36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 31
CONTENTS
Monday, November 17, 1997
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
1105
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INCOME TAX ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-223. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner |
1110
1115
1120
1125
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Valeri |
1130
1135
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Odina Desrochers |
1140
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chris Axworthy |
1145
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Art Hanger |
1150
1155
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Maloney |
1200
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF CANADA (QUEBEC)
|
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
1205
1210
1215
1220
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
1225
1230
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Réal Ménard |
1235
1240
1245
1250
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvon Godin |
1255
1300
1305
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Price |
1310
1315
1320
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
1325
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Bailey |
1330
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul DeVillers |
1335
1340
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
1345
1350
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
1355
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | LIVING ART CENTRE
|
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Carolyn Parrish |
1400
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | VETERANS
|
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gary Lunn |
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEALTH
|
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Sophia Leung |
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BOULANGERIE SAINT-MÉTHODE
|
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FRANCOPHONE SUMMIT
|
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Guy Saint-Julien |
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | REFORM PARTY OF CANADA
|
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joe Jordan |
1405
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEALTH
|
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Bailey |
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INTERNATIONAL TRADE
|
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Susan Whelan |
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | DRINKING WATER
|
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Pauline Picard |
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BLOC QUEBECOIS
|
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Raymonde Folco |
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | IMMIGRATION
|
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
1410
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ASIA-PACIFIC
|
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | LOUIS RIEL
|
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gordon Earle |
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Claude Drouin |
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PEACEKEEPING
|
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Richardson |
1415
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AIRBUS
|
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jack Ramsay |
1420
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jack Ramsay |
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | IRAQ
|
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA POST
|
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Réjean Lefebvre |
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Réjean Lefebvre |
1425
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ENVIRONMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Christine Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Christine Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA PENSION PLAN
|
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jean J. Charest |
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jean J. Charest |
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
1430
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AIRBUS
|
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Hart |
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Hart |
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ENVIRONMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Bigras |
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Christine Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Bigras |
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Christine Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA PENSION PLAN
|
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1435
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CALGARY DECLARATION
|
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pierre Brien |
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pierre Brien |
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ENVIRONMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Chatters |
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Christine Stewart |
1440
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Chatters |
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Christine Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Loubier |
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | OAS FIREARMS CONVENTION
|
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Colleen Beaumier |
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted McWhinney |
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRISONS
|
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Cadman |
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
1445
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Cadman |
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA POST
|
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AIRBUS
|
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TECHNOLOGIES PARTNERSHIPS CANADA
|
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Cullen |
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. John Manley |
1450
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FISHERIES
|
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gary Lunn |
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | IMMIGRATION
|
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Réal Ménard |
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AGRICULTURE
|
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Proctor |
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA POST
|
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean Dubé |
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
1455
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TRADE
|
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lynn Myers |
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Julian Reed |
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FISHERIES
|
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Duncan |
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INDIAN AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA POST
|
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pat Martin |
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
1500
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SHIPBUILDING
|
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. John Manley |
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POINTS OF ORDER
|
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Comments During Question Period
|
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jean J. Charest |
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1505
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Procedure and House Affairs
|
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-280. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted White |
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Procedure and House Affairs
|
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion for concurrence
|
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Environment
|
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Laliberte |
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | National Highway System
|
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Jean Augustine |
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Taxation
|
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
1510
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Alcohol Consumption
|
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
|
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POINT OF ORDER
|
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Question Period
|
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF CANADA (QUEBEC)
|
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
1515
1520
1525
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nick Discepola |
1530
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
1535
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jacques Saada |
1540
1545
1550
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
1555
1600
1605
1610
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nick Discepola |
1615
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Bailey |
1620
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted McWhinney |
1625
1630
1635
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
1640
1645
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Bailey |
1650
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Goldring |
1655
1700
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Réal Ménard |
1705
1710
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvon Godin |
1715
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted White |
1720
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nick Discepola |
1725
1730
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvon Godin |
1735
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Cummins |
1740
1745
1750
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
1755
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Denis Coderre |
![V](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
1800
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 31
![](/web/20061116194334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, November 17, 1997
The House met at 11 a.m.
Prayers
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
1105
[English]
INCOME TAX ACT
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.) moved that
Bill C-223, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (deduction of
interest on mortgage loans), be read the second time and referred
to committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, it is a real pleasure to rise in the
House today to address my private members' bill, C-223.
This bill will be supported by a lot of industries right across
Canada. I have had contacts from the housing industry and the
banking industry, saying that this bill or this type of Income
Tax Act change is long overdue.
This bill will make it more feasible for young families to own a
home. When we look at the importance of families to a nation, we
see that they are the basic building block of a strong nation.
We want a good solid family, a family that has some encouragement
and desire to put equity into a home or shelter.
We often forget that these young families will be dealing with a
taxation burden never before been seen in Canadian history. Look
at the $600 billion of debt which is going to be put on their
shoulders in the next century, a debt which they will have to
service. The way the government has been going the last three
and a half or four years will add another $100 billion to that.
We know we have to do something for these young families so that
they will have an incentive to continue to pay taxes. Otherwise I
think they will feel like giving up and saying “why should I
even try to get equity because it is all going to be taxed away
from me before I have the interest or the ability to own a
home”.
I designed this bill so that it would not be an incentive for
home owners to upgrade their dwelling or be favourable to the
higher income families. I felt it should address the lower
income families, the people who have really been behind the eight
ball, giving them a level playing field when it comes to home
ownership.
If we look back through history, no matter what happened in the
thirties, the twenties and the fifties, home ownership was always
something that set the tone for the economy of that decade. When
people could afford to buy homes, we had a stronger economy.
This is something that was really devastating in the thirties
when homes were being vacated and people were moving to lower
cost abodes. The country suffered for it.
The number of homes built during the last decade was stagnant. A
year or two ago home ownership picked up.
When I did some research it astounded me that in 1993 there were
350,000 exchanges of home ownership. They were either people who
were upgrading to better homes or people who could afford new
homes. Out of that 350,000 changes in home ownership 50,000 were
new homes. We know there were 50,000 new home owners in 1993.
That is when things started looking a little brighter because
government was trying to get the deficit under control and people
had a little more confidence in the economy.
1110
When we turn that into dollars and cents, it is quite amazing
what that does to an economy with 50,000 new homes, plus the
furnishings that are put into them, plus the landscaping and
whatever that goes with a new home which provides a lot of jobs.
That is what this country needs: jobs and the ability to afford
to own a home.
This bill also gives these new home owners an incentive to apply
their equity which can be used in their retirement. When they
have a home to sell when they get to that age where they do not
want to take care of it or they are forced into senior housing
developments, they at least have some equity to back them up
which today is a big problem for a lot of seniors who have never
owned a home and have always lived in rental apartments. They
find it hard to pay for accommodation later on.
That is another benefit in this bill. It will give people the
opportunity to acquire equity that they can in their senior years
use as a retirement fund.
For people who have been buying homes lately, who took the
gamble because they thought the economy was turning up, I have
proposed that this bill, if passed, will be applicable to first
time home owners who bought their homes after December 31, 1994.
Therefore, there is the opportunity for people who took the
chance and went out on a limb because they were allowed to use 5%
of their RRSPs to invest in a home, to secure their investment by
being able to deduct the interest from the time that the bill is
passed.
There was a complaint from a number of people who asked why
first time home owners should get this tax break when people who
rent out their units do not get a tax break. I was astounded
when I researched the Income Tax Act to see what kind of tax
breaks rental owners do get. There is a lengthy list which I
will not take the time to explain in full but for example, any
rental investor who owns a rental unit can declare the property
taxes as an expense. They can include the insurance on their
rental property, maintenance and repairs, heat, light and water,
advertising, interest on the money borrowed, as I am proposing in
this bill for first time home owners.
We can see that it is really not a level playing field for the
home owners at this time.
People who have rental units can even include automobile
expenses that they use for servicing the property, advertizing
and commissions paid to obtain tenants. All these things are tax
deductible.
That is why home ownership does not always sound feasible
because the rental units can be rented at a fair cost compared to
servicing the costs of a home.
One needs extra wealth and income to own one's home. The bill,
for the first time, would give lower income homeowners a more
level playing field even if it is not totally level.
1115
I looked at some legislation passed in the U.S. in the 1940s
when all mortgage interest became a taxable expense. We are
about 50 years behind in our income tax compared to the U.S.
There are certain changes in its program I would not want to have
in the Income Tax Act, but the U.S. did not look at the issue of
how much revenue government was losing. It looked at the issue
of how much more money was put into the economy. When taxes are
saved they are invested somewhere else, which was behind the idea
of writing that into its income tax act.
I found an article written by Hugh Segal. I do not always like
what he says. A lot of people have heard him. We must give
credit where credit is due. I thought he made some good
comments. This is what he said:
Why should the tax system encourage one activity and discourage
the other? Why is the family home a target? Why is it less
important than an office, a warehouse or a piece of machinery?
That was the way I looked at it. The home is a basic place of
shelter, the place where we raise our families with certain moral
character, where we try to teach them what is good for the
country, what will be ahead of them, what they will have to do
and what their responsibilities will be when they become adults.
I thought that was a pretty good argument.
In 1979 the Conservatives introduced a bill very similar to this
one. However the government of that day did not last very long,
only six months, and the bill died on the order paper.
An hon. member: That was too long anyway.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner: We can debate that argument when we
are dealing with some other bill. The government would probably
agree with that statement so we will not get into that debate.
Then he went on to say:
Middle income Canadians would also experience an increase in
disposable and discretionary income. There would be an easier
transition from renting to owning and the family home would for
once be the beneficiary of an enlightened tax policy as opposed
to the victim.
That is the way I have looked at it. Why should a home be
taxed? It is fundamental if one wants to raise a family as a
unit. It is a lot better to raise a family under those
conditions.
Another point struck me when I read the article by Mr. Segal.
Many first time homeowners would also like to go into private
business. They may have the intelligence to be an entrepreneur
or to develop things. This tax break would let them either save
money for some future rainy day, education purposes for their
families or to start a small business. If they had a small
equity or some money they could put into a small business, that
is probably the direction they would take. It is pretty well
ever family's desire to have a business in the home. We know
what that would do for job creation.
It is interesting to see all the benefits. The Toronto-Dominion
Bank was referred to in an article in the Winnipeg Free
Press.
I even got some coverage in a paper that really does not want to
give Reform too much coverage. There was an article indicating
that my bill would help first time home buyers. It made me feel
pretty good I got that attention. This is what the article said:
On a typical 25 year mortgage at 6.35% first time home buyers
could claim some $1,700 on their income tax, according to Diane
Olivier of the Toronto-Dominion Bank.
1120
Some $1,700 of extra income is quite a bit to a young family
starting up or to first time homeowners. It is super. I did not
do the mathematics, but I think the bank has the ability and the
research people to put those figures together. The article
continued:
“Some people can be scared off by the costs of purchasing a
first house” said Rischuk Park Realty owner Rusty Rischuk. The
proposed amendment would make Winnipegers more confident that
they can afford a home. I think it is wonderful.
That is from another sector of the economy. People can have
confidence in a certain idea or in something that gives them an
opportunity to invest. Referring to last summer when the stock
market was booming and interest rates were coming down, the
article said:
Nearly 60% of the city's homes sold from January to September
were bought by first time home buyers.
We know what that does to the building trade, the furniture
trade or any business tied to manufacturing these homes.
An hon. member: It is a job creation effort.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner: It is job creation, very true. In
addition, it said:
A record high 25,000 Winnipeg renters could afford to purchase a
home.
This was an added incentive. It really surprised me this was an
impact of the bill. It would increase Winnipeg's job
opportunities or the building trade by 25,000 homes. That is
quite impressive.
I hope my colleagues on both sides of the House will see the
bill as something non-political that will encourage and give our
young people the opportunity to invest, to have a home and to
build up equity that in future years can be turned over for their
retirement or for senior housing.
The bill also refers to co-op housing. If people buy a
condominium or an apartment in a co-op housing project they will
be eligible under the bill as living in individual dwellings.
The bill is very well designed. It will not reduce government
revenue. Rather it will probably increase revenue and be
positive for the economy, not negative as some people presume.
This opportunity has provided me with quite a bit of publicity
in the papers. My delight in this regard is that it shows Reform
has good ideas. People who have never voted Reform say this is a
bill thought out by a Reformer that helps everybody, the whole
country, not just Liberals, Conservatives, Bloc members or
Reformers.
If the House cannot see the light of day on that and support the
bill, it will be very discouraging to keep on working. What are
we working for? We are working for the country. We are trying
to build the country.
We are trying to set up an economy for the 21st century that
will be positive, that will give our young people something to
dream about, and that will tell our young people we in this
generation look after them. We will try to support them in
carrying the huge tax burden because of the debt load and other
mistakes made by past governments.
When we look at the past mistakes we cannot say it was just the
government that made these mistakes. We as individuals, as
constituents, allowed it to happen. It should have never
happened. We were complacent. We did not pay attention so the
problem is there.
1125
I will just wind up in my remaining minute by saying that I am
asking for the support of my colleagues in the House. If there
are some amendments that improve the bill, I will not object to
them. I hope the bill will do something for young people to
encourage them to keep on building the country as did our pioneer
forefathers.
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Madam Speaker, Bill C-223 proposes to
introduce an income tax deduction with respect to the mortgage
interest paid on the first $100,000 of a mortgage loan by
individuals purchasing a first home after 1994.
The intent and spirit of the bill is quite laudable, but I would
like to make a couple of points with respect to the current
Income Tax Act and then move on to some of the other issues this
proposal brings forward.
The Income Tax Act presently does not allow for the
deductibility of mortgage interest on principal residences.
However, capital gains on the sale of a principal residence are
not taxable to the owner either. If mortgage interest rates were
deductible, capital gains should be made taxable.
The measure, if limited to first time home buyers at maturity,
would cost about $3 billion per year. Limiting the interest
deduction to first time home buyers may be somewhat difficult.
The proposal would create some significant differences in the tax
treatment of qualifying homeowners and would be quite difficult
to defend. If mortgage interest deductions were then extended to
all homeowners the annual revenue cost would be approximately $6
billion. Admittedly, if the principal residence were subject to
capital gains, the revenue decline would be somewhat less.
A taxpayer's choice of accommodation, owning versus renting, is
a personal choice. The hon. member attempted to make the
distinction between renters and owners and provided an example of
those who own rental units rather than those who live in rental
units. He is quite correct. Those who own rental units are
entitled to write off property taxes, insurance, heat, light, et
cetera. It is a business activity. Those who rent units do not
carry on a business.
Let us go back to the point that a choice of accommodation is
normally a personal decision and the costs associated with it are
personal expenses. The tax system does not allow deductions and
credits for personal expenses. Accordingly principal residences
are not treated as investments for tax purposes. The mortgage
interest paid on a principal residence is not deductible. The
capital gains on the sale of a principal residence is also
non-taxable to the homeowner.
The proposed deduction would also be inequitable to taxpayers
without a mortgage. Again it is unwarranted because capital
gains in principal residences are non-taxable.
Let us look at the present case. First time home buyers already
receive tax assistance under the home buyers plan. Under the
plan, first time home buyers are allowed to borrow money from the
RRSPs without having to include the amount as income.
This proposal would see the deductibility resulting in a net
transfer to homeowners with mortgages from other taxpayers who
would have either to pay higher taxes or would receive reduced
services to finance the deductibility.
In the spirit of reallocation, to which I am sure the Reform
Party is quite committed, if there is an expenditure the money
has to come from somewhere. It does not come from the sky. There
would be an increase in income taxes or a reallocation from
income taxes or reduced services. The Reform Party often makes
that point. I would just like to make sure that it understands
the point.
Furthermore, benefits would not be fairly distributed between
groups of taxpayers. Benefits would be earned disproportionately
by higher income earners who are more likely to have larger
mortgages. Less than 15% of the benefits under the proposal
would accrue to families with less than $50,000 in income.
Quite clearly the proposal would create significant differences
in the tax treatment of homeowners, identical in every respect
except the timing of their home purchase.
For example, a first time home buyer would be able to deduct up
to $6,000 assuming an annual interest rate of 6% on a
$100,000 mortgage annually, while the neighbour carrying an identical
mortgage would be denied a deduction because either the residence
was not his or her first home or the residence was purchased
before the effective date.
1130
The success of the government's work, its deficit reduction
strategy which Canadians have been quite supportive, has meant
lower interest rates which have reduced the costs of home
ownership. One year mortgage rates have declined by more than
400 basis points since January 1995. This has provided savings
greater than $3,000 in terms of lower annual mortgage payments
for a $100,000 mortgage.
I have respect for the hon. member, for his intent with this
bill and for the hard work he put into drafting and researching
it. All members of this House are quite clearly interested in
strengthening the economy, in ensuring our economy continues to
grow and that our young people are able to participate. Quite
frankly, the expenditure of $3 billion that is strictly targeted
to first time home buyers or, as another hon. member mentioned,
an expenditure of $6 billion annually across the board would
result in some reallocation of services or an increase in taxes
in order to maintain a balanced budget, in order to maintain the
level of services Canadians expect.
Although the spirit of this bill is one that every member of
this House would clearly support, the technical challenges that
this bill faces and the requirement—
An hon. member: It's too simple.
Mr. Tony Valeri: It is not too simple. It is quite
difficult to defend the legislation when one neighbour is able to
deduct $6,000 in interest payments and because the other
neighbour's home was purchased prior to 1994 and was not a first
time purchase, that neighbour would be unable to claim that
deduction.
An hon. member: Are you going to pay back all the debt
you have created?
Mr. Tony Valeri: Madam Speaker, we hear heckling from the
other side but I am trying to bring some context to the
discussion.
At this point the bill is not affordable when we are talking
about $3 billion or $6 billion of expenditure. It is not
necessary from the perspective that the housing industry in this
country has continued to soar over this last little while with
interest rates being maintained in a certain range. We foresee
the housing industry continuing to grow. In essence we feel the
bill is unnecessary at this time. A bigger reason is the equity
of the bill. We could not discriminate against those Canadians
who because they purchased their homes prior to 1994 would be
unable to deduct the interest. If we were to extend this
proposal to every homeowner it would be a $6 billion expenditure
at a time when we have not yet balanced the budget. Yet we are
starting to see these types of proposal coming forward calling
for all kinds of expenditure.
As a government we are committed to ensuring we bring forward
and support the fiscal policies we have brought forward over the
last number of years. We want to ensure a balanced budget. We
will ensure that any expenditure of this government is done
through a reallocation. We will ensure fairness and equity for
all Canadians.
While I urge every member of this House to agree that the intent
of the bill is quite laudable, I must ask every member of this
House not to support the measure. It is not affordable,
necessary or equitable.
1135
[Translation]
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): Madam Speaker, the bill
tabled by the hon. member for Portage—Lisgar meets an urgent need
to revitalize the construction sector. It also represents an
interesting way of helping future first-time home buyers by giving
them a tax break on the first $100,000.
As we know, the interest on a mortgage costs the average
homeowner a bundle, and this is true throughout the country,
including in Quebec. Often the interest on a mortgage prevents
young families from buying a home.
It is therefore time for the federal government to take concrete
action to encourage the housing industry, an important lever in the
Canadian, Quebec and regional economies.
Interest rates are now within the reach of most people. It is
therefore appropriate that the government bring in legislation to
encourage young families to buy homes more suited to their needs.
If the government were to go ahead with certain tax measures, it
could thus lighten the financial burden on future homeowners.
The Reform member from Manitoba mentions that he would like to
see tax deductions for future home buyers. The Bloc Quebecois has
some doubts about the Reform Party's intentions.
This deduction, which would be based on individual income,
would help the richer members of society, and once again put the
less well off at a serious disadvantage.
Here again, we recognize the Reform philosophy lurking behind this
bill: protect those with higher incomes and forget about the
poorer members of society.
It does not surprise anyone that the Reform Party thinks along
these lines, because this clearly right leaning party has
frequently had its own contribution to make to the social nightmare
created by the Liberals since they came to power in October 1993.
I will, if I may, refresh my colleagues' memory concerning the
tax measures that have done great harm to our social climate:
unemployment insurance reform, and cuts in provincial transfer
payments that have created problems in health services, social
programs and education.
What have Reformers done about these destructive Liberal
policies? I can think of nothing.
The recent Speech from the Throne and the economic statement by the
Minister of Finance show no signs of relief for the less privileged in
society, and there again Reform members remain silent. We can get an
idea in fact of the Reform Party's social conscience when we look at
their position in the current debate on the greenhouse effect throughout
Canada. The Reform Party acts as if there were only one province
involved in this matter and neglects to propose a comprehensive solution
to this global problem.
Let us come back to the bill itself. Although its first objective
is to improve the social climate, the Bloc Quebecois has serious
concerns about the provisions proposed by the Reform Party to amend the
Income Tax Act. We believe these proposals will do nothing to meet the
real needs of future home buyers.
In its own income tax policy, the Bloc Quebecois is very clear on
the issue of tax deductions versus tax credits. In its policy statement,
it makes the following distinctions, which I would like now to examine
with you.
There is a difference between a tax credit and a tax deduction. Tax
expenditures can take the form of tax deductions or tax credits. Tax
deductions are taken into account in the calculation of the taxpayer's
net income. They are factored in before the amount of tax payable is
determined and they therefore reduce the taxpayer's taxable income. They
allow him to benefit from tax savings. These can vary according to the
tax rate for that income bracket. Tax deductions are regressive, because
the higher the taxable revenue, the higher the savings. In the present
system, the higher the tax rates, the greater the tax savings provided
by tax deductions.
On the other hand, tax credits are subtracted from the amount of
tax payable. They are used to determine the net amount of tax payable.
Tax credits are neutral. Tax savings through tax credits are the same
for every taxpayer, whatever his or her taxable income.
1140
Let us take the example of three incomes: one less than
$29,590, one in the range between $29,590 and $59,180 and one more
than $59,180. For each $1000, a taxpayer with an income of less
than $29,590 would benefit from an identical tax saving, whether in
the form of a tax deduction or a tax credit.
A taxpayer with a taxable income in the $29,590 to $59,180
range would save $260 in taxes if he takes advantage of a tax
deduction, whereas he would receive only $170 in the form of a tax
credit for each $1,000.
A taxpayer with an income in excess of $59,180 would save $290
in tax if he was entitled to a tax deduction, whereas he would
receive only $170 in the form of a tax credit.
It can be seen, then, that federal assistance to individuals
via a tax deduction can vary enormously according to the
individual's taxable income. A person earning less than $30,000
would receive $170 in assistance per $1,000 of tax deduction, while
one earning $60,000 receives $290 in assistance for the same
deduction.
The better off therefore receive $120 more in assistance per
$1,000 in deduction, when their tax savings are compared to those
of people with a taxable income of less than $29,590. There is,
therefore, a flagrant injustice.
Our party therefore approves of the principle set out in Bill
C-223, but we intend to call for a major amendment.
We would like to see the proposed tax deductions changed to tax
credits, which would, in our opinion, be fairer for all those
affected by this bill.
[English]
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, NDP):
Madam Speaker, I am happy to rise to speak to Bill C-223 moved by
the member for Portage—Lisgar which sets out to provide mortgage
interest tax reliefs to first time home buyers, up to a maximum
of $100,000.
It is important that we all recognize the importance of
encouraging home ownership. We know that not only a house but a
home is an important part of how we provide a good start for our
kids and for our families in general. We all share in the
concern and the concept that we need to do everything we can to
encourage home ownership.
The question is how we go about doing this, in a fair, equitable
and affordable way. It is not surprising that the Reform Party
would take an issue of some complexity and present a simplistic
and unworkable solution to it.
The Reform Party constantly sees complex things as simple. In
fact, it consider everything to be simple. Some things are not
quite as simple as they appear. Some things require more
sophisticated responses than that put forward.
We need to ensure that families can find affordable and good
quality homes. The question is how to do that. We know that
over the years one of the main disincentives, especially to young
families trying to afford homes, has been a high interest rate
policy. We now find this reduced. Consequently one of the
pressures on home ownership has been reduced.
Let us talk about what this bill does or perhaps what it does
not do. First, it does not recognize regional disparities across
the country. A $100,000 home in one part of the country may be a
mansion whereas in another part of the country may not be much of
a house at all. Why treat those who in one part of the country
can buy a huge home for $100,000 the same as those who cannot
find a very large place in a more expensive community? To treat
different circumstances the same way is simplistic and simply
will not work.
1145
What about the way in which the bill works? The Reform Party
would like to suggest that this is not terribly expensive, that
it will encourage growth in the home building market. No doubt
it will. We need to cost these issues out. As the parliamentary
secretary indicated, this measure would cost $3 billion a year.
As he indicated, and even the Reform Party must know, that money
has to come from somewhere. It would come from taxes paid by
those who are not covered by this benefit, and I suppose those
who are covered by the benefit might have to pay taxes on other
things in order to make up that $3 billion difference, or a
reduction in services provided to society as a whole through
government programs.
That is money provided then by those who do not benefit from
this particular provision. I ask why is it fair, why is it
acceptable, why is it desirable to have those who cannot afford
to have a home subsidize those who can. When was that fair? When
was that acceptable? It is clearly simplistic, but when was it
acceptable?
What would happen if mortgage rates increased? That is not
beyond the realm of possibility. Then the cost would increase
even further.
The point has been made that there is no horizontal equity here.
What about the person who bought a house some time before 1994
who is struggling to keep that home together and provide a good
family life for their children? They will not benefit from this
program, even though they may live right next door to somebody
who will. One family will benefit to the extent perhaps of
$6,000, $7,000 or $8,000 a year in mortgage payment tax credits,
tax reductions or tax expenses, whereas the family next door will
not. That seems to me to be not only patently unfair but patently
absurd as well.
We have a situation which is not fair across groups. It is
not fair across families in similar circumstances and it
represents a significant tax break to some Canadians who are
rather better off than others. We have to ask where would that
money come from and how much is involved.
The member who proposed the bill mentioned the United States
situation. Some mention has been made of capital gains on
principal residences in the United States as a part of that total
tax package. I wonder whether the Reform Party through this bill
is suggesting that indeed we should have capital gains taxes on
principal residences because I am sure Canadians would be
interested to learn that.
It is important to recognize the validity of encouraging home
ownership. We need to do that, but we need to do it in a fair,
equitable and relatively inexpensive way. This bill is an
expensive and unfair way and as a result I think will not see the
light of day.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
I am pleased to rise today in support of Bill C-223 and commend
my colleague, the member for Portage—Lisgar, for his foresight
in introducing such a bill. I think it is worthy of debate and
certainly worthy of the Liberal side to examine this whole issue
of tax relief on mortgage interest.
I again would like to thank the member for Portage—Lisgar for
introducing the bill. It is certainly open for broader reference
too, not only for first time home buyers but also for everyone
who may own a home.
Since this is my first formal speech in the House, Madam
Speaker, during this 36th Parliament, I would like to take this
opportunity to congratulate you on your appointment and also the
Speaker of the House on his election to the chair. I have a
great deal of regard for both the Speaker's position, the Chair,
and the office. I can assure you that you will have my full
co-operation and respect throughout this Parliament.
I would like to thank too my constituents for once again placing
their faith in me. I am extremely grateful for the trust they
have given to me.
I want to assure them publicly that I will represent their
viewpoints and wishes as best I can. I will certainly keep
them uppermost in my mind as I carry out my duties here in the
House.
1150
Canadians have recently suffered through what I would call a
terrible recession when we look at the unemployment rates sitting
around the double digits over the last little while and now just
a little below 10%, 9% approximately. However, the most
devastating aspect of all is youth unemployment which is in the
neighbourhood of 17%. That is not acceptable.
We as parliamentarians should all be doing everything possible
to change that and drive this economy with every means possible
to make sure our young people, the future of our country, are
working and feel positive about what this country has to offer
them in the future. Unfortunately many of them do not feel that
their future is all that bright.
Besides the unemployed there are the under employed. Hundreds
of thousands of working individuals are under employed. They are
barely getting by and most of the time on two incomes and still
barely scraping by. I think it is time for the government to
take some urgent action to ensure that all Canadians enjoy the
rich potential of this country.
As far as I am concerned, this private member's bill
is a step in the right direction. Taken in a broad context, if
everyone were to be given that relief, it would certainly be a
real boon to the economy when one thinks about how many dollars
are going to be thrown back into the economy. A dollar in the
hands of an employer, an employee or a consumer is much better
handled than a dollar in the hands of any bureaucrat, any
government official or any parliamentarian.
As the House knows, this bill would provide for the deduction of
interest paid by a taxpayer on the first $100,000 of the mortgage
on his or her first home. This bill has several advantages which
the government would be hard pressed to deny. I would just like
to list some of those advantages.
First is a considerably lower tax burden on Canadian families. The
member who introduced the bill certainly mentioned families a lot
in his presentation. It is very important to recognize the
strengthening of the family, the desire that they not be subject
to someone else's whims in a way like rental or leasing property
but they would actually be able to own their own home.
Second, it would make home ownership accessible to more
Canadians. I had a chance to speak to people in the United States
who have the advantage of this deduction. It offers them more
amenities. One can actually buy a piece of property and be able
to afford a few more items that they would not normally be able
to afford because of that particular deduction.
Third, it would level the playing field between Canada and the
United States. It would make Canada's tax regime more
competitive.
People in this country are crying out for tax relief and yet it
is falling on deaf ears. Those who are able to do something
about it are not doing anything about it. In fact, they are
taxaholics on that side. There is no question about that.
Taxaholic is a term that our finance critic issued toward the
finance minister and I think it is quite acceptable because every
time there is a dollar loose somewhere it has to be grabbed. They
have to grab as many dollars as they can from those hard working
people out there across the country. I do not think that is
acceptable especially when it is clear that the people in this
country are fed up with taxes. They want relief.
1155
Going on to some of the advantages, again it would increase
equity between home owners with mortgages who must pay interest
charges with after tax money and those without mortgages.
Most important, here is where my colleague from the NDP falls
short. This money placed into the hands of the individual would
actually stimulate the economy and create jobs. There is the key
to this whole affair.
It is not the tax dollars that have to be replaced. Those tax
dollars will not be replaced just by the mere fact that people
out there have more money in their pockets and they will do
something much more beneficial with it which will generate
revenue into the coffers of any government. That is a well known
fact.
This government spends precious little time doing anything that
would support Canadian families in that regard. This bill would
allow the Liberals to have something concrete to demonstrate that
their grandiose rhetoric has a bit of substance. There is a
dreadful lack of substance opposite.
Owning a home is of great importance to families. Unfortunately
it is becoming increasingly difficult for many Canadian families
to realize their dreams and own their own homes.
Bill C-223 would give many lower income Canadians that extra bit
of cash necessary to allow them to afford that dream. It gives
that extra little bit of room. It would give first time home
owners the breathing room necessary for them to pay down their
other debts, to set aside moneys for saving or to spend more on
their families and their needs in that regard.
How can the government possibly object to allowing Canadians the
opportunity to spend more of their hard earned dollars on their
families? I do not think when it comes right down to it that it
can legitimately object, although I listened to the parliamentary
secretary who made it very clear that it is not acceptable.
Accessibility to home ownership is particularly important to our
young Canadians. They need a break and they have been hit
especially hard by tough economic times. They suffer from higher
unemployment rates on average and they report a terrible rate
of under employment.
Again, I know the parliamentary secretary spoke about the
shortfall in the tax system, but it is not acceptable. I think
many of these adjustments can be made incrementally but
unfortunately the Liberal side is not even willing to entertain
some of those very significant changes in the tax structure to
offer some relief.
Our generation of young people is the first in Canadian history
who will likely not enjoy the economic benefits that this
generation has, our parents have. If we are not careful, home
ownership will be another example.
I can relate what policies like this have done to other
countries but I know I do not have enough time to really get into
it. It is unfortunate because I think this is a very key issue.
I can only urge the Liberals to recognize a good idea when they
see it. They have a habit of stealing good ideas and I think
this is one they could steal. I hope in the end they will
support Bill C-223.
Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
the short time we have left I would like to make a few
remarks on this bill.
This private member's bill proposes to introduce an income tax
deduction for interest payments for first time home buyers on the
first $100,000 of a mortgage loan where the residence was
purchased in 1995 or later.
The intent behind this proposal is certainly laudable. The
intent is to make it easier for young Canadians to finance the
purchase of their first home. However, we should not allow our
sympathy in this regard to interfere with what I consider a sound
judgment.
I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, and to my friends opposite that it
is possible to laud the intent of an idea without supporting the
idea itself. This proposal, despite its worthy aims, has flaws.
Let me begin by noting that the Income Tax Act already provides
generous incentives for the prospective home buyer. The capital
gains from the sale of a principal residence are not taxable to
the home owner. In addition, the home buyers plan allows first
time home buyers to withdraw up to $20,000 from registered
retirement savings plans to use toward the purchase of a
principal residence.
These withdrawals are not subject to tax as long as the money is
returned to the plan within a period of 15 years.
1200
Another consideration crucial to sound tax policy is that
taxpayers be treated fairly. This proposal would confer
significant tax benefits upon Canadians purchasing a first home
in 1995 or later. This proposal, however, would confer nothing
upon Canadians who are renting or who purchased a first home in
an earlier year. This proposal would also confer nothing upon
young Canadians moving into another residence because their
family is growing or because a change of employment requires them
to move to another location.
I would find it difficult explaining to these taxpayers why they
are not as deserving of tax relief as others.
The taxpayer's choice of accommodation is really a personal
decision and the costs associated with it are personal expenses.
The Canadian income tax system in general does not allow
deductions or credits for personal expenses, and properly so.
Personal expenses reflect to a great extent the pace and income
levels of individuals. It is not fair for taxpayers at large to
subsidize the personal expenditures of others.
Should this proposal be adopted, non-homeowners would find
themselves subsidizing the home purchasing decisions of others.
The change proposed by the member of Parliament for
Portage—Lisgar would primarily benefit higher income Canadians.
Approximately 50% of families with over $80,000 of income have
mortgages in Canada today. Compare this with only 10% of
families with incomes under $30,000.
The great majority of benefits under the proposal would
naturally accrue to higher income earners who are more likely to
have larger mortgages. The result would be an increased taxation
of all Canadians to pay for the accommodation of the more
fortunate. I do not find this prospect a pleasing one.
I also feel this proposal would be sending out the wrong message
by providing an incentive to enter into debt and maintain
indebtedness. A rational homeowner benefiting from a tax
deduction for mortgage interest would see little need to pay down
the outstanding principal. By encouraging Canadians to carry
larger mortgages for longer periods of time, we would be
discouraging saving and financial independence. Surely, this is
not the lesson we wish to pass on to young members of our
society.
Finally, we come to the issue of cost. The Department of
Finance estimates that the federal revenue loss associated with
this proposal could reach $150 million in the year of
introduction. Moreover, the cost would escalate in future years
as more and more home buyers enter the market. Under a mature
system the cost to the federal government could exceed $3 billion
annually. If deductibility were extended to all homeowners, the
cost would reach $6 billion annually. The provinces would also
experience a substantial reduction in revenues. This is a very
hefty price tag by any standard.
I also wish to emphasize that the lower interest rates resulting
from the government's deficit reduction strategy have
significantly reduced the cost of home ownership. One year
mortgage rates today have declined by more than 400 basis points
since January 1995, providing savings greater than $3,000 in
terms of lower annual mortgage payments for a $100,000 mortgage.
In conclusion, I am sure that those present here today would
join me in improving the spirit of this proposal. I would urge,
however, that this spirit not sweep them along into supporting a
measure that is not affordable, necessary or fair.
The Deputy Speaker: Order. The time provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and
the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on
the Order Paper.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF CANADA (QUEBEC)
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.) moved:
WHEREAS the Government of Quebec has indicated that it
intends to establish French and English linguistic school
boards in Quebec;
AND WHEREAS the National Assembly of Quebec has passed a
resolution authorizing an amendment to the Constitution of
Canada;
AND WHEREAS the National Assembly of Quebec has reaffirmed
the established rights of the English-speaking community of
Quebec, specifically the right, in accordance with the law
of Quebec, of members of that community to have their
children receive their instruction in English language
educational facilities that are under the management and
control of that community and are financed through public
funds;
AND WHEREAS section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms guarantees to citizens throughout Canada rights to
minority language instruction and minority language
educational facilities under the management and control of
linguistic minorities and provided out of public funds;
AND WHEREAS section 43 of the Constitution Act, 1982
provides that an amendment to the Constitution of Canada 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;
NOW THEREFORE the House of Commons resolves that an
amendment to the Constitution of Canada be authorized to be
made by proclamation issued by His Excellency the Governor
General under the Great Seal of Canada in accordance with
the schedule hereto.
SCHEDULE
AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF CANADA
CONSTITUTION ACT, 1867.
1. The Constitution Act, 1867, is amended by adding,
immediately after section 93, the following:
“93A. Paragraphs (1) to (4) of section 93 do not apply
to Quebec.”
CITATION
2. This Amendment may be cited as the Constitution
Amendment, year of proclamation (Quebec).
He said: “Mr. Speaker, on April 15, 1997, the Quebec National
Assembly voted unanimously in favour of a resolution to amend the
constitution and exempt Quebec from the application of paragraphs
(1) to (4) of section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867.
This amendment would essentially put an end to the educational
rights and privileges enjoyed by that province's Catholics and
Protestants. It would mean that Quebec could reorganize its school
board system along linguistic rather than denominational lines.
On October 1, the government tabled in the House of Commons
and in the Senate a resolution to amend the Constitution similar to
that put forward by Quebec.
However, before proceeding with the debate, the government wanted
to clarify the issue and allow interested groups to be heard. This
is why we decided to task a joint Senate and House of Commons
committee with examining the various aspects of the proposed
resolution.
1205
[English]
The committee thus held public consultations during which about
60 groups and individuals were heard. In the report it submitted
on November 7, it recommended that both Houses of Parliament
adopt the resolution to amend section 93 of the Constitution Act,
1867, as tabled in the House of Commons on October 1, 1997, and
in the Senate on October 9.
[Translation]
Before I go any further, I would like to congratulate the
committee members on the exemplary work they have done. Because of
their efforts, it has been possible for many citizens and groups
who so wished to express their points of view. It has also been
possible for parliamentarians to examine this highly complex issue
from all angles.
I urge the House to follow the committee's recommendation and
support the resolution to amend the constitution.
Since parliamentarians have had an opportunity to consult the
committee's report, I will merely go over the main points, with
particular emphasis on the concerns identified by committee members
and possible responses to those concerns.
First, there is the issue of the amending formula. In its
report, the committee began by looking at the applicable amendment
procedure. Backed by legal advice, the Government of Canada held
that section 93 could be amended bilaterally, in accordance with
section 43 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
Most of the experts on constitutional law that the committee heard
confirmed the government's position. As stated in the committee report,
“these experts maintained that the amendment requested affects only the
province of Quebec, and they therefore concluded that the procedure
involved could only be bilateral and required only a resolution by the
Quebec National Assembly, the province concerned, and a resolution by
the two Houses of the Canadian Parliament”.
The work of the committee will therefore have been useful in
dispelling any doubts that some people may have had on the appropriate
amending procedure. But what about the purpose of the resolution itself?
Some witnesses wondered whether it was appropriate to do away at
this time with the safeguards provided under section 93.
Some people disagreed with the amendment on purely religious grounds.
They claimed that the right to receive Catholic or Protestant religious
education for those who want it should be maintained, without however
imposing such education on those who do not want it. Others argued that
the creation of linguistic school boards did not require the amendment
of section 93. Based on Supreme Court decisions, they claimed that
linguistic and denominational school boards could coexist.
Although that last statement is basically true, the committee
concluded it was not very realistic to keep a system of denominational
school boards together with a system of linguistic school boards.
In fact, over the last 15 years, successive governments in Quebec have
considered such an approach, and legislation to that effect was even
adopted in 1988. All these governments ultimately backed down because of
the tremendous difficulties that the implementation of such legislation
would have created.
In fact, this would have created six school systems in Montreal and
Quebec City, and greatly increased the number of religious schools,
resulting in the scattering of resources. This is why the
representatives of the Quebec federation of school boards stated, and I
quote, “By stacking the linguistic and denominational structures, it
would become much more complicated and burdensome to carry out yearly
activities related to student enrolment, assignment of personnel,
distribution of resources, establishing voting lists and sharing the tax
base”.
That being said however, we must admit that the non-application to
Quebec of subsections (1) to (4) of section 93 will result in the
withdrawal of constitutional safeguards presently provided to Catholics
and Protestants in that province. There are however a number of
considerations that soften the impact of this change.
1210
[English]
It appears that, for all intents and purposes, the right of
dissent is limited to the right to determine the religious
dimensions of the curriculum. Moreover, it is solely in the
territory of the cities of Montreal and Quebec City that section
93 guarantees Catholics and Protestants the right to school
boards. In short, the rights and privileges enjoyed by Catholics
and Protestants now are as much as, if not more, from legislation
than from the constitution.
[Translation]
In this connection, it must not be lost sight of either that
the objective of the Government of Quebec is not to make the Quebec
school system a lay system, but rather to make school structures
non-denominational. As Quebec's Minister of Education, Mrs.
Marois, explained in her testimony before the joint committee, the
constitutional amendment will have no immediate repercussions
whatsoever on the place of religion in the schools. That issue
will be addressed in a separate public debate.
In the immediate future, therefore, the schools will retain their
denominational orientation, and parents or children can continue to
request religious or moral education in keeping with their
convictions in the public educational facilities, as guaranteed in
section 41 of the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.
These considerations have certainly not convinced francophone
protestants. A number of members of that community came to the
committee to state that protections of a legislative nature can
never replace constitutional guarantees. They indicated as well
that, not only can the lawmakers modify the clauses currently
authorizing religious teaching in the schools, they could also be
forced to do so if the courts were to reach the conclusion that
such teaching contravenes the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the
charters as soon as section 93 ceases to be in effect.
Without wishing to minimize the importance of this problem, we
must place in its proper perspective.
First of all, a court would have to reach the conclusion that the
solutions opted for by Quebec lawmakers in this connection infringe
upon religious freedom and equality rights, and would also have to
conclude that these restrictions are not reasonable within a free
and democratic society.
In such a case, the supreme court could indicate the type of
arrangement that was likely to meet the requirements of the
Canadian and Quebec charters. Quebec lawmakers might also want to
consider various legislative arrangements in place in other
provinces to deal with this thorny issue.
A hypothetical consideration arises. The highest court has
often indicated that it did not intend to take the place of the
lawmakers in arbitrating between the interests of the various
groups in the community. There are, therefore, grounds to believe
that elected representatives retain a certain degree of flexibility
in adjudicating between various individuals' rights.>
As a last resort, the Government of Quebec could invoke the
notwithstanding clause. I was obviously very pleased to hear my
counterpart, the Quebec minister of Canadian intergovernmental
affairs, Jacques Brassard, say that “the notwithstanding clause
would be invoked only as a last resort and with great care and
diplomacy”. He is perfectly right. It is a band-aid solution and
should be used only exceptionally. The joint committee shares our
opinion on this.
The fears expressed by the French speaking Protestants are
understandable, but the rights and privileges in section 93 apply
to all Protestants and not just to those who speak French.
Attention must not be paid to a minority within a minority to a
point where the growth of society as a whole is paralyzed.
Other groups told the committee that the guarantees accorded
under section 93 to Catholics and Protestants are at odds with
Quebec's modern pluralistic society. Representatives of the Jewish
and Arab communities in particular have pointed out that this
section contains a form of discrimination. This point too warrants
consideration.
By passing the amendment proposed by Quebec's National
Assembly, Parliament will permit an open and full debate on the
whole question, which is what the Quebec minister of education
promised, in fact, when she appeared before the committee.
1215
[English]
In quite another vein, members of Quebec's anglophone community
appeared before the committee to call for section 23 to be
applied in its entirety so that individuals, whose first language
learned and still understood is English but who did not receive
their primary education in English in Canada, can send their
children to English schools. That was fair enough but the
committee concluded that was another debate.
In that connection I reiterate that Quebec's anglophone
minority, which has traditionally controlled and managed its own
school system, thanks to protections granted to Protestants under
section 93, can support amending that provision in all
confidence. That is because its rights have been better
protected since the coming into force of the Constitution Act,
1982, specifically section 23 of the Canadian charter.
Unlike section 93, section 23 of the Canadian charter has the
specific objective of providing francophone and anglophone
minorities with linguistic guarantees with respect to education.
It has been interpreted progressively and generously by the
courts. In effect, section 23 guarantees official language
minorities the right to manage and control their own schools and
even their own school boards. A number of groups and experts
confirmed that during their testimony to the committee.
In that respect the establishment of linguistic school board
will enable the anglophone community to consolidate its school
population of and gain the maximum benefit from the guarantees
under section 23.
[Translation]
I must also mention the concerns of the Native peoples living
in Quebec. Two aboriginal groups representing the Metis and
Indians living off the reserve have expressed concern over the
possible effects of the proposed constitutional amendment. They
claim that their rights could be affected to the extent that this
section protects the pre-Confederation laws governing instruction
for Native peoples.
The Government of Canada is sensitive to their claims and it
is certainly a legitimate concern for Native peoples to want to
ensure the development of their culture through education.
However, we must recognize that this was not the intent given
section 93. On a number of occasions, the courts have determined
that section 93 provides constitutional guarantees based solely on
religious belief. There is no provision for language or race.
Section 93 offers no special guarantee to Native peoples, except if
they are Protestant or Catholic. The committee shares our opinion
in this regard.
Consensus. When I first raised the possibility of amending section
93 with Quebec intergovernmental affairs minister Jacques Brassard, I
clearly indicated that the Government of Canada would support an
amendment proposal if a reasonable consensus existed in Quebec and if
the affected minority agreed.
This consensus was expressed in two unanimous votes in the National
Assembly. Indeed, the Government of Quebec and official opposition
members testified to this consensus during the joint committee hearings.
Regardless, the fact that no public consultations dealing
specifically with the constitutional amendment took place in Quebec
raised doubts as to this consensus. That is why the government insisted
that interested groups and individuals be heard. In fact, the joint
committee said this was one of its primary concerns.
These groups and individuals came in large numbers and were given the
opportunity to express their views.
[English]
The committee noted that the Assembly of Quebec Bishops is not
opposed to the amendment. The Quebec Federation of School Boards
which represents all Catholic school boards in the province also
supports the amendment. The same is true for the Provincial
Association of Catholic Teachers and the Centrale de
l'enseignement du Québec.
On the whole there is every indication that the vast majority of
Catholics are open to the proposed change. That support is not
unanimous, as evidenced by the opposition of the Coalition of
Denominational Schools.
However, it could not be expected that the challenging of the
rights and privileges entrenched in the constitution for 130
years would be supported by all.
1220
Nevertheless the government and the committee believe that a
broad consensus exists among Catholics who are not in any case a
minority in Quebec and will still be able to express their
opinion through democratic means.
[Translation]
A substantial consensus seems to exist among Protestants too. Since
this will be the most directly affected group, it is important to ensure
that a majority of the members of this group support the amendment's
objective. The Anglican Church came out in favour of the amendment, as
did the Provincial Association of Protestant Teachers.
Protestants are not speaking with a single voice. Objections raised
by French speaking Protestants must be noted.
Testimonies heard by the committee do show however that a reasonable
consensus in favour of the amendment exists in this community and that
is what the committee concluded.
Many other groups testified before the committee. The vast majority
of these groups supported the constitutional amendment proposal. To name
a few: the Fédération des comités de parents, which is the largest
parents' group in the province, the Coalition pour la
déconfessionnalisation scolaire, which is comprised of 40 organizations
and claims to represent more than 2 million people, every central labour
body in Quebec and representatives from the Jewish and Arab communities.
To conclude, based on the foregoing, there is no doubt that the
consensus required to amend section 93 of the Constitution does exist.
And that is what the joint committee concluded in its report following
these consultations.
It reads: “Based upon the evidence received by this committee, there
appears to be a consensus amongst Quebec Protestants and amongst Quebec
Roman Catholics in favour of the amendment. Overall, it appears that,
although some witnesses expressed their concerns with respect to the
proposed amendment, there is a consensus in Quebec society supporting
this change”.
It is now up to us to act on the joint committee's recommendation
and adopt the resolution to amend section 93 of the Constitution Act,
1867, as proposed in the House of Commons on October 1, 1997.
[English]
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I will not be using my entire allotted time because I
feel that the issue has been given a fair amount of attention and
that many of the key issues have been explored in depth. I would
suggest that all members of the House read the majority and
minority reports put forward by the joint committee addressing
the issue. In these reports my colleagues will find arguments
both for and against the proposed amendment.
I support the proposed amendment to section 93 created and
passed unanimously by the Quebec National Assembly. I will
ultimately be voting in favour of the amendment as recommended by
the Special Joint Committee on Quebec Schools.
The Reform caucus believes in free votes when it comes to
matters that involve certain moral considerations. While I
believe the issue is primarily a legal one, I appreciate the
opportunity to be able to respectfully disagree with some of my
colleagues.
While I have not polled my constituents directly on the issue,
it is my belief that our party's commitment to returning
education to the exclusive domain of the provinces would move all
of them to support the amendment as well. Furthermore the
amendment affects only the province of Quebec in any direct and
meaningful way, which is why I believe the constituents of
Edmonton—Strathcona have shown little interest in the matter.
The message I have heard is that what Quebec does with its
schools should be its own business, provided fundamental rights
are not violated.
Putting aside the issue of provincial jurisdiction before making
my decision on the matter, I asked myself three questions which I
believe are fundamental to the proposal.
The first question I asked was of a legal nature. Is section 43
the right way to approach the amendment, or should the general
amending formula be used in the matter?
The second question I asked was political. Is there some
evidence that the elimination of section 93 as it applies to
Quebec has broad based support?
I also asked a related question. Is there support for the
establishment of linguistic school boards in Quebec?
The final question I asked was a moral one. Does section 93
protect religious freedoms, and would these freedoms suffer in
Quebec with the passing of the proposed amendment?
1225
I would like to address the use of the section 43 amending
formula. There is some concern it is inappropriate when applied
to the proposed amendment to section 93. Instead it is argued
that a general amending formula, or the 7 and 50 formula, should
be used to facilitate the changes to denominational schools.
It is not only argued that this would be more appropriate, but
also that it is the only legal approach to the proposed
constitutional change.
Ideally the question should have been put to the supreme court
as was called for by the Leader of the Official Opposition.
However it did not happen and we must now deal with the question
in the House.
From the perspective of a constitutional layman it would seem
that section 43 is appropriate in this matter. The section 43
amending formula is used for constitutional amendments that apply
only to a single province. In this case the single province is
Quebec.
The counter argument has been made that the elimination of
section 93 will lead to the elimination of denominational schools
across Canada because section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights
and Freedoms will prevent public funding for these schools.
Because of this, it is argued that the general amending formula
involving all provinces should be used.
However the amendment to section 93 is not the removal of
section 93 from the Constitution. It is an amendment that
affects only Quebec in any direct and meaningful way. It may
admittedly create a precedent for other provinces, but whether or
not the other provinces choose to act on this precedent is
entirely their choice. Therefore the specific proposed amendment
cannot be said to affect religious educational freedom in the
rest of Canada.
For this reason I believe that section 43 is applicable in this
case.
[Translation]
On the matter of consensus, Quebec seems strongly in favour of
setting up linguistic school boards. Even if it seems less likely
that it supports the proposed amendment to section 93, such support
probably exists.
I am pleased consultations were held in Quebec on establishing
linguistic school boards. I was disappointed, however, that they
were not held specifically on the proposal to eliminate section 93
as it applies to Quebec.
My question to my colleagues is as follows, however: Since it is
clear that most Quebeckers are in favour of establishing linguistic
school boards, why are they so concerned about how the end they
also want is achieved? In other words, I do not think it really
matters to most Quebeckers just how the linguistic school boards
are set up, as long as they are.
To get back to the matter of consensus, many groups stated
that section 93 protects minority rights. They said, on the one
hand, that most Quebeckers object to the proposed amendment and, on
the other, that the amendment is an example of a majority
oppressing a minority. We could say that minority rights are an
issue here, but this argument cannot be used in conjunction with
the argument that there is no consensus on the amendment.
To put the matter of consensus to rest, I would point out that
the unanimous consent the National Assembly accorded the proposed
resolution indicates that there is vast support for it. It is
unlikely that all politicians from all parties would ignore public
opinion. Every time parties agree on an issue, I think it is
because the issue raises little controversy. That may not always
be true, but I think it is in the present case.
Let us move on to another point. If the proposed amendment is
passed, I fear Quebec and the rest of Canada will lose the right to
freedom of religion.
1230
That is really the crux of the matter. If freedom of religion were
infringed on, a consensus among Quebeckers would not be justified at
all.
Having heard the testimony received by the committee, I believe
that section 93 is not essential to protect freedom of religion. In
fact, it could run counter to this objective.
In a pluralistic society like ours, should the government collect
money from Muslims, for instance, in support of Catholic religious
teaching? I think not. Under section 93, however, the government could
continue to support Christian religious teaching at the expense of other
faiths.
Is that how we want to promote freedom of religion in our schools?
Our party is often cautioned against using hypothetical cases to
make a point. I will make an exception today.
Let us say that section 93 is designed to protect the freedom of
speech instead of denominational education. If section 93 protected
freedom of speech, but this right was granted only to Protestants and
Catholics, one could argue that it recognizes a privilege, not a right,
enjoyed only by these two groups. Rights must be universal, otherwise
they cannot be considered as rights. Therefore, the exclusive right
conferred by section 93 is prejudicial in that it actually impinges on
the right to religious teaching.
In addition, sections 21 and 36 of Bill 109 in Quebec provide for
religious teaching where numbers warrant.
It appears to be necessary to carry out reforms to ensure that the wish
to receive religious teaching is duly recognized and taken into account.
However, this seems to be another administrative problem that could
easily be resolved at the public's request.
A provincial campaign to promote the right to choose among schools
whose funding is prorated, or chartered schools, is the only way to help
ensure that religious teaching remains an option and this can only be
achieved by repealing section 93.
To conclude, I think that matters relating to education should be
exclusively under provincial jurisdiction. I think that the amending
formula used to expedite the adoption of this bill is a lawful one. I
believe there is in Quebec a political will to establish linguistic
school boards. And I know that religious freedom in Quebec will not be
threatened if section 93 is repealed.
I am therefore in favour of this amendment.
I strongly recommend that my colleagues, the hon. members of this
House, respect the wish of the Quebec National Assembly and heed the
advice of the joint committee. I urge them to vote for the proposed
amendment.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Madam Speaker, first
I want to thank the previous speaker and I hope his voice will be heard
by his fellow party members, so as to create a movement which,
hopefully, will reach the Reform Party's top level. Who knows, maybe the
leader of the official opposition will surprise us by supporting the
constitutional amendment.
This amendment was the subject of numerous debates. The issue
before us is deeply rooted in Quebec—I believe the minister said it
six times in his speech—since the Parent report was released.
Indeed, since the mid-sixties, all Quebec governments, regardless of
their political colours, have tried to modernize the province's
education system, and this is what we are talking about.
1235
I am grateful to the minister for emphasizing—as he did
throughout his speech—that the issue does not concern linguistic
rights. Those interested in linguistic rights should read chapter 8 of
Bill 101, which contains the information relating to the language of
access for the majority and the minority.
The fact is that a majority of Quebeckers feel that school boards
should be structured along linguistic rather than religious lines. We
could not overemphasize the fact that, unfortunately, some people tried
to muddle the real issue, for example by comparing the situation of
francophones outside Quebec with that of anglophones in Quebec. I
believe that all committee members clearly realized that, as
parliamentarians, our duty was to understand the objective sought by the
National Assembly.
This is somewhat of a precedent since the National Assembly, which
is the only authority that can speak on behalf of Quebeckers, was
unanimous on this issue. And all of us here should understand the
meaning of the term “unanimous”.
It means that when Pauline Marois, the member for Taillon, rose in
the National Assembly to vote in favour of the motion, so did the
member for Marquette. When parliamentarians vote this unanimously,
you can be sure we are on solid ground.
There were, it will be recalled, consultations in Quebec City,
because the very purpose of the parliamentary committee on Bill
109, which was also unanimously approved, was to look at the
establishment of linguistic school boards. If we were to go a step
further, and compare all the witnesses who were heard in the Quebec
National Assembly with those who appeared before the joint
parliamentary committee, it would be seen that there were, to all
intents and purposes, no witnesses who were not heard either in
Quebec City or here in Ottawa.
So those people who thought there had been no consultation must
think again and acknowledge that there was extensive consultation
in Quebec.
Therefore, it is clear that there are two aspects to the
motion now before us. First, the preamble to section 93 says that
education comes under provincial jurisdiction. Everyone, of
course, understands that Quebec does not want this preamble revoked
since, as far back as 1953, the Tremblay Commission pointed out in
no uncertain terms how essential it is for Quebec to have full and
complete jurisdiction over the education sector, education being
obviously linked, as we know, to identity.
Second, paragraphs (1) to (4), which are based in history,
will no longer apply to the territory of Quebec.
What this therefore means is that Quebec will simply no longer have
a constitutional obligation, particularly with respect to the
cities of Montreal and Quebec, to maintain denominational
structures based on numbers—I would remind members that, when we
have denominational structures in Montreal and Quebec City, there
is no numerical criterion, and the right to disagree exists outside
these cities—if we as parliamentarians approve the resolution
before us.
Why do we think this is important?
Why did a man like Claude Ryan, when he was Minister of Education and
the MNA for Argenteuil, finally try to modernize the Quebec school
system? Claude Ryan is a respected intellectual in Quebec society. Of
course, he is no sovereignist, everyone knows that and I must say that,
personally, I do not have much hope in that regard. Everyone knows that
Claude Ryan is a respected and respectable individual. He even submitted
the issue to the Supreme Court. He was constantly faced with this
challenge, with the overbearing presence of section 93, especially
subsections (1) to (4).
1240
What this means is that when we vote today, and I think it is
important to make this clear, it will be so that school boards can be
organized along linguistic lines.
I insisted strongly in the joint committee on what this means for
Montreal. We all know that Montreal is in a very particular situation.
Montreal is where immigrants go; 80% of the immigrants that come to
Quebec settle in Montreal. Every year Montreal welcomes close to 35,000
immigrants, or 15% of Canada's total immigration. Close to 225,000
immigrants come to Canada each year. Quebec has traditionally been open
to immigrants, a tradition that is based of course on a low birth rate,
but there is also a fundamental belief—and this is what the Bloc has
been saying since it arrived in this House—that immigration is a force
that contributes to the renewal of a society.
About 80% of immigrants settle in Montreal. For both historical and
contemporary reasons, the majority of these immigrants enrol their
children in English and Protestant schools. What is good about the
amendment on which we will be voting is that French schools will truly
become public schools, especially in Montreal. This is an objective that
must be clearly understood.
Again this will change nothing as far as admission requirements
for the anglophone minority are concerned. Bill 101 provide for
some very clear rules on which we did not always agree. In the
early 1980s, the Supreme Court of Canada issued a ruling
requiring the Quebec legislator—and I am sure the Minister for
Intergovernmental Affairs will remember this—to replace the
Quebec clause with the Canada clause.
Recognizing this legal obligation, the Quebec legislator agreed to amend
Bill 101, even though the National Assembly was not enthusiastic about
it.
So today it is the Canada clause that applies in Quebec. This means
that children whose parents received their primary education in English
in Canada can enrol their children in English schools in Quebec.
It is very important to understand why this amendment we will be
adopting, I hope, will help not only to modernize Quebec schools but
also to strike a better balance in the greater Montreal area.
One of the arguments that was repeated again and again in our
debate, but to which no one could reply adequately, concerned the
principle under which the legislator could guarantee constitutional
rights to two religious denominations. Why should Catholics and
Protestants, in 1997-98 and in the year 2000, benefit from a form of
favouritism? Both the Canadian and the Quebec charter mention the
freedom to worship. In a law-abiding society with charters that are
constitutional or quasi-constitutional obligations requiring Quebec to
guarantee certain rights, one must ask under what principle Catholics
and Protestants should be treated with favouritism.
For example, some witnesses reminded us that there were close to
80,000 Muslims in Montreal, and that they are required to enrol their
children in a Catholic or a Protestant school, which is contrary to
their religious beliefs and I think this is wrong.
1245
It must, of course, also be kept in mind—and it is important
that this point be made perfectly clear—that what we are talking
about is taking religion out of administrative structures, out of
the school boards. It is a good thing to debate the place of
religion in the schools and I have some very definite ideas on the
subject, but this Parliament is not the one to deal with that.
The Minister of Education, Mrs. Marois, a most extraordinary
woman, has mandated a task force headed by Professor Proulx to
report to the National Assembly on the place of religion in Quebec
in the year 2000. When that report is tabled there will be public
hearings, the holding of which is a tradition in Quebec, and the
stakeholders will have an opportunity to be heard.
At that time, there will be a debate within Quebec society on the
place people want religion to have.
What we are speaking of is the end of denominational school
boards. We are very optimistic on all sides that the amendment on
which we will be voting in a couple of hours will be passed with a
strong majority.
The next stage will be that, next year, parents such as those
with children in Sainte-Jeanne-d'Arc school in
Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, will be given the opportunity at the
beginning of the school year to choose between religion and
ethics, and that will remain unchanged. Where the place of
religion in the schools is concerned, parents will fully retain
their right to demand a Catholic education for their children.
This is a right which is, as we know, also given in section 41 of
the Quebec Charter of Rights, which has quasi-constitutional
value. In due course, the issue will be debated in the National
Assembly.
We have also received all possible representations by eminent
constitutional experts. As you know, constitutionalists have done
roaring business of late in Canada. They came to us with the
opinion that the vehicle was appropriate, for there had been some
doubt on this. I know that the official opposition had been
assailed by doubts at a certain point, but no constitutional expert
could be found to state that section 43 was not the right vehicle.
We know that the 1982 Constitution is complex, hair-splitting
even, concerning amendment formulas, since there are five
possibilities. We have gone from one extreme to the other, because
there was no amending formula for over 100 years. Canada was one
of the few countries that had a written Constitution but no
amending formula.
And now we have a complex and convoluted amending formula offering
five options, but, in this case, I think we are making no mistake.
We made no mistake as members of Parliament or as members of the
committee in stating that, following the representations made
before us, the amending formula was the right one.
I also want to stress the fact that a debate was held in
Quebec society and that there is a coalition representing some two
million people. That is not insignificant in a democracy. There
are not too many issues in which a group may come before a
committee and say “I am speaking on behalf of 43 organizations”,
including school administrations, unions, the CEQ and parents'
committees. All of them share the same vision for things and want
us to pass the amendment before us.
These people are speaking for their individual organizations, and
together represent two million people.
That is something pretty important and should move all those
members who doubt a debate was held and think that the amendment
has garnered little support in Quebec society. I hope they will be
convinced, because there is obviously a lot of public reaction on
this issue in Quebec.
The other thing that must be taken into consideration is the
anglophone community. It represents first of all Quebec's national
minority and that will be the case in a sovereign Quebec. I am
among those in my party who think that the constitution of Quebec
must make more provision for the rights of the anglophone community
than was made in 1995.
1250
The minister was very eloquent and I was really pleased when he
made the following statement before the parliamentary committee. Of
course, political reality will prevail, but the minister was right when
he said very eloquently that, from kindergarten to university, the
speaking community has access to an integrated school system and
control over its structures and institutions.
It comes as no surprise—and it must be pointed out—that,
generally speaking, the English speaking community strongly supports the
amendment, for two reasons. First, because it provides increased access
for that community and, from a management perspective, it means more
control than the English speaking community currently has.
This is very important. Moreover, it will put an end to the rivalry
between the anglophones enrolled in Protestant schools and those
enrolled in Catholic schools. It will allow them to consolidate their
network and, of course, the teaching resources involved.
What did Mrs. Chambers tell us? In case you do not know her, Mrs.
Chambers is the sister of philosopher Charles Taylor. In 1992, the
Quebec government approached Mrs. Chambers and asked her to head a
working group on access to the school system for anglophones. Something
stands out very clearly when you read the Chambers report.
The report says that Quebec's school system is not integrated, that
there are a number of English language schools, but that the coherence
the amendment will provide if it is passed is lacking at present. The
Chambers report also asks for the so-called universal clause, but this
is a different issue which is outside the scope of this debate.
So, there was a debate on this issue, which has deep roots in
Quebec. Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux, a woman who speaks her mind, as
members of the parliamentary committee noted—some parliamentarians,
though not I, even compared her to Tatie Danielle—told us that the
issue of linguistic school boards had already been raised in the early
sixties. She reminded us about the Pagé report and the unified school
boards, which are related to the issue before us today.
If there are people in this House, particularly Reformers or
members who were not here during the last Parliament, who think the
issue was not debated in Quebec, they are mistaken, in my opinion. The
amendment was adopted unanimously, which is somethingquite rare in
politics.
We also have to act quickly, since the measure will have a concrete
impact on the Quebec school system. While there were 158 school boards
before, there will now only be 75, which means that these school boards'
boundaries will have to be redefined. The change also involves a
different registration process and the redistribution of buildings
between school boards. Therefore, it is important to act as quickly as
possible, so that by July of next year the registration process and
organizational restructuring can have been completed
and that by next September linguistic school boards can be in place.
I thank all members of the House, beginning with the minister, for
their real co-operation. I do hope the same spirit of co-operation will
prevail when dealing with other issues.
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Madam Speaker, I rise
today in support of the amendment to section 93 of the Constitution
Act, 1867.
This motion is particularly important because it proposes a
constitutional amendment. We must always proceed with great
caution when amending provisions of our Constitution, for the
impact will be felt for generations to come.
I had the pleasure of sitting on the committee responsible for
studying the constitutional amendment. It was my first experience
on a parliamentary committee and I must say how much I appreciated
the cordial atmosphere that characterized the committee's
proceedings. As a rookie in the House of Commons, I found it an
excellent opportunity to learn from senators and members with many
years' experience.
The committee's work was truly motivated by a desire to arrive at
a solution that would best serve the interests of Quebeckers and of
Canadians.
1255
I would like to thank my colleagues, who spent much time and
effort during these three weeks in order to ensure that the groups
affected by this amendment could be heard.
During the three weeks the committee sat, we had a chance to
meet with a broad range of groups both in support of and opposed to
the proposed constitutional amendment. There was not complete
consensus, as the Quebec government had led us to believe.
A number of religious communities and linguistic groups are opposed
to the amendment to section 93 because they are afraid that the
rights they have acquired will disappear.
The special joint committee on the Quebec school system
therefore had an important job: to consult the people of Quebec
and of Canada in order to ensure that all points of view were
expressed and heard.
Before looking at all those in favour of the constitutional
amendment, I would first of all like to speak about those groups
that are opposed. Numerous religious and linguistic groups
travelled to Ottawa in order to make their concerns known.
The groups opposed to the amendment to section 93 expressed
serious concerns about the status of minority rights in our
Canadian society if the amendment is passed.
If these rights to education can be constantly revisited with very
little public consultation, other minority rights are also vulnerable.
They argue that there is a great danger that minority rights will be
withdrawn based simply on the will of the majority. This is why it is
important to hold public hearings where all sides of the issue can be
heard. The Government of Quebec refused to hold public hearings on this
issue and the minority concerned hardly had the opportunity to make its
views known.
The minorities in question are the Protestants. In Quebec, there
are the Protestants and the Catholics. In Quebec, Protestants were the
minority. Those groups I heard in committee were minorities of
minorities.
As legislators, we often forget that we represent the people.
We should never be afraid to consult the people. They put us here and
they can take us out.
I realize that the Government of Quebec had a strict timetable to
follow, but it has no excuse for not setting up public hearings where
people could have expressed their views, especially when the issue is
the amendment of our Constitution. Lack of consultation is harmful not
only to those groups who cannot have a voice, but also to the health of
democracy in our country.
By consultation, I mean consultations through public meetings prior
to the implementation of such changes or requests for change.
Despite these difficulties, it is important to note that minority
rights in Canada are not being compromised. Amending section 93 of the
Constitution is a specific issue that affects Quebec only.
It has no impact on the rights of other minority communities in Quebec
or elsewhere in Canada.
Groups opposed to the amendment also told us of their concern about
losing their denominational schools. It should be noted that the purpose
of amending section 93 is the abolition of denominational school boards
in the cities of Quebec and Montreal. The proposed changes do not
prohibit Catholic or Protestant schools. Rather they affect how schools
are managed.
I am concerned that acquired rights are being withdrawn to please
the majority. In my riding of Acadie—Bathurst, people fought long and
hard to ensure that francophone schools in the communities of
Saint-Sauveur, Saint-Simon et Sainte-Rose remain open.
Let us not forget that people took to the streets in protest when
the government attempted to close the schools.
This is why I say that I am very concerned whenever changes are proposed
to the Constitution.
We must keep in mind that the RCMP used dogs, tear gas and nightsticks
against children and parents. This is why I feel so strongly about
constitutional changes affecting schools.
1300
Our children's education is a very sensitive issue. When new
strategies on the management of our school systems are put forward, we
should make sure that all aspects have been examined, hence the
importance of consulting the public through public hearings.
I believe that the present situation in Quebec is one of the very
few exceptions allowing us to question the privileges granted Protestant
and Catholic communities.
Let us not forget that section 93 protects only two denominational
groups in two cities. This means that people in the Gaspé Peninsula, for
example, enjoy no protection at all under section 93 as pertains to
denominational education. Furthermore, all other denominational groups
have no protection under section 93. The cultural context of 1867 may
have justified the protection of only two denominational communities but
the multicultural character of Quebec in 1997 could hardly justify
protecting some communities and not the others.
There may not be unanimity in Quebec about section 93 but there is
nonetheless a large consensus. Even the denominational groups that are
affected support the amendment of section 93 because an amended section
would better reflect Quebec's cultural and linguistic reality.
The Provincial Association of Catholic Teachers, which represents
3,000 teachers from 25 school boards in Quebec, supports the
constitutional amendment because, under the current system, the English
community is divided between two school systems.
It argues that religious education and denominational schools are
still possible if the parents request it. Amending section 93 and
setting up linguistic school boards will meet the needs of both the
and the French community. Most groups that came before us
believed linguistic school boards were a must.
If the Protestants and Catholics who are affected are in favour of
amending section 93, it would be irresponsible on our part to ignore
such a consensus.
In spite of this fairly obvious consensus, our Reform friends would
like a referendum. Do they not realize that a referendum cannot reflect
the minority's interests?
We are talking about minority rights here; the will of the majority is
only part of what we have to consider.
I would be more concerned about supporting the amendment to section
93 if all the political parties in Quebec were not in agreement.
However, when the National Assembly debated this issue, it was passed
not only by a majority vote, but unanimously: 103 to zero. We all know
in this House how difficult it is to achieve unanimity on a particular
issue. If the National Assembly succeeded in securing unanimous consent
on such controversial issues as language and religion, it must be
recognized that voters as a whole had to be in agreement too.
I had another concern during committee hearings.
When we speak about denominational schools, we are speaking about the
importance of communicating, through the school system, values that are
fundamental to us. However, we often forget that children are caught in
difficult situations when religion is taught in schools.
I have a hard time admitting that Pierre will have to leave the
classroom whenever the teacher speaks about Jesus because Pierre is a
Jehovah's Witness. We must think very carefully about what it means to
teach religion in schools given our present cultural reality. We must
respect all the children attending our schools.
I pondered carefully over what was said in committee. I even spoke
with several priests in my riding and they think that religious
education should be the responsibility of parents and not that of the
schools.
The school should definitely convey fundamental values, but the
true transmission of values should be done by the family and the church.
1305
One of the most important roles we have as parents is to
communicate to our children the beliefs and values that we consider as
important. To abandon this responsibility by relying on school teachers
to do this job will clearly harm our children.
The amendment to section 93 shows how the federal government can
serve Quebec's interests. This situation shows how our country can be
flexible in certain circumstances to put forward policies that reflect
the specific needs of a province. This co-operation between the
provinces and the federal government is the foundation of the Canadian
federation and, as a result, Canadians and Quebeckers come out of this
as winners.
Even though I support the proposed amendment, I still have concerns
about the process that has led us to debate this issue. I have indicated
earlier and I will repeat that the Quebec government should have
consulted the people of Quebec through public hearings.
The special joint committee, here in the federal Parliament, only
had two weeks to hear witnesses. Because of the deadline that had been
set, some groups had some difficulty coming to tell us about their
concerns. Amending the Constitution should not be an exercise to be
taken lightly and two weeks are not enough to go around such an issue.
Despite these problems, I put my trust in the people of Quebec. If
there are concerns that have not been expressed through our committee,
I hope the population of Quebec will be listened to.
Fundamentally, the New Democratic Party respects Quebec's autonomy
to establish linguistic school boards. The amendment to section 93 will
allow the Quebec school system to better respond to the needs of the
population of Quebec. We now trust that the Quebec government will
establish the new linguistic school boards with all due consideration of
the electorate's concerns.
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Madam Speaker, I would
like to share my experience as a member of the special joint committee
charged with examining the resolution to amend section 93 of the
Constitution Act, 1867.
I believe we have no choice but to pass the resolution as tabled in
the House of Commons on October 1, 1997.
The committee heard over 60 groups and individuals and, in my
opinion, the message was clear.
As I said in the House at the beginning of this debate, as a member
of Parliament from the Eastern Townships, I have some experience of the
issue before us today.
The Eastern Townships have been a lead region with regard to
linguistic school boards in Quebec for more than 15 years and, I want to
say it again, the experiment was a success. It is a good system that
works well.
This has not always been the case, however. I remember, when I was
young, the priests used to rule people's lives. When, as a young
anglophone, I was going to school, I was not called an anglophone
because it was understood that all anglophones were Protestants and all
francophones were Catholics. I was simply called a Protestant. My French
speaking friends were not allowed to enter a Protestant church, under
penalty of eternal damnation.
However, I used to go to the francophone church, the Catholic
church, and I realized there were more similarities than differences
between us. But the priests kept the anglophones and the francophones,
the Protestants and the Catholics, apart.
The Catholic Church put religion into the hands of the schools,
into the hands of the State. In my opinion, it has been a bad decision.
Why? Because most of the teachers used to be brothers or nuns and
Quebeckers were already beginning to move away from the Church, a big
issue in terms of family values.
Fortunately, things have progressed. Canadian history is a
succession of negotiations and partnerships. These negotiations are
still going on nowadays.
1310
Just like what made up the 18th century was taken into account when
the Quebec Act was negotiated, what makes up the Canadian and the Quebec
societies must be taken into consideration as Canada heads into the 21st
century.
In fact, the Quebec society is not made up only of French speaking
Catholics and English speaking Protestants. The Quebec society is like
the Canadian society, but with a little something extra.
Bearing this reality in mind, the Quebec National Assembly
overwhelmingly voted in favour of linguistic school boards. A lot was
said about protecting the rights of English speaking Quebeckers.
In fact, English will be better protected with linguistic school boards.
I would like to come back to one of the most crucial issues I have
addressed before, because it deals with what remains a major concern,
which is the fact that the Quebec government is dedicating itself to the
independence of Quebec. It is important that decisions made on this
issue be based on reasonable grounds, and not made only to assuage the
provincial government or because we feel threatened by this separatist
government in Quebec.
Also, we should not be making any decision only to frustrate the
Government of Quebec. This is an important decision that will affect the
children and their parents as much as schools and communities.
I am very pleased to have had the opportunity to sit on this
committee and to learn a lot about the Constitution of my country. The
House must vote in favour of amending section 93 to make all of this
possible.
[English]
I want to take some time now to address the dissenting opinion
from the Reform Party.
When parliamentary debate began on this subject on October 1, I
admitted quite candidly that I had much to learn about the
constitutional nuances of my country. Today I can say that I
learned quite a lot while I sat with the committee, both from my
colleagues and about my colleagues on the opposition side and the
government side and, of course, from the witnesses who appeared
before the committee. However, I will say again that I have much
to learn.
I do not want to say outright that the Reform Party has no feel
for my country's history. I do not relish telling the House that
the Reform Party has no sense of what Canada is and how Canada
came to be. I have gone through the Reform Party's dissenting
opinion and I feel that it is my obligation to the House and to
my constituents to share my findings.
First, the Reform Party writes “the proposed amendment will
eliminate the right to denominational schools, a right that has
been protected since 1867”. I expect that Reform members will
not know about how that great event in 1867 came to pass.
Accommodation and recognition of the need for accommodation
predates 1867. In fact, the Quebec Act of 1774 provided
accommodation between the partners of what we now call Canada.
There has always been negotiation in Canada. Indeed, that is
what Canada is all about. Of course, I am no expert so I do not
think it is my job to say that the Reform Party does not know
what it is to be Canada.
Second, the Reform Party writes that changing the constitution
should never be done lightly or in haste. This puzzles me. Is
this is the same party that when addressing the issue of changing
the constitution to address Newfoundland schools in this House
just over a year ago led the chorus of “dispense, dispense”?
The Reform Party and, in all fairness, the government were in a
rush to change the constitution then. As an opposition party,
the Reform Party did nothing.
Third, the Reform Party mentions the need for democratic consent
to protect minority rights. Does its version of democratic
consent not mean majority rule? Is it not the party of
referenda?
Must I remind the Reform Party that there was democratic consent
in the national assembly, and for this to pass there will be
democratic consent in this House and in the other place. I was
quite sure this must have slipped in there by mistake. Those
things happen. But then I started to think that maybe what the
Reform was trying to say was assent of the minority. This, of
course, is not the same thing as its version of democratic
consent at all.
However, defending minority rights is not what the Reform Party
is known for. In fact, I do not think it is an exaggeration to
say the Reform Party has a bad reputation with minority groups
right across Canada.
Of course, defending minority rights cannot be the message
Reform wants to send out. That leads me to number four.
1315
Reform says that it would prefer a provincial referendum. Having
just defended minority rights, this one is difficult to figure
out. In the same dissenting opinion it defends minority rights
and then calls for a referendum.
Of course, I am no expert but does the majority not always win
referendums? Is this some sort of joke? Of course, the leader of
the Reform Party is not known for his rapier like wit but more
his rapier like logic.
I think his party has written an illogical dissenting opinion
and I do not think it is very funny.
To continue with number five, “It is incumbent on its
proponents to show beyond a reasonable doubt that an informed
majority of the people of Quebec approve the amendment”. Until
this point, the Reform Party's dissenting opinion was just a
series of contradictions and a little sloppiness.
I am sad to say that this is where the Reform Party becomes
insulting. Is the Reform Party suggesting that officials elected
to the national assembly cannot represent informed opinion in
Quebec? If this is what the Reform Party is saying, I find it
insulting and inappropriate.
I am no expert but I believe it is my job to represent the
people of my riding in Quebec just as it is the Reform members'
job to represent their constituents.
My constituents are informed. They inform me. I inform the
House of their concerns. During the last federal election, the
Reform party insulted Quebeckers and politicians from Quebec. Is
that the pot it is trying to stir now?
Number six, Reform says that those who oppose should be given a
clear opportunity to express their view. This is new for Reform.
I am curious to know if the new Reform principle extends to
aboriginal people, visible minorities and homosexuals.
This new Reform principle allows minorities not only to express
their point of view but to be heard in a proper forum. Not being
an expert but knowing the Reform Party as I do, I wonder if this
too slipped in here by mistake.
If it is meant to be there, I am happy to hear this and I will
be watching to ensure the Reform Party upholds its new values.
Number seven, Reform says that the committee should not be
expected to decide this matter in haste. I am in complete
agreement with that statement. I am happy to see the Reform
Party finally sees merit in considering important matters fully.
I wonder if now it has changed its position on the necessity of
the Senate of Canada and the sober second thought it brings to
parliamentary matters.
The other place has what is called a suspensive veto. This
provides for the opportunity for revisiting constitutional
endeavours. As long as there is a Senate there are no artificial
deadlines. Thank goodness for the Senate of Canada. I am
thankful that the Reform Party sees eye to eye with me on this.
Number eight, the Reform Party complains that there was not
enough time to study this matter, that it was done lightly and in
haste. It suggests that a court decision would have settled the
legal issue.
Again, I am no expert but I do not want to unfairly criticize
anybody. It is becoming obvious that the Reform Party does not
understand the role of Parliament. Parliament makes law. That
is what it means to be a legislator.
It seems to me that the call for a court to decide on this issue
is a complete abdication of governance and a complete abdication
of leadership.
Number nine, in addition to number eight, Reform calls for the
best legal advice available. I am sorry to hear that the Reform
Party leadership is not confident in its ability to obtain or
produce good legal advice.
In our caucus we have good legal advice. We have
parliamentarians who meet their responsibilities head on. I am
personally grateful to Senator Gerald Beaudoin, a noted
constitutional expert who has been most helpful on the committee,
helping everyone better understand the issues.
The Reform Party should have listened to him more closely.
However, if the Reform Party is looking for the best legal advice
available, I invite it to call on our House leader or even our
party leader.
Number 10, the Reform Party mentioned guarantees that were vital
to the passage of the British North America Act. Again, I do not
want to point out Reform's complete misunderstanding of Canadian
history, but as far as I know the passage of the BNA act took
place at Westminster and quite frankly there were very few people
there.
Perhaps what the Reform Party means is that it was vital to the
negotiation of the BNA act, but if that is what the Reform Party
meant to say, then why did it not say that?
1320
Number eleven, I do not mean to tell the Reform Party what it
surely already knows. Although if the Reform Party was aware of
this, I do not know how the following got in here. Maybe just
another error. These things happen. Once again I quote
“provincial statutes are clearly inferior to constitutional
provisions protecting minority rights”. It obviously should not
be me informing the Reform Party of this.
Less than two weeks ago the Supreme Court of Canada listened to
a case, Vriénd v Alberta. In this case the province of Alberta,
and if I am not mistaken the Reform Party draws much of its
strength from there, stood before the Supreme Court of Canada to
defend its refusal to extend protection against discrimination in
its human rights legislation. In short, the province of Alberta
is arguing that its provincial statute is clearly superior to
constitutional provisions protecting minority rights, prohibiting
discrimination.
Either there is a blatant area in this dissenting opinion or the
Reform Party is in direct opposition to the province of Alberta.
In one two-page document the Reform Party insults Quebec and
contradicts Alberta.
Number twelve, the Reform Party says compelling reasons for
amending the constitution have to be made and then adds no such
case was made to committee. Again, I am no expert but I do
recognize when a two page document contracts itself over and
over.
Earlier in the same document the Reform Party says “we do not
question that an overwhelming consensus has been shown”. I do
not want to say that the Reform Party does not know what it is
talking about, so I put the question forward. Which one is it, an
overwhelming consensus has been shown or no such case was made?
Surely the Reform Party understands that it cannot be both.
It is not my place to say that Canadians are used to the Reform
Party's contradicting itself, but in a two page document you
would think that it could get it straight.
It appears its left hand—no, let me get this straight—its
right hand has no idea of what the other right hand is doing. The
committee heard from more than 60 organizations and individuals,
anglophones, francophones, Protestants, Catholics, Jews and
aboriginals. There was a strong case made to amend section 93. I
suppose the Reform Party was not watching. Maybe it was not
listening. Maybe the translation was not working.
I am still learning in Ottawa. It seems to me that Canada is
not some box, all segmented, neat and tidy. Canada is messy,
Canada is confusing. We are all here to better understand Canada
and to make Canada better.
I do not want to say the Reform Party does not understand
Canada, but the Reform Party's dissenting opinion is
contradictory, uninformed and without merit.
I hope this helps the Reform Party reflect on its dissenting
opinion. I invite the Reform Party to reconsider its position
and make the recommendations of the committee unanimous.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I was disappointed that the hon. member spent half the
time of his speech on this important historic constitutional
amendment making cheap, sarcastic, partisan remarks which were
entirely out of place in this debate.
There is a time for that kind of thing in this House but this
is not one of those times. This hon. member stooped to pretty
low levels in his comments.
One of his first comments was that the Reform Party does not
understand his Canada. It is not just his country, it is mine as
well. It is our country. I understand this history pretty darn
well. Before this debate started I read the Confederation
debates from cover to cover. I challenge the member or any one
of his caucus to go up in a history test anytime with the hon.
Leader of the Opposition who probably knows more about the
history of this country in the compact of Confederation than
virtually any member of this place.
Sir Charles Tupper said in 1896 that without the guarantee of
section 93 for the rights of minorities being embodied in the new
constitution, we should have been unable to have obtained any
confederation whatever.
1325
What the hon. member is seeking to remove from the constitution
today in terms of its application to Quebec is the basic compact
of Confederation in the words of the supreme court, in the words
of Peter Hogg, our pre-eminent constitutional authority. Part of
my objection to this amendment is predicated on our history, on
our historical recognition of the rights of minorities and the
confessional rights of parents to send their children to the
educational institution of their choice.
The hon. member talked about consensus. He said that the
members of the national assembly were acting responsibly and
demonstrating democratic consent. What about the quarter of a
million Quebeckers who signed a petition objecting to this
amendment? What about the coalition that represents 600,000
Quebeckers that came before the committee objecting to this
amendment? What about half the witnesses, francophone witnesses,
Catholic witnesses, Protestant witnesses, witnesses with many
different backgrounds who are opposed to this amendment because
it removes and extinguishes forever a basic constitutional right
and a basic civil right, the right of parents to choose the
education of their children? What about those witnesses?
They were not represented at the national assembly because it
did not have hearings. It would not know what they had to say
about this. There has been no debate about the confessionnalité
implications of the removal of section 93. And this member preens
on members of Parliament acting responsibly.
I sat as an associate on the committee and I recall this member
hardly being at even half the hearings. I do not recall him
being at the clause by clause review where we wrote the majority
report, where Reform made many positive and constructive
amendments which found their way into the majority report. I do
not recall that member asking a single question of a witness
before that committee, so I do not need to be lectured by that
hon. member when it comes to the responsible exercise of our
parliamentary responsibilities.
I will ask this member a question. With all partisan nonsense
aside, does he not recognize that when we remove section 93, the
full force of the charter will apply to the Quebec education
system and that if we are to take the judicial precedents in
Ontario as a guide we will see that the confessional education
elements of the Quebec education act will be found
unconstitutional? Does he not recognize the almost unanimous
legal opinions brought before the committee that the confessional
elements of the Quebec school system will be threatened by the
charter if section 93 is removed? Forget the partisan stuff.
Does he recognize that or not? If he does recognize it, why is
he prepared to undermine the confessionnalité of the Quebec
schools that the vast majority of Quebeckers wants to maintain?
Mr. David Price: Madam Speaker, I will first answer a
couple of quick questions to be clear. I was there when the bill
was drafted. I think the member saw me there. I do not
understand—
Mr. Jason Kenney: I never heard you, that's why.
Mr. David Price: Do not forget I was last on the list. We
had three senators there. I was taking my information from them.
The member does not really understand. That is why I will go
back to the basics.
What I am looking for here is the best for our kids in Quebec. I
am a Quebecker. I go back seven generations in Quebec and I am
looking for the best we can get for our kids. Our school system
right now in my area is linguistic. It works well. I know it is
going to work. It is giving the minorities a chance. That is
why the minorities were going there.
We did not see minorities coming out of areas like Montreal
where they do not have it right now. They do have it in our area
and it works. That is the bottom line as far as I am concerned.
I want something that works that will be the best for the kids.
The hon. member's stuff is in here. I do not know why he is
complaining about it. He wrote it down. This is dissenting
opinion.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I was not going to speak on this but I decided to when
the hon. member got up. This is very close to my work throughout
my entire life. He suggests we do not know anything about this
problem we have.
I suggest to him that the word conservative in the histories of
Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta as it relates to the school
system is a bad word. It is a bad word. So any time a
Conservative stands up and tries to tell me that Reform does not
know anything about this country I will tell him this.
We know a whole lot about the country that he has forgotten or he
never knew.
1330
I have in my possession petitions signed by constituents who
know what their forefathers went through in the formation of the
province of Saskatchewan. There are some from Manitoba as well
who say that we should take great care preserving that section.
They do not want a repeat of history. They do not want a repeat
of Conservative governments in the provincial house in
Saskatchewan ordering minorities to close their doors or to take
out certain textbooks. Alberta does not want it and certainly
Manitoba does not want it.
The three prairie provinces are satisfied with their school
systems. Even the slightest minorities are given an opportunity.
I want to preserve that. Saskatchewan in total wants to preserve
it. We do not want somebody messing around, providing a little
break in the armour so that minorities could some day be
challenged by another Conservative Party. God forbid that.
I am saying clearly that I have looked at the matter and taken
the advice of my people, the people whom I represent. They are
worried about the toe getting in the door once more. The
minority rights they have enjoyed for three generations could
conceivably go out the window. It is not just a one province
debate. It covers all of Canada.
Mr. David Price: Madam Speaker, we are really talking
about Quebec. We are not talking about the other provinces. We
are only speaking about section 93 and how it affects Quebec.
The member's party wrote the dissenting opinion. It really does
not make any sense. We are protecting minority rights in Quebec.
It is the only way we can do it. We cannot do it with section 93
in place. We cannot do it.
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am pleased
to be able to speak to the resolution today. I feel it
represents a positive step for Canadians in many ways.
As a member of the joint committee that considered the
resolution to amend section 93 of the Constitution I had the
opportunity to listen first hand to the concerns of the Quebecois
and Canadians. I found this personal testimony on the realities
of Quebec society at the end of the 20th century to be very
instructive. As a result of 30 years of discussion the amendment
will reflect the pluralism of Quebec society.
Many of my colleagues will be discussing the substantive and
emotive elements of the proposed resolution. I would like to
speak on the procedural elements of the resolution as I feel they
explain many of the questions surrounding the change. Finally I
would like to add some personal reflections on the issue.
Let me begin my presentation with a discussion on the bilateral
nature of the proposed amendment. The Constitution Act, 1982,
provides for amendments in section 43 “in relation to any
provision that applies to one or more but not all provinces”.
Procedurally such an amendment requires the resolution of three
bodies: the Senate, the House of Commons and the provincial
legislative assembly requesting the amendment. We are in the
process of ensuring those basic procedural requirements.
Let us go beyond the basics of the procedural elements. The
joint committee heard that the political validity of the
resolution of any of these three bodies depended on the evidence
of consensus. The Quebec legislative assembly passed its
resolutions unanimously. This may be evidence of some consensus,
as the legislative assembly includes members of minority
communities in Quebec.
1335
However, I feel we must look further for evidence of consensus.
Particularly when a legislature is considering changes to
constitutional guarantees of rights, it is critical that the
minority affected by the change be aware of the proposal. Further
I believe it is critical that a majority of the minority affected
be supportive of the proposal.
In the case of the amendment to section 93 of the Constitution
Act I believe that a majority of the minority affected support
the amendment. This conclusion is based on evidence I heard
during the committee hearings. Anglophones, Catholics,
Protestants and non-denominational groups were in support of the
change.
I draw the attention of the House particularly to the support of
the Anglican bishops and the Canadian Jewish Congress for the
amendment. The Catholic bishops were not opposed. The Right
Reverend Andrew Hutchison, Bishop of Montreal for the Anglican
Church of Canada, stated in his letter attached to the report
tabled in the House:
Our conviction is that the state must exemplify and uphold the
principle of equality before the law in dealing with the major
religious traditions that have long been part of our Quebec
community.
Therefore not only does the Anglican church support the
resolution on the basis of religious education being a family
matter, but it feels that all major religious traditions must be
treated equally in Quebec.
I am proud the government decided to hold committee hearings and
invite testimony about the resolution. After having attended all
the hearings I am personally satisfied there is a consensus on
the amendment. I am satisfied a majority of the minority
affected by the change support it. As a franco-Ontarian the
support of the majority of the minority is what I expect from any
province that intends to change its minority rights guarantees in
any area.
Before I move to the next section of my presentation I invite my
Reform colleagues to consider the following. The Right Reverend
Andrew Hutchison of the Anglican church stated that its support
of the amendment was based on its firm conviction that religious
education of children was primarily a family responsibility.
Given the Reform stand on the importance of traditional families
and family values, why is it not supporting the amendment? The
amendment is an opportunity to reinforce the role of the family
in the moral and religious education of children.
[Translation]
I would like to mention here the impact of this discussion on my
own riding. Anybody familiar with Ontario history knows the
Penetanguishene area has been troubled by school issues in the 1960s and
1970s. To give you an idea of the situation in my own region, let me
remind you we have seven schools in Penetanguishene. Just imagine. Seven
schools for a population of 7,000. We have English and French public
schools, English and French Catholic schools, and one English Protestant
school and school board.
I am well aware of the divisions this plethora of school boards can
create in a minority community.
That is why I understand and support this initiative that will allow the
minority community in Quebec to unite. I think this amendment will help
minority communities in Quebec to consolidate and benefit from it.
Members in several parties in the House are afraid that this will
create a legal and political precedent for the abolition of the rights
of official language and religious minorities. I would like to address
this concern if I may.
I agree that this will create a political precedent in amending
official language and religious minority rights, but I think it will be
a good precedent. Any other government—and I am thinking of Ontario
premier Mike Harris who would like to somehow amend the rights of
Franco-Ontarians and Catholics—would have to meet the same criteria.
It will have to demonstrate that the proposed amendment is supported by
a majority of the members of the minority affected.
1340
Furthermore, this support should be confirmed not only by a vote of
the provincial legislature but also by witnesses before a Canadian
parliamentary committee. This is another reason why I am proud of the
decision by this government to conduct hearings. It created a precedent
for any future government which could be less vigilant than this one.
Finally, this constitutional amendment proves beyond any doubt that
a people's needs and desires can be accommodated within the federal
system. I am glad we can show Quebeckers how the Canadian Parliament has
played a productive role in this amendment.
After a 30-year-old debate in Quebec society, this amendment will soon
be a reality. Can we learn from this in the debate on national unity? I
hope so.
After 30 years of debate on national unity we could perhaps solve
the problem through a constitutional amendment or some other means.
Federalists and Quebec separatists will perhaps finally opt for a
unanimous vote on a resolution proposal. Perhaps the other provinces
will see this amendment as the result of co-operation.
If this could be a side effect of this amendment, we would have
done a good job. For all these reasons, I urge my colleagues in this
House to support this resolution.
[English]
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I commend the hon. member for his remarks and diligent
participation in committee. He is undoubtedly sincere.
I have a couple of questions for him. He and his minister both
mentioned a number of groups in favour of the amendment that
appeared before the joint committee. I notice, however, that
neither he nor his minister mentioned the several groups against
the amendment that appeared before the committee. I am afraid
this rather unbalanced presentation of the committee's hearings
may mislead some members of the House with respect to the lack of
consensus in committee. Could he elucidate for his colleagues
some of the groups against the amendment that appeared before the
committee?
He said there had been a 30 year debate about the question in
Quebec society, an assertion repeated by several speakers this
morning. The hon. member knows that the debate over the past
three decades in Quebec society has dealt with the establishment
of linguistic school boards and not with the extinguishment of
confessional school guarantees provided for in section 93.
He will know that this matter was not dealt with seriously in
the report of the estates general a couple of years ago. He will
know that this is a relatively recent proposal, one which passed
through the Quebec National Assembly without public hearings.
Will he admit that there has not in fact been 30 years of debate
about the amendment to section 93 before us today but that the
debate pertained to the establishment of linguistic school
boards?
My final question relates to the position of the Quebec Catholic
bishops. The hon. member said, as did his minister, that the
Quebec bishops were not opposed to the amendment. Will the hon.
member admit the bishops have made very clear that they oppose
any changes that would remove provisions for confessional
schooling in Quebec? Will he not admit that is the actual
position of the bishops? Will he not put it in its full nuance
on the record of this debate?
1345
Mr. Paul DeVillers: Madam Speaker, the member asked why
in my speech and in the minister's speech we did not list the
witnesses who were opposed. I think the report of the committee
which was tabled in the House goes through that very, very
clearly and in much detail.
No one is suggesting that the consensus was unanimous. The
committee heard that it is pretty well unanimous on the question
of moving to a linguistic school system. But the consensus is
far from unanimous on whether it should be accomplished by the
proposed amendments to section 93. There is no question and
nobody was trying mislead any member or the House. There were a
lot of witnesses who gave testimony that they were not in favour
of the amendment that we are debating here today proceeding.
However, from evidence I heard and from weighing the
representations of the various witnesses, there is no question in
my mind that there is a very strong consensus that the amendment
proceed. Members of the committee asked witnesses specifically,
given the fact that we are removing entrenched rights, did they
still favour it being proceeded with. In my opinion and in the
opinion of the majority of the committee, that consensus was very
clearly demonstrated.
If the member feels that I was misleading anyone, I certainly
wish to assure him that is not the case. There is no question of
attempting to mislead anyone. It is still my very strong opinion
that there is a strong consensus in the Province of Quebec that
we proceed with this amendment.
The member says that reference has been made to this being a
30-year old debate. He is partly correct. We have not
necessarily been talking about amending section 43 of the
Constitutional Act of 1982 for 30 years. The process is not 30
years old, so we obviously were not talking about using section
43 of the Constitution Act of 1982 for 30 years. However, the
whole question of managing the school system in Quebec is a
debate that has been going on for approximately 30 years.
The issue has been studied by commission after commission, all
of which is referred to in the report dealing with going from a
denominational to a linguistic school system. In recent years
the question of the process of using section 93 has been reviewed
and proposed. There were committee hearings and the Quebec
legislature has dealt with it.
In his final question the hon. member asked me about the
position of the Catholic Bishops. I think I quite correctly
stated in my comment that the Catholic Bishops were not opposed
to the amendment. They did not appear before the committee but
there was correspondence filed which set out their position which
simply stated is that they are not opposed to the amendment. The
amendment removes denominational school boards. However, they
still favour denominational schools.
I have tabled an excerpt from an interview with a Quebec Bishop
saying that he was satisfied to leave it to the state to decide
how to implement the required changes and he was satisfied that
there were measures in Quebec law, the Quebec Charter of Rights
and the Quebec Education Act that would ensure their conditions
were met and that there would be denominational schools.
The committee heard evidence that it is a very strong position
in Quebec society that people want to retain denominational
schools. I think the political realities will ensure that.
1350
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Madam Speaker, the
hon. member on the government side said that the Catholic bishops
were in favour of this change. No. I want to say to him that on
March 6, 1996, 15 members of the permanent council of the
Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, of which six bishops were
from Quebec, agreed to the following recommendation.
The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops asked the members of
the House of Commons and the members of the Senate of Canada to
weigh carefully the implications of this proposal and to indicate
that they cannot associate themselves with the passage of
legislation that would deprive minorities of religious and
educational rights.
As well, when this was first discussed about linguistic school
boards, the protection of section 93 was not even being
considered at that time. Therefore I have a major concern. I
want to ask the hon. member, abrogating the constitutional rights
of a minority without their consent is a terrible precedent in
our country, I cannot imagine that this government or this
member would be part of that—
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Paul DeVillers: Madam Speaker, the hon. member says I
indicated that the Catholic bishops were in favour. I did not
say that. I said that they were not opposed and I am going from
the evidence that was before the committee, letters that were
filed before the committee. I think I very accurately stated
what their position was as it was presented to the committee.
However, I am not saying that at any time did they say they were
in favour of it. They were saying that they were leaving that to
the state to deal with.
With respect to the member's final point dealing with minority
rights, I very clearly stated in my presentation that I believe
constitutionally entrenched minority rights can only be dealt
with when there is a very clear demonstration that the majority
of the minority who are affected are in favour of it. I believe
that is what we are dealing with in this case.
[Translation]
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I rise
on behalf of the official opposition to speak to the proposed changes to
the Constitution Act, 1867, to amend paragraphs (1) to (4) of section
93, which provide for the creation of denominational school boards in
the provinces of Quebec and Ontario.
The proposed change to the Constitution Act follows a resolution
adopted by the National Assembly of Quebec, asking the federal
government to amend section 93 of the act to facilitate the
establishment of linguistic school boards.
I want to be clear: the official opposition supports the idea of
linguistic school boards.
We are not opposed to the creation of a better school system or a school
system where groups are formed on the basis of language. However, this
amendment is neither about linguistic school boards, nor about
modernizing the school system in Quebec, nor about giving parents more
power in choosing an education system for their children. This amendment
is about taking away minority rights which are guaranteed in the
Constitution and protected by the federal government.
I will repeat: the Reform Party is not opposed to the establishment
of linguistic school boards. However, it cannot condone the abrogation
of vested rights without the consent of those directly affected.
[English]
We have outlined in our debate in the House three tests for
amendments of this nature. The first is a test of democratic
consent and by this we mean not only the consent of the majority
but as the parliamentary secretary says, the majority of the
minority and the majority of the groups directly affected.
1355
Parliament must be satisfied that Quebec citizens were well
informed about the proposed amendment and its implications
radically consulted by the government and that a majority of
those affected are in favour of the amendment.
The second test that we have outlined is that the change must
respect the rule of law and that it must not prejudicially affect
minority rights. In other words, the correct amending formula
must be used and we must be certain that we are not offending the
very right guaranteed in section 93, not to prejudicially affect
the rights of professional groups.
The Quebec National Assembly suggests that section 43 of the
Constitution Act specifies the applicable amending formula but we
do not believe it has made a case that this does not
prejudicially affect minority rights.
The third test is that the amendment must be in the national
interest. Parliament must determine whether the actions of one
province affecting education rights may create a significant
precedent regarding the educational rights of Canadians in other
provinces.
With respect to the first test, the committee was informed that
the national assembly and the public have addressed the issue of
linguistic school boards for the past three decades. We just
heard from the parliamentary secretary that this is not the case.
What has been debated in the past is the establishment of
linguistic school boards. There seems to be a unanimous
consensus in favour in Quebec from all quarters.
However, the proposed amendment before us today has not had that
kind of rigorous discussion. The parliamentary secretary just
said that in the past few years it has had some public scrutiny.
I suggest that what he really means to say is in the past year.
The implications of this amendment have really not been seriously
debated.
The problem here is that we are talking about extinguishing a
right which was central to the compact of Confederation. The
Supreme Court of Canada has said that section 93 represents a
central part of that compact. Peter Hogg, one of our leading
constitutional experts, says that it is in itself a miniature
bill of rights, that section 93 was that important to the heart
of Confederation.
What we are discussing here is not some administrative
realignment of the Quebec school system. As I have said, that is
something that we support. Education administration is a
provincial responsibility and we do not object to that. However,
what the Constitution does is to vest in this Parliament the
power to protect the rights of minority groups and groups
empowered with educational rights at the time of Confederation.
Those Fathers of Confederation put that amendment in place in
1867 because they anticipated a debate like this might happen
today in this House.
Many groups appeared before the committee. As the government
has said, some 60 witnesses. By my count, roughly half of those
witnesses opposed the proposed amendment. Most interesting is
that the only groups that I recall—ordinary parents, people who
were the most directly affected and who came before the committee
to ask that this Parliament not approve the amendment—were those
opposed to the amendment.
On the first days of the hearings we had a room full of parents
opposed to the amendment. These people were not lawyers,
education bureaucrats or politicians. They were parents
concerned about how this would affect their educational rights.
Many other groups appeared before the committee, including
constitutional law experts, who indicated that this amendment
would threaten and eventually extinguish confessional school
rights in Quebec.
I see I am out of time. I will continue my comments after
question period.
The Speaker: Of course. You still have approximately 13
minutes and the floor will still be yours when we resume debate
after the question period.
[Translation]
It being almost 2 p.m., we will now proceed to statements by
members.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
LIVING ART CENTRE
Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I rise in the House today to note the successful official opening
of the Living Art Centre in Mississauga.
1400
It is a unique multi-purpose facility combining traditional art
forms and leading edge technology. The centre will broadcast and
receive worldwide transmissions of voice and video data and will
utilize three performing areas, meeting, conference, studio and
instructional facilities.
The $68 million project was completed under the Canada-Ontario
infrastructure works program with the federal and provincial
partners each contributing $13 million, the region of Peel $5
million, the city of Mississauga $20 million and a further $30
million being provided by the private sector.
The infrastructure works program is not only about bricks and
mortar. It is also about people. The Living Arts Centre is a
perfect illustration of the government's commitment to the
enhancement of cultural life everywhere in Canada.
I am proud to see that arts, technology and community efforts
work hand in hand in Mississauga.
* * *
VETERANS
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I rise today on behalf of the veterans of Canada, particularly
the Koncentration Lager Buchenwald Club.
Remembrance Day is not yet a week old and the government has
apparently forgotten the sacrifices of Canadian airmen wrongfully
imprisoned in Buchenwald concentration camp during the second
world war.
I call on the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Liberal
government to turn up the political pressure on Germany to ensure
the few remaining veterans of this horrible experience receive
their long overdue compensation for the atrocities committed
against them at that time.
Now is not the time to weigh trade treaties against what is
right and wrong. Of 15 countries affected, 11 have achieved
satisfaction from the Germans, 2 have acted unilaterally and the
fourteenth, the U.S., is pressing the matter vigorously. Canada
is dead last, 15 out of 15, in getting the matter resolved. We
must act now.
* * *
HEALTH
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
last week the Minister of Health announced $1 million of federal
funding for Vancouver's downtown east side. The funding will go
toward fighting the HIV epidemic among drug users in Vancouver
East.
The spread of AIDS is alarming. It has been described as an
epidemic. Thankfully the government has recognized the gravity
of the problem and has taken action.
I applaud the minister for allocating funds to the crisis and I
thank all my colleagues in the House who promoted the
intervention of Health Canada.
* * *
[Translation]
BOULANGERIE SAINT-MÉTHODE
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to acknowledge in this House the determination of the Faucher
family, of Saint-Méthode, and its concern for a job well done.
Their family operation was granted the prestigious ISO-9002
standard of total quality. This is a first in Quebec, as Boulangerie
Saint-Méthode will become the first such business to achieve this high
standard of quality.
This bakery's outstanding products are the pride of the asbestos
producing region.
Every day for the past 50 years, our community has been able to
literally taste the care the Faucher family puts into baking quality
products.
I for one believe that the main ingredient in the Faucher
family's winning recipe remains its great respect for its employees and
their expertise.
Long live Boulangerie Saint-Méthode.
* * *
FRANCOPHONE SUMMIT
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the next
Francophone Summit, whose theme will be youth, will be held in Moncton,
New Brunswick, in September 1999.
This will be yet another occasion for French speaking countries to
gather to sign cultural and economic agreements, which will further
strengthen ties between participants. It will provide an opportunity to
review action taken to carry out commitments made recently at the Hanoi
summit.
We are happy for the Acadian community, which will seize this
unique opportunity to sign agreements and establish relationships with
other French speaking countries around the world.
Our congratulations to New Brunswick and the best of luck to the
Acadian community in preparing to host this summit.
* * *
[English]
REFORM PARTY OF CANADA
Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to bring to the attention of the House an impending
tragedy.
The grassroots movement known to us affectionately as the Reform
Party is undergoing a major transition. Armed with a newly
renovated house, designer suits and hair styles that change shade
more often than mood rings, the Reform Party is quickly becoming
the very demon it was created to slay.
The Reform leader now has an insulated work boot planted firmly
in the oil patch and is attempting to stretch a Gucci shoe to the
boardrooms of Toronto.
1405
I suggest that we put the Commons health services on full alert
because there is not enough A535 on the planet to soothe the
ideological groin pull that is going to result from this, not to
mention the ankle sprain as they fall off their soap box.
* * *
HEALTH
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to bring attention to a small town in
southeast Saskatchewan by the name of Redvers. It is a recipient
of the prestigious five star award from the Federation of
Canadian Municipalities awarded to communities that excel in
providing access to persons with disabilities.
The new health care centre which is under construction will
contain space for laboratory, radiology, community health
services, a medical clinic, emergency, observation and maternity
rooms as well as six acute care beds.
The Redvers and District Community Health Foundation Inc. is
building the centre without one cent of provincial money and
without one cent of federal money. Once again local initiative
leads the people in my constituency.
* * *
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Ms. Susan Whelan (Essex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this past
week, November 11 to November 15, 1997, the Minister for
International Trade led a very successful and ground breaking
team Canada trade mission including 120 business women from
across Canada, members of Parliament from Parkdale—High Park,
Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Kitchener Centre, Senator Céline
Hervieux-Payette and me to Washington in an effort to increase
the number of firms led by women exporting to the lucrative U.S.
market.
The three day Canadian business women's international trade
mission was designed to introduce potential exporters to the U.S.
market and specifically to export business opportunities and form
partnerships in the the mid-Atlantic states.
Canada's exports to that region amounted to $11.5 million in
1996. The program enables Canadian participants to pursue
business opportunities with U.S. firms through mentoring,
networking and partnering activities. The participants attended
a series of export development workshops on topics ranging from
export strategies to marketing and international business
financing.
Our team Canada trade missions are the type of leadership the
government provides to ensure that Canada continues to prosper
into the new century.
* * *
[Translation]
DRINKING WATER
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, is Canada truly
the “best country in the world to live in”?
Two weeks ago, the Minister of Health told us that drinking water
comes under provincial jurisdiction, while the equipment used to
transport it is the federal government's responsibility.
Nothing surprises us any longer, since we already know that in
Quebec the bottom of the St. Lawrence River comes under federal
jurisdiction, while the water itself is the responsibility of the
province. Fish is a federal responsibility but, once out of the water,
it becomes a provincial one. Fishers' boats are registered under federal
laws, but their construction is subject to provincial standards and, of
course, federal safety regulations.
The shores of the St. Lawrence come under provincial jurisdiction, but
ports belong to the federal government.
And now the health minister is proud to add to the “best mess in
the world to live in” with Bill C-14.
Sovereignty cannot be achieved too soon. We have to get out of this
mess.
* * *
BLOC QUEBECOIS
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last week, the
former Bloc Quebecois leader said his party should leave the scene.
At last, a sovereignist has suddenly realized that the Bloc
Quebecois was taking root, in spite of claiming to be a temporary party.
It is the first time that a Bloc Quebecois official alludes so openly to
the possibility of a defeat of the yes side in a future referendum.
The former leader also feels that, win or lose, the Bloc Quebecois
should leave after the next referendum.
Under the circumstances, and until its demise, the Bloc Quebecois
should work much more seriously to try to improve Canadian federalism.
It is time for the Bloc to take on this task.
* * *
[English]
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
once again I must outline an excellent example of the inability
of the Liberal government to deport illegal immigrants.
The Baljinder Dhillon family of Abbotsford was ordered removed
from Canada in 1993 but never left the country. The family
merely waited for three years to go by before applying under the
DROC, that is the deferred removal order class program, to be
allowed to stay because during these three years they had
established ties in Canada.
I contacted Immigration Canada to check on the removal order and
was told that the family's case was not even on the list to force
a removal, meaning the family could conceivably stay forever
without Immigration Canada ever pursuing the deportation.
1410
I continue to be amazed that Immigration Canada has neither the
physical ability nor the desire to deport people who have been
under removal for more than four years. In this instance I
wonder why Immigration Canada bothered to order the family
removed in the first place. Why carry the ball all the way down
the field only to drop it?
* * *
ASIA-PACIFIC
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this week and next the eyes of the world will be fixed
upon Canada when it hosts the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation
forum, the culmination of Canada's year of Asia-Pacific.
The forum is a golden opportunity for Canada to help APEC move
in a direction which reflects the needs and values of Canadians
and to expand its influence in the region.
APEC members have a combined gross national product of $16
trillion U.S., which is about half the world's annual trade. Last
year Canada's trade with APEC members, excluding the United
States, reached $58.6 billion.
The Prime Minister has underlined the importance to Canada's
economic future of bringing APEC to Canada for developments in
Asia-Pacific touch the lives of Canadians more and more as a
result of growing business, immigration and cultural ties.
Canada must commit itself, in addition to continued economic
engagement, to learning more about the cultures of our neighbours
thereby reinforcing economic co-operation in the Asia-Pacific
region on the basis of shared partnership, shared responsibility
and common good.
* * *
LOUIS RIEL
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
anniversary of the death of Louis Riel was yesterday. I know I
speak on behalf of my colleague, the hon. member for Churchill
River in Saskatchewan, who is Metis, and the rest of the New
Democratic caucus when I call upon the government to correct
horrible historic injustices.
Now is the time to officially exonerate Louis Riel and with it
the dark cloud that hangs over the federal government. Now is
the time to go beyond recognizing Riel as a founder of Manitoba
and officially recognize him as a Father of Confederation.
The refusal of the federal government to acknowledge that the
Metis fall under subsection 91(24) of the constitution is one of
the worst forms of official federal discrimination according to
the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples.
The anniversary of the death of Louis Riel would be a very
fitting time to correct these injustices.
* * *
[Translation]
REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
repeat in this House a piece of excellent news for the great
Québec-Chaudière-Appalaches region.
On November 7, the hon. secretary of state responsible for the
Federal Office of Regional Development gave a highly positive
report on the regional technology fund. After a mere year of
existence, thanks to contributions totalling $3.3 million, this
fund has made ten high-tech projects possible. These projects, in
which close to $17 million will be invested, will create 187 jobs
in the greater Québec-Chaudière-Appalaches region.
This initiative, undertaken by the government in partnership
with Gatiq-Technorégion, will help make this region a centre of
excellence for the companies involved in the new economy.
This is once again proof of the important role played by the
Canadian government, via FORDQ and its secretary of state.
* * *
[English]
INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to congratulate the University of New Brunswick, Saint John
campus, for acquiring the support of CIDA for a major
international project.
The project entitled “Community based conservation management:
China and Vietnam” will support a five year project that will
respond to major gaps that exist in species conservation and
habitat protection for China and Vietnam.
Through community oriented field training activities the project
will develop institutional expertise in ecosystem health and
conservation management and enhance linkages between the two
countries.
This is the third international development project the
university has received funding for. With the help of CIDA and
the leadership of Dr. Rick Meiner, vice-president of UNBSJ, our
university is emerging as the leader in the maritimes in the
field of international development.
I say congratulations to UNBSJ and good luck with its new
project.
* * *
PEACEKEEPING
Mr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise in the House today
to pay tribute to our peacekeepers in Bosnia.
I had the opportunity to visit some of our peacekeepers last
week where I saw first hand their efforts to keep peace in that
unfortunate country, enabling its people to rebuild their lives
after years of war.
1415
I observed significant progress in making it safer by ridding
the country of the scourge of land mines. I met with pilots and
the support staff of the CF-18 squadron based at Aviano, Italy,
whose task was to enforce the no fly zone over Bosnia. I had the
pleasure once again of meeting them as they return today after
doing a job well done in Bosnia.
The peacekeepers in Bosnia are fine examples of dedicated,
courageous professionals of the Canadian forces who have placed
themselves at risk to help nations and peoples to find peaceful
solutions to their disagreements. I am proud of these men and
women, as are all Canadians.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
while our two great allies, Britain and the U.S., are mobilizing
warships this Prime Minister is mobilizing cocktail receptions
with Iraqi officials. Last week our Prime Minister was actually
defending Canadian business invitations to Saddam. He said “If
you want to sell you have to have contact first”.
Contact? Who wants contact with a man who gassed thousands of
Kurdish dissidents with chemical weapons? What kind of contact
with the butcher of Bagdhad would the government find acceptable?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the government finds completely unacceptable the conduct
of Saddam Hussein and his regime. We insist that the Iraqi
regime allow the UN inspectors back, including those of American
origin, to carry out their job pursuant to the UN resolutions
without reservation.
In so far as there is any matter of exports to Iraq, the
government's position, as is the Prime Minister's position, is
that these must meet completely Canadian law and UN resolutions.
How can the Reform Party object to that?
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Reform Party objects to that because it completely sends the
wrong signal to our allies. That is what we are talking about
right now. Any business deal with Iraq, even under the name of
so-called non-military business, undermines any allied action.
The UN weapons inspectors must have full access in Iraq and
Saddam's bullying must end, but our government is actually
helping Saddam's image and harming our allied cause. Again, why
on earth is the Prime Minister supporting trade with the likes of
Saddam Hussein?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister is not supporting trade. All he said
was that our rules and the UN rules have to be respected. I do
not see why the Reform Party would oppose that.
Furthermore, if the Reform Party is saying that the UN
inspectors must be allowed in, all it is doing is agreeing with
what we have already said, and it is about time.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this is unbelievable. In defiance of UN sanctions, Saddam
continues to develop chemical and biological weapons, nuclear
weapons and missile technology. Yet the government says that it
is okay, that it does not have a problem with that.
Our Prime Minister said that these acceptable trade items are
okay because they are okay with the UN. Let us talk about trucks
and medical supplies. They can be used for military purposes and
military personnel as well. Our government knows it; Saddam
Hussein knows it.
Is there no dictator too dirty for the government to do business
with?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member completely misstates the government's
position. The government has never said that it supports Iraq's
development of biological weapons. It totally rejects that. It
stands firm with the other countries of the UN in saying that
Iraq must back down and accept UN inspection without reservation.
I say to the hon. member that type of misleading comment,
perhaps not intentional, totally weakens the ability of this
Parliament to send a strong signal to Saddam Hussein that his
misdeeds are unacceptable. It is about time that she supported
our position against Saddam Hussein.
* * *
AIRBUS
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Liberal government desperately wants the Airbus scandal to go
away but is unable to sweep it under the rug.
Yesterday former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney accused the
government of a high level cover-up. In the face of this very
serious accusation, will the Prime Minister stand and state today
unequivocally that former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney is lying?
1420
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have more respect for Parliament and the institution
of prime minister than to use the language suggested by the hon.
member.
I do want to say that the minutes of settlement signed on behalf
of Brian Mulroney say that the parties accept that the RCMP, on
its own, initiated the Airbus investigation. The parties have
always acknowledged that the RCMP must continue investigating any
allegations of illegality or wrongdoing brought to its attention.
This is what Brian Mulroney's lawyers signed for him. These
words—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Crowfoot.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, everyone
from the prime minister to the former justice minister to the
commissioner of the RCMP has told Canadians that Staff Sergeant
Fiegenwald is the only individual responsible for the Airbus
scandal.
Yet they allowed him to walk away without a hearing and without
the determination of guilt. I ask the prime minister is this
because it forms part of a high level government cover-up?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is no cover-up here. The arrangement between Mr.
Fiegenwald and the RCMP was, as far as I am aware, entered into
voluntarily by Mr. Fiegenwald with the RCMP.
That is something involving the internal disciplinary process of
the RCMP under the RCMP Act. As far as I am aware, ministers
have no role in that process.
* * *
[Translation]
IRAQ
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
over the past few days, a potential conflict has been growing in
the Persian Gulf between Iraq and the international community.
The Prime Minister said in Hanoi last week on this matter that
he was not ruling out support for the American option, that is,
armed intervention.
Could the Deputy Prime Minister clarify the remarks of the
Prime Minister and tell us clearly the government's position on the
growing conflict between Iraq and the United States?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
according to my information, the conflict is between Iraq and all
of the UN countries, including Canada. We totally oppose Iraq's
position, and demand that Iraq again allow United Nations'
inspectors into the country to do their work.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
we agree the inspectors should be able to do their work. That goes
without saying.
But I would like the Deputy Prime Minister to tell us whether
he agrees with the more radical approach of armed intervention
advocated by the United States or supports finding a peaceful
solution, such as increased economic sanctions against Iraq?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, at
this point, according to my sources, the issue of an armed
intervention is hypothetical. We have joined with the other UN
countries in demanding that Iraq allow the inspectors back into the
country to carry out their work according to the UN resolutions.
* * *
CANADA POST
Mr. Réjean Lefebvre (Champlain, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Labour.
Last Thursday, the Postal Workers Union presented Canada Post with
a new offer in which they reduced their wage claims. In response,
Canada Post representatives left the bargaining table.
Could the Minister of Labour remind Canada Post that such actions
are in no one's interest and that they must return immediately to the
bargaining table to come to an agreement with the union?
[English]
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I can assure my hon. colleague that is exactly what we
do want, a collective agreement. We want both sides to go back
to the table, as I understand they are now at the table.
I encourage them to work together for a collective agreement
that will be better for Canada Post, CUPW and the people of
Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Réjean Lefebvre (Champlain, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
remind the Minister that the same bargaining agents were there in 1995
and that an agreement was reached. In 1995, a negotiated agreement was
signed.
Why are Canada Post representatives leaving the bargaining table
this time around when an agreement is still possible? Is it because they
are sure that the government will intervene and legislate them back to
work?
1425
[English]
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I indicated, we have used every process possible in
order to make sure that we would come up with a collective
agreement.
This government wants an agreement that will be better for the
post office, for the union and for the people of Canada.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of the Environment.
Canadians have watched this federal Liberal government shift its
ground again and again on greenhouse gas emissions. Now we
finally know where the prime minister stands, peering out from
behind Bill Clinton.
The government's latest Kyoto position is not good enough. It
is not good enough for the Canadians who have written letters and
petitions and it is not good enough for the future of the planet.
My question to the Minister of the Environment is simple. Is
this pathetic Kyoto position good enough for her?
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, at this point the federal government has
not announced targets and time lines because we are playing a
very important role in Canada and internationally to bring
together parties so that we can achieve a success in Kyoto.
As a matter of fact, we have worked as no other government
before has worked with all parties, all partners, provinces,
territories, business and municipalities to try to come to a
consensus about what our Canadian position should be.
We had significant success at our meeting with environment and
energy ministers in Regina last week.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it does
not take an atmospheric researcher to know the difference between
a 13% increase and a 20% decrease in greenhouse gas emissions.
It is this Liberal government that has failed to live up to the
Rio agreement. It is this Liberal government that has failed to
live up to its own red book promise and now it cannot even live
up to the commitment made by the prime minister less than a month
ago.
Canadians are proud to be ranked on most matters among the best
in the world. On this issue they are ranked among the worst in
the world. Is that good enough for this energy minister?
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this government is committed to a
successful agreement in Kyoto in order to reduce greenhouse
gasses. The environment and the issue of climate change are
extremely important to the government and we are working
nationally and internationally to have a good agreement.
There are other parties in this country who have not contributed
in a positive way to make sure that we deal with the fundamental
problem of climate change in Canada and around the world.
* * *
CANADA PENSION PLAN
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, we
have been told by the office of the information commissioner that
Bill C-2, the legislation setting up the Canada pension plan
investment board, does not subject the board to the Access to
Information Act.
I would like to know from the Minister of Finance whether this
is an oversight in the legislation or whether this is a
deliberate decision taken from the government to avoid the
board's having to put up with the scrutiny of the Canadian
public.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to congratulate the leader of the Conservative
Party for having raised this issue which was discussed in the
House almost a month ago.
The fact is the CPP investment board will operate as any other
pension fund. It will be totally transparent, reports will be
made on a regular basis. As the hon. member knows, certain of
its deliberations will be in secret. Obviously there will be
confidential matters and because we want it to operate as regular
pension fund—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Sherbrooke.
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to congratulate the minister for his answer today.
However, I am sorry to say that it is as bad today as it was a
month ago.
I would like to follow up with another question about the way
this board will operate and ask him why the Auditor General of
Canada is not going to examine the board's operation and make a
value judgment. Why is it that the auditor general will not
report on this board's operations to the House of Commons?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this is a board which is set up by the federal and
provincial governments. In fact, there is joint stewardship. It
is going to be independently operated in the same way that any
other pension plan would be. It will invest in order to earn the
highest returns, but it will be totally transparent.
All its operations will be available for public scrutiny.
1430
I really think that what the hon. member ought to do is join with the
vast majority of Canadians and congratulate the government on
what is a very innovative position.
* * *
AIRBUS
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
let us get this straight. When it comes to Airbus Canadians are
suppose to believe from the government that Brian Mulroney was
lying and that a lowly sergeant in the RCMP is responsible for
this entire Airbus fiasco.
Will the government please clarify its position once again on
this matter? Is it a lowly sergeant who is responsible or is
this government responsible for the Airbus fiasco?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not accept the premise of the hon. member's
question. The use of the word lying is not one with which we
associate ourselves in the context of the question. There is no
cover-up.
Brian Mulroney himself in the minutes of settlement ending the
litigation said that the subject of the litigation was not
Sergeant Fiegenwald but the request for assistance that was sent
to the Swiss. He further said that the parties have always
acknowledged that the RCMP must continue investigating any
allegations of illegality or wrongdoing brought to its attention.
These are the words—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Okanagan—Coquihalla.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I am sure the minister will be happy to table those documents in
the House.
Again, let us get this straight. The government has spent about
a million dollars on Brian Mulroney's legal costs. There is
another $2 million for the lawsuit. Now there has been another
$35 million lawsuit launched by Karlheinz Schreibner.
How much more are Canadian taxpayers going to have to pay for
this Liberal cover-up?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I reject the premise of the hon. member's question.
There is no cover-up. If the hon. member had his way the
Canadian taxpayer would have paid Brian Mulroney $50 million.
Because of our negotiations that claim was dropped and that money
saved to the Canadian taxpayer.
* * *
[Translation]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for
the Minister of Environment.
Ever since the Canadian position on greenhouse gases has been
raised, the government has repeatedly accused the Reform Party of
disregarding environmental matters and of lacking the courage to take a
stand on such matters.
After the meeting in Regina, does the federal government realize
that it has assumed the Reform Party's position, based on the lowest
common denominator?
[English]
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we had a very successful meeting in
Regina last week, as I said, with environment and energy
ministers in which we recognized that climate change is a real
and serious issue that all of us in Canada must confront. We had
a significant agreement about this and the fact that we will
define implementation strategy post-Kyoto. They gave us the
flexibility as an international negotiator to work with the
international community for success in Kyoto.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, considering the
weakness of the federal government's position, did the minister at least
obtain assurances from the provinces that they will accept to ratify the
agreement that will be reached in Kyoto?
[English]
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have to repeat that what came out of
our meeting Regina last week was not a definitive position of the
federal government with regard to the meeting in Kyoto. We did
agree with our provincial environment and energy counterparts to
flexible ideas of what targets we might put in place. However,
the provinces recognize the important and significant role that
the Government of Canada plays in negotiating international
agreements.
* * *
CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Association of Canadian Pension Management released
a report today on Canada's retirement income system. Its report
states that the current system is fundamentally unfair to future
generations.
Why is the finance minister so willing to sacrifice the best
interests of our children to paper over the cracks of his CPP
pyramid scheme?
1435
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, over 75% of Canadians support the Canada pension plan.
The basic difference of opinion that has existed between
ourselves and the Reformers has to do with the unfunded
liability.
The hon. member in a statement on the weekend that I would like
to quote for the first time has announced what Reform would do in
terms of the unfunded liability. She said “we need to look at
paying this unfunded liability out of general tax revenues”.
I would like to simply tell her that it would require a 25%
increase in personal income tax to pay for that unfunded
liability.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is probably because of the finance minister's
continued bogus numbers that the Association of Canadian Pension
Management recommended today that education about pensions should
start in high school. Of course, this means that our kids would
be sure to find out that their return on a lifetime CPP
investment will be less than 2%.
Is not the finance minister in such a hurry to push through this
CPP tax grab just so Canadians—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Finance.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if you want to know the definition of a tax grab it is
the 25% personal income tax increase recommended by the Reform
Party or it is the doubling of the GST recommended by the Reform
Party as a means of paying the unfunded liability.
That is the basic difference between the Reform Party and us,
and we are not prepared to engage in a smash and grab tax program
like the Reform Party.
* * *
[Translation]
CALGARY DECLARATION
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
It is becoming obvious that the increasing dislike the Reformers
are showing for the Calgary declaration makes its acceptance very
unlikely.
What is the government's reaction to the fact that overall support
for the Calgary declaration seems to be dissolving into thin air,
especially since the Prime Minister had promoted the leader of the
official opposition as a key player in this issue?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
believe this is wishful thinking on the part of the member.
Basically, the Calgary declaration reflects great Canadian values,
a profound respect for diversity and support for equality. Except for
the separatist party, all parties in this House have agreed to it. It
has support from across the country, and what the member has just said
about wishing there were none is even more reason for supporting it.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if I were him
I would not be so quick to rejoice at Reform's support.
Does he not realize that the statement made in Calgary by the
provincial premiers is déjà vu, in other words what is definitely not
enough for Quebec is quickly becoming too much for the rest of Canada?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
what is definitely not enough for Quebec is this narrow minded plan to
split Quebec from Canada. Quebeckers want to stay in Canada and they are
quite right.
* * *
[English]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, for
weeks now we have been asking this government for details on its
position going into Kyoto and for weeks now the ministers have
refused to discuss either how we achieve those targets or the
cost to Canadians of that achievement. Over and over all we
hear, and we heard it again today, is “we take this very
seriously and it is a serious matter”.
If the government takes it seriously why are we the only
country in the G-7 that has yet to announce a position going
into Kyoto?
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this government would love the Reform
Party to announce its position about whether or not it
considers this to be a serious issue.
So far we hear nothing but scaremongering, fear, denial. What
does this party represent?
We had a successful meeting in Regina with environment and
energy ministers from all provinces and all territories who
agreed that this is a serious issue and wanted the federal
government to negotiate an international success for Kyoto.
1440
We are working with all partners in this country toward
implementing a strategy that will reduce emissions.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, our
position is not important. You are the government. It is your
position.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. David Chatters: Mr. Speaker, if you in fact have consulted and
made progress—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Put your question please.
Mr. David Chatters: Mr. Speaker, this is an outrage. If
you have made progress in Regina, if you have business on side,
why in the world can you not announce the government's position
going to Kyoto?
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we suddenly do have an issue upon which
we can agree: that the opinion of the Reform Party does not
matter.
Our Canadian partners recognize the importance of Canada playing
a role to make sure that we have a success in Kyoto. Therefore,
we have to negotiate in the international forum to make sure we
have a success in Kyoto.
Other parties in this country, provinces, territories and
municipalities recognize the important role that—
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I do
not know why Reformers and Liberals argue with each other. They have
the same position, the same reduced Kyoto position.
The federal government drastically reduced its social transfer
payments to the provinces. For each dollar cut from federal
expenditures between 1994 and 1998, 54 cents, or more than half, where
taken out of social transfers to the provinces, that is to say out of
the health, education and social assistance budgets.
Now that he knows for sure that the budget will be balanced this
year, does the Minister of Finance intend to return to the provinces at
least part of what he stole from them instead of taking this money—
The Speaker: The Hon. Minister of Finance.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member knows full well that these figures are wrong. Tax points
must also be taken into consideration.
That being said, the Prime Minister himself answered the hon.
member last June when he increased transfers to the provinces by
$6 billion over five years.
* * *
[English]
OAS FIREARMS CONVENTION
Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton West—Mississauga, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, on Friday, November 14 in Washington, Canada signed
the OAS firearms convention. Can the Parliamentary Secretary to
the Minister of Foreign Affairs tell me how this agreement will
help to control the international trade in arms?
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this OAS convention
addresses longstanding concerns about the free flow of illicit
firearms, ammunition and explosives in this hemisphere. The
convention will reduce the illicit trafficking of firearms,
ammunition and explosives across our borders. It will assist our
police and law enforcement officials in the fight against violent
crime, illegal drugs and terrorism in Canada and in the United
States.
* * *
PRISONS
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this
past weekend a supervisor at Milton's Maplehurst jail condemned
the prison system as being rife with illegal drugs. He said that
inmates have easy access to “heroin, cocaine, crack, marijuana,
hash, hash oil, Valium, pills and steroids”.
All our government appears to be doing is providing bleach to
clean needles to reduce the risk of HIV.
Will the solicitor general please explain to Canadians why he
will not or why he cannot eliminate illegal drugs from our
prisons?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first of all I would remind the hon. member that the
jail in question is provincial.
Secondly, since we introduced urine analysis in the penitentiary
system the incidents of drug usage have diminished from 39% to
12%.
1445
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
drugs have been a problem in every jail and prison across this
country for years.
In Mountain federal prison in my province of British Columbia,
significant quantities of heroin, marijuana, cocaine and
prescription drugs were reported smuggled in over a 46 day period
in 1996.
I ask the solicitor general to please tell Canadians how, with
crime this rampant inside our penitentiaries, they can be
expected to feel safe in their own communities.
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I can only repeat the fact that the correctional service
has taken action very successfully over the last two years.
* * *
CANADA POST
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, according to a leaked memo by the President of the
Canadian Direct Marketing Association last August, the Minister
of Public Works indicated to the CDMA that a national postal
stoppage would be very short and back to work legislation would
be quickly introduced.
My question for the minister is what will the position of the
government be if Canada Post locks out its CUPW employees this
evening?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have indicated previously what the government supports
and what the government wants is a collective agreement.
We urge both sides to get back to the table and I understand
they are. If we have an agreement it is much better for CUPW,
the post office and for the people of Canada.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the threat of back to work legislation is the reason the
parties are no longer talking. We are in this fix because the
government refuses to confirm or deny that it is going to
introduce back to work legislation.
For the sake of all Canadians, will the minister withdraw the
threat of back to work legislation and allow the union and
management to sit down and seriously negotiate the collective
agreement that he seriously talks about?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, that is what I have indicated. That is what the
government wants. I am not going to speculate on what might
happen or what is going to happen.
The parties, I understand, are meeting today. What we want is a
collective agreement. I urge you to urge your colleagues to sit
at the table and come up with an agreement that will be better
for the people of Canada.
The Speaker: My colleagues, I would encourage you to
address all of your questions and answers through the Chair.
* * *
AIRBUS
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, in light of the millions of dollars and the forced
red faced apology of the Liberal government for the mishandling
of the Airbus affair, will the Deputy Prime Minister, in keeping
with his promise and his government's promise of accountability
and openness, tell this House who exactly is responsible for this
debacle and what does it plan to do short of waiting for the
lawsuits to roll in and then say it is saving us millions of
dollars?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think that my hon. friend should read Brian Mulroney's
explanation. He signed it, he knows what is going on. Therefore,
I think you ought to take what he says in the signed minutes of
settlement seriously.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, my supplementary. You ask a simple question, you
get a convoluted answer.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us in a straightforward way
who is responsible, who is at the bottom of this and, speaking of
letters, when is the government going to withdraw the accusation
it made and sent to the Swiss authorities?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in the minutes of settlement signed on behalf of Brian
Mulroney he says “the parties acknowledge that the procedure
used in sending the request for assistance to the Swiss in this
case was the same as that which was followed in numerous previous
requests for mutual assistance under both the current and
previous administrations”.
I think my hon. friend ought to study these minutes of
settlement. It will help him in phrasing his questions in
future.
* * *
TECHNOLOGIES PARTNERSHIPS CANADA
Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Technologies Partnerships Canada or TPC is a vehicle for our
government to invest in Canada's high technology industries.
Firms in my riding have praised TPC and have urged me to support
additional funding for this program.
Can the Minister of Industry please explain to this House how
TPC benefits Canada or is it just another handout to business?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, TPC is anything but a handout. It is a risk sharing
investment that the government makes to support the development
of new technology and products that are sold and exported
throughout the world.
So far, the $491 million that the Government of Canada has
committed in TPC investments has leveraged $2.17 billion in
private sector investments, generating up to $52 billion in sales
of Canadian goods and has created or maintained over 11,500 jobs
in the Canadian economy.
* * *
1450
FISHERIES
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
when the federal Treasury Board writes a paper called “Getting
Science Right in the Public Sector”, one can only assume
something is wrong. It is this. When science conflicts with
politics in the fisheries department, politics rules. We know
that Liberals ignore Canadian fishermen. We know the minister
ignores his own scientists. Will the minister listen to his own
Treasury Board and take the politics out of science?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member wished, he could look
at the decisions for the fisheries department since I became
minister. They are in full conformity with the fisheries
research board. We have followed science in all the decisions
made.
In a large department with many scientists there will inevitably
be divisions between scientists but the practice of using science
to guide management decisions is well established. It is there
and the hon. member has only to look at it to find out that it
is—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve.
* * *
[Translation]
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
According to a report presented to the minister on October 2, there
are currently some 270 refugee claimants in Canada who have been
declared war criminals by the Immigration and Refugee Board. The same
report states that the government has been much too permissive in this
respect.
What action has the minister taken so far to ensure that Canada
does not become a haven for war criminals?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is referring to an internal report
produced by one of our immigration officers working in the war crimes
division. This is one of the actions we have taken. We have established
a special division within the Department of Citizenship and Immigration
to closely monitor the situation and first try to determine whether we
have, in this country, individuals who could be suspected of relatively
recent war crimes. We did that and, second, we have taken action against
those individuals who were identified. Several cases were investigated.
More than 70 claimants were returned to their country of origin and more
than 270—
The Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. minister. The hon.
member for Palliser.
* * *
[English]
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the minister of agriculture. The minister will
know that B.C. farmers have been hurt by extremely poor harvest
conditions about the Okanagan and the Peace River districts this
year. The B.C. government wants to help out the area farmers
affected by this disaster by developing cost shared responses to
these huge crop losses, losses which far exceed existing crop
insurance and NISA programs.
Why will the federal government not do its share and help out
B.C farmers?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government will do its share and help
B.C. farmers. I have had a discussion with the minister of
agriculture from the province of British Columbia. We have
discussed the way in which the NISA program and the crop
insurance programs, which are ongoing programs, available to
farmers across Canada can assist. I have also instructed staff
members to work with the Government of British Columbia to do all
we can within existing programs that are available in both the
province of British Columbia and the rest of Canada to assist
these farmers.
* * *
CANADA POST
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister of Labour has known for two and a half weeks that
Canada Post and the Canadian Union of Postal Workers would be in
a position for a strike or lockout this week. A work stoppage at
Canada Post will hurt thousands of Canadian charities and
businesses at their busiest time of the season.
Does the Minister of Labour intend to introduce pre-emptive back
to work legislation today or does he have his heart set on
shutting down Canada Post for Christmas?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I wish my hon. colleague would concentrate on what is
happening and not on what might happen or what will happen. I
understand the parties have met today. This government wants a
collective agreement. We want an agreement that will be better
for the people of Canada. We urge the parties to get back to the
table to come up with a collective agreement that will be better
for all.
* * *
1455
TRADE
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
U.S. President Bill Clinton recently failed to get backing from
Congress to give him fast track authority to negotiate expansion
of the North American Free Trade Agreement.
My question is for the Parliamentary Secretary responsible for
International Trade. Is Canada now in a position to move forward
and have its own trade deals with Latin American countries? If
so, does he plan to do this?
Mr. Julian Reed (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
thank the hon. member for his question. It shows great insight
into this issue.
Canada does not intend to allow a U.S. delay in the fast
tracking process to interfere with Canada's own progress in this
matter. There is a tremendous growth in the region with a
population of over 500 million people and a gross domestic
product of over $2 trillion. We are pursuing it with vigour.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Saint John River in New Brunswick has a catch and
release sports fishery for conservation reasons. Recently the
DFO closed the river to catch and release fishing and then
proceeded to kill fish to give to the local aboriginal
communities.
The local native communities never asked for those fish. They
are not surplus fish and they are not necessary for science. Why
did the DFO close the river for conservation reasons and then
proceed to kill fish?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is obviously unaware that
the 22 fish that he is talking about were in fact male hatchery
grilse that had been at sea for one winter only.
They were turned over to the aboriginal community which is
appropriate because the aboriginal community's quota for
ceremonial and food purposes had not been met. These were
hatchery fish and it is important for genetic reasons, to protect
genetic stocks of salmon to make sure that the number of hatchery
fish are reduced.
In addition, in that very river the number of male fish was
double the number of female and that is an imbalance that we
wanted to correct.
* * *
[Translation]
INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Recently, several people have condemned the tragic story of native
boarding schools set up to destroy their culture. These boarding schools
nearly wiped out a generation of natives in Canada.
Do the minister and her government recognize the federal
goverment's responsibility in this human tragedy?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I missed the first part of the question that dealt with a
specific case, but I can assure my colleague that we take very seriously
our responsibilities with regard to the rights of Canadian natives. We
hope to have the response to the RCAP report by the end of this year.
* * *
[English]
CANADA POST
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
Canada Post continues to try to negotiate through the media using
fearmongering and misinformation to hide the real issues
surrounding this round of bargaining.
Those real issues are the protection of thousands of good full
time jobs and the struggle to make poor paying part-time jobs
into real jobs that Canadians can live on.
This round of bargaining could be settled if the government
would stop threatening to throw 4,000 Canadians out on the
street. Will the Minister of Public Works speak out on behalf of
Canadian workers and direct Canada Post to withdraw its proposals
which would eliminate Canadian jobs?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me say that
first of all while Canada Post loses money because of the strike
threats, Canadian postal workers risk losing their jobs.
I want to remind the hon. member that it was Canada Post that
last week called the president of the union to say “Let's go
back to the table and start negotiating”. That is what they are
doing today.
They continue to negotiate. If he has any say with his friends
in the union, maybe he should talk them into staying at the table
and coming up with a reasonable proposal so that we can have a
settlement agreement.
* * *
1500
SHIPBUILDING
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, three
weeks ago information was forwarded to the Minister of Industry
regarding a new shipbuilding policy for Canada.
My question, based on this new information showing that we are
not asking for any subsidies whatsoever, is will the Minister of
Industry tell the House of Commons if he is looking at a new
shipbuilding policy for the whole of Canada?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I assured the member privately, if she sent me
information we would look at it carefully. I do need to tell
her, however, that special tax breaks are a form of subsidy.
* * *
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: I would like to draw the attention of
hon. members to the presence in the gallery of a delegation from
the Bahamas, led by the hon. Frank Watson, Deputy Prime Minister
and Minister of National Security of the Bahamas.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
COMMENTS DURING QUESTION PERIOD
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order. You will remember that in the exchange
I had with the Minister of Finance during question period the
Minister of Finance stated that the question I raised had been
raised a month before in the House of Commons.
I have checked the record of Hansard and found this not to
be the case.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
on a point of order.
The Speaker: Is it on the same point of order? I am not
sure it is a point of order, but go ahead.
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, I just want to clarify the
fact that the hon. member from the Conservative Party should
perhaps listen a little more. It was asked in the House. I was
in the House and I know when it was asked. Maybe he should
listen a little more.
The Speaker: I am going to give the minister one kick at
the can.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I certainly understand your desire to arbitrate. It is
not the decision of any Liberal to want to arbitrate between the
Tories and the Reform.
The Speaker: I think I will rule that it is not a point
of order, but good luck.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1505
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the 11th report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the associate
membership of some committees.
If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in
the 11th report later this day.
* * *
CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-280, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act
(registration of political parties).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill, when passed, will correct an
appalling anomaly in the elections act which permits the
government to confiscate the assets of a party incapable of
running 50 candidates in a general election.
The amendment to the act was passed by the Mulroney government
just prior to the 1993 election. It was aimed at Reform but it
caught the Communist Party and it had its assets seized and sold
by this government.
We may not support the Communist Party but this is an
anti-democratic law and has to be fixed. My private member's
bill would remove that terrible part of the elections act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
the House gives its consent, I move that the 11th report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to
the House earlier this day, be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
PETITIONS
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to present a petition signed by citizens from Ontario,
Nova Scotia, British Columbia, Manitoba, Quebec, Alberta and
Saskatchewan.
Over 2,000 petitioners call on Parliament to sign legally
binding targets and timetables at the United Nations conference
of parties in Kyoto, Japan this December 1997.
Further, these petitioners believe that Canada should commit to
the substantial reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.
NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have several petitioners who urge the federal
government to join with the provincial governments to make the
national highway system upgrading possible beginning in 1997.
TAXATION
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have two petitions today. The first petition has to do with the
family.
The petitioners draw to the attention of the House that managing
the family home and caring for preschool children is an
honourable profession which has not been recognized for its value
to our society.
They also state that the Income Tax Act does not take into
account the real cost of raising children. The petitioners
therefore pray and call on Parliament to pursue tax initiatives
for those families that choose to provide direct parental care in
the home.
1510
ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): The second
petition, Mr. Speaker, has to do with the misuse of alcohol. The
petitioners draw to the attention of the House that the
consumption of alcoholic beverages may cause health problems and
particularly that fetal alcohol syndrome and other alcohol
related birth defects are preventable by avoiding alcohol
consumption during pregnancy.
The petitioners therefore pray and call upon Parliament to
mandate the labelling of alcoholic products to warn expectant
mothers and others of the risks associated with alcohol
consumption.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
following questions will be answered today: Nos. 15 and 17.
.[Text]
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis:
Since the coming into force of the Tobacco Act, (a) how many
complaints or allegations of infractions has the government
received, (b) how many complaints has it investigated, (c) how
many verbal or written warnings or requests for compliance have
been issued, (d) how many charges have been laid?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Since the Tobacco
Act came into force, the federal government has received 160
complaints or allegations of infractions, of which 111 were for
the sales to minors and 49 for promotion, advertising,
self-service, displays, signs, rebate, mail order, labelling or
standard of fabrication. Eighty-four of these complaints were
investigated. Three-hundred and forty-nine verbal or written
warnings or requests for compliance were issued. Fifty-nine
charges were laid, of which 57 were for sales to minors
violations and 2 were for mail order.
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis:
For public servants employed in the Health Protection Branch,
(a) were performance bonuses granted in fiscal year 1996-97 or in
fiscal year 1997-98 to date; and if so (b) for what categories of
employees, including the Assistant Deputy Minister and scientists
employed in in-house food and drug labs, (c) how many employees
were in each category, (d) how much was each performance bonus,
(e) when was it paid, and (f) for what reason was each bonus
given?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): (a) Performance
pay covering the fiscal years of 1996-97 and 1997-98 has not been
awarded. However, in the course of the 1996-97 fiscal year and in
accordance with the Treasury Board secretariat instructions
issued in August 1996, performance pay was awarded to eligible
staff in the health protection branch for the 1995-96 review
period.
(b) The following categories in the health protection branch are
subject to performance pay:
1. The executive group
2. Scientific and professional category, medicine officer
subgroup*
3. Administration and foreign service category.
* Other members of the scientific and professional category are
not subject to performance pay. They receive increments up to the
applicable maximum based on the relevant collective agreement.
(c) Health protection branch employees subject to performance
pay: 29 executive level employees; 7 science and professional
category, medicine subgroup; 4 administrative and foreign
service.
(d) See appendix A for details on performance pay awarded.
(e) In accordance with the Treasury Board guidelines for
performance pay, lump sum payments were paid in October 1996, and
in-range increases for eligible staff were authorized January 1,
1997.
(f) Performance pay is awarded in accordance with the Treasury
Board performance pay plans and is based on the employee's
overall performance.
.*space39
* * *
[English]
QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
Question No. 11 could be made an order for return, the return
would be tabled immediately.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
.[Text]
Mr. White (North Vancouver):
What was the total number of full time employees at each job
classification in the respective federal departments for fiscal
year 1996 and fiscal year 1997?
Return tabled.
[English]
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Elk Island on a
point of order.
* * *
POINT OF ORDER
QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
probably out of sequence time wise on this, but during question
period the Deputy Prime Minister referred to and read from a
document. I believe under the standing orders he is required to
table that document. We request that he do so.
The Deputy Speaker: If the Deputy Prime Minister read
from a document in the House, being an experienced member, I am
sure he would know that there would be a requirement to table it.
I am sure the request will be drawn to the attention of the
Deputy Prime Minister and if a tabling is to follow I suspect
that he will return to the House and table the document.
Given the hour and the fact that question period has been over
for a few minutes, perhaps it would be appropriate to deal with
this at a later time if a tabling does not follow.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF CANADA (QUEBEC)
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary Southeast
had the floor and I should advise the hon. member that he has 14
minutes remaining in his participation in this debate.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
before question period in addressing the proposed amendment to
section 93 of the British North America Act I was discussing the
lack of consensus that exists in Quebec, in particular among the
groups most directly affected.
I want to reiterate for the record that prior to tabling this
resolution in the national assembly the Quebec government held no
hearings on the amendment. Parents, school boards and others
were not able to present their positions to the national assembly
on the amendment. The assembly voted on the matter under party
discipline rather than under a free vote and had no clear
evidence in favour of a consensus.
The Quebec national assembly chose not to consult Quebec
citizens by holding a referendum on the proposed amendment and
finally the current Quebec government did not propose this
amendment during the last provincial election and consequently, I
submit, has no democratic mandate to make this application.
Instead, the Government of Quebec passed a resolution
stipulating that the federal government should amend the
constitution with undue haste which was rushed through the joint
committee in about two weeks time for an amendment that will
forever extinguish minority rights. I think undue haste is the
operative term.
Yet the parliamentary special joint committee heard from groups
representing hundreds of thousands of Quebeckers objecting to the
amendment over the course of our two weeks of hearings. For
example, la Coalition pour la confessionnalité scolaire collected
235,000 signatures of Quebec citizens who opposed the amendment.
These groups testified that the possibility of this
constitutional amendment had never been discussed with them. They
questioned why the Quebec government would abolish the rights of
religious minorities when this was unnecessary to establish
linguistic school boards, a point defined as such by the Supreme
Court of Canada in a 1993 reference.
1515
It is a longstanding convention not only in Canada but in other
liberal democracies that acquired rights cannot be abrogated
without the consent of those affected, and that consent does not
demonstrably exist in this case. Parliament therefore has a
responsibility to ensure the democratic consent includes a
demonstrated assent of the minority.
As indicated by the Protestant communities in Quebec, for
instance, who were most vocal in their opposition to the
amendment, there is a demonstrated dissent or disagreement of the
minority groups most directly affected. As a minority within a
minority, the French Protestant community will suffer the most
from the negative effects of this amendment. It will be
amalgamated with the majority of francophone schools, but those
wishing Protestant education may be lumped into the few
Protestant schools permitted under the new system, most of which
will be English speaking.
The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs justifies the proposed
amendment by stating that it will improve the situation of
Quebec's anglophone community. He says essentially that the
linguistic educational rights of that community will continue to
be protected under section 23 of the charter.
The minister knows that the Quebec government has failed to
apply subsection 23(1)(a), which is the only real protection the
charter affords linguistic education. It is insufficient
protection for the anglophone community and hardly justifies
removing rights from the Protestant and Catholic communities.
Let me move on to the question of whether this is in the
national interest and whether or not it prejudicially affects
minority rights.
The amendment will replace constitutional guarantees with
inferior statutory guarantees. Repeatedly witnesses testified to
the effect that the repeal of section 93 will lead to the deep
confessionalization of education in Quebec. Numerous
constitutional experts stated that sufficient precedents exist to
nullify the right to religious instruction once the application
of section 93 is removed from the province of Quebec. Virtually
every major constitutional expert who appeared as a witness
before the committee confirmed that the charter of rights poses a
threat to the continued access in Quebec to confessional
education under the Quebec education act.
This is because precedents exist in law such as the Canadian
Civil Liberties Association v Minister of Education decision
where the Ontario Court of Appeal addressed the issue of
indoctrinational education. The case established that religious
curricula denominational in nature could not be endorsed by the
provincial ministry of education or be created by school boards
because to do so would be to offend sections 2 and 15 of the
charter.
In Zylberberg v Sudbury Board of Education, a 1988 case, the
supreme court ruled that opening or morning exercises in
religious observances in public schools were not permitted under
the charter for the same reasons.
The legal precedents these two rulings provide will impact on
the decision making of Quebec courts. They are bound to these
precedents, as is the Supreme Court of Canada. It is unlikely,
in fact inconceivable, that a Quebec court would not find in a
way consistent with the precedents which threaten confessional
education.
This is a very important point. With all due respect I do not
think some of the members who have spoken to the resolution and
sat in committee fully appreciate the threat it poses.
Essentially when we take away the protection afforded by section
93 the charter in toto it applies to the Quebec education system.
The judicial precedents are quite clear. The charter does not
tolerate sectarian confessional education in the school system.
Provisions for that kind of education allowed for in the Quebec
education act and Bill 107 which is now Bill 109 will eventually
be nullified as being inconsistent with the charter by the
courts. The Quebec government said this would not happen because
the Quebec education act is protected from the secularizing
effect of the charter by its invocation of the notwithstanding
clause.
Section 33, the notwithstanding clause, has to be reinvoked
every five years. It is subject to the political will of the
Quebec legislature at any given time. Section 33 protection is
not constitutional protection. It is merely short term political
protection. When the public consensus in Quebec begins to change
with respect to the right of confessional education, there is no
doubt a future Quebec legislature will fail to invoke the
coverage of section 33 and the confessional education provisions
in the Quebec education act will be found null and void by the
courts. This is very troubling.
1520
Canadian constitutional history is premised on building minority
rights and not on repealing them. Peter Hogg, Canada's renowned
constitutional scholar, has described section 93 as “a small
bill of rights for the protection of minority religious groups”.
In its reference decision in 1993 on Bill 107 the Supreme Court
of Canada declared that section 93 is the “basic compact of
confederation”. Never in Canadian constitutional history has an
amendment to eliminate constitutionally protected minority rights
been passed. A newspaper's headline read today that it will be
history if this legislature tomorrow passes this amendment. For
the first time we will have taken the very troubling step of
extinguishing minority rights.
With the passage of the amendment to section 93, freedom of
religion will become freedom from religious education eventually
in Quebec. The concern is this will be a precedent that will be
established for Ontario, Alberta, Saskatchewan and other
provinces that rely on the protection of section 93 for minority
sectarian education.
It is an illusion that parents will have the opportunity to
choose the religious education they desire for their children
when a single decision by the courts will easily render the
provision of public denominational schools unconstitutional. This
seems to be the desire of the Quebec government which no longer
wishes to fund religious education in public schools. At least
that is a position one can draw from some public comments of the
Quebec minister of education.
On the first day of hearings two constitutional authorities from
McGill University appeared before the joint committee. In
response to my questioning they agreed, according to an article
in the Montreal Gazette, that Protestant and Catholic
instruction have no place in the school system and that the
charter through court cases will bring an end to religion being
taught in the schools. That is what the constitutional experts
said before the committee.
Minister Marois and Minister Brassard, the Quebec ministers of
education and intergovernmental affairs, appeared before the
committee. On questioning they refused to provide any guarantee
that the confessional elements of the Quebec education act would
be preserved by invoking the section 33 notwithstanding
protection. They cannot provide that assurance because we do not
know what future legislatures will do.
I do not accept that legislative guarantees of access to
religious instruction in secular schools are of comparable
quality to the guarantees under the constitution. Previously the
Leader of the Opposition stated in debate:
That right was safeguarded at confederation which is imperilled
by the amendment today.
Confessional education teaches a way of life, not merely a
history of a religion. Religious instruction provided in secular
schools cannot approximate the experience of religious education
in confessional schools. Abrogation of section 93 will prevent
future generations of Catholic and Protestant citizens in Quebec,
and potentially in other provinces, from studying and adopting
that way of life.
This creates a worrisome precedent for other provinces such as
Ontario. It is a political precedent, not a legal one, for the
extinguishment of minority rights which other provinces will no
doubt take up. We will be studying a similar application from
Newfoundland this week at a joint committee.
I reiterate one very important point. Some people have
suggested that in a modern pluralistic society it is no longer
appropriate to provide denominational publicly funded education
to particular sectarian groups. That is a sentiment I can
understand, but we do not serve pluralism or minority rights by
extinguishing rights that exist for some groups. If we object to
the exclusive coverage of section 93 to Catholics and
Protestants, instead of extinguishing the section we ought to
broaden it so that it includes all groups of all religious
backgrounds.
Then they would all have access to the same rights. A modern,
liberal, pluralistic democracy ought to stand for the expansion
of rights, not their diminishment. We do not equalize the
playing field by levelling rights for some. We build a real
democracy respectful of human rights by expanding them for all.
1525
Parliament should return this application to the Quebec
government and propose that it come back to this place with an
amendment to section 93, which would broaden the confessional
guarantees which the Fathers of Confederation in their wisdom
decided to pass on to us through the generations.
Some will say that the compact of confederation, the small bill
of rights which is section 93, was merely a political arrangement
designed for a particular time in the mid-19th century and no
longer applicable. It was just the result of horse trading
between Catholics and Protestants in Ontario and Quebec
respectively.
I disagree. Section 93 does not state explicitly but implicitly
speaks to a fundamental right recognized by all liberal
democracies, the right to publicly funded and publicly supported
education. It is a critical social right that can only be
exercised legitimately at the direction of parents.
Inevitably the amendment will lead to the removal of access to
publicly funded education in Quebec. That will undermine the
basic rights implicit in section 93. It was not a political
compromise for one time in our history. It was the recognition
of a fundamental right which it is our duty today and forever to
protect and maintain, not to diminish and extinguish.
I call on my colleagues on both sides of the House to think very
seriously and soberly about the issue. We should not let the
politics of separatism lead us to the diminishment of a
fundamental right and the protection of a minority group in
Canada.
Mr. Nick Discepola (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I sat on the committee
with the hon. member for almost three weeks. There is a premise
that no consensus has been established in Quebec.
I listened very intently to the member's speech. He failed to
mention that debate on the creation of linguistic school boards
has been ongoing in Quebec upward of 30 years. He also failed to
mention there is a quasi-unanimity on the creation of linguistic
school boards.
I will grant him one thing. There is no consensus on how to go
about creating linguistic school boards. The role our committee
undertook was to determine the appropriateness of the Quebec
request under section 93 and the bilateral amending formula for
section 43.
It behoves me to hear the Reform Party time and time again
refuse categorically to accept the fact that there is a
consensus. The consensus is large. Other than, as the Reform
has always called for, holding another referendum on the issue I
do not see how Reformers can ignore it.
I have a duty as a member of Parliament to make sure there is a
consensus among the minority that is affected. Let us be clear
what we are talking about. We are talking about removing the
application of articles 1 through 4 in section 93 in Quebec.
I will be even more specific. Section 93 protects Catholic and
Protestant education in the city of Montreal but not the island
of Montreal and in the city of Quebec proper but not the region
of Quebec. That is the protection it gives.
We talk about consensus. The provincial Protestant Association
of Teachers represents approximately 6,500 teachers. The
non-denominationals came to us and said they were in favour. La
Fédération des comités des parents de la province de Québec is
made up of over 40,000 parents, French and English speaking,
Catholic and Protestant. It represents 172 parents' committees.
1530
La Centrale de l'enseignement du Québec, the largest group of
130,000 members, and la Coalition pour la déconfessionalisation
du système scolaire—I can cite survey after survey—all called
on the government to acquiesce to Quebec's demands because that
province in its infinite wisdom sought for almost 30 years to
find a solution to modernizing the school system.
I ask the hon. member, is it appropriate in a modern society
such as Canada today to provide for the constitutional protection
of just two classes of religions, Protestants and Catholics, or
should we not let each province decide what is best, in its own
interests, in its own regions and in its own communities?
Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, first of all I made it
very clear at the outset of my remarks, as did the Reform Party,
in its dissenting opinion that we recognize there is virtually
unanimous consensus in Quebec for the creation of linguistic
school boards.
I said that half a dozen times in my speech. I agreed to that
statement being included in the majority report. The evidence is
clear. There is virtually a unanimous consensus in favour of
linguistic school boards.
However, that has nothing to do with section 93. This is,
frankly, the unintentional duplicity of the proponents of this
amendment failing to recognize that linguistic school boards is
one question and section 93 is an entirely different question.
Does the hon. member opposite not recognize that in 1993 the
Supreme Court of Canada ruled in a reference from the Quebec
government that then Bill 107, substantially the same as Bill
109, the now Quebec education act which established linguistic
school boards, was completely consistent with the protections
afforded by section 93.
In fact, the Quebec government is already establishing these
linguistic school boards. Witnesses from Alliance Quebec, from
Catholic groups, from Protestant groups who appeared before us
said that they do not object to linguistic school boards. The
government is implementing them. That is fine, but that has
nothing to do with section 93.
Why can we not maintain the protections afforded by section 93
given to us by our ancestors and, at the same time, modernize the
school system by consolidating linguistic groups into linguistic
boards?
That is the challenge that this government has not answered. It
is possible to do both. Given a choice, this Parliament ought to
opt for protecting minority rights when other policy objectives
like the establishment of linguistic school boards can be
achieved at the same time.
In response to the member's last question, I said at the end of
my remarks that I would strongly support, as virtually every
group that appeared before the committee in opposition to the
amendment would support, an amendment to section 93 which would
broaden the constitutional rights guaranteed therein to all
denominational and religious groups.
The point is that no minority's interests are served, no one's
rights are protected by removing rights from some people.
Instead of crushing section 93 and the rights that exist for the
large majority of Quebeckers to access confessional education,
why not broaden it so that yes, people of other faiths have a
constitutional guarantee to publicly funded religious education
that does not depend on the political whim of the legislature at
any given moment.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
rise in this debate because I also was a member of the special joint
committee on linguistic school boards.
What the Reform member seems to be saying is that the witnesses who
appeared before the committee did not have a good understanding of the
issue. Bill 109 on public education also had to do with the repeal of
section 93. The people who came to testify knew that the creation of
linguistic school boards also entailed debating the abrogation of
section 93. So he should not be saying such things about the witnesses
who came to testify in Quebec before the various committees.
People have been talking about this issue for 30 years, and what is at
the heart of this debate is the amendment to section 93. So I cannot
understand why someone would rise and say that people are being tricked.
1535
When Minister Marois came to testify in committee, I asked her the
same question, because consensus and consultation were always concerns
of the committee. It was important to ensure that people knew exactly
where we were heading with this. Repeal of section 93 is an issue that
people have been talking about for 30 years. A dozen consultations and
legal procedures went nowhere or were declared unconstitutional.
So I have difficulty understanding how my colleague from the Reform
Party who has just spoken can question all this process that was
undertaken in Quebec. This is the only way to ensure that the Quebec
school system is properly managed and can deal with the reality of an
English- and a French-speaking people. Also, children should not be
penalized by a cumbersome and complicated administrative system.
[English]
Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, there seems to be this
impenetrable refusal to listen to what I am saying. I am not
denying the consensus in favour of establishing linguistic school
boards. I literally said that six times in my main remarks. We
make that clear two or three times in our dissenting report.
Every witness who opposed the amendment made that clear in their
submissions.
However, that debate which has gone on for 30 years is not what
we are discussing today. We do not have the authority to
establish linguistic school boards in Quebec. Fortunately, that
is a right exercised by the national assembly.
What this Parliament has been given in section 93 is the
responsibility to guarantee confessional education rights. That
is what this debate is about, a debate which has hardly even
begun in the province of Quebec. Nevertheless, it is a right
that we seem prepared to take away, but that has not been
discussed in the debate over the past 30 years in Quebec.
Let me just make it clear for the member. I said it in French
twice and I will now say it in English. I am in favour of the
establishment of linguistic school boards in Quebec. The Reform
Party is in favour of the establishment of linguistic school
boards in Quebec. There is unanimous consensus in Quebec to this
effect. The Quebec bishops agree with it. However, that does
not mean we have to extinguish confessional school rights. This
is what the supreme court said in its 1993 reference on bill 107.
It said we could have both. We do not have to take away section
93 confessional school rights in order to establish linguistic
boards. We can do both.
The challenge to us again is to let the Quebec government do
what it wants, establish those boards but do what the Fathers of
Confederation expected us to do in 1867, and maintain that
constitutional protection for those minorities. We can do both
at the same time. At the same time, why not do it?
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
although I have spoken several times in this House, this is still
my maiden speech. I would therefore like to take advantage of this
opportunity to say a few words about my riding of Brossard—La
Prairie. This is a riding inhabited by some of the old Quebec
families whose roots in North America go back to the 16th century,
in Saint-Philippe and La Prairie for instance. As well, the first
railway in Canada was at La Prairie.
This is a riding which includes the municipality of Candiac,
a quiet little suburb of Montreal, and the city of Brossard, which
is listed year after year as one of the best administered cities in
Quebec, and where people from a multitude of backgrounds and
cultures co-exist.
I would, moreover, like to point out with humility that I had
the honour to head a municipal committee which worked out what was
to be a first in Quebec, the official proclamation of Brossard as
a multicultural city, in 1986.
The municipal government, community organizations and the
people of Brossard as a whole have all made an effort to ensure
that we would become a model of togetherness in a world so often
torn apart by dogmatic ideologies.
[English]
All members of Parliament claim that their riding is the best
and the truth of the matter is they are most probably right.
[Translation]
But come and experience our down-home hospitality, come visit
our schools, our community centres, come talk to our people, the
Vaillancourts, the Héberts, the Delisles, the Savards and Guyots,
to our citizens with names like Lam, Tsim, Ho, Kurien, Chhatwal,
Singh, Batagan, Villafranca, Koufalis, Pattichis, Mayers, Waide,
Lewis and all the rest.
1540
Come talk to them, and you will see the harmony that exists
among us, and you will understand why I hold such affection for the
people of this riding. All of Canada can be proud of them.
[English]
My riding is located on the South Shore of Montreal. In
1965 English speaking parents, parents of the area with a tremendous
vision and sense of future, brought the South Shore Protestant
School Board to task. They wanted their children to learn French
using a pilot method developed by McGill University, a method
that eventually gained world renown, a method used today by
300,000 young Canadians to learn French.
In 1965, at the time when there were no language laws in Quebec,
these tenacious and foresighted parents put French immersion on
the world map.
[Translation]
It was my honour and my pleasure to be a commissioner and the
chairman of this local school board in our area. It is said, and
it gives me great pleasure, that I was the first francophone
chairman of a Protestant school board in Quebec.
As part of my duties, some 10 years ago I presented a brief to
the National Assembly committee on education. Claude Ryan was the
minister at the time. In the brief, I opposed the proposal for
linguistic school boards.
Today, I announce my intention to vote in favour of the
constitutional amendment before us, and I would like to explain why
my position has changed.
On the subject of protecting official language minorities, we
have long held that section 93 of the Constitution was a solid
bulwark. However, since that time, the end of the 1980s, many
Supreme Court decisions have weakened the thrust of section 93,
which concerns sectarian guarantees obviously, but strengthened the
protection provided under section 23, which concerns linguistic
guarantees.
I have three examples. In 1990, the Supreme Court of Canada,
in the matter of Mahé versus Alberta, confirmed the official
language minority rights provided in section 23, as it did as well
in 1993 in a reference in Manitoba. Again in 1993, the Supreme
Court of Canada confirmed that section 93 protected denominational
school boards in Montreal and Quebec City only. This protection
does not apply in my riding.
So, the safeguards provided in section 23 are much greater than
those in section 93.
Allow me to deal with certain concerns expressed by Mr. Kamel, who
represents the linguistic minority on the South Shore school board,
which covers my riding.
First, I want to say that I have a great deal of respect for Mr.
Kamel and for the people whom he represents. I personally know a number
of them and they are moderate people. Therefore, I take their concerns
all the more seriously. These parents deplore the fact that minority
rights other than those of anglophones or Protestants are not addressed.
I must point out that section 93 does not deal with these other
minority rights. Whether section 93 is amended or not, nothing will
change in this regard. Given the demographic evolution of the Quebec
society, the provincial government will not always be able to avoid
dealing with these rights.
Therefore, the debate will have to take place in another forum.
[English]
In this letter these parents state their fear that linguistic
boards could become a tool in the hands of the separatists. It
is a fear that I want to encourage them not to have. If this
fear was founded it would mean that Claude Ryan and Robert
Bourassa, the Canadian Jewish Congress, le Rassemblement arabe de
Montreal, the Quebec Board of Black Educators, the Provincial
Association of Protestant Teachers, the Provincial Association of
Catholic Teachers, Alliance Quebec and the Gazette, among so many
others, would be separatists simply having in common that they
have endorsed the principle of linguistic school boards.
[Translation]
One can see the absurdity of the situation.
[English]
In our determined fight against the separation of Quebec, the
problem is not section 93 or its amendment. The problem is the
separatist government in Quebec. Therefore the solution is not
to fight against the amendment before us. The solution is to
elect a federalist government in Quebec as soon as possible.
1545
[Translation]
In short, a government with good intentions regarding Quebec's
place in the Canadian federation could promote Quebec's situation within
Canada by relying on school structures, whether denominational or
linguistic. Similarly, a government with bad intentions can do just the
opposite by using the same structures.
One cannot prevent the modernization of Quebec's school system by
imputing motives, particularly if Canada understands the need of
Quebeckers to be recognized as different but equal members of the
Canadian federation. I am confident that if this recognition takes
place, then the separatist threat will truly be marginalized.
Another concern expressed by these parents is that the creation of
linguistic school boards could adversely impact on an essential element
of harmonious integration, namely the presence in the same schools of
francophones, anglophones and allophones who, by living together, learn
to know each other, which results in a better integration of these
various groups.
[English]
I sincerely believe that our diversity is a source of tremendous
wealth and pride, the very foundation on which to build a
remarkable future for our country.
One of the characteristics of this diversity is its attachment
to its roots, traditions and identity so the people who make up
this diversity understand even better the need and will for
French Quebeckers to promote their roots and traditions and
secure their language, culture and identity. The people who make
up this diversity can be tremendously credible ambassadors of
Quebec's unique character in an effort of inclusion and respect.
[Translation]
I believe that this harmony comes not from the denominational or
linguistic features of our school structures, but from the political
will that, with a very few exceptions that need to be marginalized, is
characteristic of all our people and our authorities. The schools and
the communities complement each other remarkably well. They have done
and will continue to do a very good job within this diversity that we
like so much, in order to promote dignity, respect and the sensible
inclusion of each and every member of our community. I am putting all my
faith in this and I know time will prove me right.
Besides, if we were to vote against this amendment to section 93
before us today, we would be keeping in place, especially in Montreal
and Quebec City, such a burdensome school system that the administration
costs would bring about a decrease in the budget for direct services to
our children. Under these circumstances, I think it would be totally
unacceptable.
This brings me to some issues that, as far as I know, have yet to
be addressed during this debate. As adults, we argue about the law, the
management issues, the Constitution, the system's efficiency, and so on.
But let us take the time to consider what our children are going
through, especially but not only the younger ones.
They attend a school they identify with, in an environment they are
familiar with, a reassuring environment that gives them a sense of
stability. The name or the affiliation of their school board does not
matter to them at all.
What does matter to them is how nice their teacher is, a teacher
they often idolize. What does matter to them is their school
friends, their classroom, which they have a hand in decorating,
their principal, who is sometimes an authority figure when their
behaviour leaves something to be desired, and sometimes a source of
pride when they are able to come and sign the principal's book of
honour.
What matters to them is the school secretary, who also wears
the hats of nurse and second mother, the custodian, who helps them
share his respect and pride in their school, the crossing guard,
who makes sure they are safe in fair weather or foul. In short,
this is such an essential human context.
This human context can be preserved within the contemplated
reform. I do, however, see two conditions required: first, that
school boards can share the same buildings, at least for a while,
to avoid wholesale transfers of children from one school to
another.
This is perfectly feasible, provided there is a willingness to put
the interest of the children first.
Second: to allow transitional periods that vary according to the
circumstances. A few days ago, the hon. member for
Brome—Missisquoi gave us an example of successful integration in
the eastern townships. At the secondary school level at
Châteauguay, linguistic integration is, to all intents and
purposes, already a fait accompli, because English speaking
Catholics and English speaking Protestants attend the same
school. In such cases, the transition period could therefore be
shorter than in certain schools in my riding, for example, where
the change to language-based schools might be translated into the
transfer of hundreds of students, teachers, school administrators
and so on, with all of the uncertainties and upheavals that go
with this for all involved.
Let us try imagine the feelings of our administrators and
teachers, for example, when they do not have the slightest idea
what they will be doing tomorrow, with whom, where, or how.
1550
Progress must not mean dehumanization. The Quebec government
has a golden opportunity to combine the restructuring of the school
system with the humanism that implementing a project of such scope
requires. It is a real challenge, and I put it to the government.
In conclusion, with the overwhelming majority of Quebeckers,
regardless of their language or their origin, I invite this House
to confirm that the Constitution of Canada serves Quebec and that
it gives Quebec every means to progress and to grow.
As member for Brossard—La Prairie, I will vote in favour of
the proposed constitutional amendment. I know that all the
representatives of the Du Goéland, Brossard and South Shore school
boards will take up the challenge to ensure that no minority will
feel like one.
I know that the people of Brossard—La Prairie will rise to the
challenge.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, with the
support of a strong majority of Quebeckers, the Government of
Quebec plans to set up linguistic school systems to replace
denominational systems, which were defensible in 1867, but are
discriminatory at the dawn of the 21st century.
In order to carry out such a reorganization of the Quebec
school system, the National Assembly voted unanimously in favour of
a resolution to amend the Constitution by eliminating the
application of subsections (1) to (4) of section 93 of the
Constitution Act, 1867.
In response to this change so long desired in Quebec—for
over 30 years—the Government of Quebec has sought this amendment
from Parliament. Before making its request, Quebec received a
commitment from the federal government that it would not oppose it.
That is the context in which Quebec initiated the current process.
The Constitution Act of 1982 provides several possible amending
formulas. Section 43 is almost unanimously recognized as the most
appropriate with respect to Quebec's request. Selecting this method
would not set a precedent, as three other provinces have done the same
since 1987. Using section 43 was required to meet the challenges some
provinces were facing. Some may argue that the issues were different,
but, in each case, it was a matter of adjusting to new realities.
Quebec did not see anything threatening in requesting these
constitutional changes, since they applied only to the affected
provinces. It is in the same spirit of openmindedness and understanding
that Quebec sought approval for the proposed amendment.
More than 60 organizations and individuals testified before the
committee and expressed their views on various aspects of the Quebec
school system issue.
In spite of the concerns raised by some witnesses, there appears to
be a very clear consensus about the need to make such an amendment so
that Quebec can set up a modern school system that is more open and in
line with today's pluralistic society. In this context, the National
Assembly's action is legitimate and is part of a long process that had
started and stopped over the years as governments changed.
The will of the people of Quebec to replace the denominational
system with a linguistic school system has nothing to do with the place
religion should have in schools, but rather with how school boards
should be organized in Quebec.
As for the place of religion in schools, the debate on this issue
has been ongoing for decades and is likely to continue into the future,
given our tradition of tolerance. For the time being, like all players
in the system, Minister Marois is aware of the major changes the school
system is about to undergo.
To fully grasp what Quebec's request entails, some clarification is
required. Here are a few of the issues that were raised in committee. A
number of questions dealt with the consensus issue, consensus often
being confused with unanimity.
1555
Second, there is the issue of consultations: were they
sufficient or not? Third, there is the place of instruction in the
schools: what guarantees are given? Will they be adequate? Will
amending section 93 affect Quebec's anglophone minorities? And,
finally, there is the use of the Constitution Act, 1982, if I have
time left, to which Quebec was not a signatory.
These are the five points I felt it most important to raise
here today. But before doing so, I would first like to describe
the historical context in which section 93 was passed and try to
explain why this provision no longer corresponds to today's
reality.
The preamble to section 93 gives full and complete
jurisdiction to the provinces in matters of education.
Paragraphs 1 and 2 of this section essentially give educational
guarantees and privileges to Roman Catholic and Protestant
minorities. This went without saying in 1867. Why? Because in
the 19th century, denomination and language were practically
interchangeable. The very great majority of francophones were
Catholic and, generally speaking, the majority of anglophones were
Protestant. But this constitutional arrangement no longer
corresponds to the reality in Quebec at the close of the 20th
century. There are no longer any sociological correlations between
Quebec's anglophone and Protestant minorities. The numbers speak
for themselves.
Of students whose mother tongue is English enrolled in public
primary or secondary schools in Quebec as a whole, 34% are
Catholic, 33% give another religion or none at all, and 32% are
Protestant.
If we take Montreal Island, the situation is even more
illuminating: 43% are Catholic, 46% give another religion or none
at all, and only 10% are Protestant.
The numbers speak for themselves. Look at the situation in
Montreal: 46% of students give another religion.
Another thing that should be known about paragraphs 1 and 2 of
section 93 is that they represent a form of discrimination that is
contrary to the Quebec and Canadian charters of rights and
freedoms. Sections 3 and 4 also allow the federal government to
step in in order to remedy an action taken or not taken by
provincial authorities.
In fact, the first of these powers was used only once in 1896, and the
second was never used.
So these various points can illustrate how a situation where
certain privileges are granted, in Montreal and in Quebec City in school
boards because of denominational structures, how people who belong to a
religion other than the Catholic or the Protestant religion are being
assigned in a manner that makes them feel discriminated against in their
choice to go to a denominational school.
I would like now to deal with the issue of consensus. We will hear
what four major stakeholders had to say and listen to what the people
had to say through public hearings. The Coalition pour la
déconfessionnalisation du système scolaire, a coalition for the support
of a non-denominational school system representing 43 organizations and
close to two million people, including students, teachers, managers,
school principles, support personnel, popular, political and national
interest associations and others, this is not an insignificant body.
This coalition came forward to tell us that the constitutional amendment
requested by Quebec reflects a very large consensus in Quebec society.
This group goes even further and states that the constraints of
Section 93 must stop applying to Quebec so that our school system can be
reformed to adjust to the modern and pluralistic society we live in.
In their brief presented to the Commission des états généraux sur
l'éducation, on August 8, 1995, the bishops also supported Quebec's
initiative.
1600
They stated:
With the redesign of the Public Education Act and considering
the judicial perspective provided by the supreme court in
1993, we feel that this change is desirable throughout Quebec,
including in the cities of Montreal and Quebec.
I would like to add that the Right Reverend Andrew S. Hutchison,
Bishop of Montreal, in a letter to Minister Dion, stated:
The changes to section 93 proposed by the Government of
Quebec, by which it would no longer be required to maintain
denominational school boards, appear reasonable and in
compliance with the positions traditionally adopted by the
Anglican Church.
Furthermore, the Jewish Congress for the Quebec City region stated:
It is the responsibility of the government to adjust the
school system to the realities of Quebec society by applying
the principle of equality of religions in its policies. To do
so, it must have the necessary tools to implement such
changes.
The average citizen was also able to express his or her views on
this issue. Several public hearings were held over the last ten years in
Quebec.
A recent poll has shown that slightly more than 58% of the people are in
favour of substituting linguistic boards for the existing Catholic and
Protestant school boards in Quebec.
Something even more eloquent is that 77.8% of respondents think
that the school system should be the same throughout Quebec, instead of
having something different in Montreal and Quebec City. These figures
speak for themselves. Unanimity has not been achieved, but there is a
clear consensus in Quebec.
Let me turn to the consultation process. Some people claim that
there has been little or no consultation in Quebec. As has been said
several times in the House today, the discussion on linguistic school
boards has been going on in Quebec for almost 40 years. A number of
legal initiatives and consultations have been undertaken in order to
deal with the matter.
I would like to review the main steps of the consultation process
in Quebec.
First of all, we have had the royal commission of inquiry on
education in 1961. The Parent report tabled in 1963 recommended that the
legislation not recognize denominational school boards.
We also had Bill 3, an act respecting public primary and secondary
education, which was passed by the National Assembly in December 1984,
but was in force only for a few months, because it was declared
unconstitutional by Justice Brossard in June 1985 on the grounds that it
was prejudicial to the religious rights protected under section 93 of
the Canadian Constitution.
Then came a period of fastidious and exhausting exercises that,
despite feats of ingenuity, failed to deal effectively with the
constraints of subsections 93(1) to (4).
The most recent reform exercise took place in 1988, when the
National Assembly passed Bill 107.
If it had been put in force, we would have had something similar to what
Reform is suggesting here, namely that we should accept linguistic
school boards, but without repealing subsections 1 to 4. Here is what we
would end up with.
Bill 107 would have superimposed linguistic boards on top of the
religious boards in Montreal and Quebec City for the sake of the
religious rights protected under section 93. In the rest of the
province, we would have had linguistic school boards only.
For the benefit of the House, I will take a few moments to try
to explain the concrete impact of the reform that was proposed.
Under Bill 107, in Quebec City and in Montreal, there would have
been six overlapping school boards: a French Catholic school
board, a French Protestant school board, an English Catholic
school board, an English Protestant school board, a French
non-denominational school board and an English non-denominational
school board.
Elsewhere in Quebec, there would have been four overlapping school
boards: a French Protestant school board, and so on. The same situation
would have occurred. I cannot make head or tail of it. In the real
world, people in their everyday lives do not want to subject their
children to this.
Can you imagine what would happen: children who play in the same
parks, who live on the same street, would be separated and sent to
different schools because their parents are not of the same
denomination.
That is what would happen.
1605
So, the chairperson of the Centrale de l'enseignement du Québec,
Lorraine Pagé, was very clear on this. She said that a true
pluralistic society is a society where people of different
denominations learn to live together, learn to respect each
other, learn to understand each other by sending their children
to the same school, whatever their religious denomination, but
with separate administrative systems for the English minority and
for the French majority.
This is, once again, reaffirmed in the Sondagem poll: 88.3% of
Quebeckers are in favour of sending all children to the same school,
regardless of the religious faith of their parents.
Quebecers had another opportunity to express their views through these
polls, which clearly show that we should be more open to allow this type
of integration.
To finish the list of consultations, there was the Kenniff report
and the Proulx-Woehrling proposal, the education summit in 1996 and a
parliamentary committee on Bill 109. So to deny the request made by the
National Assembly of Quebec would postpone indefinitely a true reform of
the Quebec school system. I think we must agree to Quebec's request and
respect the kind of reform it wants.
I would also like to address the issue of language rights because
it came up in committee. In terms of language rights, a few witnesses
claimed that the amendment to section 93 would affect anglophone
minorities in Quebec. This is absolutely false.
Section 93 has nothing to do with language rights in Quebec. Everybody
knows that, since 1982, the anglophone community benefits from the
guarantees provided for in section 23. As a matter of fact, the member
for Brossard—La Prairie mentioned a few moments ago that it is not
section 93 which guarantees the rights of the anglophone community, but
it is section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which
guarantees the right of the francophone and anglophone minorities to
receive instruction in their own language. It is not section 93.
The jurisprudence is clear and generous with regard to minority
language educational rights under section 23 of the Canadian charter,
contrary to what some people are trying to convey as a message from
Quebec.
Moreover, people must not be overly suspicious of the way Quebec
treats its anglophone minority. Anglophones in Quebec manage their own
educational institutions and benefit from a complete school system from
junior kindergarten to university.
They also manage their health and social service networks, and they have
numerous means of communication in their own language. This is a far cry
from what is going on at Montfort hospital.
The proverbial generosity of Quebeckers is recognized all over the
world. On April 10, the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe
said that “the situation of Quebec's English speaking minority is an
excellent example of the protection of a linguistic minority's
rights”.
I know that other issues were raised by various witnesses. Some
thought schools would no longer provide religious instruction and
wondered about what would happen to religion in schools. We listened
with great respect and attention to those concerned about preserving
religious instruction in schools.
We remind them that section 41 of the Canadian Charter of Rights
and Freedoms guarantees parents the right to demand that their children
receive a religious or moral education according to their beliefs.
Moreover, the Education Act clearly states that Catholics and
Protestants can both exercise this right, regardless of their numbers.
Second, the act creates duties and obligations for school organizations
as regards denominational provisions. Third, the Education Act provides
that a school board can organize moral or religious instruction for a
denomination other than Catholic or Protestant.
Some said that these were not constitutional guarantees, but the
safeguards provided in section 41 of the charter are
quasi-constitutional. Quebeckers as a whole are very respectful
of the choice parents would make as to whether or not they want
to keep a denominational school, or want religious instruction in
schools.
1610
I think there will be such a debate in Quebec and that it will be
carried out democratically with all the tolerance that Quebeckers are
known for.
If there are still members in this House who hesitate to support
the unanimous request by the Quebec National Assembly, I ask them to
listen to this call coming from all parts of Quebec, from the Magdalen
Islands to Abitibi, from the Gaspé region to Ungava, from Quebec City,
Lévis, Granby, Baie-Comeau, Saint-Henri and the greater Montreal area.
Quebeckers are appealing to you and are asking you to support them in
their efforts to provide their children with a modern school system that
is responsive to the realities of modern Quebec.
With one voice, in a spirit of openness and pride, let us applaud
the National Assembly's initiative and join with their institutions in
providing Quebec with a modern school system that can provide a model
for today's world.
I will be voting yes.
Mr. Nick Discepola (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the amendment we are being asked to
support is the repeal of subsections 1 to 4 of Section 93 of the
Constitution Act, 1867.
Since the beginning, in the National Assembly, the Government of
Quebec and the Parti Quebecois have taken it upon themselves to include
in the preamble to their request that they do not recognize the
Constitution of 1982. It is odd that the Government of Quebec has taken
such a decision. It is odder still that Bloc Quebecois members have
taken the same position.
It is because of section 43 of the Constitution of 1982, which the
Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois refuse to accept or to recognize
as being relevant, that we can now discuss this amendment; in fact, it
is Section 43 that provides for the right of the province of Quebec,
with a simple resolution from the National Assembly, to request a
bilateral constitutional amendment, without the consent of the other
provinces.
Furthermore, subsection 33.1 of the 1982 Constitution, which,
again, Quebec has not accepted, allows Bill 107 on public education and
the amendment proposed in Bill 109 to override the unconstitutional
aspect by using the notwithstanding clause.
I was wondering if the member from Quebec could answer two
questions. If the English community had not felt that its access to
linguistic schools was protected under section 23, if the anglophone
community was not convinced that the 1982 Constitution provided some
protection, does the member really believe that we would have had such
a consensus in Quebec?
Can she admit in this House, just as the Quebec intergovernmental
affairs minister himself admitted, that one would indeed have to be
naive to think that the Constitution of 1982 does not apply everywhere
in the country? Can the member answer these two questions?
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is
any justification for trying to use the action taken by the
National Assembly to offer thinly veiled praise for the unilateral
patriation in 1982, of which the Prime Minister was one of the main
architects.
1615
Mr. Nick Discepola: Thanks to him—
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon: You asked me to answer your question,
sir. I can tell you, on the subject of the resolution of Quebec's
National Assembly to not recognize the Constitution of 1982, that
there is a difference between “to not recognize” and “to be subject
to”. We are still part of Canada. We may not recognize it, but we
are subject to it. Let us not mix debates. I will stop here on
that matter.
Your second question on guarantees on teaching in English
under section 23 was not the one raised in committee. That
question concerned section 93.
Here again, a number of debates are being mixed up. The subject is
the suspension of subsections 1 to 4 of section 93, which people do
not want applied in Quebec. Section 23 has nothing to do with the
debate. It will be debated at some other time, in Quebec and not
here.
Section 93 does not guarantee the protection of anglophone
minorities in Quebec and francophone minorities elsewhere. The
member for Bourassa put it very well earlier, when he said that
section 93 had nothing to do with protecting language rights in
Quebec.
This is the sort of debate they wanted to get us involved in,
but this debate and the committee's mandate concern the repeal of
subsections 1 to 4 so that denominational school boards may be
replaced by linguistic school boards.
I hope I have answered succinctly, because the member wanted
to drag me into a much broader debate.
[English]
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have some questions I would like the hon. member for
Quebec to address.
During the course of her deliberation, and I must say she did a
good job, she mentioned that all of Quebec, and she named the
different geographical areas, were all very much in support of
this resolution. I do not doubt that it is the majority. On my
desk in my office are a number of letters from the Province of
Quebec wishing that I should speak against this proposal for
various reasons, so she does not have 100% support. I have two
questions.
First, have you ever considered that, by deleting sections 1 to
4—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member will please address
the Chair rather than the hon. member.
Mr. Roy Bailey: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. If you delete
sections 1 to 4 from section 93, has the hon. member given any
consideration to what danger that may create in other provinces
which are watching this debate extremely close?
I know in my province there are three minority boards. They all
have a petition. They are all very much concerned about deleting
sections 1 to 4 from section 93 in the hope that somehow the
Charter of Rights will protect those things once they are
extracted. That is the concern in western Canada. If the
Charter of Rights will protect them after they have disappeared,
why will the Charter of Rights not protect them when it is there?
My constituents are extremely interested in this.
Second, I heard, and I would like the hon. member to address
this, at least twice in the debate today that somehow there was
something wrong about religion being taught in school. I hope I
am hearing that incorrectly. In the history of our country we
have had religion taught in the schools. Those people who want
religion in the school should have that right under our
constitution.
I would like the hon. member to address those two questions.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the
hon. member of the Reform Party that I never spoke of unanimity; we are
talking about consensus. In fact, that is the problem we encountered in
committee, where consensus was sometimes understood to mean unanimous
consent.
1620
There are certainly people who are not pleased with these
decisions, but the vast majority, or 88% of those who participated in a
public poll, and those who have young children in particular, said they
were in favour of greater freedom, especially in Montreal. Such rights
were granted on very different bases in Montreal and in Quebec City. For
other regions, it was a matter of dissent.
We know full well that children from several denominations already
study in this kind of system. Witnesses have explained the situation and
how this would not be a problem.
On the contrary, this is a proposal to open up structures, so that, in
Montreal, where a sort of rigidity has been observed, the debate can
focus on school structures, either denominational or linguistic, instead
of on what place religion should occupy in schools.
With all due respect, I never said, and far be it from me not to
want religious education to continue in schools, quite the contrary, and
this is a debate that we will be having in Quebec. I would point out
that this matter will be debated in Quebec, and the proposed amendment
is designed to satisfy Quebec's wishes. So, if the same kind of debate
were held in other parts of Canada, in other provinces, perhaps you
could examine a variety of possible amendments, that you would approve
or dismiss as the case may be. In Quebec, however, there is consensus on
this matter.
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry, but the time allowed for questions
and comments has run out. The hon. parliamentary secretary on a point of
order.
Mr. Nick Discepola: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
In responding to two questions, the hon. member for Quebec
mentioned the hon. member for Bourassa when in fact referring to the
hon. member for Brossard—La Prairie. It was simply a point of
clarification.
[English]
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is in response to the
widespread interest in this subject, in the constituent power,
the constitutional amending power not only in Quebec but also in
other parts of the country, that I rise to speak in this debate.
Chapter 5 of the Constitution Act of 1982 established, as it was
intended, an all Canadian base for constitutional amendment in
place of the pre-existing made-in-Britain style of constitutional
amendment.
We are still working out the precedents or the ground rules
regarding how that should operate. Our working out of the ground
rules is influenced in considerable part by practice and there is
already some practice, but also rules of good sense and good
federalism.
I think we are at the point where we can enunciate a principle
that a request by a province for a constitutional amendment under
section 43 of the Constitution Act of 1982 that such a request,
if it does not run counter to the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms, and if it is not the product of a casual or factitious
majority in a provincial legislature, should normally be honoured
by the federal parliament as a matter of good federalism, what is
known in technical terms as the principle of federal comity, la
courtoisie fédérale, which is an inexact French language
translation.
In the case of Newfoundland, we have looked at this issue twice.
The first time was when the House supported the proposal but it
was held up in the Senate and the second time when it came again
but this time after a 73% popular approval by the people of
Newfoundland, by 47 out of 48 electoral districts, and with
strong majorities in those sections of Newfoundland that have
significant religious groups within them.
In the case of Quebec, we have here a resolution passed by
unanimous vote of the provincial legislature.
This is not the first time that this issue has been raised in
Quebec. In fact, if I can take members back in history, I
remember examining this issue professionally a quarter of a
century ago when the issue was the language in Quebec; the issue
of an official language, the language of work and the language of
education.
1625
Members will recall that this issue was entrusted to a royal
commission of the Quebec government, la commission sur la
situation de la langue française et les droits linguistiques à
Quebec, which reported in 1972, the Commission Gendron. One of
the proposals considered by the commission was simply how to
apply the issue of language of education having regard in Quebec
to the existence and operation of section 93 of the then British
North America Act of 1867, the Constitution Act.
The issue raised then was whether it could be done because we
did not have the 1982 Constitution Act nor these all-Canadian
self-operating amending machineries. The suggestion which was
advanced, which I think is an interesting one, was that it could
be achieved by ordinary legislation. That is to say one could
achieve a system of institutional language based schools in
replacement of the old system of religious division, and this as
a matter of ordinary interpretation in section 93.
The key is of course in the words of section 93 which are rooted
in 19th century history and, to some extent of course, in 18th
century history because that is where these particular provisions
flowed from, the capitulations of 1759, the Treaty of Paris of
1763 and the Quebec Act of 1774.
The essence of these provisions, however, is that they do not in
terms guarantee, or even necessarily in the spirit, the
continuance for all time of a system of religiously based
determination of allocation of children to the school system.
This is a gloss which has emerged in some minds because of a lack
of reading of the provisions of section 93 and also because of a
static, mechanical and unimaginative approach to constitutions
and constitutional interpretation.
Constitutions are not fixed once and for all in time as frozen
cakes of doctrine that cannot stand the test of progressive
generic interpretation. Constitutions, as the Privy Council
reminded us, are living trees that grow with the times. It was
on this basis that the issue was examined, whether section 93
could allow a replacement of a religious based classification and
allocation of students by a language based one. I think an
interesting answer then was, yes.
However, this is a different situation now because we have the
1982 Constitution Act in effect and the 1982 Constitution Act
allows for amendment of the Constitution under various
categories. One of the interesting things here is that we are
applying section 43 of the 1982 Constitution Act to the amendment
of section 93 of the Constitution Act of 1867.
The essence of section 43 is that it allows for a bilateral
process of amendment of the constitution on the initiative of a
single province and with the concurrence of the federal
government. The effect of course of this as a matter of
constitutional application is that a constitutional amendment so
adopted is limited in its constitutional force to the particular,
one might say, consenting province and no more.
Therefore, I think this is a very important point to raise for
persons in provinces other than Quebec. There is no consequence
of the adoption of the proposed amendment here for the school
situation such as it might be now or in the future in Ontario or
in British Columbia or in other provinces.
Insofar as section 93 is amended by section 43, it is a
Quebec-only amendment.
1630
One interesting point in the particular amendment, and why it
achieves much of what was discussed as a theoretical concept by
the Gendron commission in the late 1960s and early 1970s, is that
it leaves open the effectuation of the principles of the
capitulations of 1759, the Treaty of Paris, the Quebec Act and
section 93. It leaves open the issue of effectuation of those
principles again by other legislative provisions.
In the debate on Newfoundland amendment term 17, which is a
special case in that it is limited to term 17 of the Act of
Union, 1949, between Newfoundland and Canada, there were some
interesting exchanges across the House. We should stress that
often the truth is found in these exchanges. It is a dialectical
give and take. There were two interesting questions from the
official opposition. I will simply repeat what was said on that
occasion.
Unlike a number of other countries including Great Britain,
there is no official state religion in Canada. The system is
neutral on that point.
However, unlike the United States there is no constitutional
separation of church and state. Therefore it is perfectly open
for any province in Canada to introduce its own system of
religious instruction or provision of religious facilities in
school education. That is a matter for the ordinary political
processes of each province. It is limited by the Canadian
charter of rights, but the Canadian charter is not pre-emptive
here. It may be limited by provincial charters of rights as to
which we would remind ourselves that Quebec has certainly a most
impressive Quebec provincial charter of rights.
It would be open within the political processes of any province
to provide a form of religious instruction. As is proposed in
Newfoundland parents may ask for religious instruction, but the
children or parents may opt out of that religious instruction.
There is nothing to prevent the introduction of what is called in
Great Britain and some states in the United States a system of
state or public aid to so-called charter schools, which could be
purely private and non-denominational or could be denominational.
That is a matter for the provincial political processes. It is
left open under both the Newfoundland amendment and the Quebec
amendment.
Let me come back to the particular issue. If the approach to
section 93 had been its removal altogether, it would have
required clearly 7 out of 10 provincial legislatures to assent to
it. Since the Parliament of Canada is being approached under
section 43 of the Constitution, not section 38(1) which is the
larger provision I just mentioned, it requires the assent only of
the Quebec legislature and the Parliament of Canada. It is very
clear that the constitutional amendment now proposed is limited
by virtue of the constitutional amendment route chosen to Quebec
and the Parliament of Canada so far as it operates in this
respect in Quebec.
We have an approach to constitutional amendment that is limited
to Quebec, that follows upon the unanimous vote of the Quebec
legislature and that does not according to ordinary rules of
interpretation offend the Quebec charter of rights or our own
constitutional charter of rights. That is in accord with the
expressed opinion of Quebec persons who testified before various
parliamentary groups that it changes a burdensome system of
administration which is excessively costly and no longer
corresponds to widespread Quebec views as to classification and
categorization of students and education.
If the Gendron commission had adopted a proposal in 1972 to
replace the religious based categorization by language based
categorization, there would have possibly been a situation
somewhat like the present situation.
1635
Instead, in developing French as the language of education in
Quebec compatibly with rights of minorities, it superimposes a
very cumbersome system of language approach to education on a
church based system, an immense proliferation of administrative
authorities. The nearest analogy I can find is the Belgian
approach to the solution of the linguistic problem, which is an
administrative constitutional nightmare.
On the basis that this is a request, freely made by the
legislature of Quebec with a unanimous vote preceding it, an
issue considered for over more than a quarter of a century in
Quebec on which a consensus has clearly emerged, there is no
reason in principle why following good principles of federalism
the federal Parliament can or should refuse the particular
request.
In my view it could have been met by interpretation of section
93 without an amendment, but since we have the Constitution Act,
1982, it is proper that it should follow that particular route.
I commend this to those who have raised the question as to
whether it will automatically determine solutions that we would
like to educational problems in our own province. The answer is
that it has no implications for that at all. It is open to the
political processes within the province.
My expectation, since Canada is a plural country, is that
individual provinces will answer differently. There is
widespread interest throughout Canada in new, more plural
approaches to education. It is very clear the financial burden
of education is spread unevenly and in many respects unfairly
over many taxpayers and the correction should come at the
provincial level. That is a legitimate issue of concern for
provincial voters and each province will make its own decision.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, congratulations on your elevation to the chair. I
commend the learned and honourable member for his presentation.
He is a distinguished constitutional authority and an asset to
this place as such an authority. I would however take issue with
some of his conclusions.
The hon. member suggested the amendment would not create a
precedent for other provinces. I agree this will not create a
legal or constitutional precedent but it will create a political
precedent. It is for that reason organizations such as the
Canadian Catholic School Trustees Association, the Ontario
Catholic School Trustees Association and dissentient separate
school boards across the country are opposed to the amendment.
What they see is not a legal precedent that affects them
directly but a dangerous political precedent which they feel will
affect them in the future, that precedent being the willingness
of this place to give up its constitutional role to protect
minority confessional educational rights.
I have several questions for the hon. member in that respect. He
said the matter had been considered for nearly 30 years in
Quebec. Given that virtually every witness before the committee
agreed the amendment to section 93 is a relatively recent
proposal, what evidence does he have to support the contention
that it has been considered for 30 years?
What does he mean when he says there is now a movement toward
“new, more plural approaches to education?” Does he mean by
that approaches to education which preclude confessional
education? Does he mean more secular approaches to education?
Given his understanding of constitutional issues, will he admit
that without the protection of section 93 the charter of rights
and freedoms will apply in toto to the Quebec education system;
that given the precedents in the Ontario courts, namely the
Zylberberg and the Civil Liberties Association cases, the charter
has been proven to be rather unfriendly to public funding of
sectarian education; and that without the protection of section
93 it is likely, as virtually every constitutional expert
appearing before the joint committee suggested, that Quebec's
confessional education system as guaranteed in various statutes
the Quebec charter and the Quebec education act would be found to
contravene the Canadian charter and would be snuffed out?
1640
Does he not agree this is a very real threat of removing the
constitutional protection of section 93, that the charter poses
the ultimate threat to the confessional school system which
Quebeckers still support, by a very large margin?
Mr. Ted McWhinney: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his thoughtful series of questions. I could say as to when
and how this has been discussed I was a member of the commission
Gendron. I spent four years hearing representations throughout
Quebec on the educational system, among other things.
There were very learned studies. Since I also taught in Quebec
over a period of five years including at one French language
university, it was very much a subject of discussion. Although it
may appear strange outside Quebec, as something new and
different, it has been very much a part of Quebec thinking.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Section 93.
Mr. Ted McWhinney: Section 93 has to be considered by any
commission or any group considering language and education as the
criterion for allocation of students.
The second issue the hon. member raised has implications
essentially for other provinces. He raised the issue of what I
referred to as new plural trends in education. Every province
obviously is different from the other. This is one of the nice
things about Canada today. I would think that there are more
indications outside Quebec and outside Ontario of experimentation
with religion and education and religious based schools. The
thing that is becoming interesting is the suggestion that it
should be accompanied by at least partial funding from state,
from public authority.
My point was simply that there is nothing in the constitution
that prevents that. We do not have the absolute separation of
church and state that they have in the United States which
positively prevents that.
I taught constitutional law in the United States and it was a
constitutional absolute, the absolute separation. It even chased
out of the American school system voluntary religious classes
given on the school premises outside school times. There was a
series of decisions in the fifties, sixties and seventies.
This is perhaps a correct judgment by the United States supreme
court of the American ethos but it is not necessarily applicable
in Canada.
One issue at the core of the third question of the hon. member
was the issue of the courts and the constitution. I would be the
last to say I am always happy with the development of the
jurisprudence of courts.
When the charter of rights was adopted I suggested to the then
prime minister that a logical concomitant of the change to a
charter based system of constitutional jurisprudence was reform
of the supreme court. I and some others recommended
unsuccessfully the establishment of a special constitutional
court with the European system of election of judges for a term
of years. The European courts have a strong cross-section of
political and general philosophical opinion on the courts.
I do not think it is a necessary consequence of the role of the
courts today, even under the system that now exists, that they
apply American jurisprudence. Mechanically applied, I think
those would be wrong decisions.
Mr. Jason Kenney: They are precedents.
Mr. Ted McWhinney: Precedents can be changed because
perhaps they have not been argued well enough. You must not be
too optimistic about the level of constitutional argument that
we—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member should address the
Chair.
Mr. Ted McWhinney: Mr. Speaker, I would be the last
person to ignore the Chair consciously and the last person to
ignore the Chair when it is occupied by its very distinguished
present incumbent. You fill the role admirably in a very real
corporeal sense.
1645
However, I would encourage the hon. member who has shown that he
has a litigious attitude in areas other than what we are now
discussing not to give up hope on the court. He should try right
reason, try his arguments and argue the new pluralism and he
might find he can win. But it is certainly an incorrect
application of the Canadian charter to assume that American
judgments in the area of the charter of freedoms are
automatically the law of the land here.
We are a different society. I would have thought the great
charm of our society is that we are a plural society. We have
rejected the melting pot concept of total assimilation. We
encourage diversity. We try to build co-operation based on those
integral elements that each culture has and this demands a
jurisprudence that reflects that.
I rest optimistic that with future education by this House
including by the hon. member that the courts will move more in
this direction. I do not think they have shown the imagination
they could have.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the recollections as he went
historically through what has brought us up to where we are
today. I must commend him because I appreciated it. It was like
sitting at university again and scribbling down some notes.
I am not here to quarrel with anything said by the hon.
gentleman. Historically I believe he is most accurate. The
question in my mind is not one of checking the dates but rather
it is this. Is there any other way Quebec could receive
everything that has the obvious support of its majority? Is
there any other legal way this could take place without touching
that part of section 93 of the BNA act? If there were a way, if
the charter could do it, for the sake of the rest of the
provinces I would encourage the member with his wisdom, knowledge
and background to lend more support to that. Let us not tear
away at something the rest of the provinces feel is valuable.
Mr. Ted McWhinney: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, it would
have been possible in 1968 and 1970—before 1982—to try to reach
the same result by interpretation to demonstrate that the
particular measure proposed is compatible as legislation with
section 93 as fairly read in its general intent and purpose. But
once you replace the old British style of constitution amending
process by the charter of rights, the ordinary principles of
federalism say that you follow that route.
I can reassure the hon. member on this point. I have made a
point in my interventions on the Newfoundland school issue and on
this issue today of stating that this is an amendment limited to
Quebec and that in voting on this issue I do so on the basis that
it is limited to Quebec.
The member may ask me what the relevance of that is. A
constitutional interpretation by courts, the decisions of
Parliament, the travaux préparatoires, carry their own authority.
If the member himself or other members would like to indicate
that in voting on this issue their vote is given on the basis
that this is an amendment that applies to Quebec and only Quebec,
that itself carries heavy artillery with it. It is something
that in my view a court would be unwise to try to overrule.
As far as other provinces are concerned, my recommendation to
them is to fight it out within the new political processes. There
is no reason why British Columbia should have an identical rule
to Quebec or Ontario, or Alberta to British Columbia. It is a
matter for the political processes. There are no constitutional
barriers other than the charter of rights which on this issue is
not pre-emptive.
The interesting thing I cited for the last hon. member who
questioned me is there is a mood for re-examination of education.
There is a feeling that too much uniformity or a monolithic
approach to education is not the best thing for suiting our
children for the next century.
1650
Therefore the new pluralism, the new ways, including the
possibility of public aid, partial at least to new schools trying
new approaches, would include religious schools. This is very
much a matter that individual provinces can and should be able to
reach within ordinary political processes.
I say to the hon. member and others that if this is your view,
indicate that you wish your vote on this to be an issue limited
to a constitutional amendment affecting Quebec just, as more
strictly, for the one in Newfoundland.
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to have this opportunity to speak on this motion to
amend section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867 concerning the
Quebec school system. I feel, however, that amendment is
understating the issue. It is in fact an extinguishment of
sections 93, 1 to 4, for Quebec.
As a freshman member of Parliament, a member of the class of
'97, I am particularly honoured to be speaking on such an
important subject as amending the Canadian constitution. Such
weighty matters have a tendency to give members of Parliament an
exaggerated sense of their own importance. They can start to see
themselves in terms of their own place in history.
Amending the constitution is a serious exercise, one that should
not be done lightly or in haste. In Canada it is something not
done with ease. It took Canada 115 years to bring home the
British North America Act and create a Canadian constitution that
could be amended at home. Lest we forget, the clock is still
running on its ratification by the province of Quebec.
Here we are in 1997, 130 years since Confederation, and the
process has still not been completed. That is not such a bad
thing. There are countries in the world which have gone through
a dozen constitutions in the same amount of time. They tend to
be places where such documents are often not worth the paper on
which they are printed.
In Canada our constitutional process seems to move at a pace
that we could describe as glacial. We have a document of which
we all can be proud, a statement of our individual and collective
rights and responsibilities. It represents a careful balancing
of individual rights and collective responsibility to protect the
rights of minorities. As such it is an important part of our
identity as a caring and compassionate people.
I have good reason to be concerned when the government of the
day pulls out all the stops to accelerate the constitutional
process. I have good reason to be uncomfortable when the
amendment in question is being proposed by a provincial
government that has not ratified the constitution. I have good
reason to seek greater clarity on the process when there are
legitimate questions being asked about the legality of the
amending process being used. I have good reason to listen
carefully to thousands of Quebeckers who asked us not to ratify
the amendment.
There are times when the glacial pace of constitutional change
makes sense. I find it worrisome that the Liberal members of the
special joint committee from the other place, who are required to
provide sober second thought, would be in such a hurry. As a
member of the special joint committee, I have listened closely to
the witnesses who have appeared before the committee. I have
considered carefully the opinions and views they have expressed
and those expressed by the hundreds of people who have written
letters and signed petitions on the subject.
I am not persuaded that this amendment must be ratified now. Let
me give my reasons. They stem from a simple test consisting of
three questions.
First, does the constitutional amendment have the democratic
agreement of the people? Second, does it conform to the rule of
the law? Third, are the rights of minorities protected?
On the first the answer is quite clear. There has been no
public consultation in Quebec. In contrast to Newfoundland,
which is also pursuing constitutional reform with regard to its
educational system, there has been no referendum.
1655
Unanimous consent to a request for the school board amendment by
the Quebec national assembly does not in turn reflect unanimous
consent by the people of Quebec.
The hundreds and thousands of Quebeckers who signed petitions
opposing this amendment are proof of that. I cite as an example
the petition of the coalition for denominational schools, a
petition signed by 235,000 people.
It is shameful that some members of the government have been
questioning the validity of this petition. The people of Quebec
who signed this petition cannot be ignored because they
demonstrate that there is no consensus in Quebec for an amendment
to section 93 of the 1967 constitution.
The solution to this is reasonably straightforward. The
Government of Quebec must do a better job consulting with the
people of Quebec. It has a model to study in Newfoundland.
It needs to present clearly the implications of the amendment.
I would not doubt that greater understanding would reduce the
level of distrust and fear. Among other avenues, the Government
of Quebec could have had its ministers involved in the process
earlier rather than relying on quiet passage.
The answer to the second question of whether it conforms to the
rule of law is less straightforward. The committee should be
certain that what is being proposed respects the rule of law.
Are we using the appropriate amending formula? The Government of
Canada and some legal scholars say yes. Other voices have
challenged the bilateral process. The committee should not be
expected to decide this question in haste under an artificial
deadline. I would like to point out that the ink is not even dry
on this motion and I have been made aware of a court challenge
already.
This court challenge asserts that the legislature of Quebec and
the Parliament of Canada do not have the authority, acting
pursuant to the bilateral amendment procedure foreseen by section
43 of the Constitution Act, 1982, to proceed to amend section 93
of the Constitution Act, 1867 by repealing subsections 93(1) to
(4) as they apply to Quebec.
The petitioners assert that they have persons directly concerned
by the repeal of section 93 and invoke their individual right to
and interest in the integrity of the process to amend section 93
of the Constitution Act, 1867.
A court decision could settle the legal issue. Without such a
decision, the committee should at least have received a full
legal brief on the issue so it could consider the matter in the
light of the best legal advice available.
The answer to the third question is crucial. The question of
minority rights has been at the soul of Canada for its entire
history and the rights of minorities to control their own
education have been established in province after province.
How well a country protects its citizens from the tyranny of the
majority is a measure of its democracy. I think we all can be
proud of how far we have progressed since the Manitoba schools
debate of 100 years ago.
When the dividing line is language, emotions tend to run high.
This is one reason why the protections in the constitution are so
clear about the education rights of linguistic minorities.
Of course, this brings to mind one concern. It is not clear
that the Government of Quebec believes section 23 to be in force
in that province, as that province has not ratified the
constitution.
This puts a much greater burden of proof on those who want to
fast track this amendment but, to add to this burden, it is not
just linguistic minority rights that are in question, it is
religious minority rights.
The Government of Quebec wants an amendment to Canada's
constitution so that Quebec can rearrange its school board system
from one based on religious denomination to one based on
language.
Although there does seem to be a consensus for linguistic school
boards, there is equally a strong voice contending that rights to
have religious schools would be violated with the abolition of
the denominational school provisions in section 93.
1700
Quebec wants to change the school board structure next year once
the existing guarantees for Protestant and Catholic boards in
Montreal and Quebec City are removed. Many people would agree
that boards organized along denominational lines may not make a
lot of sense. They only need to look a little farther west to
the province of Ontario to see a system where boards organized
along both linguistic and denominational lines seem to work.
Is it not strange how much more sense things make the farther
west we go?
The guarantees provided are far from perfect, but unless they
are replaced by some other form of constitutional protection
removing them would erode the education rights of the English
speaking minority. The move to linguistic boards should not be
used to weaken minority rights. Does the amendment risk leaving
Quebec's English minority with less protection than it has now? I
think it does and I am not alone.
To sum up, I asked three questions. I was hoping for three yes
answers but I received two noes and a maybe. It was hardly a
passing grade. Let me be more generous and propose an easier
question. What harm would be done if the amendment were not
passed by the House today? We all know the answer. None. The
children of Quebec would still receive an education. The
circumstances that have prevailed for 130 years would prevail a
few more and the sky would not fall.
About the worst thing that can be said about the clause in
section 93 is that it is anachronistic and inconvenient. It is
unfortunate the constitutional chess game and the government's
strategy of appeasement will continue.
Let me be clear. Returning the process of constitutional change
to its normal pace does not mean that change is not possible. Let
me make it clear that the Reform Party supports the appropriate
use of the amending formula if it is supported by an expression
of the will of the people. The constitutional process has to
come out of the back rooms and the realm of the power brokers and
deal makers. Surely we learned this from Meech and
Charlottetown. There is nothing stopping a reconsideration of
the amendment in a few months time under only slightly different
conditions.
Let me suggest the following to the Government of Quebec to
improve its chances next time around. It can consult its
citizens. It can hold a referendum with a clearly worded
question. It can state clearly in writing that minority
protections of section 23 are in place. May I suggest that the
easiest way of doing that would be to ratify the Constitution of
Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Madam Speaker,
I have, as you can imagine, listened carefully to the speech by the
hon. colleague from the Reform Party. I can see, without any ill
will, that our colleague is obviously very ignorant of the Quebec
reality. It would have been interesting if he had been able to
come in person for a visit to Quebec, because the understanding he
has could be compared to a Flintstone style of understanding, that
is to say a pretty basic one.
I have three pieces of information I want to give him. The
first is that the hon. colleague should know that the debate in
Quebec is a longstanding one, not a recent development but one that
goes back to the early 1960s.
In other words, when he was still quite young, the debate was
already going on in Quebec on the necessity to reorganize the
school system on a linguistic basis.
I also want to refer to the parliamentary aspect, and I hope
he will reply to me on this. In Quebec there was a parliamentary
committee similar to the one in which we MPs and senators have been
involved on the joint committee, and it was focussed on the very
subject of creating linguistic school boards.
If the hon. member wants to count heads, he can look at the
list I have already tabled at the parliamentary committee.
1705
All the groups that voiced their opinions on Bill 109 which, as you
know, only dealt with the establishment of linguistic school boards,
also came to Ottawa to be heard.
Therefore, my first comment is that the hon. member should be much
more careful when he is suggesting that no consultations took place.
Second, I realize the hon. member is a new member here, but it
takes some nerve to say he is worried about guarantees for the minority.
So, the hon. member, whose party is the only one in this House with no
members from Quebec—and this will not change in the foreseeable
future—is worried about how Quebec's English-speaking minority is
treated.
We should remind the hon. member that, in Quebec, it is possible
for anglophones to go to English schools from kindergarten to
university, to have access to education services in English, to have
control over their own mass media—newspapers, radio, television—and
to have access to health services in English. Myself and all Bloc
Quebecois members would not have it any other way. The hon. member
should be pleased to see how Quebec has so generously, and for so many
years, been treating its English-speaking minority.
And it will continue to do so. No Bloc Quebecois member thinks it should
be otherwise.
The fact is that no one is in favour of the status quo. I ask the
hon. member this: Why, as we are about to enter the new millennium,
should we specifically provide preferential treatment for Catholics and
Protestants? I agree that it is positive discrimination, but it is still
discriminatory.
To the extent that we are a law-abiding society—and the hon.
member alluded to this several times—we have two charters: the
Canadian charter and the Quebec charter. Both of them include the right
to freedom of religion. While in 1867 Quebec was a relatively monolithic
society as regards religion, it is no longer the case now.
There are 108 cultural communities in Montreal which profess
religions other than Catholicism or Protestantism.
By passing the resolution—and I hope it will be passed
despite the Reform Party's opposition—we will pave the way for
greater pluralism in the public forum that schools represent. I
therefore ask the member why this kind of discrimination he is
urging us to perpetuate should be maintained.
Second, I ask him if he will agree that the treatment of the
anglophone minority in Quebec is exemplary, that we are giving him
every guarantee that as far as we are concerned, as members of the
Bloc Quebecois, we wish this to continue.
I urge him to be extremely careful when he talks of the
petition, because that is not what the majority of Quebeckers want.
This is what the polls and consultations show and I would remind
the member that we have been discussing this issue since 1963. The
member would do well to improve his knowledge of Quebec, and I
would be pleased to serve as his guide, perhaps even his spiritual
guide, whenever he would like to meet with concerned groups. It
would be my great pleasure to show him the situation in Quebec,
because I regret to say that his understanding is based on
stereotypes.
[English]
Mr. Peter Goldring: Madam Speaker, I will answer a couple
of the hon. member's concerns. Flintstone, maybe, but I believe
one thing that has not been addressed quite properly is that the
request to amend the constitution is really an extinguishment of
sections 1 to 4.
Having been in the construction industry for years I always
believed that we should build on to our constitution, moulding
and improving it, not ripping it down.
That is the direction that should be taken.
1710
Certainly sections 1 to 4 need some improvement to better
represent today's society in Quebec and in other parts of Canada,
but I do not believe the way to do that is by extinguishing it
and removing it for all time. I believe we can make those
improvements to the constitution.
Let me speak to the consensus reached at the meetings. One
group represented two million people and there were eight more
groups represented in the two million people. They are also
individually represented in the group. Out of 60 groups
represented, eight of them were contained in the one group which
represented two million people. When I questioned one of the
groups which represented some 180,000 members on whether it had
polled its membership the answer was no. Clearly some of these
groups which were claiming to represent their members were
representing themselves. They had not polled their members.
I agree the question of reform in the education system has been
going on for 30 years, but there has not been a discussion about
removing section 93 to do it. There has been a discussion on
reforming the education system along linguistic lines. There has
not been a discussion of extinguishing sections 1 to 4 of the
constitution. That has been a very recent phenomenon. It is not
well understood by a large number of Quebeckers that the intent
of the motion is to remove these rights.
There is consensus for reforming the school system along
linguistic lines, but I do not believe there is consensus for the
method proposed, which is to extinguish the constitution to get
to that end.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Madam Speaker, my
question is for my colleague in the Reform Party.
They keep making comments and I simply cannot wait to rise and
make certain comments and ask questions.
First, I take discussion of a matter such as this seriously.
The Reform Party is suggesting that it is the separatists who want
this. I find this a bit offensive. Does this mean the bishops of
Quebec are separatists? Does this mean that priests or Pentecostal
pastors are separatists as well?
I think that there is consensus among religions, and it must
not be forgotten that this was a minority of minorities. The
Anglican religion, or those religions, were in agreement. So
perhaps it was their minority that was against.
I would just like to ask him this question: Is the Reform
Party not afraid of a referendum when it comes to minorities? What
would happen if there were a referendum in Quebec on the school
issue and 80% of people wanted a change, but a 20% minority did
not? Would they go along with the 20%?
[English]
Mr. Peter Goldring: Madam Speaker, in answer to the hon.
member's question I want to raise another group named as somewhat
supporting the motion, Alliance Quebec. When Alliance Quebec was
questioned about it, it was clearly against the extinguishment of
the constitutional provisions. It was in favour of reforming
schools along linguistic lines.
That is the consensus in Quebec. There is no doubt about it.
There is no question that in Quebec there is a strong consensus
to reform the educational system along linguistic school lines.
One group the committee heard from had a membership of 235,000
French Catholics who were against it. Some 50% of the number of
applicants on the application were against school reform by
extinguishing the constitution.
1715
Therefore, there is strong feeling that there is not full
consensus for proceeding in that manner. When I see the
signatures of 235,000 people I really have a feeling that
perhaps the people of Quebec should be asked this question
directly, not through their associations.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
this is a debate on a complex issue for those of us who have not
had the benefit of 30 years of debate in Quebec. I must admit
that for the first time since my election in 1993, I am at a
point in the debate, this close to a vote, and I really do not
know yet whether I am in the yea or nay position.
I would just like to clarify an impression that has been coming
from the last few speakers, that the Reform Party is opposed to
this. That is not actually correct. The decision has been made
by our caucus that we will be voting the way we determine to be
the best option. As a consequence, this has become one of the
most interesting debates in the House in the last four years.
I have paid a lot of attention to the speakers today and there
are a lot of reasons for my indecision. I would just like to go
through them. The first speaker today for Reform actually
presented a very good argument in favour of the change and made
it quite clear that he would be voting for this. Later in the
day there were some very good arguments against that from other
colleagues in the Reform Party.
However, for me there are several key issues here. The first one
is the issue of provincial responsibility. The text of section
93 begins: “In and for each province the legislature may
exclusively make laws in relation to education”. When I look at
Reform policy on this issue, it is very clear. Reform policy
states clearly that we believe that the provinces should have
more powers and we support very strongly the idea that education
should be a domain of the province.
To me that is a point that is very much in favour of supporting
this amendment because I have no business as a federal legislator
interfering in the business of the province. It is my feeling
that if there are problems at the provincial level which need
addressing, it is up to the people of the province to deal with
that with their own government, to have marches in the streets,
to have the protests, to take the court challenges. As my
colleague has mentioned, there is already a court challenge under
way. That is the responsibility of the people to challenge the
government closest to them. To me that is a very powerful
argument in favour.
Second is one against. Reform policy says that for changes that
affect the fabric of our society, things that are major changes,
we truly believe they should be subjected to the democratic
process of referendum. Members may know that I am the direct
democracy critic for the Reform Party and I therefore take a lot
of interest in these issues and study the direct democracy
questions. I am a firm believer in this. I would feel a lot
more comfortable if the situation had been, indeed, submitted to
a referendum.
However, I spoke with the member for Portneuf for a short time
and had an interesting discussion with him about this whole
situation. He mentioned something that I had not realized. It is
that section 93 really applies only to Montreal and Quebec City.
This answered a question that I had as to why I was not receiving
any letters from people in Quebec. If there was this tremendous
objection to what was going on, why was I not being bombarded
with letters such as I got from Newfoundland about the situation
there? I was really puzzled by this. It was clarified for me by
the member for Portneuf because he explained that the people
outside of Montreal and Quebec City are covered under the
provincial legislation and do very well, thank you. In fact, in
his riding which is predominantly Catholic, very close to 100%,
there is still a Protestant school there which is protected by
provincial legislation.
1720
Even my colleague from Edmonton East conceded that perhaps the
provincial legislation is a better model but his concern is that
is not entrenched in a constitutional form and therefore is
subject to possible change.
The member for Portneuf in my discussion with him says that
this has been around since 1867, so we have to have some faith
that it will be there. Again, that brings us back full circle
again to this argument about provincial involvement and whether
or not the people of the province should have to deal with that
issue with their own provincial government and that we should
not be interfering in that aspect of it.
As I mentioned, I appreciated the eloquent arguments from
members of my own side. The member for Calgary Southeast made
wonderfully eloquent arguments, but I have also appreciated the
eloquence from some members of the Bloc on this issue. I could
hear the frustration also in their voices as they were frustrated
to hear that some Reform members were speaking in opposition to
this.
I hope that what I am saying is helping to clarify why some are
against and some are for without getting too emotionally involved
in this.
As I mentioned, my colleague from Edmonton East revealed that
there is a court challenge already under way for what is
happening here and I am very supportive of that. As I said, the
people of the province should be involved in dealing with this if
they feel they have been wronged. At the moment the evidence to
me as a member of Parliament is that the majority do not feel
they have been wronged. I have the confidence that if it were to
go to a referendum it would pass handily based on the information
I have gathered this afternoon.
A member from the NDP made the point that this change is
affecting the minorities. I think that seems to be what is
happening here and the larger part of the minority if we can call
it that is actually quite happy with the changes that are being
proposed. It is kind of ironic in a way, though, that we find
ourselves in this position that the Reform Party is doing all the
arguments in favour of minorities when we have always been
labelled as this anti-minority party and we are the only ones who
are arguing that way in this debate, which is quite interesting.
Notwithstanding that fact I think that may be the wrong
approach. I have said over and over that at the provincial level
that should be resolved, not in this place.
My tendency is to lean toward voting for this amendment but I
will listen to the remaining debates before we actually get to
the vote.
The only other point that I did want to mention here is that in
the minister's speech in October on this issue he mentioned that
he felt there was good consensus. Actually I was a bit disturbed
by his words because it was not very firm. It was more that he
feels that there is probably consensus. I do not have his exact
words in front of me. That disturbed me a bit at the time. But
in light of other discussions that I have had today, as I
mentioned, I think it probably would pass in a referendum. I
look forward to having that clarified perhaps by subsequent
speakers who come from the Quebec area.
I guess that is all I have to say on the issue. I will listen
with interest to the rest of the debate and hopefully will have
made up my mind by tomorrow. I certainly never abstained from a
vote in this House and I hate to think that I would be put in
that position by the time the vote comes tomorrow afternoon.
[Translation]
Mr. Nick Discepola (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General
of Canada, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I was almost angered by what the hon.
member for Edmonton East had to say despite the fact that he has been on
the joint committee with us for two full weeks. I was surprised, because
I finally understood why the Reform Party is not comfortable with the
amendment. It still confuses minority language rights with the amendment
to clause 93 of the Constitution on which we will vote tomorrow and
which concerns only denominational rights.
Reformers seem to give much weight to a petition signed by 235,000
people.
I even asked in committee how many persons on that petition were from
Quebec. I could not get an answer. Nonetheless they exclude all
alternative measures.
1725
The fact that there has been a debate going on for 30 years in
Quebec does not strike them. The fact that Anglican and Catholic bishops
supported the resolution has no effect on them. Even the fact that there
was a unanimous vote at the National Assembly, where we find
democratically elected members, does not trouble them. Since they seem
so difficult to convince, I will try one last time to remind the Reform
Party members what we will be asked to vote on tomorrow.
They must know that clause 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867 does
not in any way protect school board structures as such. Clause 93 does
not protect language rights either. It protects access to denominational
schools. Minority language rights are not protected under clause 93.
They are protected by other sections in the Constitution, more
particularly section 23. Section 93 does not protect the right of
minorities to manage their schools and school boards, religion education
in schools, or even Protestant and Catholic schools. Is that clear
enough now?
The right to levy taxes through school boards on Montreal Island,
for example, or to have a say on the curriculum is not protected either.
Section 93 guarantees only two things: the right of dissent for the
Catholic or Protestant minority and certain rights for Protestant and
Catholic minorities, as the previous speaker clearly explained, not on
Montreal Island, but in the city of Montreal and in Quebec City.
Reform members are suggesting that, if a referendum had been held,
they may have been able to go along. But their support now depends on a
petition signed by 235,000 people.
I would like to ask the hon. member a question concerning the
holding of a referendum on this issue.
[English]
How would that help him as a member of Parliament to better
determine whether there is a consensus? What would he use?
Would it be like his leader during the 1995 referendum with 50%
plus 1? What factor is he going to use? The debate here is not
on trying to establish that 78% of the people are in favour. The
debate here is to ensure the majority of the minority affected is
well represented and has given its consent. I think that has
been demonstrated time and time again. How will the holding of a
referendum notwithstanding its costs help to ensure the member's
making his decision?
Mr. Ted White: Madam Speaker, I recognize the member
would have preferred to have addressed his question to my
colleague, and so I will make a suggestion in that regard in a
moment. First I will address the question of referendums.
Referendums cost money of course. There is a cost to democracy.
It is a matter of how much cost we are willing to accept in
order to have democracy.
On the specific issue of what percentage should be accepted in a
referendum, that is established before the question is put. For
me to give a broad brush answer that it should be 50% plus 1
would not be fair. It depends on the issue and the agreement
beforehand as to what would be an appropriate percentage. There
are different rules depending on what is perceived by society to
be the seriousness of the question.
As I recognize that the majority of the content of the hon.
member's question was really for my colleague, I would like to
ask the unanimous consent of the House to allow my colleague to
answer.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Does the member have
the unanimous consent of the House to proceed in such a way?
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Questions and
comments, the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst.
1730
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NPD): Madam Speaker, if my
colleague from the Reform Party changes his vote only because I rose in
this House, I will do so a lot more often.
What I have been trying to say is that we have a problem with a
referendum. Whatever the percentage in favour of a change, be it 51%,
52% or even 60% or 80%, will they side with the 80% majority who want
the change or with the 20% minority who are opposed? That is what I was
driving at.
We were talking about minorities a minute ago. When the
Constitution was adopted in 1867, Protestants were a minority.
I was on the committee that studied school reform to make
schools non-denominational. I did not receive any letters from
the bishops of Quebec saying that they were concerned about
changes to section 93.
I did not receive any letters from Protestant leaders either, even
though, being on the committee, I was close to the situation. This issue
did not arise only three weeks ago. It was debated in the National
Assembly in April 1997 by the PQ government and the Liberal opposition.
I think it was the best time for a party to score political points. But
even the Liberal opposition was in favour.
That is why I was saying earlier that people must be careful when
they say that it is the separatists who want this change. I think there
is a consensus among Quebeckers on this issue.
We are adding fuel to the fire if, every time Quebeckers make a request,
we are unwilling to listen and unable to work with them only because
they are separatists. We are suggesting to them that they do not need to
stay in Canada since they cannot be heard anyway.
I may have a problem with separatists, but it is my problem. Every
time Quebeckers ask something of us, I think it is wrong to pin the
separatist label on them, especially when we see that there is a
consensus among bishops, parents, school boards and all the people of
Quebec on this issue. There may not have been public hearings just
before the change, but there was a consensus in most groups.
So I think we must be careful with this. This is a warning. We must
also be careful with what we say in this House.
If we want to keep Quebec in Canada, we must treat it with respect.
[English]
Mr. Ted White: Mr. Speaker, I must apologize to the hon.
member because I did not realize I was still on questions and
answers. I was having a discussion about the petition with my
colleague. I caught the end of the comments and I will do my
best to respond.
I would like to say first of all, although he is mentioning that
it is being portrayed that the separatists want this, it is
certainly not what I have felt or portrayed.
It is very obvious that the opposition voted with the government
in Quebec City unanimously. It is obvious then that there is a
very high level of consent and it certainly gives a high comfort
level for the result there.
Certainly I would never say that it is something the separatists
want, however I would just like to make the point here that I am
sorry that members did not allow my colleague to answer the last
question because I believe the quality of the debate would have
been improved by allowing more of the interaction that was going
on.
If the hon. member wishes to speak to me afterward, that is
fine.
1735
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to bring forward some concerns I have about this
resolution. With this resolution Parliament has been asked to
amend the constitution in order to eliminate rights that have
been expressly guaranteed in the constitution.
Since this is a resolution that deals with denominational or
confessional rights, Parliament has an even greater role to play
because of the existing wording of the constitution. Parliament
has, according to sections 93(3) and 93(4), a guardian kind of
role to play in the protection of minority denominational rights.
Parliament is the guarantor of minority denominational rights
and the guarantor of denominational education rights. We have an
awesome responsibility when we are asked to extinguish those
rights. Yet we are being asked to expropriate without
compensation the rights enjoyed by certain Quebeckers. I am
concerned that we are not taking seriously our constitutionally
mandated role as a guarantor of denominational education rights.
Much of the debate surrounding this resolution has assumed that
Parliament can pass a resolution because it complies with the
requirements of the amending provisions of the constitution, in
particular section 43 of the Constitution Act, 1982. This is not
so.
We must first ask ourselves, as guarantor of denominational
education rights, if this resolution affects or diminishes a
right that we are obligated to protect. Furthermore, where a
legislature or Parliament seeks to amend the constitution to
eliminate expressly guaranteed minority rights, I would submit
that mere compliance with the formal requirements of the amending
formula is insufficient. Any such amendment must also satisfy a
constitutional convention that prevents the alteration of
expressly guaranteed constitutional minority rights without the
consent of the affected minority.
This House should recall the political and legal events which
preceded the passage of the Constitution Act of 1982. On October
2, 1980 the federal government proposed presenting to Her Majesty
the Queen in right of the United Kingdom a resolution to patriate
the Canadian constitution. Eight of the provinces opposed this
unilateral action by Parliament on the basis that the patriation
resolution would affect provincial powers.
Several provinces submitted references to their courts of appeal
on the question as to whether Parliament could seek the amendment
of the constitution without the consent of the provinces. The
Supreme Court of Canada ultimately considered the provincial
references and in 1981 released its decision. The court held
that although as a matter of law the agreement of the provinces
was not required for amendments to the Constitution of Canada,
the court decided there existed the constitutional convention
that Parliament would not seek to amend the constitution
affecting provincial powers without first obtaining the agreement
of the provinces.
As a result of this decision the federal government commenced a
series of constitutional consultations which culminated in the
agreement of nine of the provinces to what we now know as the
Constitution Act, 1982.
If a constitutional convention exists in the case of amendments
which affect provincial powers, it has been suggested to the
joint committee by the Catholic Civil Rights League that a
constitutional convention exists in the case of an amendment to
the constitution which would eliminate expressly guaranteed
minority rights.
First, the history of our constitution displays a commitment to
the preservation and expansion of denominational minority rights,
not their elimination.
Professor Peter Hogg, a renowned constitutional scholar, has
described section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1987 as a small
bill of rights for the protection of minority religious groups.
When the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was enacted in
1982, a special section, section 92, was included to ensure that
the charter did not derogate from constitutionally guaranteed
denominational schools rights.
Second, Canadian constitutional history has not witnessed an
amendment which eliminated constitutionally protected minority
rights. On the contrary, the enactment of the charter in 1982
was thought to herald an era of increased protection of minority
rights. The government has acknowledged the existence of this
constitutional convention.
In introducing this resolution, the government stressed that
Parliament must satisfy itself that a consensus exists among the
affected parties in Quebec in favour of repealing the protections
contained in sections 93(1) to (4) of the Constitution Act of
1867. In other words, those prejudicially affected by the
resolution must consent to its passage. It should be clear to
this House that the persons who will be prejudicially affected by
a repeal of the protections guaranteed in Quebec under section 93
are the parents who send their children to denominational
schools.
1740
For many months, associations of Quebec parents have voiced
their rigorous opposition to the resolution. The requirements of
the constitutional convention that the consent of the affected
minority be obtained has not been satisfied. It is not enough to
point to the support for the resolution from some unions, school
board organizations or clerical groups.
The rights guaranteed under section 93 are the rights of the
parents and the parents have not been consulted by the Quebec or
federal governments, nor has their consent been secured.
I want to remind Parliament of the constitutional history of
minority rights in Canada and to recommend that Parliament not
pass the resolution. To do so would run counter to our
constitutional convention that minority rights cannot be
restricted by amendment unless the proper governmental parties
obtain the agreement of the affected minority groups and would
run counter to our responsibility to protect denominational
school rights.
Minority rights enshrined in the Constitution should not be
subject to limitation or elimination by a majority, otherwise the
constitution affords no meaningful protection for minority
rights.
The preamble to our charter of rights and freedoms identifies
one of the two fundamental principles of our country as the rule
of law. Where a majority can abrogate constitutional rights
expressly granted to minority groups, the rule of law no longer
operates but has been replaced by the simple naked rule of the
will of the majority. For this fundamental reason this House
should not pass the resolution.
Furthermore, the Government of Quebec has not demonstrated any
legislative necessity for the proposed constitutional amendment.
Section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms stresses
that a legislature cannot violate charter guaranteed rights
unless it can demonstrate that the violation is reasonably
justifiable.
Surely where a legislature seeks a constitutional amendment to
eliminate minority rights, the legislature must clearly show that
it cannot achieve a pressing and substantial legislative
objective without eliminating minority rights. In this case, the
province of Quebec has not demonstrated that the repeal of
section 93 rights is necessary to achieve its objective of
restructuring its school boards without eliminating confessional
dissension guarantees.
This Parliament should not agree to repeal constitutionally
guaranteed minority rights where the highest court in the land
has shown how a provincial government can pursue its legislative
objective without requiring any constitutional amendment.
In addition to establishing dangerous precedents regarding the
erosion or elimination of rights expressly guaranteed in our
constitution, I think that passage of the resolution will have
serious, long term effects on the ability of parents to secure an
education for their children in accordance with their religious
beliefs.
Although the Quebec government has given assurances that it will
maintain some confessional schools in the province, prior court
decisions under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
clearly show that such confessional schools will collapse under
the first charter challenge brought against them.
Decisions under the charter have made it clear that neither
religious observances nor religious education are permitted in
publicly funded schools unless those schools are protected by
section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867.
The Supreme Court of Canada has recognized the right of parents
to educate their children according to their beliefs as an
integral element of the guarantee of freedom of religion
contained in section 2(a) of the charter.
In the Richard B. case, Mr. Justice LaForest, speaking for the
majority, stated:
It seems to me that the right of parents to rear their children
according to their religious beliefs is an equally fundamental
aspect of freedom of religion.
The court went on to hold:
That constitutional freedom includes the right to educate and
rear their child in the tenets of their faith.
In effect, until the child reaches an age where she can make an
independent decision regarding her own religious beliefs, her
parents may decide on her religion for her and raise her in
accordance with that religion.
International conventions have enshrined education as a basic
human right.
1745
The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms, one of the sources of our charter of
rights and freedoms, states:
No person shall be denied the right of education.
In the exercise of any function which it assumes in relation to
education and to teaching the State shall respect the right of
parents to ensure that such education and teaching in conformity
with their own religious and philosophical convictions.
Many parents seek to educate their children in accordance with
their religion by sending their children to private or
independent schools.
In the 1986 Jones case decision the Supreme Court of Canada
strongly suggested that if a province's education legislation did
not permit parents to send their children to religious private
schools, then the legislation would infringe on the parents'
freedom of religion.
However, if a province can secure a constitutional amendment
which eliminates expressly guaranteed denominational education
rights, what obligation would a province have to parents of
different faiths to allow them to educate their children in
private religious schools?
The answer to this question is clear. I therefore have grave
concerns that the passage of this resolution would create a
climate in which provinces can act more readily to restrict the
ability of parents to raise and educate their children in
accordance with their religious beliefs.
This resolution marks the first time in Canadian history that
Parliament has been asked to amend the constitution in order to
eliminate rights which have been expressly guaranteed in the
constitution. Because of that it is very important that
Parliament formulate a very clear test which it will apply to
determine whether it should accept the resolution before it.
Since this is a resolution that deals with denominational
rights, Parliament has an even greater role to play because of
the existing wording of the constitution. Sections 93(3) and
93(4) indicate that Parliament has a guardian role to play in the
protection of minority denominational rights. Parliament is the
guarantor of minority denominational rights. As guarantor it has
an awesome responsibility when asked to extinguish those rights.
It is very important that the consent or the consensus be from
those whose rights are affected. The people whose rights are
affected when dealing with section 93(1) in Quebec are the
parents who are part of that class of protected persons who have
the opportunity under the current constitution to gain
confessional education for their children. That is the group to
which I submit this House should look in determining whether a
consensus exists. The parents are the holders of the right.
I would recommend to the House that any proposed constitutional
amendment should impair the guaranteed constitutional rights only
to the minimum extent required to achieve the legislative
objective. There is no novelty in this test. The Supreme Court
of Canada has formulated the minimal impairment test to use
whenever it analyses whether legislation infringes on rights
guaranteed under the charter. This House should insist on a
similar demonstration of minimal impairment where a resolution to
amend the constitution will infringe on rights guaranteed by the
constitution.
The second point is what will the impact of the passage of this
resolution be on denominational or confessional schools in
Quebec. Some have suggested that confessional schools legally
can exist without the need for protection under section 93(1).
With all due respect to those who advance that idea, it is my
submission that this suggestion is without legal foundation for
three reasons.
First, the Supreme Court of Canada in the Ontario Bill 30 case
back in 1988 clearly indicated that denominational or
confessional rights are grounded solely in section 93(1) of the
constitution. There is no other place in the constitution that
protects them.
Second, if denominational schools lack constitutional protection
and are then exposed to scrutiny under the charter they will be
struck down. They will fall within the next day. I can say that
with some assurance because of the evidence presented before the
joint committee. In an Ontario case, the Elgin County case,
which is a leading case in the area, a religious education
program was struck down as being in violation of the religious
provisions of the charter. The same thing will happen if Quebec
denominational schools are exposed to charter scrutiny without
the protection of section 93(1).
Whenever a province submits a request for a constitutional
resolution or a constitutional amendment, it is a very serious
proposition and requires due consideration but it does not
require Parliament to immediately accept or reject the
resolution.
The hearings of the special joint committee have established
that there are deep reservations among a number of groups in
Quebec as to the loss of their rights and as to the status of
their rights for confessional schools in the event section 93(1)
is repealed.
I would propose that the House not act on the resolution at the
present time in light of those concerns.
1750
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I commend the hon. member for his very thoughtful remarks.
Although he was not a member of the committee it seems he has
paid very close attention to the evidence presented to it.
Could the hon. member comment on the argument that predicates
this application to extinguish subsections 1 through 4 of section
93. That argument is that in order to establish linguistic school
boards in Quebec, in order to modernize the Quebec school system
so that it more clearly reflects the pluralistic nature of Quebec
society, it is necessary to repeal the application of section 93
to Quebec. The hon. member addressed this in his speech.
On further reflection I will quote from the judgment rendered by
the Supreme Court of Canada in 1993 on the reference regarding
the Quebec education act to further elucidate the point he made.
In that judgment the learned justices said that what section 93
guarantees is the right to dissent per se, not the right to
certain legal institutions through which it may be exercised,
i.e. school boards.
They furthermore say that there is thus no objection to the
principle of redistributing the patrimony of the existing school
boards for Protestants and Catholics among the linguistic
boards provided the new institutions and their establishment
maintain the right to dissent and to denominational schools.
Finally they go on to say at page 39 of their judgment that the
framers of the constitution were wise enough not to determine
finally the form of institutions as it is those very institutions
which must be capable of change in order to adapt to the varying
social and economic conditions of society.
In other words, our highest court said that we do not have to
maintain denominational school boards in order to establish
linguistic school boards. We do not have to eliminate section 93
to establish linguistic school boards. We do not have to abolish
these confessional rights in order to do what the Quebec
government chooses to do.
Could the hon. member comment on this decision which was
rendered at the request of the Quebec government. Does it
support his contention that it can make the administrative
changes it hopes to without extinguishing the confessional rights
guaranteed in the constitution?
Mr. John Cummins: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that
the Quebec government has the ability to legislate whatever
changes it wants in the administration of the schools to allow
for linguistic guarantees and so on. Section 93 of the
Constitution Act would not impair that ability whatsoever. In my
view the key issue is who is going to be responsible for
educating our children.
This whole debate reminds me so much of the debate on the
Newfoundland schools act. The question there was again who is
going to define the kinds of schools that I send my children to.
It comes back down to my way of thinking as an attempt by the
provincial governments in both cases to gain ultimate control
over their school systems so they can define clearly what is
taught and how it will be taught.
It is clear that those school boards have difficulty accepting
the notion that some parents may want to educate their children
based on certain religious principles. I think that is wrong.
Education of children ultimately lies with the parents. It
should be their choice on the types of schools their children
attend. We should be broadening the notion of access to
different types of schools rather than restricting it.
We are much more of a multicultural nation than we were have
been in years gone by. Our school systems should reflect that.
Our school systems should teach the fact that Canada is a great
place to live, that we are a tolerant nation and that we can be
that by still subscribing to the basic religious beliefs we have.
Those religious beliefs should not be undermined at all by the
school systems to which we send our children.
1755
Clearly to me the issue is who is going to control the education
for our children and what guarantees are there that I am going to
have or that the people of Quebec in this instance are going to
have to educate their children in the religious schools that they
have been guaranteed since Confederation in 1867.
[Translation]
Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
outraged and embarrassed to hear people so closed to what is truly
going on in Quebec.
We are talking about consensus; not unanimity, but consensus.
All political parties have supported it through a unanimous
resolution in the National Assembly, the bishops have approved it,
and now the member wants to tell us how to run the school system in
Quebec and elsewhere.
This is 1997. There is a situation that must be corrected, an
error that must be put right to end a debate that has gone on for
30 years.
These dinosaurs across the floor are no help to me in Quebec in
selling the system I want to live in. This is why I am happy to
say in the House that this amendment will be passed because it is
important that it be passed. It will be passed because we are
going to show, despite what the Reform members are saying—and that
is why they will always be in the opposition—that this is a
flexible system. There is accommodation, and a Constitution is a
fundamental law of a country that must represent all its citizens.
When we see what is now happening with the Reform Party, we
may again ask ourselves what planet they are living on. I ask the
member and all Reform Party members to listen to what Quebec has
said and to take a stand once and for all in order to resolve this
problem and to help a people improve its situation.
[English]
Mr. John Cummins: Mr. Speaker, we had unanimous consent
from the political elites in this country on the Charlottetown
accord and we all know what happened when that went to the vote
of the people. It was rejected.
I suggest to my friend across the way that we have a similar
situation. If there was that kind of support that he talks about
in the province of Quebec for this change, why is it that consent
from the people was not sought by the legislature in Quebec? Why
is it that the legislature in Quebec cannot demonstrate quite
clearly that there is broad based support for this issue?
At the same time as it does that, why can the legislature of
Quebec not guarantee that the minority which will be affected by
the elimination of this right is in agreement with this
principle? If we do not protect the rights of the minority, if
we cannot demonstrate that we have a clear consensus from the
minority in favour of this legislation, then we should not move
ahead. If we do move ahead, what guarantee is there for any of
us in our constitution? There is simply none. The constitution
is not worth the paper it is written on if it will not protect
the rights of the minority.
We should not be flippantly changing the constitution just to
meet the whim of the day. The constitution certainly is a
living, breathing document but it must guarantee rights for all
times and not just when it meets with our pleasure.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
will be a very short one. I would like, however, to remind my hon.
colleague from the Reform Party that what is going on here is not
a debate on the place of religion in the schools. I can understand
the concerns of those who want religious teaching to continue in
the schools.
But in Bill 109 on public education, Minister Marois set out
guarantees which protect the wishes of parents. My hon. colleague
from the Reform Party seems to be concerned about parental desire
to keep religious schools. These rights are guaranteed by the bill
on public education and by section 41 of the Charter.
It is a matter of administration.
1800
I would like to provide a few clarifications, in order to
disabuse those listening to us who may think we are discussing the
place of religion. Denominational school boards are no longer
adapted to the reality of what is going on in Quebec.
[English]
Mr. John Cummins: Mr. Speaker, in my remarks I indicated
quite clearly and I acknowledge the fact that the Quebec
government has given assurances that it will maintain
confessional schools in the provinces.
As I said, prior to court decisions, challenges under the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms have clearly shown that
such confessional schools will collapse under the first charter
challenge if this act passes this House.
[Translation]
Mr. Denis Coderre: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I would
ask for the unanimous consent of the House for you to call it 6.30
p.m. and adjourn the debate.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: I think the hon. member is premature.
The Chair has no alternative. The debate is concluded if no
member is rising to speak. I will put the question but I must
deal with this. No dilatory motion is permitted until the matter
has been disposed of in the House.
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to the order made Thursday,
November 6, 1997, the motion is deemed to have been put and a
recorded division deemed demanded and deferred until Tuesday,
November 18, 1997 at the expiry of the time provided for government
orders.
(Division deemed demanded and deferred)
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent, as suggested
by the hon. member for Bourassa, to call it 6.30 p.m.?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: Accordingly, it being 6.30 p.m., the
House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to
Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.02 p.m.)