion
|
| Mr. Peter Mancini |
1110
1115
1120
| Mr. Stan Keyes |
1125
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1130
1135
| Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
1140
1145
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| Mr. Stan Keyes |
| Suspension of Sitting
|
1200
| Sitting Resumed
|
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| NEWFOUNDLAND SCHOOL SYSTEM
|
| Hon. Raymond Chan |
| Motion No. 5
|
| Mr. Paul DeVillers |
1205
1210
1215
| Mr. Preston Manning |
1220
1225
1230
| Amendment
|
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
1235
1240
1245
1250
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1255
1300
1305
1310
| Mr. Paul DeVillers |
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| Mr. Norman Doyle |
1315
1320
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
1325
| Mr. Charlie Power |
1330
1335
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1340
| Mr. Darrel Stinson |
| Mr. Ted McWhinney |
1345
1350
1355
| Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
1400
| JACQUES VILLENEUVE
|
| Mr. Guy Saint-Julien |
| WAR MEDALS
|
| Mr. Peter Goldring |
| DAVID SHANNON
|
| Mr. Stan Dromisky |
| JACQUES VILLENEUVE
|
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| INUIT AND ABORIGINAL ART
|
| Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell |
| ENVIRONMENT
|
| Hon. Charles Caccia |
1405
| JACQUES VILLENEUVE
|
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| CANADA POST
|
| Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
| RIGHTS OF CHILDREN
|
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY
|
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
| NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC
|
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
| QUEBEC PREMIER
|
| Mr. Nick Discepola |
1410
| HUMAN RIGHTS
|
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
| REMEMBRANCE DAY
|
| Mr. Carmen Provenzano |
| WAR MEDALS
|
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
| REFORM PARTY OF CANADA
|
| Mr. Paul Bonwick |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
1415
| ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Hon. Christine Stewart |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Hon. Christine Stewart |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Hon. Christine Stewart |
| Mr. Bill Gilmour |
| Hon. Christine Stewart |
1420
| Mr. Bill Gilmour |
| Hon. Christine Stewart |
| LINGUISTIC SCHOOL BOARDS
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
1425
| TAXATION
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| FISHERIES
|
| Hon. Jean J. Charest |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Hon. Jean J. Charest |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| ENVIRONMENT
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
1430
| Hon. Christine Stewart |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Christine Stewart |
| OUTAOUAIS ALLIANCE
|
| Mr. Louis Plamondon |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| Mr. Louis Plamondon |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
| Hon. Christine Stewart |
1435
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
| Hon. Christine Stewart |
| MINISTER OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mrs. Maud Debien |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| Mrs. Maud Debien |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| CANADA PENSION PLAN
|
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1440
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL TRADE TRIBUNAL
|
| Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| KENYA
|
| Ms. Jean Augustine |
| Hon. David Kilgour |
| CANADA PENSION PLAN
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
1445
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| EDUCATION
|
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| HIGHWAYS
|
| Mr. Bill Casey |
| The Speaker |
| Mr. Bill Casey |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| PENSIONS
|
| Mr. Alex Shepherd |
1450
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Darrel Stinson |
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
| SINGER RETIREES
|
| Mr. Claude Bachand |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| PUBLIC SERVICE
|
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| SEARCH AND RESCUE
|
| Mr. David Price |
1455
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| THE ECONOMY
|
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| FINANCE
|
| Mr. Sarkis Assadourian |
| Hon. Sergio Marchi |
| CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL TRADE TRIBUNAL
|
| Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| PENITENTIARIES
|
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
| Hon. Andy Scott |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. John Herron |
1500
| Hon. Christine Stewart |
| PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
| The Speaker |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-266. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| PETITIONS
|
| Canada Labour Code
|
| Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
1505
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| NEWFOUNDLAND SCHOOL SYSTEM
|
| Motion No. 5
|
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| Ms. Val Meredith |
1510
| Ms. Val Meredith |
1515
1520
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
1525
1530
1535
1540
| Mr. Peter Goldring |
1545
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
1550
| Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
| Mr. Louis Plamondon |
1555
1600
1605
1610
| Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
1615
| Mr. Gerry Byrne |
1620
1625
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
| Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
1630
| Mr. Louis Plamondon |
| Mr. Clifford Lincoln |
1635
1640
| Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
| Mr. Louis Plamondon |
1645
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
1650
1655
| Mr. Rob Anders |
| Mr. Peter Goldring |
1700
1705
| Mr. Gary Lunn |
1710
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| Mr. Joe Jordan |
| Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
1715
| Mr. Gary Lunn |
| Mr. David Price |
1720
1725
| Mr. John Cummins |
1730
1735
1740
1745
| Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
1750
| Ms. Elinor Caplan |
1755
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
1800
1805
| Mr. Rob Anders |
1810
| Mr. John Cummins |
1815
| Mr. Bob Kilger |
| Motion
|
| Mr. Gary Lunn |
| Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
| Mr. John Cummins |
1820
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
| Airports
|
| Mr. Steve Mahoney |
1825
| Mr. Stan Keyes |
| Closing of the BC mine
|
| Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
1830
| Mr. George Proud |
| Law of the Sea
|
| Hon. Charles Caccia |
1835
| Mr. Ted McWhinney |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 21
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, October 27, 1997
The House met at 11 a.m.
Prayers
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
1105
[English]
MARINE ATLANTIC
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should
consider the advisability of taking into account safety concerns
and local economic spin-offs before proceeding with any further
privatization of Marine Atlantic services between Cape Breton and
Newfoundland.
He said: Madam Speaker, I rise today on this issue because it
is of considerable importance to the people in my riding who live
in and around the port of North Sydney, an historic port and an
area which I believe was once the fourth most important port in
Canada.
Today, unfortunately, the towns of North Sydney and Sydney Mines
are in a difficult economic situation for a number of reasons.
Partly it is because of the dependence on the coal industry in
the town of Sydney Mines. As a result of the decline in the coal
industry there has been a decline in the port facilities and
shipping in the town of North Sydney.
Of crucial concern is the link between North Sydney and Port au
Basque, an historic link which has existed for close to a century
when North Sydney was the gateway to Newfoundland.
I left Cape Breton early this morning. I would be remiss if I
did not comment on the weather, which was sunny and clear and
with no snow on the ground. As I had an opportunity to fly over
the island, it afforded me a chance to look down on the town of
North Sydney and the tremendous waterways and the ocean that form
the coastline of Cape Breton. Historically that coastline has
been a source of tremendous wealth and development, not only for
Cape Breton but also for Canada. When the Europeans first came
here they arrived on that coastline. In fact, the first fishing
boats came to North Sydney as early as the 15th century and began
what was to develop into a tremendous trading port.
In 1834 the British based General Mining Association built the
first coal shipping pier in North Sydney. It also built the
first iron railway in North America which ran between Sydney
Mines and North Sydney, allowing the mined coal to be transferred
to the ports for shipment.
By 1850 North Sydney was a major, busy centre of activity and by
1880 there was a bank, a jeweller and the development of a town.
North Sydney was a major port in what was then the province of
Cape Breton. There are those on the island who think perhaps we
should return to those days. However, at that time we were still
a separate province, not annexed by the province of Nova Scotia.
In 1885 North Sydney sought incorporation as the first
municipality on the island. As I have indicated, in the 1870s it
was the fourth largest port behind Montreal, Quebec and Halifax.
In approximately 1889 it became the gateway to Newfoundland.
It became the mainland terminal for ferry service to that
province although it was not a province at that time. On June
30, 1889 the first ship left from Port aux Basques with 50
passengers and arrived in North Sydney.
1110
That pattern has been repeated for 100 years. It is a pattern
guaranteed to the province of Newfoundland under the terms of
Confederation; that there would be established a transportation
link to connect the island of Newfoundland to the mainland of
Canada. The town of North Sydney prospered as a result, as did
the town of Port aux Basques. Many sailors, many fishing and
trading vessels made that port their home. In both communities
there was the development of hotels and restaurants, ship supply
stores and many merchants to provide for the needs of those
sailors.
During World War I the port of North Sydney again played
decisive role. We can still see the remnants of battalions. That
repeated itself on the 1940s where North Sydney was an assembly
port for the ships loaded at the “Saint River” ports before
they crossed the ocean. In 1941 there were over 400 ships
anchored in the port of North Sydney.
That brief historical outline will indicate the importance of
shipping and the shipping trade to the town. It is no secret
that over the last number of years, with the decline in the
fisheries and with the decline in the coal industry, the town of
North Sydney has suffered a tremendous economic burden. Despite
that the people of the town are resolute. They have continued to
thrive. Some of the businesses have been there for 100 years.
They are family businesses. One bank remains committed to the
town. The town has not prospered but it has endured and made the
best of a bad situation.
There is tremendous uncertainty in that town today. Those who
come from not quite as economically advantaged parts of Canada as
others will understand that when there is uncertainty in a town
like North Sydney, it has tremendous ramifications on investment
and on the social fabric of the town. That uncertainty derives
from whether Marine Atlantic will continue to be an economic
presence in that town.
The reason for the uncertainty is many fold. In part there are
rumours, as there always are in certain towns where there is one
major employer, of downsizing, of privatization, of alternate
routes. There is concern that the head office of Marine
Atlantic, which is now located in Moncton, may become the centre
for reservations which employ a number of people in the town, and
there is a concern that there may be a decline in activity.
That kind of uncertainty spreads throughout the entire island.
When I talk about the town of North Sydney it is important to
understand that it is perhaps a 20 minute drive from Sydney which
also benefits from any economic activity in that port.
The government has not clarified what the minister of
transportation intends to do with the whole Marine Atlantic
enterprise. I point to section 140(1) of Bill C-9 which may not
seem terribly important to anyone who is not from North Sydney.
The section allows the minister to enter into agreements with any
persons, including the government of a province, in respect of
the continued services of Canada's constitutional obligations,
which is a direct reference to the ties to Newfoundland.
Section 140(1)(b) ensures “the continuation of services similar
to those provided by Marine Atlantic Inc. before the transfer,
sale or disposal on the terms and conditions that the minister
considers appropriate, including by making financial
contributions or grants or other financial assistance”, and in
section 140(1)(c) “the assets of Marine Atlantic Inc. that are
transferred, sold or otherwise disposed of under subsection
(2)”.
In addition section 140(2) indicates “Marine Atlantic Inc. is
authorized to transfer, sell or otherwise dispose of all or
substantially all of its assets used in any major business or
activity of the corporation, including the shares of a
subsidiary”.
To the people of the town of North Sydney this heightens the
concern they have surrounding the enterprise.
1115
To illustrate the importance of the Marine Atlantic to the
general area, let me indicate what was spent from 1995 to 1996 by
Marine Atlantic in the town of North Sydney. I will not read the
entire list, but I will read those in a community as desperate
for economic growth as we are in Cape Breton: Lingan Builders
Limited, $36,000; Ojolick Associates, a local architect, $35,000;
Professional Upholstery, $3,300; R&A; Paper Products, $31,700;
Clover Produce, close to $300,000, because it provides much of
the foodstuffs for the ferry service that travels back and forth;
Convention Cape Breton, $17,000; Ryan Wayne Carpet Sales,
$63,000; Standard Office Supplies, $11,400; and the list goes on
to indicate the kind of impact the enterprise has on the
community.
All these companies are small, locally run businesses in the
towns of North Sydney and Sydney. They all employ three to four
people from the community in solid jobs. The loss or the
downsizing of Marine Atlantic would have a tremendous impact on
the local economy.
When we have sought clarification from the government on what
its plans are for Marine Atlantic so that at least the people in
the community can make their plans, we have not received any
clear message. I can cite correspondence between me and the
minister and between my predecessor and the former minister
wherein requests were made on the future of Marine Atlantic. The
responses continue to be somewhat vague. I could illustrate that
by reading an example into the record.
On March 20, 1997 the Canadian Auto Workers, which is the union
that represents many of the workers, sought from the then
minister of transport some clarification. The letter stated:
Rumours—cause much stress for the employees of Marine Atlantic.
We, Mr. Minister, as the executive of the unions representing
1,300 Marine Atlantic employees in Atlantic Canada,—are asking
you to respond to us as quickly as possible to advise us of the
facts.
The response was anything but clear. It stated:
Notwithstanding the foregoing, it is expected that Marine
Atlantic will continue to operate this service with the aim of
reducing costs and increasing efficiency. Please be assured that
you will be informed if there is any change of circumstances
concerning the future of Marine Atlantic as an ongoing concern.
There was a commitment in the letter to maintain the
constitutional requirement of service between Newfoundland and
Cape Breton. However the matter of privatization was not clear.
I will read from a pamphlet given out by Rod Morrison, president
and CEO of Marine Atlantic, to the workers. The date on it was
some time after the letter to the minister. He stated in the
pamphlet:
There is absolutely no truth to these damaging rumours and I want
you to know the Government of Canada has not given me any direct
or indirect indication that privatization is imminent.
He went on to state something that was important:
We have the best people, the best ships, the best technology and,
with a continual commitment towards efficiency, I am satisfied we
will remain as the operators.
Notwithstanding I wrote to the current minister requesting
clarification and the response I received was:
As to the location of the—head office, MAI is currently
examining all options and will put forward a recommendation in
due course. Any proposed relocation will, however, be based on
commercial considerations—
The people in North Sydney and Sydney Mines are under very real
stress as a result of the unclear position of the government.
1120
Last weekend when I was in my riding it was raised by two
constituents. I was not in the town of North Sydney. These were
people I met in Sydney while I was at a meeting there. They
talked about the impact on their families. It is important for
us to know exactly what direction the government will be moving
in this regard.
Another aspect I have asked the government to consider in this
motion is the safety impact. Currently Marine Atlantic has a
good safety record, one of the best in North America, because
there is a strong unionized workforce, a satisfied workforce, and
it has been operating the transportation link for near 100 years.
In closing I ask the government to consider the advisability of
taking into account safety concerns and the local economic
spinoffs before proceeding with any further privatization of the
service between Newfoundland and Cape Breton.
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I consider it a privilege to
address the motion put before the House by the hon. member for
Sydney—Victoria. It asks the government to take into account
the safety concerns and local economic spinoffs before proceeding
with any further privatization of Marine Atlantic services.
Before I go any further, however, allow me to assure the hon.
member and all other members of the House that safety is the
government's top priority when it comes to transportation.
Economic growth and job creation are important objectives and
solid reasons behind why the government is pursuing the
commercialization of marine services and facilities. Marine
Atlantic Inc., a crown corporation established back in 1986, has
operated six ferry and coastal services since its inception.
These have included the constitutionally guaranteed ferry links
between North Sydney, Nova Scotia and Port-aux-Basques,
Newfoundland, and between Cape Tormentine, New Brunswick, and
Borden, P.E.I. In addition, a convenient alternative to the
highway was provided year round between Saint John, New
Brunswick, and Digby, Nova Scotia. Seasonal services were also
operated between Labrador and Newfoundland; between North Sydney,
Nova Scotia, and Argentia, Newfoundland; and between Yarmouth,
Nova Scotia, and Bar Harbor, Maine.
In 1996 Marine Atlantic carried 2.8 million passengers, 965,000
passenger vehicles and 290,000 commercial vehicles. The company
has also done an excellent job for many years. Marine Atlantic
employees are to be commended for their efforts. Like most
organizations, however, Marine Atlantic has been affected by our
fiscal concerns and by the need for increased efficiencies.
The national marine policy announced in December 1995 called for
Marine Atlantic to substantially reduce its costs and increase
efficiency ensuring that the most effective and efficient use is
made of tax dollars in the delivery of government services.
As part of the government's efforts to reduce the deficit
numerous commercialization initiatives have been concluded with
both the private sector and the province of Newfoundland. These
have had a significant impact on the operations of Marine
Atlantic.
I would like to provide the hon. member for Sydney—Victoria
with the following update. In July 1995 Newfoundland accepted a
one time cash payment of $55 million in exchange for assuming
responsibility for the provision of ferry services on the south
coast of Newfoundland, previously provided by Marine Atlantic,
and services between Jackson's Arm and Harbour Deep provided by a
private operator.
In March 1997 Newfoundland also took over the remaining ferry
services in Labrador provided by Marine Atlantic as well as
assignment of the St. Barbe, Newfoundland, and Blanc Sablon,
Quebec, ferry services in exchange for a lump sum payment of $340
million. This service was provided by Marine Atlantic in 1997
under contract with the province. Future provision of the
coastal service is under study by the province.
In the spirit of the national marine policy a request for
proposals was issued by Transport Canada in July 1996 seeking
commercial interests in assuming Marine Atlantic's Yarmouth, Nova
Scotia, Bar Harbor, Maine, Saint John, New Brunswick and Digby,
Nova Scotia, ferry services.
This resulted in the selection of Bay Ferries Limited of
Charlottetown, P.E.I., to assume operation of these two services
effective April 1, 1997.
Under this agreement the federal subsidy will be eliminated in
three years.
1125
The opening of the Confederation Bridge on June 1 of this year
replaced the federal constitutional obligation for ferry service
between Borden, P.E.I., and Cape Tormentine, New Brunswick.
As a result of these different initiatives the subsidy paid to
Marine Atlantic has been reduced. It will drop from $122 million
in 1993 to a forecasted $25 million in 1999. That is a
significant savings to the taxpayer. Equally important, and I
know it is of great concern to the hon. member, it is a savings
that has not come at the expense of service. Those who relied on
Marine Atlantic two years ago continue to receive ferry service
today either from the company or a private operator.
Marine Atlantic remains an important partner in Newfoundland's
economy providing the constitutionally guaranteed service between
North Sydney, Nova Scotia, and Port aux Basques and the
alternative ferry service between North Sydney and Argentia.
The federal government has not received or requested any
proposals to take over these remaining Marine Atlantic ferry
services.
The member for Sydney—Victoria will be happy to learn that the
federal government will continue to support all constitutionally
mandated ferry services as well as those to remote communities.
Such services need not always be provided by Marine Atlantic but
they must be provided and they must be there in a reliable sense.
Transport Canada will continue to explore options to reduce the
cost to the taxpayer of subsidized ferry services. It is
expected that Marine Atlantic will continue to operate the
Newfoundland services with the aim of reducing costs and
increasing efficiency.
The government will continue to regulate ferries for safety. Any
operator of ferry services, whether it be Marine Atlantic or
someone else, must meet the stringent safety requirements set out
by Transport Canada's marine safety branch. Furthermore in most
commercialization initiatives it is likely that the same vessel
would be used to provide the ferry service under a charter
agreement.
Marine Atlantic has been able to achieve significant savings for
the taxpayer. Subsidies have been reduced even as service has
been maintained. Safety remains a top priority and all ferry
operators must continue to meet the highest standards.
The federal government believes it has done an excellent job
assisting in the transition to a more flexible and efficient
arrangement for ferry services. We are therefore happy to
support the private member's motion:
That—the government should consider the advisability of taking
into account safety concerns and local economic spin-offs before
proceeding with any further privatization of Marine Atlantic
services—
Such concerns have received top priority since the day the
national marine policy was announced almost two years ago. Hon.
members can be assured that they will continue to weigh very
heavily in all the government's policy decisions.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I too am pleased to speak on the motion today. It is a
timely issue, particularly in light of the economic stresses and
changes impacting citizens in Atlantic Canada over the last
while.
It also allows us to examine the performance of the federal
government on this issue and related issues. I congratulate my
colleague from Sydney—Victoria for raising the issue today.
The motion states:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should
consider the advisability of taking into account safety concerns
and local economic spin-offs before proceeding with any further
privatization of Marine Atlantic services between Cape Breton and
Newfoundland.
It is important because it addresses the ferry service between
Cape Breton and Port aux Basques as well as the summer service
between Cape Breton and Argentia, Newfoundland.
While the impact of the service on Cape Breton is substantial,
for Newfoundland it is essential for the ferry to provide a
critical link between Newfoundland and the rest of Canada.
1130
Also, as has been mentioned, the federal government has a
constitutional obligation. One of the conditions of Newfoundland
entering Confederation was that there would be a year-round ferry
service between that province and the mainland.
On a number of fronts this is very important both to Cape Breton
and to Newfoundland. An efficient and economical transportation
system is vitally important to our Atlantic provinces. In any
analysis or discussion about the economic opportunities in that
part of the country, a timely, cost efficient and effective
transportation system does become a very critical issue.
The marine Atlantic ferry and coastal services are a vital
component of the maritime transportation network. With the new
economic development such as Sable Island gas, the Voisey's Bay
development, Hibernia and other economic opportunities, these
ferry services and the ability of citizens to access different
parts of the Atlantic provinces quickly and easily will become
more and more important.
It has been very interesting to see how this whole area of
privatization of the ferry services has developed. As many
people are aware, privatization has not just taken place in the
Newfoundland and Cape Breton end of ferry services, but there has
been significant change in the Yarmouth to Bar Harbour and Digby
to Saint John legs of the ferry service. This has caused a great
deal of concern to many of the people in that area and rightly
so.
I noted just recently in the October 16 Chronicle-Herald a
very disturbing headline, “East coast towns suffer as
transportation links are lost”. The big headline is even worse,
“Yarmouth—A dead area, according to a lobbyist”. One can
imagine for those Canadians who live in those areas how concerned
they are.
We know that there are changes due to economic restructuring and
positive changes as time goes on. Sometimes as some job
opportunities are lost, others open up. Having said that, it is
up to the government as the responsible party here to really
examine the impact and planning that goes into these kinds of
changes to minimize the negatives for the citizens involved. I
think that is what my colleague from Sydney—Victoria mentioned
in his motion and with which the government agrees, according to
the government speaker, needs to be done.
It was interesting to talk to some of the people I personally
know out in that part of the world and to get their comments on
some of these privatization changes. I received a comment from a
lady who was pretty pointed about things. She said, “In the
current government's headlong rush to privatize, they have
maintained consistency in the way they have handled all their
other programs. Namely, they are consistent in their poor
planning and in their failure to acknowledge long range
considerations. They just do things and walk away from the
consequences”. That really sums up how a lot of people in
Atlantic Canada feel about some of these changes.
Sometimes there is a bit of a characterization of my party, the
Reform Party, as being just in favour of privatization of
anything and everything at all cost. That is certainly not the
case. One of the founding principles of Reform, the principles on
which we think public policy should be formulated, is principle
17. We believe that the legitimate role of government is to do
for people whatever they need to have done but cannot do it all
or do as well for themselves individually or through
non-governmental organizations.
1135
If Reform were looking at this ferry service and how it could be
best run, the first thing we would look at is what would best
serve the interests of the people who are being affected by the
service, who are using the service, who are the end users of
whatever government does here. We would examine whether this is a
service that cannot be done by people, either individually or
through non-governmental organizations, as well as government
could do.
If it were decided that this was a service that government could
do better than any other organization, then we would make sure
that was delivered. If it was decided in consultation with the
end users letting the people who are affected speak for
themselves instead of the made in Ottawa solutions that so often
take place, then we would make sure that the move toward
delivering the service in that manner through a non-governmental
agency was again done in the best interests of the people with
long term planning, with careful steps and with an
acknowledgement of the need to minimize the impact on the people
who are using it.
It is interesting when reading the headline “Yarmouth area
dead” to remember that Yarmouth has not only lost its ferry
service but it lost the rail service and the air service. Also
the highway down to that part of the country is in severe
disrepair in many areas.
One wonders if the headline were “Shawinigan area dead”
whether there would be the same attitude of this government as
there is to the headline “Yarmouth area dead”. I suspect there
would be a great deal of scrambling to make sure that the
negative consequences for some parts of the country were a lot
better looked after than they have been for the part of the
country we are talking about.
The Reform Party has given a great deal of thought to ways and
means to revitalize the economy of the Atlantic provinces. There
have been a number of studies done in the Atlantic provinces
themselves that point to the fact that the traditional approach
of the old line parties simply has not worked at all in the best
interests of Atlantic Canada.
The Atlantic Institute for Market Studies, itself based in
Atlantic Canada, came out with a stinging report just a few
months ago. It said that the traditional agencies of subsidy and
political patronage that have been put into place in the past
have actually been a real hindrance to economic growth and
prosperity in that part of the country.
Our plan is based on a strong, vital transportation network as
part of the plan to rejuvenate and revitalize the Atlantic
economy.
We too support this motion. We feel it is an appropriate
motion. We hope the government will take a long sober look at
the best interests of Atlantic Canadians when making changes such
as those the government has made in the past.
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to act as a last minute replacement for my colleague from
Beaufort—Montmorency—Orléans, the erstwhile Bloc Quebecois
transport critic. He would no doubt have been as pleased as I to
comment on this motion by our colleague from Sydney—Victoria,
which reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should
consider the advisability of taking into account safety
concerns and local economic spin-offs before proceeding with
any further privatization of Marine Atlantic services between
Cape Breton and Newfoundland.
I am, moreover, pleased that fate has given me the opportunity
to speak on this subject this morning, since I had the pleasure as
a tourist this summer to use the services of Marine Atlantic with
my family. Its services are highly appropriate, highly competent,
and very secure. This motion uses three terms which draw my
attention: “safety”, “local economic spin-offs” and
“privatization”, and I would like to speak a little on them.
When it comes to privatization, which I shall return to at the
end of my speech, this must be handled with kid gloves, for if
there must be privatization it must not mean a change for the
worse.
1140
When we are talking about a ferry that can accommodate over
1,300 persons, if I remember correctly, and 400 motor vehicles, an
imposing ship, safety measures are self-evident. It was very very
well maintained.
Failure to keep it so can lead to drama. There was such a
drama in the North Sea, in the Mediterranean, with a similar ship.
It was doubtless not properly maintained. There was negligence,
whereas here in the maritimes the ships are well maintained.
So, from a safety standpoint, before we start talking about
privatization, we should ensure that today's standards are
maintained.
There is another area where caution should be exercised. I am
speaking of benefits to the local economy. We can imagine that the
government has taken care for some one hundred years—it was in
1889 that it took over the Port-aux-Basques to North Sydney run,
and I have taken the trip between Port-aux-Basques and North Sydney
and North Sydney and Argentia, a comfortable 14 hour trip—to do
two things at once: provide a safe and adequate service to users
and to promote regional economic development by encouraging local
economic development.
If we put this service into the hands of private enterprise,
we will have no guarantee in economic terms of the same interest,
the same care and the same concerns or of any desire on the part of
the new management to develop the local economy, which, as my
colleague from Sydney—Victoria pointed out, is facing difficulties
in the fishing and coal industries. As we all know, the maritimes
are facing a very difficult period.
This is not the time to question a winning formula. The
service is a good reliable one that provides obvious local
benefits. More attention should be paid to it. When the
government privatizes or jettisons a public asset, there is no
guarantee that the resource will be better utilized or the service
better provided.
As our transport critic told me on the phone this morning with
regard to the motion, he hears more and more comments to the effect that
services, maintenance or safety at the Quebec airports that were
privatized—particularly in Mont-Joli, Sept-Îles and Rouyn-Noranda—may
not be at the level they used to be before privatization.
We must not become dogmatic. The current thinking in the western
world is that the state must delegate more and more of its traditional
responsibilities to all sorts of stakeholders. Yet, common sense
dictates that responsibilities in the air, marine and railway
transportation sectors should be those of the state, of the community.
There is currently a belief in the western world—and the
Canadian government helps promote it—that the state no longer has any
business providing these services. A debate is urgently needed to
challenge the idea that the private sector is the solution to all our
problems. Quite the contrary.
One can see that poverty is on the rise, that there is a
globalization of misery.
Instead of having increasingly civilized societies, we now have two-tier
societies where the very rich make up 15% of the population. As I was
recently told, in Chile, for example, and in Argentina, which have
public health services on a par with those in Quebec and Canada,
following all these free trade policies, all these pressures to promote
globalization and freer trade, if one gets sick who does not belong to
the select 15% club, it seems—and I hope I am wrong—one better
bring his or her own sheets to the hospital.
If you are hospitalized in Chile, the more family members you have
to come and feed you the better. From what I hear, the health care
systems in Argentina and Chile were as good as ours until they were
undermined to a point that is a disgrace to countries that call
themselves civilized.
1145
So I am very pleased to be speaking to this issue this
morning, because when you have a winning formula such as Marine
Atlantic ferry services, which runs perfectly well, on time and
safely, why mess around?
Why run the risk of turning this over to any old Tom, Dick or
Harry, who will, in all likelihood, think it is alright to maximize
his profit and who will perhaps take chances with government
inspectors, as we see too often, and possibly endanger the lives
and safety of tourists visiting this lovely area of the maritimes,
Nova Scotia and Newfoundland?
We therefore readily agree with this motion. We congratulate
the minister from Sydney—Victoria for presenting it and, as the
member for Trois-Rivières, I can say that I view it as part of a
much larger movement that we must increasingly oppose because, the
official rhetoric notwithstanding, this movement is not synonymous
with real progress, but rather with an erosion of quality and all
too frequently a maximization of profits, which is what we are
seeing too much of right now throughout the world.
When we know, and this can never be said often enough, that
358 billionaires, according to a UN—not a Social Credit, but a
UN—report, control 45% of the world's wealth, we have a problem
that should be debated by all parliaments without delay, and
perhaps by a rejuvenated United Nations, which could arrange a true
debate on the development of our economies in general.
[English]
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Madam
Speaker, I rise in support of the motion by my colleague for
Sydney—Victoria. I believe the motion also has the support of
our constituents.
It disturbs me when the government takes the path of
privatization. There are many examples out there of what
privatization has done to Canadian standards, for example Nav
Canada's flight service and air traffic control.
Safety is still at a premium and I commend the government for
maintaining the safety of aspects of it. We now have reports
that Nav Canada wants to lay off 1,000 workers. Those who will
be left within a year or two will be coming up for contract
renewal and will be asked without a doubt to take further wage
cuts and concessions.
My concern for the government and the working people in Atlantic
Canada is that when we go the notion of privatization, instead of
the government and the Canadian people becoming the shareholders,
the shareholders are few, usually a company or certain
individuals. The pressure on the individuals or the company to
provide excessive dividends to their shareholders means that
lower standards, wages and benefits have to accrue to the people
who work in that environment.
My one concern besides supporting the motion is that the
government also take into consideration the labour, financial and
benefit standards of workers currently in those facilities,
especially those in Atlantic Canada and Marine Atlantic.
I thank the government, the Reform Party and the Bloc for
supporting my colleague's motion.
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
We ask for unanimous consent to suspend the sitting until 12
noon, at which time we will bring forward government orders.
SUSPENSION OF SITTING
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 11.50 a.m.)
1200
SITTING RESUMED
The House resumed at 12 p.m.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
NEWFOUNDLAND SCHOOL SYSTEM
Hon. Raymond Chan (for the President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs,
Lib.) moved:
That a Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of
Commons be appointed to consider matters related to the proposed
resolution respecting a proposed Amendment to Term 17 of the
Terms of Union of Newfoundland with Canada concerning the
Newfoundland 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 hear witnesses via video
conferencing;
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 have the power 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 power, except
the power to report to the Senate and House of Commons;
That the Committee have the power to authorize television and
radio broadcasting of any or all of its proceedings;
That the Committee present its final report no later than
December 5, 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 requesting that House to
unite with this House for the above purpose, and to select, if
the Senate deems it advisable, Members to act on the proposed
Special Joint Committee.
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it is my
pleasure to speak to this motion.
Unfortunately the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is not
here to introduce the motion personally because of the weather
conditions. He is in transit and has not arrived. However, it is
his desire, with the unanimous consent of the House, to speak to
the motion later in the day if that is possible.
[Translation]
I am pleased to rise in support of the motion to set up a
parliamentary committee to review the proposal to replace the
present denominational school system in Newfoundland with a
single non-denominational public school system.
Over the years, a consensus developed around the need to modernize
the school system's administrative structure. This consensus was
confirmed by a referendum. We know, therefore, that Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians strongly and democratically support this amendment
proposal.
In the September 1997 referendum, the proposal carried in 47 of
Newfoundland's 48 electoral districts. Not less than 73% of voters said
yes to changes proposed by the province's government.
In addition, analysis of the referendum results leads us to believe
that the proposal has the support of denominational minorities. The
people of Newfoundland voted on a clear and concise question and
expressed the desire to steer the province's school system in a new
direction.
As premier Tobin indicated, this referendum has produced a clear,
strong and outstanding degree of consensus. I think it would be fair to
say that, in the wake of the referendum, this consensus has expanded.
The Newfoundland legislature unanimously voted in favour of the
constitutional amendment proposal, in spite of the fact that some of its
members had voted against on referendum day.
Indeed, every member of the legislative assembly who had noted no
in the referendum eventually endorsed the resolution. One of them,
namely the provincial Leader of the Opposition, explaining his decision,
said: “The people of the province have spoken in a very clear, very
definitive way, and we have an obligation here to respect the wishes
that have been carried out in a democratic manner.”
I believe that, given its commitment to the democratic process and
to democratic values, this House should strike a parliamentary committee
to examine the issue. Parliamentary committees are key elements in this
process and the democratic tradition in Canada.
They give experts, groups and individual citizens an opportunity to
express their views and help the people and their elected
representatives better understand larger issues.
1205
On an issue as important as schools, it is doubly important to hear
a wide range of opinions at the federal level. Our children are
basically our future. If we want Canada to remain competitive and to
continue to be renowned around the world for its quality of life, we
must make sure that our children receive the best education possible.
That is the challenge facing us. One might say there is no greater
challenge for a country than ensuring that its children acquire the
knowledge, abilities and skills required to excel in a world that is
increasing complex and shrinking at the same time.
In addition, we have a moral obligation to give the best to our
children. As Lutheran theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer said: “What it does
for its children is the touchstone of any society's morality.” That is
why this government is working with the provinces to end the scourge of
child poverty. That is also why, when a society achieves a clear
consensus about what the administrative framework for the education of
children should be, governments have a responsibility to respond in an
appropriate, measured fashion, in accordance with the established
democratic procedure.
How do the people of Newfoundland want their school system to be
organized?
Well, as mentioned in the referendum question, they want a single
school system where all children, regardless of their religious
affiliation, attend the same schools where opportunities for religious
education and observances are provided.
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians clearly did not vote to drive God
out of their schools. Of course, non-elected church leaders will no
longer have a special place in the new school system. Like the members
of the legislature, who will have the overall responsibility for
education, school boards will be elected by parents and other members of
the public in Newfoundland and Labrador and will be accountable to them.
But this does not mean that religion will no longer be welcome in
the schools of Newfoundland. On the contrary, there will be a mandatory
provision guaranteeing that courses in religion will be taught in
schools.
And religious observances, such as saying the Lord's Prayer or
displaying Nativity scenes, will be held when requested by parents, and
members of the clergy will be permitted to visit schools.
However, according to legal opinions obtained by the Government of
Newfoundland, children will not be required to attend religious classes
or to participate in religious observances if their parents do not wish
them to do so. The whole idea of these reforms is to provide parents
with greater control over their children's education.
These are the changes to the school system that were approved by
the people of Newfoundland and their democratic representatives in the
legislature. This is the new system which, according to them, will best
meet the particular needs of Newfoundland.
1210
This is a fundamental point. As the royal commission that looked
into the province's school system at the beginning of the decade pointed
out: “Perhaps more than any other institution, the education system is
closely linked to the society and world that shape it and that it, in
turn, will come to shape as well”.
The Newfoundland school system should reflect the situation and
needs of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, just as the Ontario system
should reflect that of Ontarians.
The fact of the matter is that Newfoundland always had a unique
school system. For instance, it is currently the only system where all
schools are denominational schools.
The education reform was bogged down for years, but Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians finally endorsed a set of changes that will ensure that
their school system can satisfy their changing needs.
It is important to realize that the changes contemplated by
Newfoundland do not set a precedent for any other province. Naturally,
what works in Newfoundland and meets the needs of children in that
province may not be adapted to the needs of children in Alberta, Quebec
or the Yukon. In our federal system, each province may choose the school
system that best reflects its particular situation and needs.
I am sure that the fact that the changes contemplated by the
Government of Newfoundland do not affect in any way minority rights to
education in other provinces will be raised and reinforced during the
proceedings of the joint committee.
The Government of Canada indicated time and again that, beyond
this, should any province seek an amendment to its terms of union or to
section 93 of the Constitution, the federal government will want to see,
as in this case, a reasonable level of support among the denominations
concerned.
In Newfoundland, 72% of voters in regions as profoundly Roman
Catholic as the Burin Peninsula and the Avalon Peninsula voted yes.
While it is difficult to assess the level of support of the Pentecostal
community because of how scattered it is, all four Pentecostal members
of the legislative assembly endorsed the resolution to amend Term 17.
It should also be noted that, as I said, all schools in
Newfoundland being denominational schools, every denomination, not only
Roman Catholic and Pentecostal, will be affected by these changes.
The royal commission I referred to earlier noted that the school
system in Newfoundland had been established in response to specific
needs in very difficult circumstances and that its development these
past 30 years had been characterized by adapting, adjusting and
restructuring on the basis of changing times, conditions and priorities.
The people of Newfoundland and Labrador recently expressed the
desire to see their school system continue to adjust to changing times
and priorities.
Our federal system too has shown it is capable of adjusting to the
changing needs of Canadians.
Our federation has changed since 1867 in order to take up new challenges
and to reflect new priorities. This federal government is working with
its provincial partners on a number of fronts to carry on this
modernization process. Much can be accomplished and was indeed
accomplished through administrative agreements or through the exercise
or non-exercise of powers, without changing one iota in our
Constitution.
1215
We must not make the mistake of thinking that the Constitution is
or should be a static document. It is not. Rather, it is a living
document that can be adjusted to reflect our changing times.
The changes requested by Newfoundlanders and Labradorians would require
a constitutional amendment, and the level of support shown for the
proposal to amend Term 17 leads me to believe that such an amendment may
be totally appropriate.
The proposed joint committee will provide an excellent forum where
my fellow parliamentarians can decide for themselves the merit of the
amendment proposal, which would enable Newfoundland to carry out in its
education system reforms it has been wanting to carry out for a long
time.
That is why I hope the House will approve today the setting-up of
this committee. I invite my colleagues to support the motion before us.
[English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, I rise to address the motion before the House to
appoint a special joint committee to consider matters related to
a constitutional amendment concerning the Newfoundland school
system.
I want to thank the parliamentary secretary for his explanation
of the motion and the Newfoundland reforms. I note that he used
the word reform numerous times in a positive vein. I would like
to encourage him to keep up that habit. It is a good one to
cultivate.
I would also like to begin by observing that the amendment to be
considered by the committee pertains to the rights of provinces,
the education of children, majority and minority rights. It is
therefore not just a dry constitutional amendment, as the
parliamentary secretary alluded to. It does deserve our full
attention.
On October 1, I addressed the House in relation to the proposed
amendment of section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867 as it
pertains to Quebec schools. There is a certain parallelism
between this motion and the motion we addressed that day.
At that time I pointed out that the intent of this section,
which we would ultimately be amending, is to recognize the
exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces over education subject
only to the proviso that the provinces not pass laws that
prejudicially affect rights granted by law to any class of
persons prior to the establishment of the federal union or the
union of a province with Canada.
At that time, we proposed that the House apply three great tests
to any constitutional amendment brought before it, including
proposed amendments to section 93. Those three tests were the
test of democratic consent, the test of the rule of law and the
test of the Canadian national interest.
I would like to continue to urge the government to adopt these
three tests as a national standard to be applied consistently to
all constitutional amendments. The word here is consistently.
For example, when Quebec proposes yet another referendum on the
secession issue, which is a huge constitutional change, the
federal government has a right, indeed an obligation, to make
clear its views on how such a referendum should be conducted in
order to meet the test of democratic consent.
The prime minister, for example, has said that such a
referendum, to be legitimate, must involve a fair process and a
fair question. We agree with that.
1220
If those are the requirements for Quebec constitutional
initiatives to meet the test of democratic consent, those should
be the same requirements for other provinces. We should be
insistent in this House that that high standard be adhered to in
every case so we respect equality of the provinces and do not
impose a lower standard of democratic consent on one province
than another.
I now turn to the position of the official opposition on the
proposed Newfoundland schools amendment which will be the subject
of consideration by the committee being proposed by this motion.
The official opposition has communicated to interested parties
in Newfoundland over the last number of months that it neither
supports nor opposes a denominational school system for
Newfoundland. We feel this is an issue the people of
Newfoundland must determine for themselves by means of a fair
democratic decision making process in accordance with the rule of
law.
The position of the Reform caucus in Parliament with respect to
any proposed constitutional amendment will be determined by
applying these three tests which I have already alluded to. If
we are satisfied the proposed Newfoundland amendment meets these
three tests, our members would be inclined to vote in the House
in favour of the proposed amendment. If we believe the proposed
amendment does not meet these tests, we will suggest to the
Newfoundland legislature that it make such changes as are
required to ensure compliance with these tests.
Let me share with the House where we feel this amendment now
stands in relation to these three tests.
The first is the test of democratic consent. When we applied
the test of democratic consent we asked whether there was a clear
majority result from the referendum on the proposed term 17
amendment, was the referendum process fair and was the
referendum question unbiased.
It appears at this time that the term 17 proposals have passed the
test of democratic consent. A larger majority, 73%, approved the
proposals contained in the latest referendum than did the
previous one. There was a large turnout, 53.1%, when compared
with typical voter turnouts for such electoral events.
The referendum was conducted by Newfoundland Elections, a body
separate from the government under the authority of the
Newfoundland Elections Act.
Not all our members are convinced that the Newfoundland
referendum was as democratic as it should have been. They will
be seeking answers and will expect the special committee to seek
answers to questions about the referendum itself, such as those
raised by the Hon. Kevin Barry, a retired judge of the Newfoundland
supreme court, in correspondence with a number of MPs.
Unless we are presented with more evidence to the contrary than
we have received thus far, we are assuming the referendum met the
test of democratic consent.
Second is the test of the rule of law. There is a question as
to whether section 93(1) can be amended using the section 43
amending formula of the Constitution Act, 1982. I have dealt
with this concern on a previous occasion and do not intend to
repeat the arguments here. Suffice it to say the special
committee should satisfy itself that this is the appropriate
formula. Assuming it does so there is another more fundamental
concern that can be raised and has been raised under the heading
of the rule of law.
Term 17 is intended to serve as a replacement for section 93
of the Constitution Act, 1867. Reform MPs are particularly
interested in ensuring the Newfoundland educational reforms do not
violate the letter or the spirit of section 93(1) which states:
In and for each province the legislature may exclusively make
laws in relation to education, subject and according to the
following provisions:
(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.
Section 93(1) does not prevent Newfoundland from reforming its
educational system or from implementing reforms that affect
minority rights, but the rule of law, particularly the law
contained in section 93(1), requires the Newfoundland government
to demonstrate that its proposed reforms do not prejudicially
affect the rights of those who desire a religious orientation in
the education of their children.
I suggest that this interest in the religious orientation in the
education of children is broader and deeper than the mere
provision of non-denominational religious courses in secular
schools and the permitting of religious observances supervised by
a secular authority.
It includes the right to have those courses and observances
provided in an environment that truly reflects spiritual values.
It is this broader right that many parents would like to see
safeguarded.
1225
We are aware that the minister of education for Newfoundland has
obtained a legal opinion from a respected law firm stating that
the proposed amendments to term 17 are legal, but we are also
aware that the original term 17 amendment proposed by the
Newfoundland government in 1995, which we were assured conformed
to the rule of law, was subsequently found to be constitutionally
suspect by the Newfoundland supreme court.
Many members of the official opposition are therefore not yet
convinced that the latest Newfoundland amendment fully conforms
to the rule of law. Our concerns would be alleviated if the
government of that province were to obtain a ruling from the
province's supreme court clearly establishing that its proposed
amendment does not prejudicially affect rights protected under
section 93(1) of the Constitution Act, 1867.
It is not in the interests of the people of Newfoundland, the
Government of Newfoundland or the Government of Canada to permit
any ambiguity to exist on this question. The last thing any of
us want is for this amendment to proceed and for the educational
reforms based on it to proceed only to discover later, by means
of a court decision, that they are unconstitutional and must be
changed again.
The intergovernmental affairs minister and the justice minister
will know that section 93 of the Constitution act has been
judicially considered over 50 times in the past. Is it not in
everyone's interest to get a clear signal from the courts in
advance that the educational reforms proposed by Newfoundland
conform to the rule of law in this important matter of
safeguarding minority rights?
Third is the test of the Canadian interest. The actions of one
province affecting majority and minority rights in education may
set an important precedent regarding the educational rights of
majorities and minorities in other provinces.
The parliamentary secretary said in his remarks that the
Newfoundland reforms are not precedent setting. However, it is
not a question of whether the educational reforms are precedent
setting; it is a question of whether the treatment of minority
and majority rights is precedent setting.
Because the Reform caucus is not wholly convinced that the
latest Newfoundland amendment conforms to the rule of law,
particularly as it relates to protection from prejudicial
effects, we are not yet convinced that the Newfoundland amendment
therefore meets the test of the Canadian national interest.
To summarize the application of these three tests to the
amendment that will be considered by the committee to be
established by this motion, in our judgment the Newfoundland
schools amendment does not yet appear to have passed two of the
three tests which Reform MPs have established as conditions for
our support of such amendments.
If further evidence is presented to us and our constituents
prior to voting on this amendment in Parliament which satisfies
our concerns then we would be inclined to support the amendment.
If no such convincing evidence is presented to us and our
constituents and we remain doubtful then our inclination would be
to vote against it.
Ultimately Reform MPs will be particularly influenced by the
opinion of their constituents and whether those constituents are
satisfied that the Newfoundland amendment is democratic, legal
and in the national interest.
Finally, a word on amending the motion to make it better. That
of course is one of the functions of the official opposition; it
is not simply to point out the flaws in what the government is
doing but to endeavour to make it better.
It is our intent to amend the motion establishing the committee
to ensure that its deliberations include the application of the
three tests which I have already mentioned. We also ask the
House to amend the composition of the committee and its terms of
reference.
When the joint special committee to consider the Quebec schools
amendment was set up, Reformers and members from various other
parties in the House objected in principle to unelected and
unaccountable members of the upper House participating on the
committee. In the case of the joint special committee to
consider the Quebec school amendment, we did not make an issue
out of Senate participation because we had larger fish to fry.
Since that time, however, the government has shown an increased
propensity to initiate in the Senate bills which we believe
should be initiated in the House.
This we find particularly objectionable.
1230
Whereas it is apparently the government's position to enhance
the role of unelected and unaccountable senators by referring
more and more important matters to their attention, it is the
position of the official opposition to restrain that role. Our
amendment to the motion will therefore also include striking all
references to senators and the Senate from the motion. My
colleagues will elaborate further on this position in debate.
Also if a committee is being set up to receive advice from
citizens and witnesses on the Newfoundland schools amendment, it
seems self-evident to us that such a committee should hold
hearings in Newfoundland. Our amendment to the motion will
therefore also ensure that the committee is directed and
empowered to do so.
I therefore conclude by moving the following motion. I move:
That the motion be amended:
By replacing the words: “Special Joint Committee of the Senate
and the House of Commons” in the first paragraph with the words:
“Special Committee of the House of Commons”;
By adding immediately after the words: “concerning the
Newfoundland school system;” the following: “more specifically,
the matter of applying the following three tests for such a
proposed constitutional amendment:
1. The Test of Democratic Consent,
2. The Test of the Canadian National Interest, and
3. The Test of the Rule of Law”;
By deleting the words: “and seven Members of the Senate” in
the second paragraph;
By inserting after the word “Committee” in the sixth paragraph
the words: “be directed and authorized to hold hearings in
Newfoundland and”;
By replacing all the words in the eighth paragraph with the
following: “That the quorum of the committee be nine members,
whenever a vote, resolution or other decision is taken, and that
the Chairperson be authorized to hold meetings, to receive
evidence and authorize the printing thereof, whenever six members
are present,”;
By deleting the words “Senate and” in the ninth paragraph;
By replacing all the words in the twelfth paragraph with the
following: “That, notwithstanding usual practices, if the House
is not sitting when the final report of the committee is
completed, the report may be deposited with the Clerk of the
House, and the report shall thereupon be deemed to have been
presented to the House”; and
By deleting all the words in the last paragraph.
The effect of these amendments is to remove the references to
senators and the Senate from the motion; to ensure that the
committee holds hearings in Newfoundland; and most importantly,
to ensure that it subjects the Newfoundland schools amendment to
the three great tests of democratic consent, the rule of law and
the Canadian national interest.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The Chair will take
the amendment under advisement for a few minutes. Resuming
debate.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am pleased
to rise today to speak on the motion, as amended by the Reform Party. I
will come back later in my statement to this proposed amendment which
defines the interests to be considered in a constitutional amendment
process but which also seems to involve a very particular interest by
the Reform Party in this matter. We will come back to this later.
Let us examine the content of the whole proposal, whether or not
there is an amendment, as suggested at this time by the Reform Party.
What is involved is the creation of a committee to review a motion that
would amend section 17 of the Constitution, which is the agreement
between Newfoundland and Canada concluded when Newfoundland joined the
Canadian federation and which is the result of a genuine democratic
process—I will come back to this later—which was followed in the case
of Newfoundland.
What is at issue in the first instance? Section 17 provides for and
guarantees the denominational status of the school system in
Newfoundland. Since education comes strictly under provincial
jurisdiction, people in Newfoundland agree today, but they decided on
this already two years ago and twice during referendums, that they
wanted to change their educational system in order to have a
non-denominational system.
1235
There will be a number of advantages. One is the
modernization of their facilities. They will also be able to
reduce the number of school boards, while not eliminating religious
education entirely. However, this should be achieved at the
request of parents. Religious education could continue within the
schools. They would not be denominational schools as they are
currently. The amendment Newfoundland is seeking would mean the
amendment of section 17 of the Constitution.
This has all come about through a process, which began a
number of years ago, but which was not given expression until
hearings were held by a royal commission of inquiry. If I am not
mistaken, it was in 1992 that Newfoundland made the proposal.
Taking a look at how things progressed subsequently, a first
referendum was held in 1995 and resulted in a motion before
Parliament. The referendum was carried, if I remember correctly,
with 54% of the votes and a participation rate of slightly more
than 50% of the population.
The amendment proposed by the Newfoundland government was
subsequently contested before the courts, which rejected it. The
Government of Newfoundland decided to hold a second referendum. It
even expanded the terms of the reform and again turned to the
people for their reaction.
The level of support was even higher the second time around, since
the Newfoundland government received the support of 73% of the
population, again with a participation rate of about 54%, or slightly
over 50%. Twice, the Newfoundland government decided in a democratic
fashion to amend its system.
Let us not forget that a similar process is taking place in
Quebec—and I will get back to this—to protect, if you will, the
denominational system of two specific regions, namely Montreal
and Quebec City. I should point out that consultations took
place, because when it comes to the constitutional amendment that
will affect Quebec, Liberal members often claim no consultations
were held, in an attempt to justify their desire to hold such
consultations.
They are ill-informed about what goes on in Quebec. Yet, they
have a number of members in our province and they should know
that a summit conference on education was held in Quebec. One
clear item on the agenda was how to make the required amendments
to have a non-denominational school system in the Montreal
region, which is primarily concerned, because the protection did
not apply to the other regions in Quebec.
The Liberals seem to forget that consultations did take place. The
reservations or positions expressed by almost all of the groups we are
now hearing, in public venues or other forums, are already known because
they did state their views at the time.
In politics, it often seems difficult to differentiate between
consensus and unanimity.
A lack of unanimity does not mean that there is no consensus. A
“consensus” means that a majority of people or groups share the same
clear desire to go ahead. We can see it here because when people are
being consulted we often hear those who oppose the initiative, thus
giving the impression there is an imbalance, but such is not the case.
Most groups—including the Quebec Conference of Catholic
Bishops—stated their support for the new proposal made by the
Quebec government to bring about a constitutional amendment which
has the unanimous support of the National Assembly.
Let us go back to the case of Newfoundland. Following its second
referendum, Newfoundland's legislature unanimously decided to support
the motion.
MLAs who were opposed bowed to the democratic verdict—and more
power to them. In democracy, it is important to recognize the wish
of the majority. And that is what they did.
1240
The situation has every appearance of being one which could be
resolved quickly and easily. But why create a committee? There is
the question. We will not oppose the creation of a committee,
although we have a number of reservations on that score.
It would be impossible not to have a committee in this
instance when there is one in the case of Quebec. The government
would have trouble justifying the length of time it is taking to
approve the constitutional amendment for Quebec.
We know very well that this committee came about because of
lobbying by Alliance Quebec and other groups that are always
feeling threatened and that wanted to be heard, that turned to
Ottawa to protect them. Through political pressure, they succeeded
in obtaining a process designed especially for them, and now we
find ourselves having to do the same thing for Newfoundland. When
the people have expressed their wishes democratically in a
referendum and unanimously in their legislative assembly, what else
can be learned from these consultations? Would the government be
nasty enough to tell them “After all that, you will have to
introduce more amendments and start the process all over again”?
After the committee has done its work, the conclusion reached
will be that the amendment should be passed. So this committee is
a bit of a sham.
If that is not the case, then it is despicable of the federal
government to keep lording it over the provinces as though it has
the monopoly on wisdom and truth.
The exercise was gone through in Newfoundland and in the case
of Quebec, but the federal government is still trying to keep a
finger in every pie, with the support, furthermore, of the Reform
Party today, in the sense that that party would like to add a
clause about Canada's interests to the conditions for deciding on
the advisability of making amendments.
What is meant by Canada's interests? We know very well where
it is headed with that. What it has in mind when it talks about a
referendum, and even when it talks about this issue, is not the
situation in Newfoundland but the one in Quebec, the constitutional
amendment in Quebec and a future referendum in Quebec.
The Liberals are playing games here, and even more so on other
issues, but that is part of the strategy for plan B, defining the
rules, making sure the federal government has a role to play in the
next referendum in Quebec.
And now, supported more than ever—and supported is not even
the right word, as he is practically leading the onslaught—the
leader of the Reform Party is giving a sense of direction to the
federal government, and it is following the path he has set out.
Now, he is defining new criteria. He is even questioning the
support he could provide. But where is the sense of democracy? In
the case at hand, the people of Newfoundland have spoken, not just
once but twice. They have spoken in full knowledge of the issues
at stake.
Something else was said, which I feel obliged to explain here.
There is always this notion constantly going around in Ottawa: the
clarity of the questions.
This makes me laugh, because I have read the press review of the
first referendum held in Newfoundland. What did the opposition or
those who were in the no camp have to say? “The question is not
clear”. I remember also having read that about other referendums,
the ones in Europe on the treaty of Maastricht, for example: “The
issues are not clear. The questions are not clear”. That is just
what happens when there is a referendum. If the people on the no
side feel that things are not clear, then let them explain them.
Does that mean that they are incompetent at making themselves heard
and understood?
Behind all this is the hope that the 49.5% of Quebeckers who
voted yes did so because they did not understand. We are unable
to understand the issues, not smart enough to do so.
That is what it means when they say the question was not clear,
that people do not understand, that they spoke without
understanding the real issues at stake, that they were taking the
exercise of democracy rather lightly. That is a classic approach.
The no side here is not the only one to do it. It was also the
case to a certain extent in Newfoundland, in the first referendum.
It is the case with just about any referendum held just about
anywhere in the world.
There are lessons to be drawn from this. Newfoundland defined
its own democratic exercise.
1245
Furthermore, when the courts appeared before them as an obstacle on
their path, once again the premier of Newfoundland, who happens to be a
former federal minister, decided to go to the people. For him, the voice
of the people was more important than the voice of the courts. Here
again, this was a wise course of action.
Hopefully his former colleagues here will remember this, because it
is evident that they wish to have courts and judges step in to define
the process soon to occur in Quebec. Once again, there are interesting
precedents in the case of Newfoundland.
Even the first time, when 54% of the people voted yes, and 53% of
the population participated, so that in absolute terms it was about a
quarter of the population that gave its approval, the government
sincerely and clearly had the intention to proceed. Such was the case
also with the federal government, as was seen with the motion in this
House. Why is it that the democratic will of the people of Newfoundland
can be recognized in this instance, but not the democratic will of
Quebeckers in other instances?
There is an issue that they have to deal with here. It is a fact
that they are debating this in their caucus and that their party is
divided on this at the moment. They could be seen the other night on
television rising in committee to defend the interests of anglophones in
Quebec who feel threatened and persecuted by the constitutional
amendments that are on the way for the denominational system in Quebec.
It is a funny business. Imagine finding yourself in a
situation that could repeat itself if the Reform Party decided to
oppose Newfoundland's amendment too and the government having to
turn to the Bloc Quebecois to pass the constitutional amendments in
the case of Quebec and perhaps even in the case of Newfoundland.
The presence of certain Quebec sovereignists will compensate for
the lack of political courage of certain Liberal members. This
will clearly be the case with Quebec's constitutional amendment.
The only way they can be sure at the moment that things will move
ahead is to count on the massive and unanimous support of the
people in the Bloc Quebecois. As their majority is very fragile,
this is their best assurance of being able to proceed.
Let us hope the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and the
people lobbied by Alliance Québec and others will not back down.
We will see. The next few weeks will enable us to judge.
They have a double challenge. If they fail, they will sadly
once again have to admit their failure to substantially amend the
Constitution to bring it up to date. The amendments are not as
basic or as objectionable as all that. In the case of
Newfoundland, it is democratically supported, and yet they are
having an impossible time proceeding on it.
Just imagine if, one day, we were contemplating a division of
powers, what sort of debate we would have. Imagine if we were to
redefine power in Canada. Just imagine all the pressure, the
division within the Liberal Party. Already we can see a lack of
support for this sort of thing.
This is why this Constitution has been called a yoke. I am
pointing this out, because people may have forgotten.
The Liberals must always be reminded that the Canadian Constitution was
patriated by a Liberal government, something for which they are still
paying the price in Quebec. There is a blank line at the bottom of the
document, because Quebec never signed it.
Liberals will say: “Lucien Bouchard will never sign the
Constitution”. But they should remember that, before Lucien Bouchard,
René Lévesque, Pierre-Marc Johnson, Robert Bourassa, Daniel Johnson and
Jacques Parizeau also refused to sign it. Six Quebec premiers, one after
the other, have refused to sign the Constitution. The Liberals must live
with this. Canada can hardly boast about its Constitution to the world
when there is still a blank line at the bottom because it was never
signed by Quebec. Yet, our province is a key player, a founding people,
as they said at the time. Such language was quickly dropped in favour of
“a bunch of people who are somewhat unique”. This is where we stand now.
Since my time is almost up, I will move on to another issue.
As mentioned earlier, we will support the establishment of the
committee. We will do so, but I want to point out another strange idea,
namely to set up a joint committee with our dear senators. These people,
who are not representatives of the democratic process, will get involved
in a process they already unduly impeded once in the case of
Newfoundland. They will form a committee with members of Parliament.
1250
I always have a problem sitting on a committee next to someone who
does not represent anything, who is a friend of the Prime Minister or of
a former Prime Minister, who shows up whenever he or she feels like it,
who is definitely not a workaholic and who is not a symbol of pride,
certainly not in Quebec and, I am convinced, not in several other
regions of the country either. Our senators are no great source of
pride.
When Canadians travel abroad, they do not boast about their
country saying: “Come and see us. We have a great Senate that is part of
our assets”. On the contrary, we are all somewhat uncomfortable because
the Senate, this sad travesty, is costing us some $50 million per year.
I will not feel comfortable sitting on the committee next to or opposite
a senator.
However, we sometimes have to put up with things we do not enjoy,
and I will do so to speed up the process. As for the two constitutional
amendments that are the subject of the debate, we will, as I said, help
the government ensure that things move quickly and efficiently. It was
not necessary to set up a committee, but we will live with the decision
and hope the government will not get scared when a few opposition
members express their views on either of these two closely related
issues.
I feel there is reason to be concerned today with the attitude of
the leader of the Reform Party who is starting to qualify his support in
all sorts of ways, so that in fact it no longer is support, and who
continues to pile the objections on to justify his opposition to the
other constitutional amendment. We know very well what he is up to, and
furthermore, he draws a very clear parallel with a possible referendum
in Quebecon sovereignty.
There is an overlapping of these issues and, as things move along,
this will become increasingly obvious. It is clear that the Liberals are
in a very uncomfortable situation because of this, and are having a lot
of difficulty keeping order in their caucus. But we are here to tell
them, and I am telling the parliamentary secretary who is here, that at
least they know that 44 members will compensate for the several Liberals
who will run wild and disappear along the way, and that they will have
difficulty getting support from the other parties.
I will end with this. We will have the opportunity to discuss this
issue again in committee, as this involves a constitutional amendment
under section 43, chapter 5, whereby the Constitution can be amended
bilaterally by a provincial government and the federal government. If
only one provincial government is affected in the matter, once the
committee has finished its work, it will not be necessary to discuss
this again in Parliament. So this is probably the last time I will be
speaking on this issue here, I hope. I also hope that everything will
proceed normally and that, by Christmas, all of this will be a debate of
the past.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Before we proceed
further, I would like to inform the House that the amendment of
the hon. Leader of the Opposition is in order.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I rise to support the motion to refer this constitutional
resolution to a committee. However, the NDP caucus reserves the
right to listen and to pay attention to what goes on in the
committee and to make a decision on how we will vote on the final
outcome of the committee's deliberation when the resolution comes
before the House in the future, depending on what we perceive as
the appropriate position during that process.
I do not think that it would be appropriate for all of us to
make up our minds before the committee is even struck, although I
know that is often the case with respect to ordinary legislation.
In the case of this constitutional resolution there are a lot of
things that need to be considered.
There are a lot of conflicting values, conflicting priorities.
There are conflicts between our respect for provincial autonomy
and our respect for the democratic process as it is reflected in
referendums. On the other hand, there is our concern about
whether it is ever appropriate for minority rights to be overcome
by a majority vote in a referendum. There are the matters that
have been raised by others on the floor before I came to my feet
having to do with the rule of law and whether this is in fact
constitutional.
1255
In that respect, I am very sympathetic to the view that perhaps
this matter should be referred to the supreme court before it
proceeds any further. I know the government does not seem to be
inclined to do that. I recall other constitutional debates in
the House where a reference to the supreme court was helpful and
where the government was found to be wanting in its position.
I think particularly of the patriation package in 1981-82 where
the matter was finally referred to the supreme court and the
supreme court ruled that the government—at that time it was the
federal government that was acting in a particular way—was
acting in contravention of the conventions of Canadian
constitutional change.
It might well be useful for all of us to know, rather than
debating it endlessly, whether what the Newfoundland government
proposes to do is constitutional or found to be so by the supreme
court if it were referred to the court.
Just a little bit of history. Some members may recall when term
17 came before the House in the last Parliament, the official NDP
position at the time was one in support of passing the resolution
but that we were not unanimous in that regard. There were NDP
members of Parliament who voted otherwise because they were
concerned about many aspects of this change.
At that time some members of Parliament, not just in the NDP but
other members of Parliament, shared the concern of the religious
communities outside Newfoundland that this action might have a
precedent setting effect, if not legally at least politically in
terms of how minority or denominational rights could in future be
changed.
There was a great deal of concern that, at that time, just the
changing of these minority rights by virtue of a referendum might
set unwanted precedents. It would seem to me that that concern
is amplified in this case where the referendum and the subsequent
constitutional resolution do not propose to change, but rather,
to eliminate those denominational rights.
I would hope that this is something that the committee would
take very seriously, whether or not this is, in fact, something
of which we should approve as a Parliament. An interesting
question that I would recommend to the committee—this is where
the question of minority rights and democratic process
interact—is where those minority rights reside. Do those
minority rights, in this case, the rights of denominations to set
up their own schools, reside in the churches as institutions or
do they reside in the people who might send their children to
these schools?
If the rights reside in the institutions and it is the Catholic
church or the Pentecostal church or the Seventh Day Adventist
church or any other church that has these rights, if it is the
church's right to set up these schools then it seems to me that
the outcome of the referendum is not as relevant.
If these rights reside in the people rather than in the
institutions, then one has to look at the outcome of the
referendum and ask a variety of questions.
On the one hand one has to ask the question about the turnout
which some have described as high but which in some respects is
still low.
1300
On the other hand and given that it is low, one has to ask the
question why. If these denominational rights are being taken
from everybody in Newfoundland because the vast majority of the
population has the right to attend denominational schools, why
did they not turn out in force to protect these rights? I asked
myself this question.
Having met with representatives of the Catholic and Pentecostal
churches, I think they make a decent argument that there is a
small proportion of Pentecostal and Catholic schools in smaller
communities that will be disproportionately affected by this
amendment.
One still has to ask why the entire Catholic community in
Newfoundland did not come out and vote to save the schools of
their Catholic brothers and sisters. I have to ask that
question. Perhaps there is an explanation for it.
The argument is that people demonstrated their willingness to
support denominational schools by virtue of the great numbers
that registered their children in denominational schools after
the last change. Registering a child in school is a public
thing, something the church and neighbours know about, that
everybody knows about.
Voting or not voting in a referendum or a secret ballot is
perhaps a more anonymous way of sending a message that one might
not want to publicly send. This is another thing that occurs to
me as I try to analyse the outcome.
At the same time it seems to me what we have or may have—and
this is something the committee would want to look into—is a
case where certain groups had these rights under the constitution
and the terms of union. These rights were changed by virtue of
the last change to term 17. These groups saw fit, in the course
of implementing those rights, to exercise their rights by taking
the government to court on the constitutionality of the
implementation of the previous change.
When they did that the response of the provincial government, as
I understand it having been found by the courts not to be
implementing the changes properly or constitutionally, was not to
say that perhaps they could do it better or perhaps do it
differently. The response of the provincial government was “You
are exercising these rights in the courts. You are irritating
us. You are getting in the way of our implementation. We have a
solution. We will have a referendum and take away these rights
from you altogether”.
It is not a stretch to imagine, without knowing the mind of the
premier, that this could be characterized as a form of
retaliation or bullying. I do not know but I can certainly see
where some people may have a legitimate case for perceiving it as
such. That is another concern the committee should look at in
its deliberations.
I listened very carefully to my Bloc colleague. He was making
an argument which assumed that there was no difference between an
amendment such as the one before us to change something with
respect to education and minority rights in Newfoundland and a
constitutional change that would follow on a referendum in
Quebec, the question which would pertain to the separation of
Quebec and the destruction of Canada as we now know it.
I do not accept the equivalency of these two amendments.
1305
In the case of an amendment whereby Quebec would propose to
separate from the rest of Canada and bring the rest of Canada and
Canada as we know it into danger, there is such a thing as the
Canadian national interest.
I would argue that this does not necessarily mean a sovereignist
or separatist outcome of a Quebec referendum would have to be
disregarded in the Canadian national interest. The response to a
clearly worded question might be so overwhelming that it would be
in the Canadian national interest to respect that particular
outcome rather than try to keep Quebec captive in a country it no
longer wanted to belong to.
I would certainly reject what I take to be the view of the Bloc
in this debate. It finds one of the criteria in the Reform
amendment, Canadian national interest, to be objectionable on
first principles. I do not think that is something we can
accept.
Having said all these things, we look forward to the
deliberations of the committee. On the amendment by the Reform
Party we may want to have somebody speak to that later today. We
will see about that, but I do not see anything objectionable in
much of what is contained in the Reform amendment.
Certainly the idea that the committee should go to Newfoundland
is a worthy one and one we would want to support. I do not see
anything wrong with the three tests the Reform Party wishes to
embed in the criteria by which the committee is to judge the
appropriateness of the constitutional resolution.
I do not see anything wrong with an amendment which separates
the House of Commons from the Senate and which makes the point
many of us have been trying to make. Some parties have been
making it since 1933. It was a party called the CCF, a
predecessor of the NDP. It is inappropriate and a blemish on the
Canadian democratic process to have constantly intertwined with
the House of Commons, whether it is in the form of a special
joint committee or in any other way, this undemocratic appointed
body at the heart of our democratic process.
If we were to run into this in the third world we would say
“What a banana republic. They have all these guys appointed for
life and they never have to face the electorate”.
I do not know, Mr. Speaker, if you have ever been on a
international delegation where you have had to try to explain
this to people and say he is a senator or she is a senator. They
immediately assume the American model of a senator where the
senators have even more status than members of the House of
Representatives because they are elected for longer terms, there
are fewer of them, and so on. You say “No, that is not the case
in Canada. They are appointed at age 42, 55 or 63 until they are
75”. Trying to explain that is sometimes really tough,
particularly when we are the ones who are leading seminars around
the world to try to instruct people on the democratic process and
at home we have the Senate. This is really embarrassing.
We should go beyond the point of being motivated simply by
embarrassment or by our commitment to democracy. We should
realize it is high time the Senate was reformed to make it
elected and to make it a place where the regions of the country
could have more clout at the centre and more meaningful and equal
participation in the deliberations of our country.
I did not rise to make a speech on Senate reform, so I have to
watch that I do not get off track.
1310
I go back to saying that we support the motion to refer it to
committee. We look forward to hearing witnesses in committee,
watching the issue unfold and making sure that all things I have
raised today are taken into account by the committee.
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in his
comments the hon. member referred to the amendments of Leader of
the Official Opposition and his position.
In his comments the Leader of the Opposition referred to a court
reference, whether the issue should be referred to the courts. I
wonder if the hon. member could share with the House his thoughts
on whether there should be a court reference. Or, should it
depend on what the committee hears by way of expert legal and
constitutional opinion?
Is the member prepared to accept the committee's decision on
that, or does the New Democratic Party have a position with
respect to the court reference?
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I thought I said that
referring it to the courts might be a good idea. In the absence
of this happening before going to committee, it is obviously
something the committee should look at.
We will take advice from whatever convincing arguments the
committee has to offer collectively or what our member on that
committee advises us in respect of the committee's deliberations
on the particular topic.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have a
question for our colleague from Manitoba.
During the course of his speech he referred to one of the
amendments put forward by the Reform Party, namely the one on
Canadian interest. He commented then on the Bloc member's
response and concluded by saying that they certainly agree with
that.
I did not know whether he was agreeing with the Bloc member's
evaluation of it or the principle of Canadian interest. I would
like him to clarify that for my benefit.
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, it must be Monday. I
thought I made it perfectly clear. I thought the argument about
things having to be in the Canadian national interest was a good
one.
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, let
me first say that I am pleased to see that the particular
resolution will be sent to a committee of the House. This is the
second time in this sitting of the House that I have stood in my
place to voice my profound concern for the resolution coming from
the Newfoundland House of Assembly.
Just about a year ago the House passed a resolution to amend
term 17 of Newfoundland's terms of union with Canada. The
amendment at that time diminished the right of parents to have
any kind of a meaningful say or role in the religious education
of their children.
Today's proposed amendment sponsored by Premier Tobin and the
current federal government will eliminate or wipe out
forever—and I think that is what we have to be clear on—the
right of Newfoundland parents to have any kind of a choice in
their children's religious education.
Some people will argue—and it has been argued here today—that
in both cases the resolution sent to the House enjoyed majority
support of the people in Newfoundland and Labrador as expressed
in a referendum. To these people I have to say that a referendum
is a very blunt instrument with which to amend the constitutional
rights of minorities. In any such battle the minority will lose
by definition.
To add insult to injury—and I would like to concentrate for a
moment on the referendum process—the Tobin government called the
referendum in the middle of summer vacation, which is not against
the law. He kept it short. It was only a 31 day period, which
is not against the law either.
He spent roughly about $350,000 to $400,000 on advertising his
position extensively and did not advance even $1 to the no side.
1315
He allowed any citizen in any part of the province to vote
anywhere at all in the province. He would not allow scrutineers
to be present when the vote was being counted and he released the
text of term 17 only 16 hours before the actual vote was taken in
the advance polls. That to me is a prime example of somebody
wanting their cake and eating it too.
We have to ask what has brought this issue to Ottawa twice in a
one year period. As I indicated earlier, there was a stormy
debate on the Hill on this matter about a year ago. Premier
Wells did hold a referendum and with a 54% vote he sent his
amendment off to our nation's capital. That amendment to term 17
saw all schools being declared interdenominational with a
provision for unidenominational schools if the numbers warrant
it.
Earlier this spring all schools in Newfoundland underwent a
school designation process. The parents of nearly 30,000
students voted to keep their children in a unidenominational
Pentecostal or a unidenominational Catholic school system. That
caused some concern among groups of people and led to a court
challenge by a group of parents which ground the school
designation process to a complete halt.
As tensions mounted on the issue, our new premier Mr. Tobin saw
his chance to take advantage of the public mood and he held his
own referendum. And it was very much his own referendum. He
picked the time, he wrote the question and he made up the rules.
The outcome was a foregone conclusion with 38% of the province
voting yes on the premier's proposal.
I have been roundly criticized in my home province for
continuing to speak up on behalf of these people who did not vote
to give up their rights to have a say in the religious education
of their children. The resolution we are dealing with in this
House today has passed the Newfoundland House of Assembly
unanimously. I do not think it is healthy in a democracy for
fundamental constitutional change to be made in the air of
parliamentary unanimity. This is especially so when we are about
the business in this House of wiping out for ever and a day the
constitutional rights of minorities.
When term 17 was last before this House, Cardinal Carter of the
Toronto Archdiocese wrote to the Prime Minister. This is a good
quote from the letter: “The amendment process under the
Constitution requires your government to play the role of
guardian of minority rights, and if your government rubber stamps
an amended term 17, how can it in principle resist similar
requests from voting majorities in Alberta, Quebec and Ontario?”
He asks: “Would French language rights survive outside of
Quebec if they were subject to a referendum?” He goes on to say
again: “There is a natural reality that occurs because of
population imbalance and that is why minority rights have to be
protected in the Constitution of Canada”.
It seems the cardinal felt there was a danger in altering
minority rights in response to public opinion. His concerns are
more than justified when we reflect on the atmosphere in which
the referendum was held.
Under Premier Wells' amendment, if parents did not have
sufficient numbers to set up a full fledged denominational
school, they could at least avail themselves of a religious
course particular to their own faith. Under the proposed
amendment parents will be offered only a generic, state run,
state designed religious course. It is basically a sociology
course about religion. It will have no basis in Christian
religion which is why there is such an outcry from some people on
this issue.
1320
The Canadian Constitution as well provides for the freedom of
religion. However once this resolution passes, Newfoundland will
be the only province in Canada where the state sets the religious
education program. We all remember what former Prime Minister
Trudeau said in the House that the state has no place in the
bedrooms of our nation. In the proposed resolution the state is
coming dangerously close to ensconcing itself in the churches of
our nation.
Term 17 was placed in our terms of union in recognition of the
very prominent role that the various Christian churches played in
the development of education in Newfoundland. Term 17 has been
amended twice already.
In the mid-eighties it was amended to include constitutional
recognition of the Pentecostal faith. There was no fuss at that
time because we were including a longstanding reality. In the two
referenda since that time the Pentecostal groups have voted
overwhelmingly to retain their rights in education. They are a
minority. They represent only 7% of the population of
Newfoundland. They have voted twice already to retain their
rights in education.
Last year's amendment diminished denominational rights, but
parents still had a right and they still had a choice with regard
to the religious education their children would receive. Should
we now one year later be eliminating that right and that choice
altogether? Should last year's amendment not have been given a
little time to settle into the social order? Should
constitutional rights be subject to the ebb and flow of public
opinion? The ultimate question is, is a constitutional right for
minorities really a right if it can be altered or eliminated so
easily?
These are questions which are not being widely asked in my
province and I feel that I have a duty to raise them. I feel
that this Parliament has an obligation to wrestle with these
questions before the final vote is taken. I firmly believe that
the latest amendment to term 17 is something we will live to
regret in the long run.
Parents in the rest of North America are fighting for the right
to bring religion back into the public schools. In Newfoundland
we are about the business of kicking religion out of our school
system. I am very concerned about this. People have indicated
that I should vote with the majority on this issue when it comes
time to vote in the House. That would certainly be the easy way
out, but I do not think it would be right.
It is a good thing a joint committee of the House and the Senate
is being formed to look at the resolution. I sincerely hope
there will be an opportunity for the committee to go to
Newfoundland to hear the no side, to hear the yes side, to hear
all of the concerns that people have about this particular
resolution.
I hope all members of the House will look at this particular
resolution very carefully and will do some research on
denominational rights in Newfoundland and Labrador.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Madam Speaker, there
was an element in the reasoning of the hon. member from the
Conservative Party that I had trouble following. I would
appreciate it if he could explain it to me.
He seems greatly concerned with the fate of minorities, a
praiseworthy attitude, but he seems to fear the precedent of a
constitutional amendment which, he feels, would restrict the rights
of a minority group, and he also feels that a referendum is not
sufficient. Even if the majority wills it, it is not sufficient,
as there must be constitutional protections somewhere. Taken to
its extreme, following his reasoning, these protections would have
to be in place perpetually, forever.
1325
He quotes someone as saying: “For example, if a referendum
were held on French language rights outside Quebec, one could
assume these rights were threatened”. But there is a fundamental
problem. Are they telling us that minority rights are opposed by
the majority? That would be assuming they are given any, but that
the population is against those rights, which is extremely
worrisome.
It means that Canadian public opinion might be opposed to the
rights of francophones, which is the example he gave. And these
are the same people who have just told us how they love us, and so
on, and how they need our understanding, the love-ins and all that
stuff.
There is a basic contradiction here.
People in general, I am convinced, are in favour of minority
rights. Quebec is a fine example, with its anglophone minority.
If there were a referendum in Quebec on anglophone minority rights,
I am convinced that the population would vote in favour. Why,
then, use this argument and play out this debate against a backdrop
of language minority rights, when this does not appear to be
pertinent in the least?
There are people who want to modify an education system in
order to create one that appears to them to be more modern, more in
conformity to reality and to the needs of today. How can the two
debates be mixed? Is he trying to tell us, when it comes down to
it, that the majorities allow minority rights, but only
unwillingly?
This demonstrates a substantial underlying problem, and a profound
intolerance that appears to exist within the majority groups in
Canada.
[English]
Mr. Norman Doyle: Madam Speaker, it appears to me the
hon. gentleman is asking whether constitutional rights should be
perpetually available to all minority groups even though it seems
to be evident that they have relinquished these rights. People
have asked me that question on a number of occasions. That is not
the whole case in Newfoundland.
I keep referring back to the Pentecostal assemblies of
Newfoundland which comprise only 7% of the population and which
voted overwhelmingly to retain these rights in education. Is the
hon. gentleman saying to me that even though they are a minority,
even though they have their rights protected under the
Constitution of Canada, that we can subject these people to the
tyranny of the majority, if he wants to put it that way, and wipe
out these rights at will? I do not think so.
If you are going to alter a minority right in this country, one
of the responsibilities you have is to at least consult the
groups whose rights are directly affected. In this instance
these groups have not been consulted. They have had their rights
subject to the majority without any consultation whatsoever. That
is a grave concern. Minorities should be widely consulted when
their rights are at stake but in this particular instance that
has not been done.
Mr. Charlie Power (St. John's West, PC): Madam Speaker,
to understand what we are doing, we are simply voting on a
resolution to set up a joint committee of this House and the
Senate to further study this issue.
I thank my colleague from St. John's East for sharing his 20
minutes with me. Under the strange rules of procedure, we know
we are not going to discuss a lot in our 10 minutes but we do
want to make our point. I assure you we will be taking a very
active role in committee.
As the leader of the opposition has suggested, we would like to
see the committee travel to Newfoundland to take presentations
and to listen to the people most directly involved. I know we
have a December 5 deadline and it does not provide very much
time. The issue is crucial and important to many people in
Newfoundland and I think we should have the courtesy of allowing
the joint committee of the House of Commons and Senate to visit
Newfoundland.
1330
In 10 minutes it is pretty hard to discuss an issue that takes
into account minority rights, majority rights, the responsibility
of government to govern as it sees fit and to take into account
religious rights and freedoms which may or may not be impinged on
by this whole process. One also has to take into account a group
of people I do not often hear very much said about and that is
the students of Newfoundland and Labrador.
The issue debated first by the government of Premier Wells and
later by the government of Premier Tobin is on who controls what,
who has the power and who has the authority. These matters have
become all-encompassing for the individuals involved, both on the
church side of the argument and on the government side. In many
cases the persons who are lost are the tens of thousands of
students in Newfoundland schools. They are the ones that first
and foremost must be considered.
I agree with my colleague from St. John's East on certain of the
points that have been made. I do not believe the referendum
process was done fairly. It was not done the way it should have
been done. The referendum was held quickly and in the middle of
the summer. It was held in great haste because the public
opinion polls of Mr. Tobin showed that this reform could be
rushed through to get it over and done with. I do not think that
was fair to the churches, to the parents or to many of the other
participants in the program.
The result did get the objective that the government wanted at
the time. It did get a reform vote that said 73% of those who
voted were in favour of reform. They wanted the system changed.
A lot of people did not vote. In our democratic system we really
have to discount those because, as we often say, if you do not
vote you really do not have a say. We cannot come back here and
say in total only 54% of the people voted. This House of
Commons could never be filled if those were the rules. No one
would ever be elected. It is not just who voted, it is how they
voted. We have to take that into account.
The referendum passed. However, one thing the referendum showed
loud and clear was that a lot of people wanted change. They
wanted reform. The other side of the coin was that Newfoundland,
under the Liberals in 1989 of Premier Wells and later Premier
Tobin had gone through very significant cost cutting measures in
the Newfoundland education system.
People are very sceptical of a government that says “Give me
this great new power so I can reform the system” when it spent
nine years gutting the system, laying off teachers, closing down
schools and raising the pupil-teacher ratio. It did not support
the Newfoundland Teachers Association requirement for teacher
retraining or for students to have access to decent equipment,
which you now need in schools.
Newfoundland has many schools. My district has 800 students and
30 computers. That did not happen overnight. These 800 students
in the high school system are expected to compete in this new
information age. It simply will not happen. It is substandard.
Part of this might be the responsibility of the churches or
their bureaucratic system and the waste that went on in the
denomination educational system. The fact is they did not
co-operate nearly as much as they could have or should have. We
do have an integrated system in Newfoundland where Anglican,
United and some other Protestant faiths work together. They have
an excellent system of education. When that was established back
in the 60s and 70s a lot of people thought an integrated system
was going to be terrible for Anglican and United students. It
did not happen that way. The teachers are still Christian, the
community is still Christian and the teaching is done in a
slightly different way.
The Government of Newfoundland deserves a significant amount of
blame for the confusion. It did not say in one simple way what
it wanted to reform toward. All it has done is find a way to lay
off some teachers, balance the books, cut the deficit. But the
government has not done what it wanted to do for education which
was to reform it. The Newfoundland system is in significant need
of help.
Everyone in the House knows what the Newfoundland economy is
like. We have the highest unemployment rate and the lowest per
capita income. Newfoundland is always at the wrong end of every
scale. Education, a lot of us believe, is probably the only way
matters can be resolved. It will not be resolved by putting more
money into income supporting programs like TAGS in the long haul.
We will not solve that problem by simply allowing
Newfoundlanders to out migrate and become a problem in Calgary or
in Toronto or somewhere else. We will not help Newfoundland
society unless we give the Newfoundland students the tools to
contribute and compete within Newfoundland.
1335
That is really what the whole reform business is all about. It
is about how we get a better school system. I have come to the
conclusion, having looked at the referendum results of 73%, that
the majority of Newfoundlanders are willing, albeit with some
significant question marks attached, to give the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador the responsibility to deliver and
implement a new education system.
For the benefit of all Newfoundlanders, it has to work. If it
does not work, then an awful lot of Newfoundlanders are going to
be very seriously handicapped in the future by not being able to
earn a decent living, not having the educational tools to do it.
With no side voting 27%, it is a grave concern. Many of them
are in my riding. Many of them have previous concerns about the
trust they can place in any government, that is, the government
in Newfoundland or the government here in Ottawa.
In my case, I am willing, as I think most Newfoundlanders are
now ready to give them the benefit of the doubt, that a new
system has to be implemented in Newfoundland, but it has to be a
new system that is significantly reformed.
If anybody is going to be on the hook after the amendment and
the resolution are passed by the House of Commons and the Senate,
it will be the Government of Newfoundland and Premier Brian
Tobin. If a better system cannot be delivered, if a higher
percentage of people do not finish high school, if the university
participation rate is not higher, if the unemployment rate is
still high after the education system is reformed, it will be a
terrible shame to all those persons involved, in particular the
Newfoundland government.
I just hope there is a willingness in the Government of
Newfoundland to forget the idea of deficit reduction at all cost.
That deficit reduction means our schools are going to be much
less better served. If it is just going to be deficit reduction,
laying off more teachers, then this reformed school system in
Newfoundland, I assure all the people in this House of Commons,
will not serve our people any better.
It is important for everyone in the House of Commons to realize
that every Newfoundlander wants to contribute to Canada. However,
they cannot contribute unless they have the tools so to do. One
of those fundamental tools in our modern society has to be an
excellent education system.
As a former teacher, I am convinced that we can have a better
education system. It is most unfortunate that we have to come
this route to get it. One advantage is that we are here, in a
democracy and basically we have a chance—as the member for St.
John's East and I disagree on this issue—to come here to express
our ideas, our values and our viewpoints. We will make the
decisions and live with them as best we can. At least we can do
it that way.
I can only say again that I am voting in favour of the
resolution because I think it will give a better school system to
the students of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Madam
Speaker, my question is for the two hon. members for St. John's
East and St. John's West.
As my colleague from Winnipeg mentioned earlier, this is a
concern of such very great importance not only to Newfoundland
but across the country. Yet a few years back the same question
was asked of the people of Newfoundland.
The Pentecostal and Catholic organizations got together and
mobilized their forces and came within a few percentage points of
defeating the original motion. This time the question was asked
again and received overwhelming support of those people who
voted.
Of an issue of this importance—now I am receiving all kinds of
letters and all kinds of phone calls regarding this—why did the
people not get out this time and vote? So many people stayed
home. I would like those people from Newfoundland to answer tell
me why people stayed home and did not vote on this very critical
and very important issue.
Mr. Charlie Power: Madam Speaker, there are several
reasons for it. Partly it was the summer. Having education
reform or something like that in the middle of July and August
when many people are on holidays, travelling outside the province
is difficult. We had the Cabot 500 celebrations where there were
a tremendous amount of volunteers involved. Many were parents and
teachers and there were school board activities.
I think the timing of it, having it on September 2, gave little
or no input certainly made it difficult. The other part is that
we are just so sick and tired of it.
1340
It has been an ongoing debate in Newfoundland. I taught school
in the early 1970s and it was there then and long before that.
People just got tired of it. The people of Newfoundland are
beginning to realize that this information age is going to pass
us by if we are not careful. So let us get on with the reform.
A lot of people have just said that it is going to happen
anyway. Let us just do it and have it over with.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member a couple of
questions.
I had the opportunity of travelling in Newfoundland and I spent
some time in the schools there talking to the students as well as
teachers. This is a great concern in Newfoundland, as the hon.
member has said. It is so much a concern that I am troubled
about the committee having a time limit of December 5. That
really scares me when we are going to make a decision pertaining
to a province which was guaranteed a lot of things when it joined
Confederation, yet none of it has taken place.
I will say in all sincerity, that if there is one province in
the country that has really been taken advantage of since
Confederation it is the province of Newfoundland. When I see a
time limit of December 5 being put on a committee that is going
to study how education be furthered in one of our provinces, it
causes me great concern. I wonder if the hon. member would
address that for me.
Mr. Charlie Power: Mr. Speaker, I think there would be a
pretty enthusiastic group in Newfoundland if we were to suspend
the House in January and members came to Newfoundland and
renegotiated the terms of the union. We would be pretty
delighted to take back fisheries management and give the
government health care and education and a few other things that
we find it difficult to afford.
The whole business is very serious and I for one would be more
than happy to see the deadline of December 5 extended somewhat,
not ad infinitum, but until another time. Maybe a practical
suggestion would be that when the House is not sitting in January
and part of February to take some time and go to Newfoundland and
do this thing properly. Certainly I think the people of
Newfoundland would benefit from it and the whole House of Commons
would as well.
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to
rise on a matter on which I last addressed the House on May 31,
1996.
We are dealing with an issue of constituent power. That is
basically the constitutional amending power and to some extent it
is terra incognita, or better said, the law in the making because
there have been so few precedents to date that what we do creates
the precedents of future conduct.
I did make several observations that are perhaps worth
repeating. I will not forget, by the way, the useful
intervention by the Leader of the Opposition because I think that
deserves some special comment in light of what has happened since
the debate in May 1996.
On the issue of what this amendment stands for, I think it can
be established as a constitutional duty of the federal government
to respond with all deliberate speed to requests by provinces
made under section 43 of the Constitution Act of 1982, for changes
in the Constitution. Section 43 relates to what we might call
bilateral amendments to the Constitution. They concern the
federal government as Canada and the government of one province
only. It might be said that by definition the significance of an
amendment made thereto is limited to the federal government for
Canada and the the province concerned. It does not bind other
parties.
Since this was a matter of some concern to people in provinces
other than Newfoundland 18 months ago, and many of us including
myself were visited by very distinguished religious and other
authorities, I felt it necessary to make some comments which I
will repeat again.
This proposal for amendment relates to a request by Newfoundland
for change of term 17, of the terms of the union of 1949 and it
is limited to that. It has no legal implications for other
provinces.
Second, as a matter of constitutional interpretation, the
Supreme Court of Canada gives a deference in the interpretation
of the Constitution to what are called the travaux préparatoires,
the parliamentary debates.
They have a significance they do not have in relation to ordinary
legislation and I built into my own statement my reasons for
voting 18 months ago that I was voting on an amendment limited to
Newfoundland, and I would recommend to other members to do the
same. This would help create the precedent that this does not
apply to other provinces where other considerations apply.
1345
There are legitimate considerations in all provinces, in Ontario
obviously, but in British Columbia where the issue of funding for
schools including church schools is a relevant political issue.
As a further matter I would also say that there have been
significant changes here since the matter was first presented 18
months ago and this House voted overwhelmingly to approve it.
The matter originally approved by this House went to the Senate
and the Senate did not act with all deliberate speed. It took
perhaps a certain amount of time longer than I think the
constituent process envisaged. It then went to hearings by the
Senate which I commended, by the way, to a number of people who
had written to me as a chance to have their views expressed. It
also went to the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and a single judge
gave a ruling. It was at that stage that the premier of
Newfoundland called for a referendum.
I said I would comment on what the Leader of the Opposition has
proposed. I have said to him at times only half in jest that I
feel these parts of his thinking may be borrowed from some of my
earlier writings. I know the Leader of the Opposition is opposed
to a non-elective legislative chamber. I think it is hard to
deny the question that the constitutional legitimacy of a
legislative body depends on its being elected.
Nevertheless I think we should recognize that the Senate and the
Senate committee in this case, which was a strong committee,
performed a useful and constructive role in the months that
followed on this House vote.
When the premier of Newfoundland appeared in Ottawa to defend
this measure 18 months ago some asked him if there had been full
consultation and could he give them assurances here because they
are getting representations from voters in Newfoundland and
people in other provinces. He undertook to have discussions and
consultations with them. I think that was an important
undertaking. I read this again into my address in the House of
Commons so that it would be a matter of record that under the
principles of constitutional comity it would be understood that
the premier approaching for a constitutional amendment under
section 43 might find it proper to give undertakings of this sort
which could in a sense become constitutionally binding.
What I am simply saying is that the extra time, including in
this the Senate role, I think has been helpful and we come to
this matter again 18 months later with a very substantially
augmented case.
I think these figures, because they have been passed over
perhaps rather too obliquely, are startling. There is an
overwhelming majority, 73% of the Newfoundland population, that
has approved this measure in a province-wide referendum vote.
That is an astonishing figure for referenda. It goes even beyond
the majority that rejected the Charlottetown accord throughout
Canada.
If we say what is the significance of a referendum, we can go to
the Prime Minister of Great Britain and we will see that this is
participatory democracy in action. It is so much becoming part
of constitutional thinking that it would take a good deal of
courage to say let's write off the 73%.
Let me go a step further and say that 47 of the 48 Newfoundland
electoral districts have voted to support this measure. That is
an astonishing figure, let us face it, in terms of any of our
votes in any of our own provinces.
Let me look at the breakdown which has been made for me of the
votes analysed constituency by constituency in an attempt to
determine the particularity of the vote. In the St. George's Bay
region, which is 74% Roman Catholic, 59% of the population voted
yes.
1350
In the Burin peninsula, which is 48.5% Roman Catholic, 72% voted
yes. That is an astonishingly high percentage. In the Avalon
peninsula, which is 48.5% Roman Catholic and Newfoundland's most
heavily populated region, 72% voted yes. That again is a
remarkable figure.
When we go to the Pentecostal vote in the four electoral
districts where Pentecostals are most heavily concentrated, the
resolution carried with majorities of 57% to 64%. If we are
looking for participatory democracy, if we are looking for
popular consultation, I would defy anybody to find a more
startling affirmation of public support.
These are matters in this contempory era that Prime Minister
Blair of Great Britain calls the second modern period which have
implications not merely for the economy but also for the
political processes. There is, I think, a clear support for what
is normally our duty in acting on a request under section 43.
It seems to me that the federal government, unless there is a
direct conflict with the charter of rights or some other
constitutional fundamental provision, is bound to act on a
provincial request. When we get this support in terms of the
popular majority, it seems we are bound to act.
The Leader of the Opposition did raise the issue as to whether
this should be discussed or considered by a joint Senate and
House committee. As I say, I have sympathy with the viewpoint of
the paramountcy of the elected House. I would simply say that we
have already had the opportunity of the Senate participating in
this process. In my view it was not necessarily surprising
that the particular senators delegated to that committee
before were exceptionally talented people. I think their role
has been constructive and useful. There is a body of accumulated
experience and I see no point in disturbing it at this stage,
although I understand the point of the Leader of the Opposition
there.
Back again to this issue, I think it is necessary to reaffirm
the point we have basically made. This is a proposition limited
to a change to term 17 of the terms of union of Newfoundland with
Canada.
Second, we are normally bound as a federal government to act on
a resolution presented in good faith under section 43 by a
provincial legislature unless there are overwhelming
constitutional reasons to the contrary. We did not see those 18
months ago and I do not see them today.
Third, the support of the people of Newfoundland, expressed in
the only way in a constitutional democracy it can be expressed,
through a vote, is overwhelming. I do not see that we would be
justified in rejecting it.
On the implications for other provinces, as I have said, I read
into my own vote, and I commend to others to do this, a
limitation to a particular constitutional amendment proposed
under section 43. This is without prejudice to a position that I
and others may take on a request from Quebec for an amendment or
a request from other provinces. However, I see no implication
here for perfectly legitimate political requests or demands that
religious groups in other provinces may make for various actions
by their government, whether it be in the form of state aid to
education of religious schools or otherwise. Those must be fought
on their political merits within those provinces and they are not
affected by what we are doing today.
Are there any other matters here? I would take note of the fact
that I believe the premier of Newfoundland has discharged, in
good faith, the undertaking he made that he would consult with
religious groups within the province. I think he has acted in
good faith on that. I am impressed by the guarantees that he is
giving here that religious education will be made available in
the province in what will become non-religious schools.
He has also carefully read the constitutional precedents and
none are better developed than those before the United States
supreme court. He has built into that guarantee guarantees of
the rights of parents of children who might wish to opt out of
their religious instruction.
1355
I think there has been a great deal of thought given to this by
Newfoundland. I think it indicates the value of the constituent
processes, the bilateral nature of the dealings. Newfoundland has
listened to objections that were made here by members of this
House on both sides who may have supported the measure but had
some objections to the way it was being done but who may have
voted for it nevertheless.
The premier has responded well. I think we should take this as
an example of good faith on his part and we should respond
equally to that.
I will be voting for this measure. It has been considerably
improved over the measure which I voted for before.
I am also impressed with the extra degree of constitutional
legitimacy it has by the very overwhelming vote that the
Newfoundland people expressed in democracy's most direct way, the
direct voting of the people.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Madam Speaker, I want to
reiterate my great admiration, past and present, for the member for
Vancouver Quadra, who was an emeritus professor of law. He has
been quoted in all Canadian faculties of law.
I have some questions, however, about the sort of nuance he is
introducing when he says that we are now debating the particular
case of Newfoundland. I get the feeling he would perhaps have
reservations when it came time to discuss the particular case of
Quebec and the amendment that province is seeking.
I would like the member for Vancouver Quadra to tell us if he
has any reservations and if they are the result of the Reform Party
approach?
Could he be influenced by the Reform Party in this regard? I would
like him to be a bit more specific.
Mr. Ted McWhinney: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the
hon. member for his question, which is, as usual, an intelligent
one. He is looking for an answer.
My observations, my nuances if you like, were more to do with
a few other provinces, not the Province of Quebec. I already have
an opinion on the amendment favoured by the Government of Quebec,
but I would like to make it clear that I am in no way suggesting
here that I would like to make a distinction between the two cases.
[English]
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I would
like to ask the hon. member a very decided question. It is a
question which I believe is fundamental to human rights.
I can take my car to a shop and have it fixed. Even though the
repairs are covered by the British Columbia government run
insurance company, I can choose the car dealer. I can choose my
doctor for myself and members of my family, even though it is a
government funded health care system.
Does he agree that we should have also the fundamental right to
choose for our children how and where they should be educated? If
there is a defence of that right of free choice, should there be
a financial penalty attached to exercising that right?
Mr. Ted McWhinney: Mr. Speaker, on this particular issue
we have all the rights guaranteed by the charter of rights
and an amendment put forward by a province cannot run
counter to the charter of rights.
On the issue left open, and I was particularly referring to
issues raised by certain provinces in relation to the
Newfoundland question, it seems to me completely open, if and
when we adopt this amendment, to raise the issue of the provision
of provincial aid, for example, for education in church schools
and other provinces. That is an issue to be fought out within
the political processes there, but there is no negative
implication from a vote here.
[Translation]
The Speaker: It being 2 p.m., we will now proceed to
Statements by Members.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
1400
[Translation]
JACQUES VILLENEUVE
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Jacques
Villeneuve, who comes from Quebec, won the 48th edition of the
world championship, becoming the 26th driver in history to do so.
The Prime Minister of Canada did not miss the opportunity to
congratulate the 26-year-old driver, who has set an example for all
Canadians. We are proud of him and know that this victory is the
result of the hard work and determination of a driver and his
entire team.
On behalf of all my colleagues, I congratulate Jacques on this
great victory, which will propel him on to other feats, of which we
will all be equally proud.
* * *
[English]
WAR MEDALS
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on
Saturday an extraordinary Canadian, Mr. Arthur Lee, stood up for
his adopted country by boldly acting to save the war medals of
poet Lieutenant Colonel John McCrae.
Chiselled on the walls of the House of Commons are the words of
the poem In Flanders Fields penned by John McCrae over 82
years ago:
Mr. Lee singlehandedly accomplished what the Liberals could not
or would not. Mr. Lee saw value while the Liberal minister of
heritage saw none. An important vestige of Canada's war history
is now preserved.
I ask the House and gallery to recognize Mr. Lee's deed, to
recognize his passing of the torch to the safety of our museums.
The veterans of Canada applaud his efforts.
* * *
DAVID SHANNON
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, David Shannon from my riding of Thunder Bay—Atikokan is
without a doubt one of the most courageous Canadians I have ever
met.
He has never allowed a spinal cord injury to prevent him from
pursuing his lifelong goals. David, an actor, a lawyer and a
community activist, recently completed a cross Canada tour on his
wheelchair. His trek began on April 1 in St. John's,
Newfoundland, and was completed on October 14 in Vancouver,
British Columbia.
During the journey David made public appearances, presented his
one act play, promoted the role that Canadians in wheelchairs
make to our communities and raised over half a million dollars
for spinal injury research.
Canadians are proud of David Shannon's accomplishments.
* * *
[Translation]
JACQUES VILLENEUVE
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the people of Berthier, Villeneuve country, where the new world
champion started out, and where the memory of his father Gilles is
still alive, followed the European Grand Prix held in Spain with
great emotion.
After an exciting race, and an victory that was as spectacular
as it was dramatic, Jacques Villeneuve, the Quebecker, the boy
from down home, became the World Formula 1 champion. In my part of
the country we have long recognized Jacques' talent, his brilliance
and his straight-forwardness. But with this victory, this great
victory won with class, honesty and exemplary sportsmanship, the
entire world has become aware of his great talent.
Jacques, all of Quebec is proud of you. You stuck to your
race for the championship with your usual tenacity.
Jacques Villeneuve, the great driver, has won not only the world
championship, but the hearts of all Quebeckers.
Bravo, Jacques, and thank you for this championship.
* * *
[English]
INUIT AND ABORIGINAL ART
Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
following my statement in the House last Wednesday the
parliamentary gift shop has agreed to take its fakelore from its
shelves. This is an important step toward promoting authentic
Inuit and aboriginal art in this great country of ours.
Much work still remains in promoting authentic Inuit and
aboriginal art. Regulations must be in place that will ensure
fakelore is properly labelled as imitation or fake.
My office will be undertaking this project with the help of
artists from across Canada in coming months.
* * *
ENVIRONMENT
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, based
on questions, the Leader of the Official Opposition does not
understand the climate change issue and is creating unnecessary
anxiety. This can be a win-win issue.
We can reduce emissions by shifting to greater use of cleaner
natural gas. We can reduce emissions by making buildings energy
efficient. We can reduce emissions by developing energy
efficient transportation policies. We can reduce emissions and
reduce production costs through energy efficiency. We can reduce
emissions and create jobs through the development of alternative
and renewable energies. We can reduce emissions by removing
costly subsidies for oil sands.
Over 2,000 leading Canadian and American economists have
declared there are many potential policies to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions for which the total benefits outweigh the costs.
1405
We can reap considerable economic benefits and help reverse
global warming. We can control emissions and help clear the air
without slowing our economy. It takes imagination and
determination. In Canada we have a lot of both.
* * *
[Translation]
JACQUES VILLENEUVE
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.):Mr. Speaker, yesterday Jacques
Villeneuve became World Formula 1 Champion.
He is the first Canadian to win this great honour. His
father's untimely death robbed him of the opportunity to win this
prize. I had the opportunity to participate with Gilles in a
competition on a circuit in Canada. He was a formidable driver, as
his son is now.
Congratulations to the people of Berthierville, in Quebec.
Congratulations to Canada. Congratulations to Jacques Villeneuve,
the new world champion.
* * *
[English]
CANADA POST
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Liberal government believes that a strong Canada
depends on a strong and economically vibrant rural community.
Rural post offices contribute to the fabric of our nation. I am
proud to state that the government has kept its promise to stop
the closure of rural post offices.
According to figures reported in the Western Producer
there are 19 more rural post offices operating in Canada today
than in 1993. Before that time the Conservatives abandoned over
30% of our rural post offices.
The Liberal government is standing up for rural Canadians and we
will continue to do so. Canada has the best postal system in the
world because it serves the needs of Canadians wherever they
live.
* * *
RIGHTS OF CHILDREN
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
social problem of child labour challenges people of conscience
around the world. A solution is not simple because in some
countries the child worker's income is vital to the family's
survival.
Canada's strategy focuses on children's rights, the right to
health and the right to education. Our CIDA funding targets
primary schooling and child care and seeks to strengthen the
position of women in society.
Today in Oslo at the International Organization of Labour
Conference, Canada joins 39 other countries in drafting an agenda
for action by the international community in order to protect
children from harmful and exploitative forms of child labour.
Let us all hope that Canada can build another consensus as
positive for children as the one we are now forging on land
mines.
* * *
TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the 288 kilometres of undivided portions of the
Trans-Canada Highway in Saskatchewan has this year claimed nine
lives and in the past four months 38 serious injuries have
occurred on the undivided sections.
The government is shirking its responsibilities. It refuses to
initiate a national highway program. It refuses to return a
reasonable share of the excise fuel tax. These refusals are
directly related to some of the deaths and injuries on the
untwinned portion of Saskatchewan's Trans-Canada Highway.
When motorists approach Saskatchewan on the number one highway
there should be signs saying “Drive with extreme caution. This
highway receives no federal funding”.
* * *
[Translation]
NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Ian
Darragh's article in November's National Geographic offers a bunch
of clichés on Quebec, including political uncertainty and
partition.
But the worst of it is that National Geographic runs down
Quebec's economy and presents a catastrophic view of Montreal.
With Quebec's economy growing 2.9% faster than those of the United
States, France and Italy and with Montreal becoming the North
American high tech capital, we might wonder about this journalist's
intellectual rigour.
However, we stop wondering when we discover that he is a
consultant with the Ottawa-Carleton Research Institute, an
organization promoting the economy of the Ottawa-Carleton region.
It is clearly a conflict of interest that the famous magazine must
surely have been aware of.
* * *
QUEBEC PREMIER
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
on the weekend, the Quebec premier said that he would not hesitate
to use the notwithstanding clause to restore the referendum act in
its entirety.
1410
As the House may remember, the Liberal government in Quebec
City used this clause in language matters. In 1996, the current
premier of Quebec disapproved of this option, saying that he
believed in democracy and that, by honouring all the obligations,
he would be able to face himself in the mirror in the morning
knowing he had not suspended the application of fundamental rights.
Rather an odd message from the premier of Quebec. This
approach seems acceptable to him only when his own government is
contemplating it. Are we to understand that the premier of Quebec
advocates a two-tier democracy? Is he really facing himself in the
mirror or is he looking in the rear view mirror?
* * *
[English]
HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to speak out in solidarity with an Edmonton
man, Mr. Ekrom Kolay, who is in his sixth day of a hunger strike
in support of imprisoned Turkish member of Parliament Leyla Zana.
Zana, the first Kurdish woman elected to the Turkish parliament,
was jailed with other MPs in 1994 for speaking out against the
brutality and violence of the Turkish government against the
Kurds and the destruction of their villages.
I appeal to the Government of Canada to call for the release of
Leyla Zana, winner of the 1995 European Sakharov peace prize, and
to urge the Turkish government to enter into a dialogue with the
Kurds that respects their right to self-determination and
fundamental human rights.
Too many writers and journalists have been jailed and murdered.
Too many innocent Kurds have been jailed, murdered and tortured.
Now is the time for peace and reconciliation.
* * *
REMEMBRANCE DAY
Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Sault Ste. Marie, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, with Remembrance Day fast approaching I would like to
pay tribute to Canadian veterans of the world wars, the Korean
war and the UN peacekeeping missions.
Canada has a proud military tradition but it too often goes
unrecognized. That is why I was very impressed to see
businessman Arthur Lee pay $400,000 to return the medals of John
McCrae to McCrae House in Guelph.
As mentioned earlier in the House, McCrae was the poet and World
War I veteran who gave us the haunting war poem In Flanders
Fields.
Mr. Lee, an immigrant, said his generous act was a way to repay
Canada for opening its doors to him.
I call on all Canadians to draw inspiration from Mr. Lee's
example and in some way repay those brave soldiers who have kept
the doors of freedom open to all of us.
* * *
WAR MEDALS
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, Canada
has another hero today. His name is Arthur Lee. Mr. Lee took it
upon himself to go to Toronto to the auction this weekend and bid
on Lieutenant Colonel McCrae's medals.
After a lengthy bidding process, his bid of $400,000 purchased
the medals. He will be donating the medals to the Guelph museum
where the rest of McCrae memorabilia has been preserved.
The Minister of Canadian Heritage should take note that
Canadians are very proud of their heritage and that they are
prepared to do anything to protect it. It was the minister who
should have looked after making sure these medals were put in the
museum.
Canadians are proud of Mr. Lee for what he has done to save
Canada's heritage. I suggest that he be invited to the House
where he can be thanked publicly and given special recognition
for protecting our heritage.
On behalf of myself, my colleagues and all our people in the
House and the millions of Canadians out there, we thank you, Mr.
Lee.
* * *
REFORM PARTY OF CANADA
Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
will start by telling you how proud I was the first day I sat in
the House. I felt that regardless of my party my colleagues and
I were here to create laws and directions for Canada. We would
make Canada a better place for all Canadians regardless of
religion or region.
I was and am excited at this prospect. Often I disagree with my
colleagues in opposition. However I believe they are expressing
their hearts in a way they feel is best for their constituents
and in most cases Canada. I commend them.
Recently I have become disillusioned at the actions of the
Reform Party. Enough is enough. Reform members continue to
describe in graphic detail the most heinous of crimes for no
other reason than grandstanding. I say shame.
I remind my colleagues that expressing the details of tragic
violent acts on national TV only makes the victims relive these
atrocities over again. Exploiting people's tragedy only hurts
the victims.
Canadians will not take it any more. The Reform Party and their
leader should be ashamed.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
1415
[English]
ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the way the Liberal government is cooking up this deal
on emissions is starting to remind Canadians of how Mulroney
cooked up the Meech Lake deal. The process is the same. A few
heads of state get together in a room. They agree to some
emission deal. It is top down, it is rushed and worst of all,
Canada agrees to sign before getting agreement from the key
players back home.
This approach did not work for Mulroney on the Constitution. Why
is the environment minister creating an environmental Meech Lake
accord?
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have said many times before, the
government is committed to legally binding targets that we will
sign onto with other annex I countries in Kyoto, Japan. With
respect, the government is also working in a serious style of
negotiation with all of the partners in this country who, after
Kyoto, have to be involved in putting in the measures necessary
to meet our targets. We do this with respect in our negotiating
process.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it would seem to me that if you are taking a common
sense approach to negotiating an environmental deal, you do a few
common sense things first. You get an agreement from the
provinces, the industries and the consumers at the front end. You
get an agreement in Canada about appropriate levels, about what
costs are acceptable and how to implement. Then you take this
made in Canada deal to Kyoto and you sign the treaty only if it
meets or exceeds your criteria.
My question for the environment minister is, is this common
sense approach not preferable to the top down, cart before the
horse, Meech Lake approach the government is taking?
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Reform Party what
its own position is on this very serious global issue. Is it
going to continue to put its head in the sand and say that there
is no problem?
This is an issue which implicates the future for our children
and our grandchildren. In its own Reform document the Reform
Party says it supports ensuring that all Canadians dwell in a
clean and healthy environment. When are you going to start
standing up for—
The Speaker: My colleagues, I invite you please to
address your remarks to the Chair.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Reform's approach has been for years to balance
environmental and economic concerns. The way to do that is to go
to the Canadian players first and get an agreement. You get an
agreement on levels. You get an agreement on costs. You get an
agreement on implementation. Then you take the made in Canada
agreement to Kyoto and negotiate with the international players
and they sign if they get agreement.
Why does the minister not take that approach in that sequence?
Why does she start at the top, say she is going to sign something
and then come back and persuade the Canadian players to get an
agreement?
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I, other ministers in our government and
our officials have held many, many meetings over the years with
officials and other parties to this important negotiation. With
respect, the Reform Party cannot even listen to its own critic
about its position.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
in response to the environment minister, I would like to make my
position abundantly clear. I oppose a gas tax. I oppose an
energy tax. I oppose an environment tax. I even hate the GST.
I would like to ask the minister, why will the environment
minister not do the same thing?
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government is open to looking at many
alternatives with our partners in dealing with this important
issue which affects all Canadians.
I suppose the critic opposite is suggesting that he is
responding to his own quotes where he says “You have to look at
the whole package of where you are going to go, where you want to
be. Yes, environmental taxes even may be part of the equation if
they are dedicated”.
1420
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
let me say it again. The Reform Party will strenuously oppose any
new tax the Liberals bring in, thanks to Kyoto. No gas tax, no
energy tax, no environment tax, no green tax at all, no tax
period.
Why will the minister not stand in her place today and tell
Canadians that the Liberals will not raise taxes because of their
backroom deal in Kyoto?
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this issue is much more important than
the scare mongering of the Reform Party on the issue of taxes.
I would like to ask the Reform Party what they are going to do,
what are their own suggestions about dealing with greenhouse gas
emissions.
* * *
[Translation]
LINGUISTIC SCHOOL BOARDS
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
rumours are flying about the government's support for the section
93 constitutional amendment.
The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs promised to act
quickly so that the Government of Quebec could go ahead with this
reform.
Can the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs tell us if the
government intends to require all Liberal members to vote in favour
of this amendment?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt about the
government's support for this initiative. As for whether the Prime
Minister intends to insist on party discipline or whether he will
allow a free vote, only the Prime Minister can answer this question
in due course. But it is a government initiative proposed in this
House, and it is the government's intention, of course, to proceed.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
one of the principles underlying oral question period is that the
government is accountable and must answer. If the Prime Minister
is not here, it does not mean the government ceases to operate.
I therefore ask the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs to
tell us if the government intends to require all Liberal members to
vote in favour of this amendment and not to engage in doubletalk
with statements to the effect that the government is favourable,
but that members are being allowed to vote as they wish and that it
does not recognize the unanimous request of the Government of
Quebec.
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Government of Canada supports the constitutional
amendment passed unanimously by the National Assembly. We think it
is important to have a parliamentary committee, particularly as
there was not one in the National Assembly. We think that the
amendment should be approved because it is good for Quebec and
because there is consensus. A committee is doing its work and
members should quit their politicking.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
In 1993, when New Brunswick needed a constitutional amendment to
make French and English the province's official languages, the Prime
Minister, who was then the leader of the opposition, demanded that
Liberal members show solidarity in supporting New Brunswick's request.
Does the minister intend to make the same recommendation to the
government, to ensure Quebec's request for an amendment meets with
success?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is important to remember that the first time New
Brunswick's request was debated in this House, the small number of Bloc
Quebecois members who were here at the time refused to support it, thus
preventing us from having the unanimous consent necessary to make the
change before the election. The Bloc Quebecois opposed the request.
An hon. member: It is not true.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Bloc
Quebecois wanted a recorded division to force everyone in this House to
show his or her true colours and we got it.
My question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. Are
not the current hesitations of the government an indication that the
various interest groups and lobbies are getting their way and are
beginning to weaken the unanimous consent of the National Assembly?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Quebec is a pluralistic society whose people hold various views.
The federal government reviewed the issue and concluded there was
a consensus for a measure that would be appropriate for Quebec society.
The committee is doing its work and we will await the results.
* * *
1425
[English]
TAXATION
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance.
Nova Scotia's premier is back in Ottawa. This former Liberal
member of Parliament is now telling anyone who will listen that
he left federal politics to try to undo the damage caused by four
years of disastrous Liberal policy.
Can the finance minister confirm that he will today discuss with
the Nova Scotia premier ways to undo the damage of cuts to
education, undo the damage of cuts to health care and undo the
damage being caused to Nova Scotians by his blended sales tax?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, indeed today I will be meeting with the premier of Nova
Scotia. He is coming here with a number of items to discuss with
myself and with other members. I look forward to this particular
discussion.
The premier of Nova Scotia, long time a member of this House, is
an outstanding Canadian. He has a very clear vision of the
future of Nova Scotia. We will do everything we possibly can to
make sure that Nova Scotia continues to progress.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, they
may actually get somewhere in this pre-election flurry.
When he was an MP the Nova Scotia premier voted for the blended
sales tax. He now admits that the BST is hurting Nova Scotians.
The Prime Minister on the other hand is busy gloating that he has
worked the bugs out of the BST, that it is a great tax.
Will the finance minister be meeting with the Nova Scotia
premier to reminisce about the days when they were BST boosters
together in the Liberal caucus, or will he instead get down to
business and undo the BST and the damage it is causing to Nova
Scotians?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the harmonized sales tax is supported by the chamber of
commerce and all of the small and medium size business groups in
Nova Scotia precisely because it has lowered taxes for consumers,
because it has lowered their administrative costs and it is
enabling them to create jobs.
I am very surprised that the leader of the NDP, who has some
experience in Nova Scotia, would not support the premier of Nova
Scotia who is an outstanding Canadian, an outstanding
representative of Atlantic Canada, and who is here to do his best
by the province. What the leader of the NDP ought to do is to
support him in his desire to improve—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Sherbrooke.
* * *
FISHERIES
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
Last Friday in Vancouver I met with representatives of the
Community Fisheries Development Centre, the Coastal Community
Network and the United Fishermen and Allied Workers Union. All
of these groups said to me that the government's Mifflin plan for
the fishery was an unmitigated disaster, that the government is
not listening and that if the government has a plan for the
fishery, they have no idea what it is.
Can the government tell us today what its plan is for the
fishery on the west coast?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this government is fully
supportive of the fisheries on both coasts of Canada and the
inland fisheries as well.
This government has been very clear in the past that it is not
the attitude of those supported by the colleague of the hon.
member in the other place that advances the Canadian fishing
industry, or anything else for that matter, in this country.
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
groups that I met with on Friday are not interested in the
minister's hot air and rhetoric about this issue. What they want
to know is what the government is going to do. It is their
livelihood that is at stake.
Can I suggest something constructive to the government and to
the Deputy Prime Minister? At the APEC summit that will be held
in November in Vancouver, the Prime Minister will meet with
President Clinton. Will they give a mandate to the two envoys,
Mr. Ruckelshaus and Mr. Strangway, to report to them at that time
so that they can bring a solution to this very important issue
for the livelihood of fishermen on the west coast?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it all depends on whether a proper, good, effective
report is ready.
Later this week both Messrs. Strangway and Ruckelshaus will be
in Ottawa to meet with officials to brief us on their progress.
They have undertaken an extensive consultation. We want to know
how far they have been able to come with recommendations. It
will depend on where they are at. That will determine when and
where we then present those reports to the President of the
United States and the Prime Minister.
* * *
ENVIRONMENT
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister of the Environment talks about this deal that she is
going to sign in Kyoto and is rather confused yet about her
policy.
I suggest that a policy she might take to the table there is to
first get an agreement from the provinces and those people who
are going to be affected in Canada. She should get an agreement
in Canada if she is trying to get a deal that is good for Canada.
Then she can take that deal to Kyoto and see if they will sign
it.
1430
My question for the Minister of Environment is simply that if
she is truly committed to the environment, why will she not try
this approach to get Canadians on side and try to sell the deal
there?
Whose side is she on, Kyoto's or Canada's?
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this government is on the side of
Canadians. This government is on the side of the environment.
This government is on the side of doing something about the very
serious issue of climate change and we will continue to negotiate
with all the Canadian partners who will help us to achieve our
targets.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
for all the talk about being so committed to Canadians and the
environment, the minister is going to Kyoto to have them tell her
the agreement she is going to sign. That is absolutely
backwards.
Why will this minister not go to Kyoto and tell them what is
good for Canada? Why will she not get a deal that Canadians will
accept before she goes there, not have it rammed down their
throats when she gets home?
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada is an active participant in the
negotiations for a deal that will be signed in Kyoto. We are
there representing the best interests of Canada. We are there
trying to make sure that we get annex I countries signing on to a
deal in Kyoto. That is what is important if we are going to deal
with the issue of global change.
* * *
[Translation]
OUTAOUAIS ALLIANCE
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
While francophone groups are fighting for French to be
respected in the Pontiac region, a federally funded group of
anglophones, Outaouais Alliance, is proposing that merchants defy
the signage requirements of the Charte de la langue française.
Since Outaouais Alliance has suggested that anglophone
businesses defy a law of the Government of Quebec, is it the
Minister of Heritage's intention to immediately withdraw its
federal funding for 1997-98?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): It is
certain that the Government of Canada is not in favour of a group
refusing to respect provincial or federal language legislation.
Now, in connection with the words of the hon. member opposite,
this is the first I have heard of this matter, and I will look into
it and get back to him very soon.
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu, BQ): Mr. Speaker, is the
minister aware that, by funding Outaouais Alliance under these
circumstances, she is promoting civil disobedience?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, certainly any encouragement to disobey the law is wrong.
Although the Government of Quebec sometimes questions federal
legislation on certain matters and is, for instance, questioning
election legislation, all political parties and all political
actions must respect the law.
We hope that the Government of Quebec is going to respect the
Supreme Court decision on signage, and we hope that Outaouais
Alliance will do so as well.
* * *
[English]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of the Environment knows that the science community
is divided on the issue of global warming. She knows that there
is no consensus as to the extent of the problem, the cause of the
problem or the best solution.
My question to the Minister of the Environment is which
particular scientists, whose studies has she used to form the
basis of Canada's position at the Kyoto Conference?
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there are thousands of respected
scientists around the world who are telling us all that this an
issue we have to be concerned about. Their science tells us that
human introduction of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere is
changing our climate.
The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers is placing ads
in the paper, and I will table this. If I may quote, on the
issue of greenhouse gases: “Scientists are divided about climate
change and whether man made emissions are a major cause. But we
think it's better to be safe than sorry”.
1435
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this
government has a troubling history of ignoring good science. The
Liberals in the past have twisted the studies of the fisheries
and oceans and health departments to suit their own particular
agenda.
The question is not whether we should not deal with the
greenhouse problem, the issue is will this minister release
publicly to the public the particular studies that formed the
basis of the Kyoto position or would she prefer—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of the Environment.
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there are all kinds of science in support
of the international community's signing an agreement in Kyoto,
Japan. To carry on with a quote from the Canadian Association of
Petroleum Producers: “But we think it is better to be safe than
sorry. The world should act now to control carbon dioxide
emissions”.
The Insurance Bureau of Canada states there appears to be very
clear scientific evidence that global warming increases severe
weather. That increasing severe weather is causing the industry
hundreds of millions of dollars every year.
* * *
[Translation]
MINISTER OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is to
the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs stated over the weekend
before Liberal supporters, and I quote “That there were too many Lucien
Bouchards in the world in countries that are not democratic”.
Could the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs explain to us what
he means by this surprising sentence “There are too many Lucien
Bouchards in the world in countries that are not democratic”?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the member for giving me the opportunity to repeat in this House
what I said Friday night in Kamloops, as can be read in the transcripts.
Please excuse my English; it won't be very long.
[English]
Do you know how many groups in the world give themselves
collective identity? Experts say that it is between three
thousand and five thousand. There are not two hundred states in
the United Nations. So don't let—in this beautiful country of
Canada—don't let the Lucien Bouchards win with a separation.
Because there are too many Lucien Bouchards through the world who
would create a mess in this country—in Africa, Asia, in many
places in the world—if we say that there is no future for the
co-habitation of—
[Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs says exactly the same thing we are saying.
The minister has always said that he wanted a rational debate on
the issue of a Quebec sovereignty. Does he not think that stating that
there are too many Lucien Bouchards in the world constitutes dangerous,
irresponsible and even hateful language?
[English]
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, “—if we say that there is no future for
co-habitation of cultures, synergy of cultures within the same
state. That the sole solution is a separation of cultures. This
is a wrong idea. I don't want this wrong idea to win in my
country”.
* * *
CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this weekend Premier Klein said that Alberta may
consider dropping out of the Canada pension plan and set up its
own citizens retirement fund. Who could blame him?
The more people look at the Liberal CPP changes, the less they
like them.
Did the minister really expect people to stay in a plan that
offers only a measly 1.8% return?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the return is substantially
higher than that. It is in fact a return which will be
commensurate with any other pension plan given the fact that it
will be administered at arm's length.
The former minister of finance, the treasurer of Alberta, Mr.
Dinning, was one of the leaders and a very constructive force in
the development of the Canada pension plan along with the other
provinces.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is not only Alberta that is less than impressed with
this scheme. B.C. wants nothing to do with it. Saskatchewan
says to forget it. Quebec never did join.
How long will it be until the only one left in this pyramid
scheme is the minister?
1440
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, again, the hon. member does have a responsibility to
Canadians and to this House to get her facts straight.
The difference of opinion between Saskatchewan and British
Columbia and the other eight provinces was that those two
provinces wanted to see the rates go up higher and less
moderation of benefits. Quebec has precisely the same plan. It
was set up at the very beginning and it is putting through
exactly the same changes in terms of premiums as we are.
The fundamental fact is that Alberta took a leadership role
along with the other provinces when we put this together, and
they have signed on to the deal. The hon. member simply has a—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Repentigny.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL TRADE TRIBUNAL
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance.
On July 22 of this year, the Canadian International Trade
Tribunal ruled favourably on the Shan swimwear company's request
for a removal of duties on European fabrics so that it could
compete on an equal footing with Israeli manufacturers.
Is the minister going to help this company by assuming his
responsibilities, standing up to the opposing lobbies and giving
effect rapidly to the trade tribunal's ruling?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
the member is well aware, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal
has now received additional information and, since it is an
independent body, has asked to review the file. The information
came from other manufacturers located in Quebec.
* * *
[English]
KENYA
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for Latin
America and Africa. Canadians read of violent crackdowns on
political demonstrations in Kenya.
In light of upcoming elections could the secretary of state tell
us what Canada has done to make clear our support for free and
democratic elections for the Kenyan people?
[Translation]
Hon. David Kilgour (Secretary of State (Latin America and
Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for
Etobicoke—Lakeshore for her serious question.
[English]
All Canadians along with the member share concern about the
violence that occurred in Kenya and are very anxious, as is the
government, that it not occur again.
I was in Nairobi last month where I discussed election issues
with a number of officials in the government, including MPs from
all parties. There is a basis for hope that the elections when
they are held, which must before the end of December, will be
violence free and will be free and proper.
* * *
CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians have seen their standard of living eroded in the last
few years primarily because of tax increases. We know the
government has said absolutely no to tax relief but it has said a
big yes to tax hikes in the form of the $700 increase to CPP
premiums, double that if you are self-employed.
So what are Canadians supposed to do? Are they supposed to eat
a little less every month to save some money? Are they supposed
to skip their mortgage payments, maybe take the kids out of
hockey?
Will the finance minister tell Canadians, with the highest
personal income taxes in the G-7, just where the money is
supposed to come from for the $700 CPP tax hike?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, once again, one really has to look at the adequacy of
the research department for the Reform Party. The fact of the
matter is the net worth of Canadian households is up. The fact
is what the Reform Party has not done is tell the Canadian people
what it would do with the very large liability that is owed to
those Canadians who are currently retired or those Canadians who
are currently working and putting money into the Canada pension
plan.
As things currently stand there are only one or two
alternatives. Either Reformers are suggesting a 13% premium
versus 9.9% or they would renege on the commitments to
Canadians—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Medicine Hat.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we
just want to thank the minister for that firsthand report from
fantasy land. I do not blame him for being a little ashamed
about that 1.8% return under his own plan.
For many people this is no laughing matter. They are going to
have to dramatically cut their own standards of living to pay for
the minister's Ponzi scheme. He has ruled out substantial tax
relief in the short run.
Again, where does he expect people to get the money from to pay
for his plan? Where are they going to get the money?
1445
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this is an important debate for Canadians.
What the Reform Party is talking about doing is destroying the
Canada pension plan. Its members have a responsibility to tell
Canadians, those who are currently contributing to the plan,
those who rely on it, what Reform will do with about $600 billion
liability.
Reform members have a responsibility to put their cards on the
table and not engage in a bunch of fearmongering.
* * *
EDUCATION
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Finance will know that the Harris government has
turned its back on the province's students, creating havoc in the
provincial educational system as a result of draconian cuts to
the funding of education.
Would the minister not agree that it is the federal Liberal
government that is responsible for the mindset of tax cut
downloading that is hurting Ontario's students today?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member, a member of Parliament with
considerable experience, will know that there were reductions in
transfers, in Ontario's case, of close to a billion dollars. That
is 25% of the $4.9 billion cut that the Conservative Government
of Ontario has brought in and, as a result of which, is closing
hospitals and shutting down schools.
That is precisely the difference between ourselves and the
Reform Party. Of course we want to cut taxes, but we are not
prepared to cut health care. We are not prepared to cut
education. We are not prepared to—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Kamloops.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I could
not agree with the Minister of Finance more. As a result of the
mindless decision to cut taxes in the province of Ontario, the
result has been the complete abandonment of its young people who
are students who want to study.
Will the Minister of Finance stand up and show that he stands
behind what he actually says, speak out against the Harris
government and join us on the picket lines tomorrow to stand
shoulder to shoulder with the students and teachers of this
province?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member knows full well that the government is
not going to engage in commenting on what goes on in individual
provinces.
The fact is that to the best of my knowledge, when the
Government of Saskatchewan was shutting down hospitals we did not
make a lot of comment about that. Perhaps we should have.
There is one thing that we will do. We are going to protect
Canadians. We are going to protect low income Canadians. We are
going to invest in the things they want.
That is why the line in the sand is drawn between this side of
the House and that side of the House. We are going to protect
the basic social fabric and the values—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester.
* * *
HIGHWAYS
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Transport. The Prime Minister
recently wrote me a letter, trying to explain the convoluted,
screwball, highway toll deal in Nova Scotia.
I appreciate the Prime Minister's effort but he is all wrong,
including the statement that says $60.9 million was provided by
Atlantic Highways Corporation. In fact, it did not provide that.
They are getting paid it. They are not putting it in. The Prime
Minister also said that it was a public-private partnership,
which it is not.
If the Prime Minister and his staff cannot understand this
convoluted deal, how can the people of Nova Scotia understand it?
My question for the Minister of Transport is—
The Speaker: Second question.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr.
Speaker, in respect to the convoluted deal, my question is still
will the minister announce today a federal-provincial agreement
to replace that?
Also, will the minister address the fact that the chief
investigator of the federal competition bureau and the auditor
general are reviewing the issue.
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Transport.
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, unlike the member's question, I will give an
non-convoluted answer. No.
* * *
PENSIONS
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance.
With respect to the Canada-U.S. tax treaty, over 80,000 seniors
receiving the U.S. social security pension have seen their
incomes drop by more than 25%. Many of these are low income
seniors.
What is the government doing to get this money back into the
hands of those who need relief now?
1450
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member for Durham has been a fervent advocate of changes to
the Canada-U.S. treaty, as indeed have a number of other members
in the House, changes which would bring needed relief to tens of
thousands of low and middle income Canadians. As he also knows,
and as the House knows, our bill is currently on schedule and
will be before the House in due time.
Although the bill is not yet on the floor of the U.S. Senate, we
have heard encouraging news. The U.S. Senate foreign relations
committee has recommended to the Senate that it pass the—
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, today the joint environmental review panel released its
decision on the routes of the Sable Island gas pipeline: through
New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and not Quebec.
Will the government commit today to letting this impartial
decision stand and promise not to let Liberal politics weigh in
any decision?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the joint panel report was released at about noon today.
The government has obviously only just received it. We are in
the process of reviewing all of its recommendations, some 46 in
total.
It is our intention to give the report very careful
consideration and respond within the appropriate timeframe. We
want to ensure that whatever decision is taken is taken on a
sound, proper, legal basis.
* * *
[Translation]
SINGER RETIREES
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
In 1987, 600 retirees from the Singer company sought their
pension fund from the federal government. Today there are only 350
of them and their average age is 82.
Because this is a matter to be handled humanely and not
technically or legally, would the minister not agree to the
proposal made by the Singer retirees of calling on Claude
Castonguay to act as mediator, particularly since Mr. Castonguay is
prepared to—
The Speaker: The Minister of Human Resources Development.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I understand very well the
concerns raised by the former employees of the Singer company, but,
as the hon. member knows, the Singer case is now before the courts.
I would repeat what I have already said to the member. The
government properly managed the money it was responsible for at the
time. What it cannot do is assume responsibility for a plan it was
not responsible for. The member will understand that the financial
consequences for the government would be considerably greater.
* * *
[English]
PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
At a meeting this past weekend of the Professional Institute of
the Public Service its president, Mr. Hindle, said that the pride
of the public service will never be restored as long as it is run
by paternalistic managers who do not treat workers as equals and
who keep them from speaking out on politically sensitive issues.
He also stated that mismanagement of Canada's fisheries
illustrates how public service managers keep employees from
speaking the truth.
When will the Liberal government remove the suppression or gag
order from scientists who work in the fisheries and oceans,
health and environment departments and allow the truth to come
forward—
The Speaker: The hon. government House leader.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in answering on behalf of the
minister of fisheries, no attempt at all has been made by the
government to suppress the views of scientists.
The scientists have a structure by which to respond collectively
to individual issues as they are raised. There is no effort at
all to suppress the views of scientists. That is false.
* * *
SEARCH AND RESCUE
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker,
Canadian search and rescue did a fantastic job last week.
Canadians should all be proud of what was accomplished. But how
many ships have to sink before the government realizes that
helicopters are not about partisan politics but about saving
lives?
On Friday the minister told the House the capabilities of the
new helicopters were limited. During the weekend some of the
manufacturers went on record as saying they could have done the
job.
Who understands the capabilities of these new helicopters, the
manufacturer or the minister of defence?
1455
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the people who know the best are the fine
dedicated men and women who are part of our search and rescue
operation. They do a terrific job in saving lives. They know
the kind of equipment they need. They know the kind of aircraft
they have in addition to helicopters. They also know any of the
helicopters that are being suggested do not have the range that
was involved here.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talks about not making it partisan.
It is unfortunate and ludicrous that they try to exploit this
most unfortunate case.
* * *
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we have just been advised that the Toronto and New York
stock exchanges have shut down to avoid a major collapse of the
equity markets.
Would the minister like to comment on this and advise the House
of the government's position on restoring stability?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition knows there has been market
turmoil in the Asian markets for a period of weeks. In fact last
week the situation deteriorated and then came back.
As far as Canada is concerned—in fact as far as North American
markets are concerned—our fiscal situation has improved
substantially. I am very confident that the structural reforms
that are required in Asia to prevent contagion are in place and I
feel very confident about the situation in North America and in
Canada specifically.
* * *
FINANCE
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade.
Some critics have claimed that the multilateral agreement on
investment would remove Canada's ability to place restrictions on
foreign investment.
Can the minister tell the House how the MAI will affect Canada's
right to control foreign investment in this country?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, essentially the fundamental goal of the
MAI negotiations currently under way in Geneva is to ensure
non-discrimination for foreign investment, investment in Canada
as well as investment overseas by Canadians.
Second, it is to uphold the standards and laws of one's own
country. That is why every country is permitted to put forward
exemptions and that is exactly what Canada will do in order to
promote and protect her interests.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL TRADE TRIBUNAL
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, earlier
the Minister of Finance told us that he had new information
following the decision handed down on July 22. As is the practice
of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, all witnesses were
heard prior to July 22 and the final decision was rendered on July
22.
Will the minister comply with the decision of the Canadian
International Trade Tribunal?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
tribunal sets its own rules. The tribunal advised us that it had
received additional information and it requested more time to
review the situation.
* * *
[English]
PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the minutes of the Joyceville inmate committee for August
26. Canadians will be outraged to hear of the acting deputy
warden's support for some “type of payment plan” to inmates in
trouble with drug and gambling debts.
Does the solicitor general believe that drug loans help to
rehabilitate inmates?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Of
course not, Mr. Speaker.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, last
week the United States announced its position on greenhouse gas
emissions for the Kyoto conference on climate change. Canada is
the only G-7 country that has not made its position public. It
is unacceptable that the government is not prepared for an
international treaty that is less than two months away.
1500
Will the minister make public prior to the Kyoto conference
Canada's position on greenhouse gas emissions? Will the minister
guarantee the full support of her provincial counterparts? If
so, does a strategy to implement the—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of the Environment.
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada will make its
announcement on targets and time lines when it feels it is
appropriate.
* * *
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to
the presence in the gallery of the members of the Committee on
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Security from the Senate of the
Czech Republic.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-266, an act to amend the Criminal Code
(alcohol sensing ignition controls for automobiles).
He said: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank my hon.
colleague from Crowfoot for seconding the bill.
Alcohol is involved in more than 40% of all traffic fatalities.
As Mothers Against Drunk Driving noted last week, on average 4.5
Canadians are killed each and every day in alcohol related
crashes. Even when their licences are suspended many impaired
drivers continue to drive, endangering more lives.
This private member's bill promotes the use of ignition
interlocks in the sentencing of drunk drivers. If they cannot
start their car because they have been drinking, they will not be
on the road killing innocent people.
It has been demonstrated that the use of interlock reduces the
rate of reoffending by up to 70%. That will save a lot of
Canadian lives.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
[Translation]
PETITIONS
CANADA LABOUR CODE
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to present a petition signed by some 600 Quebeckers who are calling upon
Parliament to take action so that part II of the Canada Labour Code can
be amended to make it mandatory to reassign any pregnant worker if her
health or the health of her unborn child is threatened and, in such
cases, to provide for preventive withdrawal from work with pay.
This petition is signed by people from almost all of Quebec's
regions.
* * *
1505
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask that all
questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
NEWFOUNDLAND SCHOOL SYSTEM
The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the
amendment.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Members will recall
that at the termination of the debate before question period the
hon. member for Vancouver Quadra had seven minutes remaining on
questions and comments.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I just had
a private conversation with the member for Vancouver Quadra and
he is now prepared to answer the question I asked just before
question period started.
I am eagerly anticipating the answer with respect to the freedom
of parents to choose education for their children and not to
suffer a financial penalty for making that choice.
Mr. Ted McWhinney: Mr. Speaker, I had begun to answer the
question and question period arrived so my answers were a little
elliptic. I am happy to add to them.
The situation in Canada is different from that in the United
States. In particular our charter of rights is different from
the American bill of rights. I think we can resume the position
as follows.
There is no constitutional separation of church and state in
Canada. Therefore it is perfectly open for any province within
the constitutional provisions to make provision for financial aid
to church schools or other schools. That is a political choice
of the province. There is no constitutional barrier to that.
As to the issue of parents' rights, it is within the rights of
parents to ask for religious exercises in schools. That was
again a decision for the province and the provincial
instrumentalities which include municipal bodies and eventually
school boards. The matter essentially is that there are no
constitutional fetters. It is a matter of the political choice
of the electors and their elected representatives.
I hope that answers the question the hon. member posed. It is
an important question. I realize in this general debate on the
Newfoundland amendment, and I suspect the Quebec amendment to
come, there are matters of this sort that are a concern to
citizens of the country. I have received representations and
questions on them myself.
For that reason I thank the hon. member for aiding the cause of
enlightenment.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member for
Vancouver Quadra if there is no constitutional separation of
church and state in Canada where the protection for
denominational schools is. Is it under section 93?
Mr. Ted McWhinney: Mr. Speaker, the only constitutional
protections that exist are under section 93 as such. I should
have said when there is no separation of church and state as in
the United States. There is no official religion here as there
is in Great Britain. The only formal constitutional guarantees
are in section 93.
We will be called upon in the next few weeks to rule on the
question in relation to Quebec and its request for a
constitutional amendment. It is essentially a matter of the
political will. There are no barriers other than the barriers in
the political processes of persuading one's citizens to adopt a
particular course.
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, since the hon. member opposite
has said that it is a matter of political will I have another
question.
It seems to be a fundamental right of parents to make choices
with respect to how and where their children are educated.
If they were not taxpayers I suppose we could simply say it was
public policy, public money, and not their money.
1510
Essentially 100% of these parents are also taxpayers. They pay
into the education pot. Why can they not take money from the
education pot to which they have contributed and make a free
choice on how their children are educated?
Does the member suppose the Liberal Party will ever demonstrate
the political will to grant this most fundamental human freedom?
Mr. Ted McWhinney: Mr. Speaker, I would have to reply to
the hon. member that we have a federal system and a
constitutional division of competencies. That is a question more
properly addressed to the provincial legislature in his case or
to provincial legislatures generally.
It is within the free will of the provincial legislatures to
make these arrangements. There is an increasing sophistication
in provincial legislatures and a realization that within the cost
of education there has to be some greater pluralizing of the
educational system.
I would say he should go directly to the provincial legislature.
The problems are not constitutional. They are matters of
political choice.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I address the
debate today on term 17 and the Newfoundland educational system.
It is extremely important for all of us to look at what a
Canadian constitution is and to decide whether it is an
historical document with no relevance to today's society. Should
it be a document that evolves with the changes in our society,
stays up to date with the times and changes with the needs
expressed in different communities?
The motion before the House refers to term 17 and the
Newfoundland agreement of coming into Confederation. It deals
with denominational schools and whether or not they should be run
by the churches as opposed to the state.
This situation has occurred over the years and was brought into
question in 1992 by the Williams Royal Commission on Education
that reported to the government with recommendations for change.
Discussions were entered between the government and the churches
to try to come up with some kind of consensus. They were unable
to do so.
Because of this situation then Premier Clyde Wells of
Newfoundland attempted to reach a compromise position in 1995
with the churches and the government by introducing a
constitutional amendment to term 17 which altered but did not
eliminate denominational rights. On September 5, 1995 the people
of Newfoundland voted in a referendum on the following question:
Do you support revising term 17 in the manner proposed by the
government to enable reform of the denominational education
system? Yes or No.
Of the 384,734 voters on the list 52% of them cast ballots. The
result was that 54.8% said yes. They felt that there should be
some changes to term 17.
On October 31, 1995 the Newfoundland House of Assembly passed
the resolution to amend term 17. In June 1996 the House of
Commons passed the motion. In July 1996, after holding committee
meetings from June 18 to July 10, the Senate committee issued its
report recommending amendments to the resolution. In August 1996
amendments to the school act and the education act were
proclaimed replacing the 37 denominational school boards with 10
interdenominational boards.
When I looked at that and at the population of Newfoundland with
37 denominational school boards it seemed like an onerous system.
In Vancouver, Surrey and Richmond, each city has a school board.
In essence, we are talking about 1.5 million people in the
greater Vancouver area with less than 10 school boards. I would
think that perhaps it makes some sense for that to have happened.
1515
In 1996 the Senate voted to amend the resolution. In December
1996 the House of Commons passed the original resolution for a
second time. A new Schools Act and Education Act came into force
in January 1997.
One thing we have to acknowledge is that Newfoundland has done
something that Quebec has yet to do. When Newfoundland decided
that it was going to bring these kinds of changes to the school
system, whether or not it had the support of the people, it had a
referendum. It knew that if it was going to be supported by the
people, by the citizens of Newfoundland, that it would have to go
out and sell the idea. As I said a little earlier in my
comments, 54% of the people of Newfoundland said yes.
What happens is that people challenge and this was no different.
After the Schools Act and Education Act came into force there
was a challenge to the way the province of Newfoundland was going
to administer it. In May 1997 the Catholic and Pentecostal
churches issued a statement of claim and application for
interlocutory relief in the Newfoundland supreme court. In July
1997 Mr. Justice Leo Barry granted an injunction.
I think it is necessary for us to understand that the injunction
was not against amending term 17 but it was against the changes
to the Schools Act as a result of the changes to term 17. I
would hate to see in Canada that we would feel that a
constitution cannot be changed. It is important for me to make
the clarification that the courts were not saying we could not
change the Constitution. They were merely addressing how the
changes to the Constitution were being processed through the
Education Act.
Newfoundland, in realizing that there was a problem in its
constituency, did another honourable thing. It went back to the
people and said that it wanted the people to tell it whether they
agreed with what it was trying to do.
In September 1997 Newfoundland put another question to its
people which was very clear: Do you support a single school
system where all children, regardless of their religious
affiliation, attend the same schools where opportunities for
religious education and observances are provided, yes or no? The
result of that referendum was 73%.
It is very important to use three tests as to whether or not the
Constitution should be amended. It is very important if we
accept the fact that they are changing a living document which
can be amended, to understand or accept whether the people are
behind the changes, the people who will be affected by them.
Does the change have the consensus of the population? I think
Newfoundland has gone to great lengths to find that consensus and
it has met that test.
The second test is whether they are legally able to do that.
Something we will see over the next few years is whether there is
a consensus that Newfoundland has the right under the law to make
those kinds of changes to term 17.
One of the final tests has to be as to whether it is in the
national interest. Is the change that is taking place going to
be in the best interests of the citizenry? Is it going to
protect the minority populations that will be affected by it? Is
it going to recognize that sometimes when we do things for one
province it has an effect on other provinces in Confederation?
1520
As a country, we must always look at whether this amendment to
part of the Constitution which may only affect one province will
have any effect on other provinces in a way that would not have
the support of the people in the other provinces. Is it going to
be a precedent when dealing with constitutional issues down the
road? We have to look at the three different areas that might be
affected through constitutional change.
I suggest to individuals who are concerned as to whether or not
there was a proper consensus of the population, I would like to
think that with two resolutions that clearly indicated what the
province was intending to do with the support of the majority of
the population that they could feel comforted that it did have a
consensus. Within the rule of law if there is a problem
concerning whether or not there is a legal right, it will be
challenged in the courts and it will be decided very clearly.
The third question on national interests is perhaps a little
harder to deal with. That is a question we will have to set our
minds to. The committee that will be formed by the House of
Commons will have to set its mind to the question of whether this
is in the national interest.
The amendment that was introduced earlier today by the Leader of
the Opposition deals with whether it should be a joint committee
and whether the hearings should take place in Newfoundland. It
is time the Senate be relegated to the position it is in, a house
that has no support because it is unelected. How is it possible
for an unelected body to be making these serious recommendations
on changing a constitution when it is not accountable to anybody?
It is a system that may be outdated and should be looked at
being changed, as is term 17 of the Newfoundland school act.
The other issue is whether we can justify dealing with term 17
in Ottawa. How is it possible for the people of Newfoundland to
feel they have been taken seriously, that they are being given
every opportunity and an equal opportunity to meet with committee
members to have their positions heard if they are expected to
travel to Ottawa? In this situation the committee should be
holding its hearings in Newfoundland where the parents live. The
committee should make sure Newfoundlanders have the full
opportunity to present their position before the committee.
Once again the government is dealing with a very serious issue,
amending the Canadian Constitution, and it has set a deadline.
The committee must report back by December 5. When we talk about
constitutional matters that have great importance to our country,
although I believe it should be a living breathing document, we
cannot make decisions in haste without fully reviewing all the
aspects of legality, consensus and national interest. I would
hope the government would allow ample opportunity for that
process to take place before it forces a report back in this
House.
[Translation]
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to introduce today a resolution to allow a bilateral
amendment to Term 17 of the Terms of Union of Newfoundland with Canada.
The Terms of Union of Newfoundland are part of the Constitution of
Canada. Section 43 of the Constitution Act, 1982, provides that an
amendment may be made to the Constitution of Canada in relation to any
provision that applies to one or more, but not all, provinces.
Such an amendment may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor
General under the Great Seal of Canada where so authorized by
resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative
assembly of each province to which the amendment applies.
1525
On September 5, the Legislative Assembly of Newfoundland adopted
unanimously a resolution authorizing certain amendments to Term 17 of
its Terms of Union with Canada, which apply to Newfoundland only. This
amendment will have no legal impact on the educational systems or
religious minorities of other provinces.
In accordance with established procedure, the Speaker of the Legislative
Assembly of Newfoundland forwarded to the Clerk of the Privy Council a
certified copy of the resolution, which was received on September 8,
1997.
[English]
Our role and responsibility as parliamentarians is to consider
the proposed amendment and to decide whether to approve it. As I
have already indicated on several occasions, the Government of
Canada supports the proposed amendment which will allow
Newfoundland to proceed with major reforms to its education
system.
Following many years of rancorous and divisive debate in
Newfoundland over the role of the churches and religion in
education, it is the government's view that the proposed
amendment strikes a workable balance. In Newfoundland the
proposed amendment appears to enjoy a high level of consensus,
including a reasonable degree of support from affected
minorities. The government bases its assessment in part on the
House of Assembly's unanimous endorsement of the amendment
resolution and on the result of the provincial referendum in
which 73% of the voters approved a proposal to reform the
education system.
Nevertheless the Government of Canada is of the view that any
attempt to alter entrenched minority rights should be marked by
processes that are fair and thorough. To this end, the government
is striking a special joint committee to examine Newfoundland's
resolution to amend term 17.
It is our belief that the hearings will help to enhance public
input and understanding of the proposed amendment. Moreover the
committee's work will aid Parliament in making its independent
assessment on the facts of the case and on the merits and
appropriateness of the proposed amendment.
As hon. colleagues will recall, this is the second time in less
than two years that Parliament has been asked to consider an
amendment to term 17 of Newfoundland's terms of union. While this
situation may seem unusual, the Constitution does not set any
limits on how often legislators may seek constitutional
amendments. It is up to Parliament and the provincial
legislature to which the amendment applies to determine the
appropriateness of each proposed constitutional change.
To understand fully the circumstances which have given rise to
this second amendment proposal, it is necessary to briefly review
the provisions of term 17. It is also helpful to examine the
intensive efforts that have been made over the past seven years
to reform the education system in Newfoundland.
In lieu of section 93 of the Constitution Act 1867,
constitutional authority for education in Newfoundland was set
out in term 17 of the province's 1949 terms of union with Canada.
Term 17 granted six denominations the right to operate their own
publicly funded schools. In 1987 term 17 was amended to extend
denominational school rights to the Pentecostal assemblies. These
seven denominations operated four separate school systems: the
integrated school system of Anglican, Presbyterian, Salvation
Army and United churches; the Pentecostal school system; the
Roman Catholic school system; and the Seventh Day Adventist
school system.
In 1990 the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador appointed
Dr. Len Williams, a former teacher, principal and president of
the provincial teachers association and current university
professor, to chair a royal commission on education reform.
The commission was asked “to obtain an impartial assessment of
the existing education system and to seek an appropriate vision
for change”.
1530
The 1992 report of the Williams royal commission recommended the
reorganization of the education system in Newfoundland and
Labrador to permit government to administer the system in a more
efficient manner. The commission proposed the creation of a
single interdenominational school system encompassing the four
separate denominational systems in operation at the time.
Initially the Government of Newfoundland sought to achieve this
change through non-constitutional negotiations with
denominational leaders. When nearly three years of discussions
failed to achieve an agreement the Government of Newfoundland
sought institutional reform through a constitutional amendment to
term 17 of its terms of union.
But the amendment that Newfoundland sought, and which was
authorized by this House and proclaimed by the Governor General
on April 21, 1997, represented a compromise. The amendment would
not have eliminated all single denominational schools. The
amendment was designed to provide the Newfoundland House of
Assembly with additional powers to organize and administer public
education through a system of interdenominational schools, while
retaining the rights of Roman Catholics and Pentecostals to
unidenominational schools under certain conditions. These
conditions were to be set out in provincial legislation that was
equally applicable to all schools, either unidenominational or
interdenominational.
However, the attempt to legislatively implement the new term 17
under a revised schools act was successfully challenged in the
Newfoundland supreme court. On July 8, 1997, Mr. Justice Leo
Barry granted representatives of the Roman Catholic and
Pentecostal churches a temporary injunction halting the entire
educational reform process. In Justice Barry's view, the new
schools act favoured interdenominational over unidenominational
schools. Therefore he found that a trial judge would likely find
that the legislation was contrary to the amended term 17, which
required that interdenominational and unidenominational Roman
Catholic and Pentecostal schools be given equal treatment.
As even Mr. Justice Barry acknowledged and anticipated, the
injunction resulted in a “significant disruption” for teachers,
principals and students who had been reassigned to different
schools on the basis of the new school legislation. It also
resulted in the reopening of some schools and the rehiring of
some teachers who had been laid off following certain school
closures and resignations. For the Government of Newfoundland
and citizens who thought the divisive of education debate was
behind them, the injunction raised many questions and a great
deal of uncertainty about the future structure of the school
system.
The Government of Newfoundland filed an appeal, but did not
pursue the matter. Instead, on July 31, 1997, Premier Tobin
announced in a province-wide telecast that he would hold a
referendum on September 2 to secure a mandate to amend term 17
once again. Premier Tobin explained that for five years the
provincial government, schools boards, teachers' associations,
the churches, parents and students “have all been engaged in
what seems to be a never ending debate about how to reconcile the
need for reform of our education system with the rights of the
denominations in the education system”.
While not referring specifically to the injunction blocking
educational reform, Premier Tobin argued that “During the last
five years, we have seen every attempt to reconcile these two
ideas, education reform and denominational rights, end in more
confusion and more conflict”.
Consequently, Premier Tobin decided to go to the people once
again to seek a mandate for an amendment to term 17. The proposed
amendment, which we are asked to consider, is to create a single,
publicly funded and administered school system. The brief text of
this term 17 amendment which only contains three clauses, is
plain and clear and states that:
1535
(1) In lieu of section 93 of the Constitution Act 1867, this
section shall apply in respect of the Province of Newfoundland.
(2) In and for the province of Newfoundland, the legislature
shall exclusive authority to make laws in relation to education,
but shall provided for courses in religion that are not specific
to a religious denomination.
(3) Religious observances shall be permitted in a school where
requested by parents.
This proposed amendment, which constitutes a major restructuring
of Newfoundland's education system, is supported by a substantial
majority of the province's population and enjoys a fair degree of
support from affected minorities. In addition, the House of
Assembly gave the unanimous approval on September 5.
In considering this amendment the government has sought to
ensure that its process is thorough and gives due respect to
affected minorities. Members will recall that the issue of
minority rights was not central to the government's consideration
of the previous term 17 amendment. The old term 17 granted
certain rights to seven denominations representing 95% of the
population. However, following the amendment to term 17, the
integrated group, Anglican, Presbyterian, Salvation Army and the
United Church became one majority class of persons comprising 52%
of the population. The Roman Catholics became a sizeable
minority of 37%, the Pentecostal are a minority of 7%.
Given this amendment's effect on minority rights, a mere 50%
plus one referendum majority would not have been sufficient nor
adequate in measuring the degree of consensus among affected
Roman Catholics and Pentecostals. But the referendum did not
result in a narrow majority: it was an overwhelming majority of
73%, which provided evidence of minority support. The proposal
carried in 47 of Newfoundland's 48 electoral districts.
Voter turn out was 53%, but given the high probability that
opponents of the education reform proposal were most liken to
vote, the results sent a clear message that there is substantial
support for this amendment.
An analysis indicates that in heavily Roman Catholic areas the
proposal was supported by a majority. The St. George's Bay
region, which is 74% Roman Catholic, voted 59% yes. The Avalon
peninsula, which is 48.5% Roman Catholic, voted 72% yes.
Coincidentally, the Burin peninsula is also 48.5% Roman Catholic
and it also voted 72% yes. Approximately 75% of all Roman
Catholics in Newfoundland and Labrador reside in these three
regions.
It is difficult to assess accurately the exact degree to which
members of the smaller Pentecostal community supported the
proposed amendment. However, in the four electoral districts
where Pentecostals are most heavily concentrated the resolution
carried with majorities of 57% to 64%.
Moreover, on September 5, the four members of the Pentecostal
faith who sit in the Newfoundland House of Assembly and represent
districts with significant Pentecostal populations, joined their
colleagues in unanimously supporting the resolution to amend term
17.
Indeed, in assessing the proposed amendment, parliamentarians
should accord due respect to the fact that all of the members of
the House of Assembly voted in favour of the resolution to amend
term 17. This included all Catholic and Pentecostal members who
had campaigned for the no side and voted no in the provincial
referendum.
1540
The overwhelming support the amendment received in the
referendum and the House of Assembly represents a clear consensus
that appears to include a reasonable measure of support from the
affected minorities. Parliament should interpret this as a clear
signal that the population of Newfoundland and Labrador wants to
proceed expeditiously to reform its education system in a manner
that is fair to all.
In the midst of the confusion that resulted following the
injunction halting the implementation of the 1997 term 17
amendment and after years of debate over educational reform and
the role of the churches, Newfoundlanders want to move on. The
results of the referendum and the unanimous vote of the House of
Assembly indicate that it feels the proposed amendment strikes a
fair and workable balance that allows reform to proceed.
The proposed term 17 clearly states that education is a matter
of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. However, the amendment
will not take religion out of the schools. The new term 17
contains a mandatory provision that guarantees that “courses in
religion” must be taught and “religious observances” must be
“permitted in schools where requested by parents”.
Correspondingly, the term will not require children to attend
religious observances or classes if their parents object. This
interpretation is supported by the legal opinion of two eminent
lawyers, the well-known constitutional expert, Mr. Ian Binnie,
and former federal justice minister, the Hon. John Crosbie.
The government acknowledges that the Newfoundland and Labrador
Roman Catholic bishops and the leadership of the Pentecostal
church have concerns about the new amendment. However, we feel
the Government of Newfoundland is demonstrating a spirit of
openness with regard to a continued role, albeit
non-constitutional, for the churches.
In anticipation for the term 17 amendment's adoption, the
Newfoundland department of education has begun setting up a
consultative process for developing the new religious education
curriculum. Although there is no requirement to do so, the
department of education has indicated that this process will seek
representations from the province's various denominations.
[Translation]
In conclusion, should another province wish to propose changes to
the conditions of its union or to section 93, it will be incumbent on
Parliament to look at the facts and to assess the validity and
appropriateness of the proposed amendment. Parliament will also
carefully determine whether the amendment enjoys reasonable support from
those concerned.
In the case before us, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador
duly authorized, under section 43, an amendment to Term 17 which will
only apply to that province.
The Government of Canada believes the amendment is justified. We
feel it enjoys adequate support from those concerned, including
minorities, and we believe it deserves Parliament's support and
approbation. However, the joint committee and all parliamentarians will
have to conduct their own assessment of this amendment, which will allow
Newfoundland to implement the necessary reforms to its education system,
as it has been hoping to do for a long time.
[English]
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the hon. Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs.
As the consensus in Newfoundland has been by referendum and the
consensus for the Quebec application is by the legislative
assembly, why is the Government of Newfoundland not prepared to
obtain a ruling from the provincial supreme court on this matter
to clarify the issue?
Hon. Stéphane Dion: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what issue
he is talking about. I do not find the question to be precise
enough.
Mr. Peter Goldring: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. My question
for the hon. minister is why has the Government of Newfoundland
not sought to obtain a ruling from the provincial supreme court
to clarify this issue?
[Translation]
Hon. Stéphane Dion: Mr. Speaker, I understand the question.
1545
[English]
I do not understand the problem the hon. member has.
Section 43 applies, so it is a bilateral amendment. Is that the
point? If the point is that it is a bilateral amendment, there
is no problem with that. I was surprised to hear the Leader of
the Opposition say that section 93 is involved. By no means does
section 93 have anything to do with this. It is section 17.
The first sentence in term 17 is: “In lieu of section 93 of the
Constitution Act, 1867, the following term shall apply in respect
of the province of Newfoundland”.
It is section 17, not section 93.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have a short
comment before putting my question to the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs.
Since this morning, Reform members seem to get the Quebec and
Newfoundland issues mixed up, not realizing that section 93 is not
involved, contrary to what they have been saying all day. The two issues
are different from a procedural point of view.
Obviously, Reformers would like a referendum to be held in Quebec
on this issue. However, there is a consensus on this issue, which even
the federal government deemed adequate to move forward.
I remind Reform members that it is not only sovereignists who feel there
is an adequate consensus.
My question to the minister is this: Given that Newfoundlanders
said yes twice—both times through a democratic process involving
consultations and a royal commission of inquiry—why establish such a
committee? We will not oppose it, but one wonders. Why set up a
committee?
Could it be that, following the work of the committee, the
government may find it necessary to make amendments, changes, etc., or
is everything already decided anyway? The people have spoken. Why set up
a committee and particularly, as I said this morning, a joint committee
that will include our dear senators, whose legitimacy is being
questioned by everyone?
So, why set up a committee after the people have already clearly voiced
their opinion and are, for all intents and purposes, waiting for us to
move forward?
Hon. Stéphane Dion: Mr. Speaker, first of all, the member is
quite right. Each province must be considered individually. But
the same principles must be applied to all.
In the case of the Government of Canada, there are two
principles. First, is the proposed amendment good for the province
in question? Second, does it have enough support, including by the
minorities affected? The Constitution obliges us as
parliamentarians—in a sense this is what we are paid and elected
by our constituents to do—to make up our own minds and to examine
these two issues. That is why there must be a parliamentary
committee.
The second reason there must be a parliamentary committee, and
the case of Quebec is an illustration, is that even when there is
a consensus, and a fairly clear one, there are always some people
who are worried.
When no one will speak with them, they worry even more. It is
better to speak with them, hear what they have to say and see that
their point of view is made widely known, as was done by the
newspapers in Quebec on the weekend, so that provincial legislators
can see how they can finetune their policy so that things will go
well in the province, because consensus is not the same thing as
unanimity.
Mr. Pierre Brien: Mr. Speaker, since we are comparing the two
cases, you will forgive me if I correct certain facts.
These groups, in the case of both Newfoundland and Quebec,
have already been heard. Here in Ottawa, they are talking as
though there had never been any consultations regarding the
constitutional amendment affecting Quebec. There were the États
généraux sur l'éducation and consultations on Bill 109. So the
groups that come here are not expressing new and different points
of view. You want the provincial governments to hear these
arguments, but I do not think there is anyone who has heard a
single new thing with respect to either the case of Newfoundland or
that of the Government of Quebec. It then becomes a pretext.
It is always a bit of a paternalistic attitude that the folks
in Ottawa must form their own opinion. The people of Newfoundland
have expressed their point of view, and they clearly had one
opinion. There were several years of discussions with the groups
concerned, and the reason the government held a referendum was
because it was unable to come to an agreement with these groups.
Almost everything there is to say has been said. How does the
government think we are going to reach different conclusions? On
the contrary, this even weakens the consensuses somewhat because
the two concepts of consensus and unanimity are being dragged in.
1550
Is the government's process not going to weaken somewhat the
existing consensuses, which are strong both in the case of
Newfoundland and in that of Quebec?
Hon. Stéphane Dion: Mr. Speaker, it is not paternalism in the
least, it is federalism. Federalism is defined as a system in
which public power is not concentrated in a single order of
government, thus better protecting the freedom of citizens. The
democratic federations are evidence of this.
We, the Canadian Parliament, have the responsibility of
looking at what has occurred. The hon. member tells me it is
unlikely the judgment brought down unanimously for the province of
Newfoundland—this being the case we are addressing today—can be
changed. The government agrees fully that it is unlikely, but we
still cannot be remiss in our duty to look at this very closely.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have just
heard the minister say that we must protect citizens' rights. But
a parliament must also, unquestionably, respect citizens' wishes.
In order to understand his argument better, I would like to propose
a totally opposite scenario to him.
Let us imagine that the conclusions of the committee, the
formation of which is referred to in the motion before us, were
contrary to the intentions of the people of Newfoundland as
expressed in the referendum. What should we conclude about our
parliamentary system and about a federalism that no longer
respected the will of the people?
Hon. Stéphane Dion: Mr. Speaker, this is an extremely
hypothetical example.
Since we are dealing with hypotheses, let us assume that one
province, with a very strong majority, were to turn up with a
constitutional change that was clearly discriminatory toward a
minority in that province—and I am not in the least singling out
New Brunswick with this, it being a bilingual and profoundly
democratic province—but let us assume that sometime in the next
few decades a government with a bad idea were to say to us “We've
had enough of official bilingualism in New Brunswick, and we have
a clear majority behind us in this”. We would still ask them what
the Acadian minority in New Brunswick thought about this.
Despite a clear majority, the Government of Canada—probably
a Liberal one—would say “You will not even get that past the first
door of this Parliament, because there are minority rights that
have to be respected”.
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am a bit
surprised by the minister's responses to my two colleagues'
questions, particularly on the subject of minority rights.
I am surprised at not having heard anything from him since his
arrival here on the assimilation of francophones in Manitoba, for
example, or the assimilation of 72% of the francophones in British
Columbia. I am also very surprised that he did not rise in response
to remarks by a member of his party, the member for Vaudreuil. He
spoke in committee, but did not rise in the House when the member
for Vaudreuil said “I want anglophones in Quebec to have the same
rights as francophones in Manitoba, Ontario and British
Columbia”.
This kind of argument does not hold water, given the rights enjoyed
by the anglophones in Quebec.
If francophones in the rest of Canada had only 10% or 15% of
these rights, they would be in heaven. And in a committee struck
by this minister and this government, for remarks such as these to
come from the mouth of a member from Quebec, the member for
Vaudreuil, al I can say is this is what these empty committees lead
to. In Newfoundland, 73% of the population and a royal commission
have shown that this is clearly what they want. And clearly this
committee will come to the same conclusion reached in Newfoundland.
Otherwise, everything would be topsy turvey.
The central government is the offspring of the provinces,
rather than the reverse. So the provinces should be telling the
central government what to do.
They must tell the central government: “We are transferring
jurisdictions over to you”. But the federal government has no business
interfering in provincial jurisdictions. There is a will that was
clearly expressed.
1555
Once again, I agree with our party critic. We will not object to
the establishment of the committee, so that this is not interpreted as
our being opposed to the motion per se. But it is nonetheless ridiculous
to spend time and money to sit and discuss rights and democracy with
unelected senators, with remnants of colonialism.
I do not see any need to go to the great dormitory to come to an
honest and appropriate decision.
We could do without these hon. sleepyheads, as a now retired senator
used to call them before becoming one of them.
I repeat, there is no need for such a committee since there is a
clear and unequivocal will. And if the government had wanted to do the
right thing, the responsible thing, it would have tabled a motion and we
could have moved on, instead of wasting time and money when the people
have clearly expressed their will.
The same is happening with the Quebec resolution. When I see a
minister, an academic from Quebec, question a unanimous resolution
passed by the National Assembly, after the consultations that have taken
place, after the anglophone minorities were consulted, after anglophone
members from Quebec said they were satisfied following the changes they
themselves proposed. Here is a minister from Montreal, who, while having
some experience and knowing that the entire Montreal intelligentsia
realizes that this resolution should have been passed 30 years ago, is
wasting our time and, for partisan purposes before the election, refused
to bring in a motion to settle the matter. I can see the minister
leaving. I cannot blame him. Sometimes the truth is hard to take.
Instead of bringing in a motion, he focused on the election, and
today he is referring the matter to committee. What do we hear in these
committees?
Stupidities and idiotic comments such as those made by the members for
Vaudreuil and Mount Royal. This is a fine kettle of fish. The government
decided to strike such a committee, but when the minister goes around
with his committee's picnic basket, he does not realize that ants are
getting into the basket and that,moreover, these ants are Liberal Party
members.
We hear extremists make all sorts of idiotic comments and present
arguments not based on any principle or consultation. Such is the threat
posed by these committees, particularly expanded committees, with
senators, or members of the other place as we say here, who want to give
us lessons in democracy.
The world's most undemocratic institution sits next to us, and this
government is giving it importance in two ways: first, by having
senators sit on so-called joint committees and, second, by appointing
new senators when others retire.
There is only one way to deal with the Upper House: it must be
abolished. Conduct a poll and hold a referendum. You will see what the
public thinks. In Quebec, 92% are in favour of abolishing that
institution. The only way to get rid of the Upper House is by attrition,
as we did in Quebec. I believe it was the Bertrand government which made
a pact with the Quebec Senate. It stopped appointing new senators and
told those who were there “Go home. You will get paid for the rest of
your life. After all, you only come here for that pay cheque”.
They were absolutely useless. This is a cancer we must get rid of.
1600
This
upper House is a hotbed of patronage, and this is something that the
Liberal Party specializes in, patronage, financing, rewarding buddies,
this is what the Liberal Party stands for. You keep the operation open
and when you have a chance you put in another buddy, as was done for the
latest appointments, for example.
However, while considering this issue here, with this debate on the
creation of this useless committee, we have at least the opportunity to
ask the following question: When the people of Newfoundland approved the
referendum with a 54% majority and then when judges, not from the
Supreme Court this time with their Santa Claus costumes, but judges from
the Superior Court ruled that the question was not appropriate, what did
the Government of Newfoundland do? It told them where to go and it held
another referendum. What does the federal government do? It says:
“There
was a second referendum and the yes side won again so we will agree to
create a committee and put a resolution before the House to have it
approved”.
But have you noticed that when Quebec is involved, people refer to
the Supreme Court?
In this case, even if there is a referendum in Quebec, people say:
“In
this case this is not acceptable”. If there is a referendum on
sovereignty, people will say: “This is not acceptable”. In the case of
Newfoundland, it told its Superior Court where to go and it held a
referendum.
Personally, I prefer to tell the minister and his government
colleagues that when there is a referendum with a clear yes for
sovereignty, nobody, but nobody will prevent a people from going
forward, especially not judges from the Supreme Court dressed in Santa
Claus costumes and appointed by the Liberal Party.
This debate at least gives us the opportunity to show to all
Quebeckers that if they want to assume responsibility for themselves by
voting yes in a referendum, the federal government will have to submit
to their will, like Newfoundland has just done. It did not appeal the
ruling of the court.
It said “We are having another referendum”. And bang, the
government finds itself forced to respect that desire.
I wonder, when I hear what is being said in the House today,
if the suggestion does not need to be made that, when this
committee's work is over—which I hope will be as soon as possible—and
when it comes back to this House, if we could not talk of the
rights of francophone Newfoundlanders, and make a little comparison
between the rights of the francophone Newfoundlanders and the
rights, the treatment—a source of great pride to us—of the
anglophones of Quebec. The anglophone minority in Quebec is the
best treated minority in the world, and Quebecers are proud of
that.
And we will continue to be proud after sovereignty, when we
will still be cited as an example throughout the world for the way
we treat our anglophone minority, for our anglophone minority in
Quebec has played an important part in our development as a nation.
I cannot say the same for the treatment reserved for the
francophone Newfoundlanders, the Franco-Manitobans. If we review
the history of the provinces, when most of the Canadian provinces
were founded, francophones outnumbered anglophones. Today, because
of legislation passed in recent years, the past 20, 30, 40 or 50
years, legislation forbidding francophones from having the same
rights as anglophones, the rate of assimilation has been so strong
that it is still 72% in British Columbia and 60% in Manitoba, and
francophones who speak French in the home are virtually non-existent in
the western provinces.
They were a majority when these provinces came into being.
1605
At the end of our proceedings in committee, we could perhaps tell
Newfoundland to provide its French speaking population, in its
regulations, practices and school boards, the same rights English
speaking Quebekers have in Quebec. I dream of the day when the federal
government and the other provinces in Canada will have enough
determination to sign a reciprocal treaty concerning the rights of
anglophones in Quebec and of francophones in the rest of Canada.
Ask French speaking people in the rest of Canada, in your
provinces, whether they would support a motion in this House granting
them the same rights English speaking Quebeckers are enjoying. They have
English primary schools and high schools and comprehensive education in
English from kindergarten to university. They have three universities
when they make up only 10% of the Quebec population. Mr. Larose, in his
testimony before the committee, listed all the benefits English speaking
Quebekers have in Quebec. As a majority and as a government, we are
proud to give them those benefits because they are full-fledged members
of Quebec society. We are proud. How nice it would be if French speaking
Canadians could say the same.
The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs seems to like committees
a lot. Let me suggest one to him, a committee on minority rights in
Quebec and Canada. Let us review these rights province by province.
Some people here will be ashamed because, as happened a couple years
ago, the French speaking minority had to go to school in sheds, with
kids having to go to the outhouse. Things have been that bad for some
French speaking Canadians. We have been talking about that. Some of them
are treated that way. We could compare, and then talk about bilingualism
and about the two official languages of this great Canada. We would see
what the real situation is like, and how serious the assimilation
problem is.
Therefore, this committee should be as short-lived as possible. As
a matter of fact, it should not even have been struck; however, it must
be because of the minister's public commitment to do so, thus wasting a
lot of time and money. The government has probably run out of ideas, as
it usually does when it comes to interesting issues, such as how to deal
with unemployment, use the employment insurance surplus, develop a
policy to eliminate the deficit, review the cuts to social programs in
order to remedy the situation since the economy is improving. Rather
than dealing with these things, it keeps on talking about the
Constitution. It is the world gone topsy turvey. All the federal
government wants to do is talk about the Constitution and strike
constitutional committees, instead of dealing with the issue in one day,
when Newfoundland has made its wishes clearly known.
1610
I hope this committee will be short-lived and that it will also be
seen as an opportunity to ponder the rights of francophones outside
Quebec.
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to congratulate my hon. colleague from Richelieu for his
speech delivered with his usual dynamism, which provided a very
insightful look at our institutions.
As you heard, he very aptly described the other House, which
is called the Senate and which should not be called the Senate—a
collection of dinosaurs that costs Canadians millions of dollars,
an undemocratic institution, as my colleague from Richelieu so ably
pointed out.
I would like to ask him, more specifically, what logic he sees
in the operation of the Senate and in the head of Senator
Beaudouin. I hope we can name him, for I want to make sure we
understand one another. What kind of logic does he detect in the
head of the ineffable constitutionalist Beaudouin, who is now a
richly rewarded and oh-so-objective senator, who continues to
appear as an expert on the CBC with all of its objectivity, who
covered himself in shame the other day in the face of the alleged
consensus, as he put it, in Quebec on the amendments to be made to
the Constitution in order to set up a system of education based on
language rather than religion, and who said that a referendum was
required? There is no consensus in Quebec, a referendum is
required.
In Newfoundland they had a referendum and the government is
once again stepping in to slow the democratic process and set up a
joint committee to study the problem.
I do not understand the logic of these people. I would like to
know whether my colleague from Richelieu understands it. They want
us to hold a referendum and when we have one, it is still not
enough.
Where is democracy in Parliament, in this government, in
Canadian institutions, which are becoming increasingly spineless
and which are increasingly branding Canada as a country with no
ethics?
Mr. Louis Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, I wish I had a clear answer to
give my hon. colleague. I share the concerns of the hon. member for
Trois-Rivières.
He mentioned the dinosaurs—oops, sorry—the senators.
Dinosaurs and senators. When I travelled through my riding last week,
someone told me a story about senators. It went like this “How does a
senator wink? By opening an eye.” It is odd, but it describes them well.
About a year ago, I passed by a senator's office as I was walking
down a corridor. It was 10 a.m. and the senator was at his window. I
stopped and said “Stop looking out of your window, senator, or you will
have nothing left to do this afternoon”.
That is the image we have of these dinosaurs, as you called them.
One of the dinosaurs you referred to would like to give us lessons in
democracy. That takes the cake.
A member of the most undemocratic institution in the world wants to give
lessons in democracy to a province, or a legislature, that legitimately
obtained a democratic mandate from the people.
Two referenda were held in Newfoundland. That is still not enough.
He comes and tells us “You in Quebec, your consensus—” Our consensus is
based on a unanimous resolution passed in the National Assembly, where
three political parties are represented: the ADQ, the PQ and the Liberal
Party. I estimate that half the Liberal Party members are anglophones
and individuals from the various ethnic backgrounds that enrich the
people of Quebec. These members unanimously proposed, after consulting
their communities, a number of amendments, which were approved by the
National Assembly following further consultations at the time of the
États généraux on Bill 109.
1615
So, we held the necessary consultations and all of a sudden an old
dinosaur from the other place told us: “Is this a democratic
process?”
And he adds that when we hold a referendum on sovereignty, and we will,
he will not feel bound by it. He is saying: “Hold a referendum, but if
it goes through, we will not feel bound by the decision. However, if it
does not go through, we will say that it was proper, that democracy is
protected”.
Mr. Pierre Brien: It only works one way.
Mr. Louis Plamondon: It is a one-way democracy.
In response to the hon. member for Trois-Rivières, I ask myself the
same questions on the institution, on those who are part of it, and on
the government's true intentions in setting up a committee. Today, it
announced the setting-up of a committee which, when you think of it,
will only rehash the same old arguments that were raised for months in
Newfoundland, before finally arriving at an almost unanimous conclusion.
And the same goes for Quebec, where the National Assembly was unanimous.
So, why set up committees? It is probably—and I ask myself the
same question as the hon. member for Trois-Rivières does—to pass the
time, because the government has no political will to truly lead the
country, to advocate new directions for the economy, and to ensure that
the injustices created by the cuts it imposed on the provinces are
corrected.
[English]
Mr. Gerry Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure as a
young member of Parliament from Newfoundland to participate in
the discussion on the amendment to term 17. I would like to
emphasize a couple of points.
While we speak of the amendment to term 17 in the House, we are
also speaking to all the Canadian public. We do so through the
televised debates in the Chamber.
I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for
Lac-Saint-Louis.
There are certain points which the hon. member opposite raised
which cannot go unchallenged. It would be unfair not to
challenge them.
It was suggested that the francophone community of my province
of Newfoundland and Labrador enjoys second class status, that it
has accepted second class status, as alleged by the hon. member.
He alleges that it is content with that position. I am here to
report to the House of Commons this afternoon that the
francophone community of Newfoundland and Labrador is very much
alive, vibrant and very assertive about its position in our
society. It has done so with great power, great conviction and
great pride.
I am proud to report to the House this afternoon that the
francophone community will be participating in the school board
process. It will enjoy the privileges and rights of its own
school board. That is something which is very specific and
unique to the francophone community. It is in celebration of the
fact that it has a very special culture, a very special language
which deserves recognition within the policy of school board
governance.
The francophone community also enjoys its own newspaper. In the
riding of the hon. member for Burin—St. George's there is a
francophone community that flourishes. It is very much alive. It
is not second class to anyone, as suggested by the hon. member
opposite. It is very much alive and very proud. They are very
much willing to participate in strengthening their culture. I
salute the francophone community of Newfoundland and Labrador.
1620
The current debate is on the amendment to term 17. In this
House we enjoy certain privileges, one being the privilege of
debate. I am proud that the privilege of debate was extended to
the people of Newfoundland and Labrador in this argument.
A referendum was held in the province of Newfoundland and
Labrador and it has been stated on several occasions that the
debate was very clear, the referendum was very clear. The
conclusion of the referendum was a change was requested by the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
We have a situation where we are going to change the school
system of my province to what the wishes of the people are. I am
pleased to continue with this particular debate among my
colleagues in this House and in the other place so that we can
ensure speedy passage, a thorough thoughtful passage, because
that is exactly what the people of Newfoundland and Labrador want
us to do.
Saying that the other place has no part in this debate I think
is fundamentally wrong. Our Constitution recognizes the other
place, recognizes its existence. Therefore a unilateral decision
to say that we should not join in discussion with the other place
is wrong. It is important that we take into consideration all
parliamentarians' points of views. In saying that, I take into
consideration some great members of the other place.
I speak of none other than the hon. Jack Marshall, a member of
the other place who very much protected the rights, privileges
and responsibilities of all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. He
was an outspoken advocate of the rights of veterans and did a
very good job. I am not prepared to say that his role was in the
least bit insignificant. Quite frankly it was very significant.
The people in my riding as well as those in the riding of
Burin—St. George's understand that. I am sure if he were still a
member of the other place he would be anxious to join in this
debate and would provide a fruitful discussion and would add
considerably to the context.
As a Newfoundlander educated in the very school system that we
now debate, and as a Roman Catholic educated in the system that
we now debate, I support the change. I support the amendments
fully. I think it is time Newfoundland and Labrador be the
recipient of a modern education system in line with the wishes of
the people.
I feel strongly that this is about the protection of rights. I
feel strongly that all citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador
should be afforded all those protections. I will give a specific
example.
In my province there are approximately 1,100 to 1,200
communities. Every community has a school. Not every community
has 20 schools representing all the major religions that are
vested within the province but all communities have at least one
school. Some have three. Some communities with small population
levels have a number of schools.
Where a denominational right exists, if you are a member of that
community but you are not a member of the denomination which
holds the school in the community, under the current system that
we are suggesting we should amend you will be instructed in a
religious denomination which is not your own faith. I have been
through that system and I have seen young men and women of other
religions, future leaders of our country, instructed in a faith
not of their choice. It is not because of anything we are doing
in the House today, but because of the old system. That is
exactly what happened.
1625
If you happen to be a member of the United faith or the
Pentecostal faith in a community which only had a Catholic
church, then you were either instructed in Catholicism or you did
not go to school. That quite frankly is not befitting of a
modern day society.
Religious instruction will be entrenched. There will be
religious instruction for those who wish to participate. That is
a fundamental right. What will also be fundamentally guaranteed
is that those who do not want to be instructed in a religious
faith not of their choice will not have to be subjected to that.
From the point of view of this House that is a very important
consideration.
Part of a modern democracy is making sure that in the case of a
community where the majority is of one particular faith, that for
some reason the minority is not required that they get either no
education whatsoever or religious instruction in a faith not of
their choice. That is just a simple point I would like to add to
the debate.
As someone who grew up in the system, someone who believes in
the need for change and will be supporting it strongly, I
encourage members opposite to think once again about the
constitutional provisions that provide for debate by the Senate,
to support this change and to do so in an expeditious fashion.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have a
comment before my question. The member has said he thinks it
perfectly normal to have senators—he named one—, for they can be
important individuals, distinguished citizens and so forth.
That is not the question. The question is: Who do they
represent? I repeat, and I said this earlier in the House, that I
am going to be uncomfortable on the committee to see people around
me who are not elected, who have been appointed by the Prime
Minister or by a former Primer Minister, because they are sometimes
there so long that it is not necessarily the one now in office who
appointed them.
These people do not represent any democratic values and will be
questioning democratic decisions—I am coming to my question—that
were taken on two occasions in the case before us.
Does he not find it abnormal that a committee is being formed
when we could simply pass a motion, since the issue has been
debated several times in his province? It could be wrapped up this
week and approval given to the constitutional amendment as
requested by the people in his own province.
[English]
Mr. Gerry Byrne: Mr. Speaker, the question asked by the
hon. member opposite is if I find it abnormal or unusual. The
simple answer is no. The Canadian parliamentary system allows
for two houses. Joining forces to hear testimony from expert
witnesses in one forum is very efficient. It is very honest and
it is very straightforward. I have absolutely no problem with it
at all.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
under section 93 the Constitution requires that in Newfoundland
or anywhere else in the country for that matter, the rights of
the minority dissenting group are not to be prejudicially
affected when changes are made.
The denominational supporters have been offered only a very
sanitized, sterilized, neutered, generic, no name brand of
religious class in place of the religious instruction that they
were accustomed to in the past. Because they are basically
offered a sociology of religion course, that does not equate to
the provisions made for them in the past. It seems that there is
a negative and prejudicial effect for the Roman Catholic and
Pentecostal church adherence. How are their interests not
prejudicially affected?
Mr. Gerry Byrne: Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding that it was
the minority itself that chose a change, the hon. member opposite
raised the issue that section 93 applies here.
1630
I would caution that term 17 is a fundamentally unique
amendment. It is part of the terms of the union between Canada
and Newfoundland. It is an agreement that affects only the
province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
While education is a provincial jurisdiction, term 17, as it was
formerly worded and as we are debating in the House, was a
limitation on provincial responsibility or provincial right. We
are changing that term and section 93 does not apply.
[Translation]
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu, BQ): Mr. Speaker, earlier, the
member said he did not consider francophones as second class people and
he is right, as was another of my colleagues who was misquoted when he
said that the perception of people is that, when they see how
francophones have been treated, they have the impression they were
treated as second class people.
In Quebec for example, the rights of anglophones are well
respected, we are a model for the rest of the world. For
instance, an English speaking person from Quebec can be elected
and sit in the House of Commons or the National Assembly. Three
Equality Party members spoke only English and they sat in the
National Assembly. I am a francophone, I speak only French and I
sit here. Could a Newfoundland member speak only French, as the
member speaks only English, and still be allowed to sit in the
House of Commons? Could he get elected?
[English]
Mr. Gerry Byrne: Mr. Speaker, absolutely.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It is my duty
pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the
questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as
follows: the hon. member for Mississauga West, Airports; the
hon. member for Frontenac—Mégantic, Closure of a B.C. Mine; the
hon. member for Davenport, Law of the Sea.
[Translation]
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of
all, I think this is a crucial debate. The basic issue is the
fundamental rights of minorities. So, the basic question is the
following: Before replacing constitutional rights with legislative
rights, what process should we follow? I think that is the question
before us today.
By the way, I have to point out the surprising differences between
the comments made by my hon. colleague from Humber—St. Barbe—Baie
Verte and those made by the hon. member for Richelieu, who spoke just
before him. On the one hand, my colleague made a reasonable, sincere and
positive contribution to this crucial debate about minorities and their
vested rights.
Meanwhile, what did we hear from the hon. member for Richelieu?
Mr. Louis Plamondon: The truth.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: That the committee currently holding hearings
and hearing a lot of witnesses about the repeal of section 93 of the
Constitution is wasting its time. That it has heard nothing but rubbish
and nonsense. That the justices of the Supreme Court—
Mr. Louis Plamondon: You got that right. It is all rubbish and
nonsense.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Speaker, that just goes to prove what I
want to say, that these people cannot take part in an honest and open
debate. Their describing the justices of the Supreme Court as people
dressed up like Santa Claus shows the respect the Bloc Quebecois has for
the eminent justices of our Supreme Court. That is the tone of this
debate.
That is precisely why we need parliamentary commissions.
We need parliamentary commissions, because we are dealing here with the
vested rights of minorities who have the right to be heard and to ask
for a comprehensive debate on their rights.
1635
The Bloc Quebecois would like to see this pushed through
because the three parties in the Quebec National Assembly voted
unanimously in favour of the resolution placed before them. I
would point out to the members of the Bloc Quebecois that this same
resolution denies the existence for Quebec of the 1982
Constitution, which they themselves invoke in creating linguistic
school boards.
So the minorities will have to trust a government which says
“You are protected under section 23 of the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms, but at the same time we do not recognize that Charter”.
These are the same people who have referred to the Supreme Court
justices as wearing Santa suits. That is why we need parliamentary
commissions here.
In the case of Newfoundland, at least its government will have
had the courage to hold two referendums in a row. Let us recall
the debates that went on about term 17—
[English]
A lot of us said “Let's be careful. Let's use extreme caution
when you talk about constitutional amendments”. Maybe we should
have had a longstanding parliamentary commission when term 17 was
first debated.
That is not what we did. We pushed it through quickly. What
happened? When it got to Newfoundland, the Supreme Court of
Newfoundland said “No, no, don't go ahead with the school
boards”, which caused a second referendum to take place.
I know 73% of those who voted declared that they were for the
changes proposed by the Government of Newfoundland. That means
also on the other side, and I appreciate all that my colleague
has said.
Of course we need reform in the school system. Of course all of
us are for reform in the school system, but what we should worry
about—I don't say that our answers will be any
different—fundamentally is that 27% in Newfoundland, and those
people in Quebec who come before us at the parliamentary
commission and say “Let's use more caution. Let's take more
time”. Instead of that, we have declared that on November 7, for
Quebec for all intents and purposes the committee stops its work,
and December 5 for Newfoundland.
I have taken part in many pieces of legislation, both in the
National Assembly of Quebec and here, where we took months to
look at legislation. I remember the CEPA hearings on the
environment which took over a year to decide whether we were on
the right track or not.
Yet somehow we trivialize constitutional amendments. We take
them for granted. If a majority here or a majority there
decides, then it must be right.
The fundamental reason for constitutional protection is not to
protect majorities who can change laws whenever they want. It is
to protect minorities who cannot change those laws. That is why
we need those parliamentary commissions. That is why we need
senators, because the fact is that senators are far less partisan
than our Houses, whether it be in Quebec or Newfoundland or here.
That is why we need depth in our parliamentary commissions, to
hear as many people as possible, to take more time if necessary,
to pause, to use caution before we change the constitutional
provision which, once gone, can never come back because the
minorities can never reinstitute them. The majority will always
rule.
That is the point I want to make today. I want to ask that we
treat these constitutional amendments, whether they be in
Newfoundland or in Quebec, by taking all the time necessary. I
must admit very frankly that in Newfoundland much more care has
been taken to involve people than was the case in Quebec. If
another week will go by, another month will go by and another
year will go by, this will not change the world.
That is the spirit. I never interrupted the gentleman. That is
the spirit. That is the spirit of the Bloc Quebecois. They
cannot tolerate another opinion. They cannot tolerate an opinion
that is not theirs, and they talk about democracy. They talk
about extremists in the parliamentary commission that is hearing
Bill 93. I will suggest that the public will judge from the
debate here where extremism is.
I suggest it is not on this side. We want a fair debate. We
want an open debate. We want a constructive debate. All we
say is that constitutional provisions are there to protect
acquired rights, fundamental rights and minority rights. Let us
take whatever time is necessary to listen to people to make sure
once and for all that we are on the right track.
1640
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
point out to the hon. member that if you sow discord and attack members
opposite, you should not be surprised to be repaid in kind.
I would also like to say that in 1792, when the British Crown
created the first Upper House, its members—we now call them
senators—were appointed, not elected, and their only role was to oppose the
decisions of the Lower House on behalf of the British Crown.
Things have not really changed. The Upper House, the Senate, is
here to oppose the measures that the establishment, and I would say the
financial establishment of Toronto in particular, does not like. It is
here to oppose the decisions of elected representatives and to make sure
that the government does not have to abide by the public will.
Now, I have a question for the hon. member. When we strike a
committee, I believe we give it the power to recommend in favour or
against. Would my colleague agree if the committee were to return with
a negative recommendation on the amendment requested by Newfoundland?
How could he explain to his colleagues from Newfoundland that the will
of the people would not be respected, when they clearly indicated the
decision they wanted the House to make?
In other words, are we going to have a kangaroo committee or a committee
which might decide against the people of Newfoundland? I am anxious to
hear our colleague's answer.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs has answered the question very clearly. A
committee will be struck to assess the matter, it will report to the
House, and the House will decide after due consideration. This is how it
is done in every committee. The committee will hear the stakeholders. It
will review the matter, it will report to the House and the House will
decide accordingly. The decision rests with us here.
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member
who has just spoken has taken exception to some of my comments.
I would remind him that he was once a member of the National
Assembly, and I find it odd to see a member from Quebec who sat in the
National Assembly, who experienced the quality and the greatness of the
democratic debate there and of the consensuses that develop occasionally
and who knows that it is only rarely that an unanimous resolution can be
achieved, question the consultations that these members from Quebec
carried out in their ridings to reach a consensus.
But he does not know what consensus is, because when he was in the
National Assembly and when his premier, Mr. Bourassa, introduced Bill
178 which met the expectations of both anglophone and francophone
communities, he and a couple of his colleagues voted against the
consensus that existed in Quebec, and for this he was no longer welcome
in his own Liberal Party and he had to come here to beg for a job,
perhaps eight or ten years before he actually got elected to this House.
1645
However, it is typical of the Liberal Party to pick up people like
that. The proof is that there was Mr. Harper who sat here, Mrs.
Carstairs was named to the Senate. Clyde Wells will most likely be
appointed one day to the supreme court. This year, they have a new
batch: the members for Abitibi, Bourassa and Anjou, they are the Liberal
Party's new batch.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to stoop to
the level of the member for Richelieu. What he is saying makes no
sense.
I voted in the National Assembly according to my conscience.
Most of the time, I voted for my party. I also voted against it
many times. I have done so here. I will continue to do so. I
will vote according to my conscience. I will do so whenever my
conscience demands it. If that bothers the member for Richelieu,
too bad.
[English]
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, I will be
sharing my time with my colleague from Compton—Stanstead.
There is a need today for religious denominational schools like
I have probably never seen in the last 25 years. We just have to
come into the House of Commons and take a look at what has
happened here. We cannot say the Lord's Prayer for the first
time in 131 years in the House of Commons. I am really appalled
that has happened here. When that was going to happen I was on
call-in shows from British Columbia to Newfoundland about the
fact that the word God was being taken out of the prayer of the
House of Commons as well as not saying the Lord's Prayer.
I got a call from the hon. member on the government side saying:
“Elsie, we are going to put “God” back in the prayer tomorrow
morning”. And I said thank God for that.
Just take a look at our young people and the pressures they are
under today. I took my two sons out of the regular school system
in Saint John, New Brunswick. I am Protestant but I put my sons
into the Catholic school because they had the teachings there
that were needed. The peer pressure in our society today is
unbelievable. I am appalled to think that we would even talk
about not allowing our denominational schools, our Catholic and
Pentecostal schools in Newfoundland to exist.
I believe that all of us in the House of Commons have received
correspondence from the Hon. Kevin Barry, a retired judge of the
Supreme Court of Newfoundland. I am going to refer to the Hon.
Mr. Barry's correspondence because he spells it out just the way
it is.
He is saying that the new amendment proposed by the government
would provide for religious courses which it would compose itself
from whatever sources it deems appropriate. He says the only
condition it would have to observe in so doing would be that the
content of such courses must not be specific to any denomination.
In effect, with that sole limitation the government would then be
in complete charge of religious education in schools.
We know this country was built on good Christian values. We
have respect for all cultures. That is why we open our doors
here in Canada, for people to come from all over the world, and
we expect them to respect our culture as well, which was built on
Christianity.
According to the Hon. Mr. Barry, there would be no obligation on
the government to consult with leaders of the principal
denominations or any of them. For Catholics religious education
for their children in school is a vital part of their educational
development and it has been part of the school system in
Newfoundland for the past 200 years. To eliminate it because 38%
of the population voted for a questionable saving in the cost of
education would be a very grave injustice to the parents who wish
to educate their children in a denominational school. It was
never intended by our forefathers that democracy would be used to
crush minority rights in this way.
1650
In the course of the Newfoundland government's campaign, the
government had declared that religious education would still be
available after the passage of the amendment. Let me say that
this could be no more than a pious hope on its part since term
17 as amended provides absolutely no such guarantees.
The fact is that if the proposed amendment becomes law,
government will have the exclusive authority and control over
religion in all schools without obligation to consult any outside
party as to its content.
Just take a look at us right here. Government decided to move
in and we cannot say the Lord's Prayer in the House of Commons.
What is going to happen in the school system?
Although the government received many requests for a judicial
interpretation of the text of the amendment before the referendum
vote, it steadfastly refused to consider it.
It keeps referring to the fact that it is going to save money
and that it is going to be a better school system. As far as I
understand it and have been told, the Newfoundland school system,
as it exists today with the denominational schools and the other
public school system, rates third across the country. They cannot
do much better than that unless they come up to second and first.
If we leave them alone in the system they probably will.
The government declared as one of its reasons to abolish
denominational religious education in schools that its standard
of pre-university education was intolerably low. When we have a
referendum and this is what we are telling the people, that it
would be greatly improved by getting rid of church influences in
our schools, I pray that we will have more church influences in
society in the future. I mean that.
I look at the pages who are here today and the young people I
see on the streets. I look at the young people who are lost in
my own city. They need to have church influences. As I started
to say at the very beginning, they need it more now than in the
last 30 years.
The truth is that the standard of education for schools in
Newfoundland ranks the third highest in all of Canada. The
government also informed the public that the cost that
denominational schooling adds to the general system of education
is intolerably high. We have been informed that the cost of
education on a per capita basis in Newfoundland is the lowest in
Canada.
We have been hearing from our people that they are going to save
money. We heard from Premier Tobin that this is why we have to
do it. Yet the cost of their education on a per capita basis is
the lowest in Canada the way it is now.
From the day it announced the referendum, Premier Tobin's
government utilized public moneys and resources to finance and
support its campaign to abolish denominational education. At the
same time, it denied any requests from the other parties for
funding to assist them. It campaigned as though the referendum
was a political election. It did not permit any scrutineers to be
present in the ballot booths during the voting process, during
the counting of the ballots or to oversee the measures taken for
the scrutiny of the ballot boxes. I have never heard tell of
this before. No, sir. That is a very serious situation.
While I am not aware of any allegations of fraud or improper
dealings with the ballots, it is an old saying that justice must
not only be done but must also appear to be done.
I am very concerned, just like the hon. Kevin Barry is, and many
other people. Educated and intelligent people over there can see
that this is going down the wrong road. It is going in the wrong
direction. I am in favour, as we are here, of having a committee.
Senators should be on it because they have people there to assist
them.
I appeal to all members in this House to not let this happen. Do
not go in this direction. Think about the children. Put them
before politics and before anything else and keep the
denominational schools in Newfoundland.
1655
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
torn on this issue because my background is both as a Catholic
and a democrat. I wish that Catholics in Newfoundland had turned
out at the polls in numbers requisite to be able to stop this.
However, that being said, democratic consent was sought on this
issue.
Issues have been raised in terms of whether or not there were
scrutineers at the polls. Unlike general elections, there were
no people representing specific parties and there were no
stipulated interest groups. As a result, it was very difficult
to determine which people would act as scrutineers.
I am not impressed that the Government of Newfoundland did this
during the summer, allowing only a 31-day writ period.
Nonetheless, the people of Newfoundland have spoken. As a
democrat it is difficult for me to stand in the House today and
say this provincial initiative should not be supported because
the people of Newfoundland did indeed vote for it.
I would like to propose the following. I know this is not the
question that the people of Newfoundland had an opportunity to
vote on, but I wish it had been the case. This question was
asked today within our caucus. Why should a parent not be free
to choose where to educate their child without financial penalty?
I am drawing attention to the idea that funding should follow
the student, as in a voucher system. Religious based schooling
should not be ended to bring in monopolistic, cookie cutter
public education under a single board. Indeed, I wish the people
of Newfoundland had been presented options, a whole bunch of
choices, rather than being presented with a cookie cutter.
Does the hon. member believe that vouchers and direct school
funding would have been a better scenario?
Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member said that
there were no political parties involved and that there was no
politics involved. Politics was involved, as we stated,
concerning scrutineers.
Also, if we take a look at the system that was put in place, the
people of Newfoundland were not given an opportunity to digest
what was happening to them. They had only 16 hours before the
advance polls from the time the question was put before them.
There is no place in the world in which we would let that happen.
There has to be a better system. Perhaps the system suggested
by the hon. member is the better system.
We have denominational schools and a Roman Catholic school in my
city. The provincial Liberal government wants to close the
denominational schools. I fought to keep them. We had only one
girls Catholic school and one boys Catholic school. It is a boys
and girls Catholic school now. We also have one Evangelical
school. That is all we have, but the government wants to close
them too.
I am really worried about the direction in which we are going.
I have to say that what they are proposing is wrong. We have to,
all of us, take a look at it for the sake of the children of this
country.
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise in the House today to speak to the motion put forward by the
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. The motion is to strike a
special joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons to
consider matters related to the proposed amendment of the terms
of union of Newfoundland concerning that province's school
system.
The special joint committee will be instructed to consult
broadly and review such information as it deems appropriate with
respect to this issue. The committee is to be composed of 16
members of the House and seven members of the Senate and must
present its final report no later than December 5, 1997.
Reformers recently supported a motion to strike a special joint
committee to study a proposed constitutional amendment to the
Quebec school system. However, we had reservations about that
process. We were concerned about the extremely short timeframe
the committee had to conduct its review and to report its
findings.
We also believe it was absurd to have senators who have no
democratic legitimacy sitting on the committee.
1700
However, despite these points of concern, the members of this
side of the House were generally supportive of the establishment
of a parliamentary committee to study the proposed resolution on
the Quebec school system. Similarly, while we have corresponding
concerns regarding this special joint committee, we generally
support the establishment of another parliamentary committee to
study the proposed amendment regarding the Newfoundland school
system.
A large number of people in Newfoundland have been demanding a
non-denominational school system for that province for more than
three decades. During that time two royal commissions have
studied the issue. There have been endless negotiations and
debate, several court rulings and one constitutional amendment,
and now two province-wide referendums on the school system.
Many commentators have noted that a single denominational system
will be less costly and more efficient. The Premier of
Newfoundland has estimated that the system will save $25 million
per year. Clearly this is a very important issue. The proposed
amendment deals with the Canadian Constitution which is the
fundamental law of this land. In this case Parliament has been
asked to constitutionally amend the 1949 terms of union that
brought Newfoundland into Confederation.
The Reform Party believes strongly that education is a matter of
provincial responsibility and that provincial jurisdiction over
education should be respected and enhanced. Therefore, we
neither support nor oppose church run or non-denominational
schools for Newfoundland. We believe this is an issue that must
be decided by Newfoundlanders by free and democratic processes
and in accordance with the rule of law.
The principal interest of the federal Parliament in educational
reform is primarily that such reforms do not prejudicially affect
the rights of minorities which Parliament has an obligation to
protect. As the other speakers from my party have stated, we
believe Parliament should discharge these responsibilities by
making any constitutional amendment proposed by a province, such
as the one that will be considered by this special joint
committee, subject to these three tests: democratic consent, the
rule of law and the Canadian national interest.
Let me quickly review the three tests we feel must be satisfied
if this amendment is to gain the support of the Reform Party.
First, was there a clear majority of Newfoundlanders that
supported the constitutional amendment through the results of a
province wide referendum? Was the referendum process fair? And
was the referendum question unbiased? The amendment was approved
by majority in two separate referendums with the second
referendum having an overwhelming majority of 73%. The turnout
of 53% of eligible voters was fairly high when compared to other
similar referendums. The referendum vote was conducted by
Newfoundland Elections, the government's arm's length agency
established to ensure fair and democratic elections. Therefore it
appears that term 17 amendments have passed the test of
democratic consent.
Second, is there compelling legal evidence such as an upper
court ruling that certified the constitutional amendment itself
conforms to the rule of law? Term 17 of the 1949 terms of union
is intended to serve as a replacement for section 93 of the
Constitution Act concerning education and applies exclusively to
the province of Newfoundland. Therefore, it can legitimately be
amended by the provincial legislature and the House of Commons
passing identical resolutions in accordance with section 43 of
the Constitution.
Section 93 does not prevent Newfoundland from reforming its
educational system or from implementing reforms that affect
minority rights. But the rule of law requires that the
Newfoundland government demonstrate that its proposed reforms do
not prejudicially affect the rights of those who desire a
religious orientation in the education of their children.
We have been informed that Newfoundland's minister of education
has obtained a legal opinion stating that the proposed amendment
to term 17 is legal. However, the original term 17 amendment
proposed by the Newfoundland government in 1995 was found to be
constitutionally questionable by the Newfoundland supreme court.
Therefore, we are not entirely convinced that the latest term 17
amendment fully conforms to the rule of law. Our concerns might
be alleviated, however, if the Newfoundland government was to
obtain a ruling from that province's supreme court establishing
that the proposed amendment does not prejudicially affect the
rights under section 93 of the Constitution act.
1705
Third, is there is clear evidence that this educational reform
does not prejudicially affect rights previously granted to the
citizens of that province and in no way damages minority rights
in that province or any other province? As with the proposed
constitutional amendment regarding the Quebec school system, the
manner in which this matter is handled may set an important
precedent for other provinces with respect to educational reform
as well as minority rights. Because we are not convinced that the
latest Newfoundland amendment adheres to the rule of law, we are
also not convinced that the term 17 amendment meets the test of
the Canadian national interest.
I would like to close with an appeal to any common sense that
exists in the government to allow a free vote on constitutional
amendments, such as the one before us on Newfoundland term 17.
While claiming there is strong consensus for a linguistic school
system in Quebec, the federal intergovernmental affairs minister
has ducked the question whether there should be a free vote in
Parliament on the constitutional amendment. The government has
been successful in paying lip service to the principle of free
votes for members of the House, but it has failed to put its
words into action. Free votes have been few and far between.
One of the few times members have been actually allowed a free
vote was on the previous vote on the Newfoundland school
question.
We encourage the government to make a clear and unequivocal
public acknowledgement of the precedents set by the previous
Newfoundland amendment for both the Quebec amendment as well as
the vote that is now required on the Newfoundland constitutional
amendment. Such a declaration of support for the principle of
free votes would remove the constraints of party discipline from
members of the House and allow government backbenchers to vote
without falling out of favour with the party leadership.
I can assure members that on matters as important as changes to
fundamental law of the land, Reform MPs will be particularly
influenced by the opinions of their constituents and whether
Canadians are satisfied that the amendment in question is
democratic, legal and in the national interest.
In conclusion I ask, what will guide the MPs from other parties
in these matters, the will of their constituents and the Canadian
national interest or the heavy hand of party discipline?
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this is quite a topical issue when we look at the news
today and see what is happening in Ontario. I want to put a few
comments out for thought. I also agree with my colleague from
Calgary West when he speaks of a voucher system.
I, too, believe in the democratic process. The people of
Newfoundland have spoken and we have come up with this three part
test. I also would encourage a free vote in the House.
I recognize how important education is to all of our children.
We are setting trends for what could follow across other
provinces. We need to provide the best possible education we can
for our children.
This comes close to home for me. In British Columbia, we face
numerous challenges and problems within our public school system.
I have studied very carefully the next door province of Alberta
which has both the public school systems. It has the Catholic
public school board and the other public school boards. The
taxpayers are given the option of choosing where their tax
dollars go. They have some choices for their children. By doing
so, they hold the school boards and the schools accountable.
Again it follows along the lines of if someone provided the
student or the child with a voucher, the schools and the school
boards would have to be accountable because they want to attract
those vouchers to their schools.
I believe in the democratic process. The people of Newfoundland
have spoken, provided they have satisfied these three tests. I
am not convinced they have totally done that but it is something
we have to be having a hard look at.
We need to look beyond December 5. It is something that is of
provincial jurisdiction, but it is something we must all be
thinking about for the sake of our children and their future.
1710
Mr. Peter Goldring: Mr. Speaker, I too believe that it
has the appearance that democratic consent has been met by having
a referendum in Newfoundland to test the question. I have some
concern about whether a majority can overrule minority rights and
this is a minority rights issue. I believe that good effort has
been made for democratic consent.
The test not put forward has been the test of the rule of law.
That is one test that should be implemented as soon as possible
to clarify areas of doubt in the democratic consent as well as
whether it affects Canadian interests. It should have a a test
for the rule of law.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Reform Party. The hon. member
mentioned earlier that in his opinion 53% was a fairly good
turnout for a vote of this nature.
I asked the members for St. John's East and St. John's West
earlier why they felt there was such a low turnout for such an
important question. The response from the representatives from
St. John's East and from St. John's West was that it was during
the summertime, during the Cabot celebrations and many people
felt that because there was unanimity by the members of the
legislature in Newfoundland was the reason the turnout was low.
Does the hon. member honestly believe that 53%, under those
circumstances during that time, is really a high turnout for such
an important issue?
Mr. Peter Goldring: Mr. Speaker, the referendum was well
advertised. It was well known that it was being conducted. The
low numbers of turnout are just that.
It had been well advertised. It may have been in a period of
time, summertime, when it is difficult for people to acknowledge
or respond to it. But by being advertised, we believe democratic
consent has been given by having the referendum process.
Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to touch on the question by the hon. member's
colleague on the use of a voucher system or an educational system
that makes use of empowering the user and the inherent logic in
that.
I wonder, as a former educator though I may be engaged at that
at the moment, does he not think or not recognize that there is a
danger that the education system, by engaging in a bidding war
and the marketing activities necessary to attract vouchers, might
take resources away from the fundamental reason that these
systems exist? I do not see this type of activity aligning
itself too closely with what is going on in the classroom. If
resources are scarce, is there not a danger that we might,
through the funding mechanism, be forcing education systems into
activities that are not in the best interests of the students?
Mr. Peter Goldring: Mr. Speaker, I believe that having a
voucher system may enter an element of fairness by levelling the
field and making it more fair for the different denominations to
have their own education system. I would not find that to be a
problem or creating undue competition. It would possibly improve
the system.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to pursue that
question further.
If you pursue the voucher system and all the students who receive
this decide to transfer to another province, how will that
catastrophe be responded to?
1715
Mr. Peter Goldring: Mr. Speaker, I would consider that to
be a hypothetical situation. I think we are here to debate the
Newfoundland resolution which is before us.
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my hon. friend on the other side brought up this voucher
system question. I know it is a little bit off the topic, but by
empowering the students who are going to use the service, a
minimum standard curriculum could be provided. I believe this
would give a much better quality of education because it would be
market driven and it would be up to the institution to provide
the best service.
A parent may have five or six choices and would pick the
institution which was most suitable and which would provide the
best education. A dollar value should not be placed on the
voucher. It is to provide a service. It would make the schools
or institutions very competitive. Again it is such an important
issue.
My colleague from Calgary West suggested that should have been
part of the choice given to the people of Newfoundland. We are
setting a trend for the rest of the country. It is such an
important issue that we should really think it through so that we
provide the best alternatives for our children.
Mr. Peter Goldring: Madam Speaker, I concur with my
colleague that the voucher system would have been an important
element to have in this resolution, or to propose to the people
of Newfoundland. I agree it would certainly add an element of
fairness to the educational system in Newfoundland.
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Madam Speaker,
I want to begin today by reading to you from the column by
William Johnson which appeared in the Montreal Gazette last
week. In it he wrote:
Removing constitutional rights from a minority is a serious
undertaking. Ottawa showed its contempt last year by trying to
ram through Parliament the amendment to Newfoundland's Terms of
Union as it affected religious control of the school boards. The
result was a constitutional mess, and Parliament will have to
deal again with the issue of Newfoundland's schools.
Well here we are again for a second time in as many years
dealing with the issue. Members of the House of Commons did not
travel. They did not even hold hearings. The government rushed
it to judgment and the result was, as Mr. Johnson noted, a
constitutional mess.
[Translation]
I am new here and I would certainly not want to make snap
judgments. I do not wish to insinuate that the Liberals are
heartless and that they are acting with no regard for others. I do
not wish to insinuate that the Liberals are not doing a good job in
keeping an eye on the provincial authorities and allowing them to
do their jobs as they must. And I particularly do not wish to
insinuate that the Liberals have mishandled the Constitution in a
cavalier manner. That would be to make judgments and that is not my
purpose.
[English]
What I do know is that the other place did hold hearings.
Members of the other place travelled to St. John's. The Senate
wrote an outstanding report. The chair was Senator Sharon
Carstairs.
This government called a snap vote late one afternoon to dismiss
the work and the will of another house of Parliament. In fact I
am told that voices from every part of the Chamber were yelling
“dispense, dispense” when the Speaker was informing this House
of the message from the other place. This House did not take the
time to listen, to consider and today this is the result. It is
back before us again.
If we are going to do something, we should do it well. If we
are going to amend our Constitution, we should do it right. If
we are going to remove minority rights, we had better be certain
that the affected parties are heard from. It is their right and
our duty.
1720
I want to take the time now to speak to the amendment put
forward by the Reform Party. I am currently sitting on the
special joint committee to amend the Constitution with regard to
Quebec schools. The players are different but the same important
debate remains: the protection of minority rights.
I spent one week on this committee but I have to tell this House
and the Reform members who sit on this committee with me that I
value the role the senators have played so far. The other place
does more than provide sober second thought. The other place
provides expertise. Whether it is the Constitution, human rights
or education itself, the other place shares with a committee
experience that is far reaching.
What we are speaking of is amending Canada's Constitution. This
is serious business. Reform should understand how serious this
is and should support the other place's role.
On March 3, 1896 Sir Wilfrid Laurier made what some consider his
best speech. He spoke in defence of minority rights in Manitoba.
At second reading of Bill 58, the Remedial Act, Wilfrid Laurier,
who was not yet prime minister, asked, “Is the government
impelled by the desire of doing justice to the minority?” He
continued, “In a community with a free government in a free
country like this, upon any question involving different
conceptions of what is right or wrong, different standards of
what is just or unjust, it is the part of statesmanship not to
force the view of any matter but to endeavour to bring them all
to a uniform standard and a uniform conception of what is
right”.
None in this House approach Sir Wilfrid Laurier's eloquence and
leadership, but today's Prime Minister need not be eloquent. He
need only ask himself whether an amendment to term 17 is
necessary to achieve the provincial government's stated intention
of reforming the educational system.
Sir Wilfrid Laurier knew so long ago that rights are aimed at
limiting and domesticating state power in attenuating its
outcome. Does this Prime Minister understand what Laurier
understood?
In contrast to the Unitarian point of view in which the ends
justify the means, human rights offer an ethical approach setting
constraining limits on authority. As expressed in a letter dated
May 27, 1996 from Archbishop Francis J. Spence, president of the
Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, to the Prime Minister,
the primary responsibility of the Government of Canada is not the
reform in Newfoundland's education system, which all parties
agree is necessary, but the protection of minority rights under
our Constitution from the arbitrary action of the majority.
The Constitution and the charter can either be worthless pieces
of paper or very real and binding instruments of guidance. A
true standard. Whether these documents will be one or the other
does not depend on governments alone. It is up to all of us to
determine how seriously these guidelines will be taken, how they
will be implemented and made real.
It is necessary to recall these documents that guide Canadian
society and try with new energy to ensure that the government
acts according to their spirit. Governments must accept the
indivisibility of human rights and respect constitutionally
entrenched minority rights.
The Newfoundland terms of union are enshrined in the Canadian
Constitution. Premier Tobin appears to no longer respect those
terms. The Prime Minister appears to accede to a historical
approach to public policy making. Together they appear
disrespectful of the rule of law and delicate balance that must
accompany a state's intrusion into a matter expressly outside its
jurisdiction.
Has the will of the popular majority been a safe haven for
safeguarding the rights of the minority? No it has not. Nor
indeed has the majority's will always been when one considers the
history books and the many clashes between minority and majority.
This is precisely why Reform Party's policy of blind adherence
to government by referendum is seldom in the true public interest
and hardly ever in the interests of legitimate minority
interests. There are some issues that legitimately require
majority action and others which lie outside the proper arena of
majority determination.
1725
Majority rule implies a great deal about civil rights, such as
free speech, free assembly and free association. I might add
that the word majority means major part, and so connotes the
presence of other parts in one as several minorities.
Some would say that minorities constitute the margins of
society. Others would say that minorities are the practical
manifestations of a society's ability to accommodate and provide
safe alternatives.
Rather than build on Canada's proud heritage and respect for
minority education rights by extending rights, perhaps to the
francophone minority in Newfoundland, Premier Tobin and the Prime
Minister have actively pursued a diminution of minority
safeguards.
His Eminence G. Emmett Cardinal Carter in writing to the Prime
Minister on May 21, 1996 said: “I am disappointed, like many
Canadians, because I took you at your word and the Liberal Party
is a party of principle and a champion of minority rights”.
I take no pleasure in drawing to the attention of the House the
following curious examples of political leadership. On March 12,
1993 just before an election, the then premier of Newfoundland
made a statement in the House of Assembly: “In response to the
church leaders' concerns that implementing certain
recommendations of the royal commission report would jeopardize
their traditional rights, government has assured the leaders that
it is not seeking change to the Constitution that would remove
the constitutionally protected rights of classes of people
specifically provided for”.
Canada's great advantage over other nations is our tradition of
diversity which was born of the historic necessity of English and
French speaking Canadians working together and which has
blossomed into a basic respect for the multitude of cultures
which make up Canada.
The Canadian tradition has been one based on the obligations of
history and respect for cultural, religious and ethnic
minorities. That tradition is in a certain degree of peril with
this latest incursion into the Constitution to strike down the
valuable education rights of the religious denominations in
Newfoundland.
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, today we are debating again the Newfoundland schools
issue. It is an issue which the government seems to slip in and
foist upon the House without due notice. I must say it certainly
caught me by surprise that it was going to be discussed again
today. I find that most disturbing because I think that the issue
itself is an issue of significant importance not only to
Newfoundland but also to Canadians from coast to coast.
This morning my leader gave an outstanding speech on this matter
in the House. We would do well to listen to the cautions that he
raised.
He suggested three things. He proposed three tests which should
be considered before any constitutional amendment is passed by
the House. The three tests which he suggested are the test of
democratic consent, the test of the rule of law, and the test of
the Canadian national interest.
I would first like to take a look at the test of democratic
consent. He asked questions about that. Was there a clear
majority result from the referendum respecting the term 17
amendment? He asked if the referendum process was fair and if
the question was unbiased. I have a lot of problems with the
whole process.
I would like to read into the record some of the problems that
Harold Flynn, president of the Newfoundland and Labrador Catholic
Education Association, printed in an advertisement in the Ottawa
Citizen. He noted that the government's conduct during the
referendum compromised the democratic process. He said: “We
urge you to consider all the facts before making a decision”.
The first point that he asked us to look at was this.
1730
The first point read:
The proposed amendment will bring about profound social change in
Newfoundland, and deprive denominational minorities of the same
religious education rights that are currently enshrined in the
Constitution.
I will get on to this point later in my speech but he has raised
an important point, the legality of the issue. The second point
read:
The referendum was announced only on July 31, leaving too little
time for thoughtful analysis and informed debate.
The next point read:
The text of the proposed Constitutional amendment was not
presented until August 24, precluding an opportunity to consider
its merits and implications.
Another point read:
Government spent significant amounts of tax dollars to promote
the YES side, but refused public funds to those with different
views.
Those points he raised question the validity of the process
used. It is important to note that if we are to conduct
referendums; if we believe in the referendum process; if we want
the referendum process to solve certain issues whether the issue
be capital punishment, the abortion issue or so on; and if we are
to use the referendum process, we must ensure the process is run
fairly and there is no bias built into it.
By allowing for as little time as was allowed for in this vote
it precluded thoughtful analysis of the issue and precluded
honest debate. The fact that the government financed one portion
of the debate is not healthy in a referendum process. If the
government is proposing a referendum it should leave the
discussion of the issue and the financing of the matter to the
citizens. It is wrong for the government to involve itself in
the debate in that manner.
The next point read:
Government has allowed voters to cast their ballots outside their
electoral districts, increasing the opportunity for electoral
abuse.
And the next read:
Government refused to allow scrutineers at polling stations,
denying advocates an opportunity to observe the voting process to
ensure that it was fair and democratic.
Mr. Flynn went on to note:
We regard the Canadian Constitution and its safeguards as a
sacred compact. We believe the procedure to change it must be
equally sacred—especially when they affect minority rights and
referendums.
By exploiting this referendum “mandate”, the provincial
government plans to subordinate the rights of religious
minorities to the tyranny of the majority.
I could not agree more with what Mr. Flynn noted in this talk.
The last point he raised is another point raised by the Leader
of the Opposition this morning, the test of the rule of law. It
is important to address that issue. Inherent in that test of
responsibilities is that the government has to protect minority
rights, and it is something that it has not done.
In addressing that particular issue I think it is worth noting
section 93(3) of the Constitution in particular:
Where in any province a system of separate or distinct schools
exists by law at the union or is therefore established by the
legislature of the province, an appeal shall lie to Governor
General in Council from any act or decision of the provincial
authority affecting any right or privilege of the Protestant or
Roman Catholic minority of the Queen's subjects in relation to
education.
That statement puts a heavy burden on the government. It means
that the government cannot change the Constitution with regard to
education rights willy-nilly. It must reflect carefully on its
responsibility.
When Newfoundland entered into Confederation in 1949 the terms
of the union gave special protection to the Newfoundland
denominational schools. The protection given in term 17 of the
terms of union was in addition to the general protection of
denominational schools given in section 93 of the Constitution of
1867, what has always been known as the British North America
Act.
1735
The amendment of the Constitution of Canada proposed by the
Government of Newfoundland before the House today would remove
the special protection negotiated in 1949. More than that, it
would exempt Newfoundland from the general protection found in
section 93. That section applies to all Canadians.
This amendment would remove the protection available to all
other Canadians. In one fell swoop Newfoundland would go from
giving the best protection to its minority denominational schools
to giving the least.
Section 93 makes the federal government a guarantor of minority
denominational schools, which means the federal government has a
responsibility in the matter of minority denomination schools.
This Parliament has responsibility to protect minority
denominational education. It cannot simply allow the
Constitution to be changed in that manner.
Beyond that particular point of law is the next point addressed
by the Leader of the Opposition this morning: how this would
affect other Canadians. This point is important.
Ted Byfield in a recent column in The British Columbia
Report noted that it is one of Canada's current ironies that
the kinds of schools the Government of Newfoundland is
desperately trying to institute and make compulsory people in
other parts of Canada are trying just as desperately to escape.
A series of questions have to be asked here. Who will educate
my children? That is a key question. Who will be responsible
for educating my children? Will it be the government, the
teachers' union, a committee of the school or me, the parent? Who
will be ultimately responsible for educating that child? Who
will ensure that the values I teach my child at home will not be
undermined when I send my child to school?
Newfoundland wants to move toward a public school system, a
government run school system that tries to say somehow or another
it can teach values without teaching them, that somehow it can
instil in my children the kinds of values I want them to take
into life, and that it can do it without doing it. That sounds
almost contradictory but that in fact is what it wants to say.
I think that is wrong. I have a particular set of values that
deals with things important to me. Those things might be my
views on the abortion issue. They might be my views on same sex
marriages. They might be my views on any one of a number of
things.
When my child goes to school my values should not be undermined.
The religious values I may want to teach my child are not
contrary to the laws of the land. They are values that have long
standing in the community, at least 2,000 years. They are values
I hold dearly.
In saying that I am not setting myself up as some kind of
paragon of virtue. Far from it. The only perfect man died 2,000
years ago. You and I know that quite well, Mr. Speaker.
What I am saying is that I try in the best way I can to instil
in my child some values that I think worth while. I do not want
to send my child to a school where those values would be
undermined.
In the province of British Columbia that can happen and that
bothers me greatly. In Newfoundland's current system there is
choice within the community. One can pick a Catholic school, a
Pentecostal school or one of the unified schools.
I think that choice should be expanded.
1740
The supreme court recently heard a petition from some
fundamental Christians in Ontario who wanted to have some
government funding to support their schools. That was denied. I
think denying that is wrong.
Parents should have the ultimate authority on how they spend
their money, on how they educate their children. That authority
should be issued to them with a voucher. They should have the
right to pick the school they want to educate their children in.
There should be no questions asked.
It bothers me greatly to see the legislation before the House.
In my view the government is treating lightly its responsibility
to protect denominational schools under the Constitution. Not
only that. It is trampling on my rights and the rights of the
citizens of Newfoundland to educate their children as they see
fit.
I raise another point. I feel somewhat reluctant to do it but I
will do it anyway. It has to do with the trend in our society,
the news media in our society and other factors in our society. I
feel somewhat awkward raising the issue. I do not want someone
asking who this guy thinks he is. As I said before I do not
pretend to be perfect, but it bothers me greatly to see the
continual beating up the Christian community has taken by the
media and by the government in bringing forward the bill.
I could cite example after example, which I will do. The first
example of government beating up on the Christian community is
the bill. It is as clear to me as the sun rising in the morning
that the bill is somehow simply denying people the right to have
their children educated the way they see fit, and that way may be
the Christian way. It bothers me that is true.
We could skip out to British Columbia to take a look at what has
happened with the British Columbia College of Teachers. It is
denying Trinity Western University, a fundamentalist Christian
university, the right to train teachers for the public school
system. Trinity Western University requires that its students
take an oath to abstain from homosexual activity and to abstain
from premarital sex, in other words to support a clearly
Christian agenda.
According to the college of teachers, the taking of that oath
should disallow that university from training teachers because
teachers who have made a commitment to living up to these
Christian ideals are somehow unfit to teach in the public school
system of British Columbia.
I think that is absolutely outrageous. It bothers me greatly to
think that could happen in this country. If that were a Muslim
or a Sikh university I do not think we would see that action.
There is another example of this beating up of the Christian
community reflected in the bill. It is the comments of the new
host of the popular CBC Radio talk show Morningside. He
said “The Catholic Church is the largest criminal organization
in the world after the Mafia”. Michael Enright is the host who
took over from Peter Gzowski.
1745
I cannot fathom for an instant how a man could make that kind of
comment, an outrageous statement like that, and then be allowed a
place on a radio station in Canada, and not only that, a publicly
funded radio broadcast. It is absolutely unbelievable that
statement was made, and yet it happened.
The way the CBC conducted itself during this debate, it forgot
for example that the first hospice for AIDS patients in the world
was founded in New York by Mother Teresa. CBC does not mention
that.
Canada's national newspaper, when it reported on Mother
Teresa's death, spent most of it's column beating up on her
rather than acknowledging that this woman had lived a truly
Christian life and tried to help people who were suffering.
It beat up on her for a number of issues. It beat up on her
because she was opposed to abortion and it beat up on her because
she espoused the beliefs of her church and practised them like
most of us could not begin to.
The CBC did that. The Toronto Globe and Mail did that and
during the debate on this Newfoundland schools issue, the CBC
twice aired the show The Boys of St. Vincent, a program
which had to do with problems that occurred in the Catholic
school system, in the boarding school system in Newfoundland.
I know it happened. You know it happened. Everybody knows that
happened, but there is an issue here that seems to be forgotten.
When somebody steals from the collection plate, you
don't blame the church. You blame the individual who stole.
What the CBC wants to do is when something goes wrong, it
wants to blame the church. That is reflected in this bill. The
key fundamental problem with this bill is that it denies parents
the right to educate their children the way they want to.
Fundamentally it denies the Christian community in Newfoundland
the right to educate its children and to see that its views and
beliefs are not undermined by the school system. I am talking
about fundamentalist Christians, I am talking about Catholics, I
am talking about the Christian community in Newfoundland. That
is what this bill is about. It undermines that very right. That
is why it is wrong.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
during the course of the afternoon we have heard on numerous
occasions the fact stated that there was something in the way of
a better system in Newfoundland, that various church groups were
dragging their feet and slowing up the system so that this could
be occurring.
I want to dismiss some of those myths and refer to some of those
things that are actual fact from the Newfoundland situation. Time
and again it has been asserted by people that the Roman
Catholics, Pentecostals and others were seeking to frustrate the
process of educational reform, how necessary it was and yet being
blocked by these obstinate people.
Premier Tobin made that point on numerous occasions, that they
were trying to prevent this from occurring. The truth is that
those groups, the Pentecostals, the Roman Catholics, willingly
embraced reforms that came along.
They entered into dozens of joint service arrangements and
consolidated and closed scores of schools. They co-operated with
the government in the reduction of school boards from the
original 267 down to the present number of only 10.
Today 90% of Newfoundland communities have a single school
system and only 10% have more than one system, so considerable
changes have occurred with regard to reform over the last while.
They have no objection to the government operated provincial
school construction board. They accept that school bus reform is
necessary, that school councils will serve a useful purpose, that
school boards may be fully elected.
For many years governments in that province have set the
curriculum. They have trained and certified teachers, and until
it unwisely abolished them, they also set and corrected public
exams.
1750
What do these groups want to protect? They have not been
standing in the way of reform. They simple want the right, as has
been stated by many others here, to bring up their children, send
them to schools where their own faith values are pre-eminent.
That is a bit of a prelude.
I want to pass on to the test which was mentioned by our leader
this morning, the test of democratic consent, and offer some
suggestions as to where it may be suspect or found to be lacking
with regard to the whole matter of democratic consent. Was the
question a fair one? Was it clear?
Members may be aware that this question was developed by the
Newfoundland government's public relations firm and was one of
several potential questions subjected to some mini polling and
focus groups to try to massage it to the point where it came up
with a question that would ensure a certain outcome of the vote.
The question also referred to a preference for a single system
where all children would attend and where religious education is
taught. Of all the children in Newfoundland, 90% are presently
in that kind of system. Therefore Roman Catholic, Pentecostal
and integrated children have access to a program in their own
faith if there is sufficient demand. That was the question and
the people believed they were voting yes to preserve this system.
On July 30, 1997 single school system was defined by the premier
as a Christian school system. One month later, seven days before
the actual vote, one day before the advance polls, a single
school system had been redefined as a public, non-denominational
school system and religious education had become not necessarily
Christian but general. In the three days before the Labour Day
weekend there was insufficient time to address the fact that the
question now meant something entirely different than originally.
The question fails to address the real issue. Voters want some
constitutional rights of parents to choose separate schools
removed. It is my belief that this was not a fairly worded
question. There were some shenanigans which took place in the
last days which did not give people time to properly address the
question before them. As a result they voted in favour of a
prior question stated.
Mr. John Cummins: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend
for that comment. I think he has hit the nail on the head, that
there was a lack of clarity in the question asked.
Again, if we are going to promote the idea of a referendum in
this country, especially if we want to use a referendum to change
the constitution and if this is a minority rights issue we have
to be double certain that the referendum is conducted in a fair
and honest way and that the question asked is clearly understood.
The whole issue goes beyond simply a referendum. The heart of
the matter is the responsibility the government has to protect
minority rights. The question here is larger than a bilateral
change of the Constitution between the federal government and
Newfoundland. When section 93 is changed, we are talking about a
change that will affect Canadians elsewhere. It will have an
impact on the separate school system in Ontario and across the
country. That is a key issue. The government cannot treat this
matter lightly. It has to be doubly certain that what it does
will not undermine our Constitution and the faith that we should
have in it.
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Thornhill, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
been listening to the debate and the question I have for my
colleague is whether he visited Newfoundland and spoke to people
there. It is my understanding that 53% of the population
participated in the vote, a majority of the population. Of those
who voted, 73% voted in support of the change.
We also know that within the legislative assembly it was a
unanimous vote. Even those who have constituencies where they
represent the minorities who have expressed concerns about the
change supported it.
1755
I would ask the members who are speaking in opposition to this
if they went to Newfoundland, as I did, and asked the people in
Newfoundland how they felt about this. If the member did not,
how could he possibly object to a legislative committee hearing
that will allow people to come forward and express their views? I
believe that is the appropriate course of action.
Mr. John Cummins: Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is
yes, I have been to Newfoundland on many occasions. Yes, I have
talked to people from Newfoundland on this matter.
However, the fundamental issue that my friend across the way is
ignoring is the conduct of the referendum itself. The fact that
the turnout was 53%, more than half the population, in a sense is
appalling because it is not a huge turnout. Why that is I do not
know. What I do know is that the referendum was not fair.
By the way, the first referendum was most appalling. In fact,
the government gave out information, made commitments in the
brochures and whatnot that it sent out in support of its
position which were clearly untrue. That again is appalling. It
is appalling behaviour on behalf of the government and it gets to
the fundamental issue here. It we are going to use referendums
we had better make darn sure that we conduct those referendums
properly and that we ask clear questions.
We in this House cannot criticize referendums which take place
in Quebec if fuzzy questions are asked. We have had the
experience in Newfoundland and supported it unfortunately.
When we talk about conducting referendums, the issue goes far
beyond this one matter here. It goes to the bigger issue of
another referendum in Quebec.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is a pleasure to speak to this motion today and the amendment,
particularly, brought in by the leader of the Reform Party
earlier this day.
I would like to comment a bit about the process that we are now
entering into. It is interesting for me to listen to the party
that has made quite a truck and trade with the referendum issue
now not only endorsing the referendum idea but also pointing out
the cautions and care that must be taken when one uses
referendums.
Often during campaigns and when the blood is running fairly hot
and furious, people will say that the Reform Party wants a
referendum every other Thursday. It wants to decide everything
under the sun by referendum. That of course has never been the
role or the proposed role that the Reform Party has had in mind
when we talked about the use of referendums. We have always said
that referendum is the best and most exact way to go to the
people for their input on legislation and in order to let them
have a direct say in a direct democracy way.
However, that does not mean that we can run roughshod over
minority rights. That does not mean that it should be a sloppy
question. It does not mean that governments should use their
considerable power and ability to spend money to try to stack the
vote, to get the vote out or to do all kinds of unusual things,
last minute changes and amendments. All those things have been
brought up on this side of the House today as precautions, things
that when one uses referendums one has to be careful with. It is
not something where we want someone with a sparkle in their eye
and a good glib line to come out and just say maybe we can swing
the country over this way and do something outrageous. That was
never the intent.
I hope that people are paying attention to the fact that
referendums, properly used, are a very good indicator of the
people's will. However, the key is the proper use, the judicious
use of the question itself and the whole thing that surrounds it.
That is why we have these particular amendments that we are
dealing with today. That is why we say that this should not go
forward unless it has proven the test of the democratic consent.
In other words, was the question fair? Was adequate notice
given? Were both sides or all sides taken into account when the
question was put?
1800
The reason we say that and want this in the motion is because we
were assured by the Newfoundland government that this was all
done during the first referendum. Yet there were some problems.
People said it was not that clear. It was not all that it should
have been. Maybe it did not pass the rule of law.
That is why we have put these three amendments today. We want to
make sure the democratic consent has been properly handled. We
do not want a rubber stamp that says send it to the House and it
will do as we say. Let us examine the whole thing. That is why
it is in this motion. By all means send it to committee and let
us examine it. We do not reject it outright, but we want to
examine it in its entirety.
We also want to make sure that the rule of law has been
followed. The rule of law protects minority rights from the sort
of thing I have been talking about. It makes sure that somebody
through with a good line and a promise to save you a dollar does
not run roughshod over the rights of others. “Just vote for
this and I can guarantee it”. It gets passed quickly and people
come back later and say “My goodness, which rights did we
trample on? What have we done here?”
Once that amendment is made we have something that is very
difficult to change, as it should be. We want to make sure that
if it is changed it passes the rule of law. That is why we want
and would have preferred to have had the Newfoundland government
refer this to the supreme court for a ruling before it proceeded.
It should determine if it prejudicially affects the interests of
minorities, not just an opinion of a legal firm. We would have
liked to have had the court say “Yes, we have examined this and
the rule of law has been carefully guarded with regard to
minority rights”.
We are not convinced that a Senate-House of Commons committee is
the best place to hear this. Increasingly the government has
tended to use the Senate to introduce bills. Four or five bills
have been introduced in the Senate. We are quite annoyed that
the Senate is hearing bills which should properly come through
this place, the place of the common people.
A motion like this that gives added legitimacy to the Senate,
when its legitimacy is probably at an all-time low, is a mistake.
That is why in the amendment we suggest that it should be placed
here before the people in this common house in order to discuss
the issues of the common people. It should not be sent to the
house of lords where they have an appointment for life and a
pension to boot. We find that offensive.
The true democratic act is to put it before the people who are
accountable to their constituents. The people who are
accountable are the members of this House. They are not in the
other place where the only accountability is to the party which
sent you there. That is not accountability. That is a parking
spot. This is why we would rather have this changed to bring it
before the House for resolution.
We would also like to see a free vote on this. It was mentioned
by an hon. member opposite that it passed the Newfoundland
legislature unanimously. That is encouraging. I am sure the
committee will take that into account. I can guarantee that it
will not be unanimous in this place. Members of all parties will
carefully weigh this before they vote yea or nay for a variety of
reasons, some of which have been brought out by the member from
Delta—South Richmond and others who have pointed out flaws in
the system.
The very least we should be entitled to on an issue of this
magnitude is a free vote. We cannot be all powerful and all
knowing. We are not the great and wonderful Oz. We are people
who bring different points of view to the discussion. We have
had different discussions with people from Newfoundland and other
groups that are concerned. We should be encouraged to have a
free vote on all sides of the House so that we can get a true
perspective of our constituents' feelings, if they have strong
feelings, as well as those of the people of Newfoundland.
1805
I hope people understand a little better from the debate today
what a referendum process should look like. There are various
foibles or landmines, as it were, which can happen during the
referendum process.
A referendum does not solve all problems. It is part of a
process of several steps in gaining democratic consent, looking
after the national interest, protecting the rights of minorities
and protecting the rule of law. This amendment is supposed to do
all of those things. I believe it will do it very well.
I encourage all members, in a free vote, to support the
amendment, move on to the main motion and send this off to
committee where we can do a better job, not only here, but as the
amendment indicates, we will be able to travel to the province of
Newfoundland to deal with it there, with the people who are most
affected. Let us not just talk about it here, let us go to the
people who will be affected by this and hold public hearings to
get their input.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have
a tough question for my hon. colleague. I wonder if he finds it
strange that both the Liberals and the Tories find all sorts of
problems with the propriety of the referendum. They say there
were problems with the democratic consent and that the Government
of Newfoundland far outspent its objectors.
I think back to the 1992 Charlottetown accord. The federal
government at that time outspent objectors 13 to 1 and yet lost
the referendum.
I would like my hon. colleague to comment on the fact that the
Liberals, and especially the Tories, are questioning the
democratic consent and the propriety of a referendum in which the
government severely outspent its objectors.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, sometimes members of the
Reform Party have a certain satisfaction at having been on the
right side of the Charlottetown accord. There is a certain
satisfaction in knowing that we were on the right side of the
democratic consent. The people of Canada, if they are given
enough time and information, and in some cases a political
vehicle, will decide on the right side.
It was a wonderful thing during the Charlottetown accord to see
people for probably the first time in a lifetime actually
discussing the Constitution of the country. It was a beautiful
thing. It was the first time in my life that anyone had said:
What about this provision? What about the Senate? What is its
role? How can it be improved? What about the number of seats?
Should certain provinces have a veto?
It was a wonderful thing to openly discuss that without any
fear. It was a wonderful way to get public input and to educate
people. It was a good process. Those were the days.
I have a couple of questions with respect to the referendum
which was held in Newfoundland. Why were there two referenda? We
were promised that the first one would be the referendum to end
it all. Everything was done properly. Why then did we need the
second referendum? It is not a matter of referenda until we get
the answer we want. It has to be done right at the outset.
We are not saying it should not be referred to and examined by a
committee. That is the question that should be asked in
committee. That is the question that should be taken to the
people of Newfoundland for consideration. That is the question
on which we should have a free vote. It is not that it is right
or wrong, but it is a question that deserves to be put.
As has already been mentioned by an hon. member, after all of
the publicity and all the brow beating, only 53% of the people
came out. I wonder why that is. I am not from Newfoundland, so
I do not know. I would like to travel there to find out.
Was there a problem with the process? Perhaps not. Perhaps
everyone is happy with it. In that case we probably will hear
that in spades when we travel to Newfoundland.
1810
In something as delicate as the future of how their children
will be educated, I question that only half the people thought it
was important enough to cast a vote. That is why the question was
raised on this side of the House. That is why our amendment deals
with this idea of going to the people, checking it out in
committee by asking all these questions that have been laid out
in the amendment so that we can do it properly, do it right and
do it only one time instead of coming back and rehashing it
again.
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to make two points relating to my friend's
comments. The first one is that opposition to or support for a
particular point of view in a referendum cannot always be bought
and sold.
The classic case in point was in British Columbia during the
Charlottetown referendum where Rafe Mair influenced a great
number of people with his comments on that issue. I think it
would be very difficult to put a value on it. But the concern
that we have is that if the government is getting in there,
supporting somebody on one side or the other, that it is unfair
and that is just not the way it is supposed to be.
The other point that my colleague from Fraser Valley made is
worth repeating. It is the notion of a free vote on this matter.
That is very important. If we are going to make constitutional
change we do not want any hint that somehow or other the result
happened because of a political deal, that it was a backroom deal
by the political elite.
The issue must be a free vote. We must insist on a free vote.
In a matter of this kind we have to stand up and let our
constituents know just where we stand on it. We should not be
hiding behind a party whip.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, the observations of my
colleague from Delta are right. I just hate to come right out and
say it. Referendums cannot be bought easily but referendums can
be massaged, depending on how it is put to the people, the timing
of the vote, the wording of the question, last minute changes,
release of new information, all those things. One could jack
that around, especially the time factor, if one does not give the
time required.
Overall the referendum process is a good way of getting a
barometer of people's feelings on a particular issue. They need
information, the pitfalls and so on to make sure that the
referendum is fair and above board.
One of the reasons I think the member from Delta is concerned
about a free vote is because a little too often people are
shuffled off from this place. They go to become premiers of the
Atlantic provinces, where the cards and the chips are called in
at that time.
The caution here is, why is it when members are part of the
government side, they then go on to the happy hunting ground,
taking their pension with them and become maritime premiers. We
have had three of them now. They continue to roll back here.
They continue to say “How is it going, how is the old boys club,
is there anything else we can do for you? I will tell you this.
You give us the HST and we won't complain. You give us a billion
dollars and we'll shut up”. All that stuff starts going on.
Pretty soon we question even something like this referendum
result. After all, it was the former fisheries minister who
wandered off and became the premier, but I wonder if he is still
tied in any way to the government side?
1815
It is speculation on my part but I do wonder. That is one of
the reasons why many of us say let us go to the people of
Newfoundland and ask them directly. We will not just ask the
premier. We will get opinions from the people who are sending
their children to these schools and we will take them at face
value.
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order. Following discussion among
representatives of all the parties in the House, I believe you
will find consent for the following motion. I move:
That at the conclusion of today's debate on the amendment to
government business No. 5, the Speaker shall put the question on
the said amendment, a recorded division shall be deemed requested
and deferred until the expiry of government orders on Tuesday,
October 28, 1997.
That on Tuesday, October 28, 1997, immediately following the
recorded division on the amendment to government business No. 5,
the Speaker shall put the question on the main motion, without
further debate or amendment.
(Motion agreed to)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Resuming debate. Has
the member on his feet spoken to this this afternoon?
An hon. member: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Has the other member
on his feet spoken to this today?
An hon. member: Only three times, Mr. Speaker.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The Chair recognizes
on debate the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I just want to make one observation. Sitting in the last row you
can see all the rows in front of you on the other side of the
House. It was encouraging this afternoon to hear the last eight
speakers all agree. I hope that people on the government side of
the House will take notice of that.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
want to express my satisfaction and great delight with the Reform
Party whip for this motion for a free vote, which I think is
quite in order for this magnitude of a decision in respect to the
amendment and the main motion.
I wonder if the whip on the government side would be open to the
suggestion of a free vote. I hope others on this side would too.
I think it would be fair and in the best interests of Canadians
if they pushed the matter of a free vote on the amendment and the
main motion.
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to know why the whip for the government
does not stand up and answer the question. It is a perfectly
simple question yet he is sitting in his seat.
The whip for the Reform Party has asked for a free vote on this
matter. He said it is a matter that people should vote on their
conscience. There are some differences here. It is a critical
issue, a constitutional matter, and people should know where
their MPs stand on it. I think we should expect the same of the
government party.
On this critical issue there should be a free vote and members
should be able to vote as they wish.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I do not want to engage in debate with my colleagues opposite on
the matter of a free vote. I believe that question arose during
question period and the matter was ably addressed by the
government House leader. They can refer to Hansard and get
an adequate response.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Pursuant to the
order made earlier the question on the amendment by Mr. Manning
is deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and
deferred until tomorrow at the end of government orders.
(Divisions deemed demanded and deferred)
1820
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
In that same spirit of co-operation, I believe you would find
consent to see the clock as 6.30 p.m., which would allow the
House to proceed to the proceedings on the adjournment motion.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is there unanimous
consent to see the clock as 6.30 p.m.?
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): There is not
unanimous consent.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I just want clarification from the whip. Perhaps he
could assure me that the people who are on the late show are here
to both answer the questions and ask them.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that all
those participating in the adjournment motion are present and
ready to proceed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The Chair would ask
the chief government whip to reintroduce the request.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I seek the consent of the
House to see the clock as being 6.30 p.m. and moving on to the
proceedings of the adjournment motion.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved
AIRPORTS
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
about three weeks ago I asked a question in this House of the
Minister of Transport with regard to what are commonly referred
to as the curfew hours operating at Pearson international
airport.
My question was can the minister confirm that there are
guidelines restricting the hours of operating at Lester Pearson
international airport and can the minister assure the citizens of
Mississauga that the government will not allow the GTAA to
unilaterally change these hours. I would like to point out the
fundamental reason for asking that question.
This past summer, there were some tests conducted by the GTAA
that were referred to in the media as secret tests. They were
tests of planes flying in the hours that would generally be
considered restricted hours, say between the hours of 12.00 am
and 6 a.m.
These tests were conducted without any prior notification of the
residents, the city or myself or anyone else. The purpose of the
tests was to see if the noise actually did bother people at that
hour of the night. I can say that it did. The results were
quite conclusive and the people were upset that tests were done
in what was seen as somewhat of a clandestine fashion, a
secretive way.
The reason that I asked the minister the question, to the
parliamentary secretary who is here to respond to this concern,
is that the citizens of Mississauga have had a longstanding
relationship obviously with Pearson international airport.
The concerns about increased traffic, increased noise, the lack
of proper hush kitting on some of the older jets that are coming
in, the concerns around the increased traffic in the area of
cargo are very real for the citizens.
While I clearly recognize the significance of Pearson
international airport as an economic engine within the GTAA,
an employer, a taxpayer, a job creator, there is no question that
it is a significant facility within the GTAA and within the city
of Mississauga.
There must also be recognition by the people at the GTAA, by Mr.
Turpen, by the entire staff and the board that there has to be
some way to live in harmony with the citizens who reside within
the boundaries of the city of Mississauga, particularly in the
area around the airport.
My reason for asking the question and my concern is to ensure
that the citizens can live with some reasonable assurance that
there will not be an increase in night flights and that the
curfew area or the restricted operating area will be respected by
this government.
Perhaps the parliamentary secretary can also address the concern
of the expanded cargo coming into Pearson with some reference to
the usage of the Hamilton airport and other facilities around the
GTAA to ensure that we do have an economic infrastructure that
works solidly within the community, to the benefit of the
business community, but at the same time allows the citizens to
have a reasonable night's sleep during those hours.
1825
I believe you are motioning that my time is up, Mr. Speaker. I
would ask the parliamentary secretary to respond with particular
emphasis, if he could, on the area of the increase in—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The Parliamentary
Secretary to Minister of Transport.
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my short answer to the hon.
member for Mississauga West would be yes. The constituents in
his riding, in Mississauga and the greater Toronto area, can rest
comfortably. There will be no unilateral changes to the night
flight hours.
May I give some detail to the hon. member. The government has
been taking positive steps to bring Canada's transportation
system in line with our nation's needs as we move into the 21st
century. These actions have been designed to promote safety,
efficiency, affordability, service integration, innovation and
commercialization.
The national airports policy is a major initiative that has
shifted the federal government's role in airports from owner and
operator to landlord and regulator. Among the responsibilities
transferred to the new airport authorities is the responsibility
for the management of noise in the vicinity of the airport and to
provide a forum for consultation with the local community on
matters of aircraft noise within the community.
The federal government maintains an oversight role in noise
issues by keeping the final approval authority for the mandatory
noise operating restrictions and noise abatement procedures
published in the Canada Air Pilot.
These regulations and procedures are not guidelines but are
mandatory and have the force of law. Airport authorities
including the Greater Toronto Airport Authority cannot
unilaterally change the published night flight restrictions, but
they do have the authority to grant exemptions and extensions on
the same basis as was practised by the department prior to the
transfer of responsibility to the GTAA. The department does not
intend to change these restrictions at this time.
With respect to exemptions and exceptions, as owner and operator
of the airport Transport Canada previously managed a regulatory
regime which permitted exemptions to normal hours of operations.
This was to allow for the unforeseen circumstances such as
weather delays, air traffic control delays, some delays as a
result of mechanical problems and emergencies, and for some
operational or other reasons when quieter aircraft were used.
[Translation]
CLOSING OF THE BC MINE
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, next
Saturday, November 1, LAB Chrysotile, a limited partnership led by Jean
Dupéré, will close the 110 year old BC asbestos mine in Black Lake.
Three hundred workers will lose their jobs; 82% of them are over 50
years old, and 36% are over 55. These 300 workers have an average of 27
years of experience at the mine.
This mine closure is catastrophic for the Thetford and Black Lake
area and for the whole MRC. It must be understood that 300 layoffs in
Thetford and Black Lake is the equivalent of 7,000 layoffs in Montreal.
Three weeks ago, the BC mine workers committee met with the
assistant deputy minister of human resources development for the
province of Quebec, André Gladu. On behalf of the Minister of Human
Resources Development, he proposed three active measures to the
committee, namely targeted wage subsidies, training courses and what was
formerly known as self-employment assistance.
You have to admit, as I do, that these three measures are
definitely not enough to help our workers. It is not realistic
considering the age of these workers.
It is not realistic also because of the current economic context in the
asbestos industry.
1830
The objective of the economic recovery committee, the objective of
the federal member is to provide for, to plan an improved POWA, a
program that the human resources development minister himself abolished
on March 31, 1997. In May, for five weeks, the community of Thetford
Mines saw no less that nine ministers and the Prime Minister. They did
not really come to visit the region as tourists. They came very
regularly, so often in fact that their limousine drivers became familiar
with all the short cuts to the asbestos region.
It is strange; the human resources development minister has been as
silent as the grave since we have needed him on the issue of asbestos.
Consequently, I wish to inform him officially that on Wednesday, two
days from now, about a hundred mine workers will be here, in the House.
If the minister cannot go to Thetford, the Thetford workers will come to
him. But it is still quite surprising that, during the election
campaign, he found time on two different occasions to come and beg for
their votes.
We are not asking for active measures for our mine workers, but for
an acceptable preretirement package since—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sorry to interrupt the
hon. member. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans
Affairs has the floor.
[English]
Mr. George Proud (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Government of
Canada has been working to assist the affected workers of the
British Canadian mining plant for quite a while.
When the mine temporarily shut down in 1995, representatives of
HRDC did everything possible to help affected workers, including
becoming involved in the implementation of a joint
reclassification committee.
At the time, approximately 50 workers took advantage of this
work stoppage to start their own company and to avail themselves
of training opportunities, thus improving their employability.
These workers have not returned to work at the mine.
Even though the plant closure is imminent, representatives from
the department have been working to address this for a long time
now and are meeting the needs of affected workers.
This government appreciates that losing one's job is not easy,
especially when someone has held their position for decades, as
is the case for most of the British Canadian Mining plant
workers. However the Government of Canada wants to assure them
that everything will be done to help them get through this
difficult time.
To prove this, an important meeting between representatives of
HRDC and those of the company and the union was held at the end
of September to clarify what we intended to do. Particularly,
HRDC has assured concerned mine workers that it would show
flexibility in the delivery of the following active employment
measures.
One is using targeted wage subsidies. Thanks to self-employment,
employment insurance eligible participants who have a viable idea
to start their own business can be eligible for financial
assistance, planning assistance and for continued support while
they set up their business. The mesures uniques de formation
consolidates all the training purchase measures, including the
fee payer component.
As members can see, the Government of Canada has not let the
British Canadian mine workers down. For example between 1990 and
1992 HRDC provided funding assistance of almost $3 million to
help maintain employment at this mine.
I want to assure the House and all others that the government is
and will remain sensitive to the needs of the workers.
LAW OF THE SEA
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, after
advocating and working hard for years, Canada was one of the
first nations to sign the law of the sea in 1982 yet we still
have to ratify it. Meanwhile fish stocks all over the world,
including cod on our east coast and salmon on the west coast,
have been decimated by overfishing.
The government has committed in the red book to ratify. The
joint committee reviewing Canadian foreign policy recommended
ratification in its 1994 report. In 1994 and 1995 the Minister
of Foreign Affairs said in the House that ratification was
imminent. But on April 29, 1996 the Minister of Foreign Affairs
linked the ratification of the law of the sea convention to the
precondition of ratifying another agreement on highly migratory
and straddling fish stocks.
It seems to me that this tactic is flawed because the
ratification of the law of the sea is the necessary first step to
restore Canada's credibility.
Once our credibility is restored, the straddling stock agreement
may gather the momentum it is lacking now.
1835
Here are the reasons in favour of ratifying the law of the sea
first:
One, the law of the sea contains strong provisions for marine
and fishery conservation that are far reaching, including
provisions that set the stage for our efforts to conserve
straddling stocks.
Two, the law of the sea contains sustainability principles and
their application to oceans, such as the precautionary principle;
the polluter pays principle; the principle of adjacency, which is
the one that communities closest to the resource have not only a
right to the resource, but also an obligation to nurture it.
Three, at present because we have not yet ratified the law of
the sea, Canada is left out of important organizations and talks
related to fisheries management and conservation.
We all know there are two major threats to marine ecosystems.
One is overfishing and the other is the impact of human
activities such as oil spills, destruction of estuaries and
coastal zones, industrial air pollution, and the production of
nutrients, pesticides and other materials that run off the land
and pollute the oceans. The law of the sea deals with these
problems whereas the agreement on straddling stocks deals with
them only incidentally.
In addition, article 66 of the law of the sea sets out the state
of origin concept for anadromous species, which Canada
effectively argued in the recent west coast dispute.
Interestingly, Alaska is now complaining about Russian
interception of Alaska bound salmon using the same argument. This
opens new avenues for Canada to generate the support of other
nations also worried about interception and honouring quotas.
To conclude, it is worth mentioning that at the recent summit of
the sea conference in St. John's, Newfoundland, participants
drafted the summit of the sea challenge which included, as one
may guess, a call on the Government of Canada to ratify the law
of the sea.
On October 1, I asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister
of Foreign Affairs when Canada will ratify the United Nations
convention on the law of the sea. Unfortunately he did not have
time to complete his answer. Tonight I hope it is a positive
one. The time has come for Canada finally to ratify the law of
the sea, considering the fact that 1998 is the international year
of the ocean.
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
who has worked so hard on the law of the sea and environmental
issues.
The timing of Canada's ratification of the United Nations
convention on the law of the sea must be placed in the context of
Canada's broader policy regarding high seas fishing. The
Canadian government remains committed to the ratification of the
convention. Canada has signed the convention and as such is
committed to respect its object and purpose. Before ratifying
the convention however we need to ensure that an effective
international high seas fisheries enforcement regime is in place
to protect fish stocks which straddle Canada's 200-mile fishing
zone and the adjacent high seas.
Canada is currently engaged in a number of initiatives aimed at
putting such a regime in place, the most important of which is
early Canadian ratification and entry into force of the UN
agreement on straddling and highly migratory fish stocks. This
agreement fills gaps left in the law of the sea convention
relating to high seas fisheries management. It considerably
strengthens the convention's provisions on the conservation and
sound management of straddling fish stocks. Canada played a
leading role in the negotiation of this agreement and its
ratification is our immediate priority.
The Canadian government is also continuing its relentless
efforts to reform and strengthen the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries
Organization, NAFO. We are determined to prevent any future
abuse of the NAFO objection procedure which led to overfishing of
NAFO quotas. We are also developing a strategy to ensure the
construction of a comprehensive enforcement regime in the NAFO
regulatory area beyond 1998. This is essential to the viability
and sustainability of the many important groundfish stocks in the
northwest Atlantic.
We are also examining the usefulness and feasibility on the one
hand of negotiating bilateral fisheries enforcement agreements
with flag of convenience states and on the other of seeking
provisional application of the straddling stocks agreement prior
to its entry into legal force, on a reciprocal basis with
like-minded countries.
Although Canada has not yet ratified the law of the sea
convention, we continue to play a very active role in
multilateral fora dealing with law of the sea issues.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The motion to
adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted.
Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10
a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.39 p.m.)