CONTENTS
Friday, May 31, 1996
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 3251
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 3253
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 3253
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 3257
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 3257
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 3261
Bill C-291. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed
adopted 3263
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 3263
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 3263
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 3264
Consideration resumed of motion 3264
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 3266
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 3275
Bill C-224. Motion for second reading 3275
3243
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, May 31, 1996
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.) moved:
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
1. Term 17 of the Terms of Union of Newfoundland with Canada set out in the
Schedule to the Newfoundland Act is repealed and the following substituted
therefor:
``17. In lieu of section ninety-three of the Constitution Act 1867, the
following shall apply in respect of the Province of Newfoundland:
In and for the Province of Newfoundland, the Legislature shall have
exclusive authority to make laws in relation to education but
(a) except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c), schools established,
maintained and operated with public funds shall be denominational schools,
and any class of persons having rights under this Term as it read on January 1,
1995 shall continue to have the right to provide for religious education,
activities and observances for the children of that class in those schools, and the
group of classes that formed one integrated school system by agreement in
1969 may exercise the same rights under this Term as a single class of persons;
(b) subject to provincial legislation that is uniformly applicable to all schools
specifying conditions for the establishment or continued operation of schools,
(i) any class of persons referred to in paragraph (a) shall have the right to have
a publicly funded denominational school established, maintained and
operated especially for that class, and
(ii) the Legislature may approve the establishment, maintenance and
operation of a publicly funded school, whether denominational or
non-denominational;
(c) where a school is established, maintained and operated pursuant to
subparagraph (b)(i), the class of persons referred to in that subparagraph
shall continue to have the right to provide for religious education, activities
and observances and to direct the teaching of aspects of curriculum affecting
religious beliefs, student admission policy and the assignment and dismissal
of teachers in that school;
(d) all schools referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) shall receive their share of
public funds in accordance with scales determined on a non-discriminatory
basis from time to time by the Legislature; and
(e) if the classes of persons having rights under this Term so desire, they shall
have the right to elect in total not less than two thirds of the members of a
school board, and any class so desiring shall have the right to elect the portion
of that total that is proportionate to the population of that class in the area
under the board's jurisdiction.''
(1005 )
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think you will find unanimous consent for the following
motion. I move:
That, notwithstanding any standing or special order, if at 9.30 p.m. on
Monday, June 3, Government Order, Government Business No. 5 has not been
disposed of:
1. The House shall continue to sit until the said business is disposed of;
2. During the continued sitting, no member shall speak for more than 10
minutes; in other words, no questions or comments;
3. Any divisions standing deferred to the said date shall be postponed until
the said business is disposed of;
4. The House shall adjourn immediately after the completion of any such
deferred division.
For the benefit of our colleagues, it is because there is already a
vote which was previously deferred and we would want to delay
that vote as well until the conclusion of our business.
(Motion agreed to.)
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43(2), I
wish to indicate that all Liberal members of Parliament during the
3244
debate on Government Order, Government Business No. 5, except
for the lead off speaker, will be limited to 10 minute speeches.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the resolution invites the House of
Commons to agree to an amendment to the Constitution of Canada
which would give effect to certain changes in the manner in which
denominational schools are administered and governed in the
province of Newfoundland.
The resolution is before the House pursuant to section 43 of the
Constitution Act, 1982. Perhaps it is best to start with an
examination of that section in order to better understand the nature
of our role and function on this occasion.
(1010 )
[Translation]
As noted in the preamble to the Resolution, section 43 of the
Constitution Act, 1982 provides for an amendment to the
Constitution of Canada in relation to any provision that applies to
one or more, but not all, provinces.
This amendment may be made by proclamation issued by the
Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada where so
authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons
and of the legislative assembly of each province to which the
amendment applies. Therefore, it is up to us to consider the
proposed amendment and to decide whether to approve it.
[English]
This change relates only to the educational system in
Newfoundland, which reflects a feature of our federation. Our
Constitution starting in 1867 made clear that education is to be
within the legislative authority of the provinces. Because by the
time each of the provinces in its turn joined the federation and there
were arrangements governing religious involvement in education,
the Constitution protected and perpetuated those arrangements by
its terms.
In the case of the four original provinces section 93 of the
Constitution Act, 1867 governed. In the case of those that joined
Confederation after 1867, the terms of their union spoke to the
question. In the instance of Newfoundland, which joined the
federation in 1949, it was term 17 of the terms of union which dealt
with denominational or religious education rights in the province
of Newfoundland.
In 1949 term 17 sealed into the Constitution, in the form in
which it then stood, the arrangement between the religious
denominations and the Government of Newfoundland and
Labrador in relation to denominational education.
And so we are asked by Newfoundland alone to make changes in
relation only to the denominational school system in
Newfoundland. We are asked to do so under section 43 of the
Constitution Act, 1982, which by its terms provides for a
Constitutional amendment where that amendment affects only one
province or more than one but not all, in this case just one, and
which provides that such an amendment can be made bilaterally,
between the province affected and Ottawa, the national
government, through resolutions passed respectively by the
provincial legislature and by Parliament, both the Senate and the
House of Commons. That is why we are dealing with this issue
under this section in relation only to that province.
I will touch on the role of the House of Commons when invited
to participate in such a bilateral amendment arrangement. No such
amendment can be achieved without the concurrence of the House
of Commons. In that sense we have a veto. We are an essential
participant in the process of amendment.
There have been at least three other occasions in the recent past
when the House of Commons participated in such a bilateral
change. The occasion that might spring most immediately to the
minds of members involved the fixed link with Prince Edward
Island, which required a change in the terms of its union with the
federation.
The role of the House of Commons when asked to participate in
a bilateral constitutional amendment under section 43 is not simply
to act as a rubber stamp or to reflexively agree to what is proposed.
In my respectful view both the House and the Senate are required to
form an independent judgment on the question of whether they
should by resolution agree to such a change.
It is also true that in forming that judgment the federal
Parliament should demonstrate a decent respect for the resolution
passed by the provincial legislature. We ought to give great weight
to the action taken by the province in question but we must not
automatically pass a resolution at its request. We must form our
own judgment and be satisfied that it is in the public interest to do
so.
(1015 )
On the facts of this case, this government looked at the proposal,
examined it on its merits and came to the conclusion that
Parliament should act by resolution to effect the proposed
constitutional change. I will touch briefly on some of the factors we
took into account in arriving at our conclusion that this resolution
should be adopted.
We looked at the present term 17 and the manner in which it
provides for the organization and administration of denominational
schools in Newfoundland. We had regard for the fact that that
arrangement is antiquated and reflects an age long past.
We considered the factual arguments put forward by the
government of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador with
respect
3245
to the cost and the quality of education under the terms and
conditions reflected in the 1949 constitutional arrangement. Quite
apart from cost and the modernity of the school system, we also
looked at other issues.
We considered the question of whether the proposed change
would adversely affect or would extinguish minority rights in the
province of Newfoundland and Labrador. On that question we
considered as well that there is in fact no majority denomination in
that province. Unlike others, there is no single denomination which
dominates numerically. Rather, it is plain that 95 per cent of the
population of Newfoundland and Labrador is made up of those who
adhere to one or another of the seven denominations whose
involvement in the school system is constitutionally protected both
before and after the proposed amendment.
We also gave weight to the fact that each of the seven
denominations is affected equally by the proposed change. We
concluded on a fair reading of the amendment and on a balanced
assessment of its effect that what is an issue here is really a change
in the manner in which denominational rights are exercised, the
manner in which denominational schools are administered. After
the change, the circumstances prevailing in Newfoundland and
Labrador will be roughly comparable to those in other Canadian
provinces in terms of denominational education.
We were much affected by the fact that even after the
amendment there will still be denominational schools in
Newfoundland and Labrador. They will still be constitutionally
entrenched as an entitlement of the affected denominations.
The government of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador
has also tabled draft legislation by which it would be provided that
unidenominational schools may be created where numbers warrant
and where the parents choose that for their children.
In light of all of that, we concluded that this is not an instance in
which minority rights are being adversely affected by majority
rule. The majority is composed of a composite of the separate
denominations and there is no majority in that sense.
We also had regard to the process in the province, that is to say,
the manner by which this resolution emanated from the assembly in
Newfoundland and Labrador. We considered the history of the
matter.
We learned that the nature and extent of the involvement of the
churches in making administrative and economic decisions in the
education system of Newfoundland has been a matter of
controversy for generations. We learned that it was the subject of a
royal commission which made recommendations that are reflected
in the proposed amendment as recently as 1992.
(1020 )
We learned that there have been extensive negotiations and
discussions between the government of that province and the
leaders of the denominations involved.
We learned that there was a referendum in September of last year
by which the province was asked its view on the question of
whether this reform should take place. By majority vote, that
proposition was approved.
We learned also that as recently as last week that same
legislature which last fall had adopted a resolution calling for the
amendment by majority vote unanimously adopted a second
resolution calling upon this Parliament to act urgently to give effect
to the constitutional change.
The premier of Newfoundland and Labrador was in Ottawa this
week to remind us among other things that by modernizing the
school system as proposed in this amendment, the province expects
to save at least $27 million. This is money he says can be better
spent to serve the people and the children of Newfoundland in an
improved educational system.
In all of those circumstances, sensitive always to the question of
the protection of minority rights and carefully considering the
background from which this resolution arises and the process
followed in achieving it, the conclusion to which we came is that it
merits the support of this Parliament.
Quite apart from the particular circumstances in Newfoundland
and Labrador, there are some who worry that if we act in this
instance we might be establishing a precedent of interference by
the national government in collaboration with the provincial
government of the day to affect denominational involvement in
education in a province, that a precedent would be set that would
imperil religious education elsewhere. May I say two things about
that.
In many respects the Newfoundland and Labrador situation is
unique. Precedents require like facts or like principles. I dare say it
would be very difficult to find a future circumstance in a different
province where the same principles and circumstances would
prevail.
The history of religious involvement in education in
Newfoundland and Labrador dates from 1723, the first recorded
instance of churches organizing schools for children. The practice
grew up after the 18th century of schools being exclusively run by
churches for the children of their adherents.
In 1874 this practice first found expression in the law. It
developed over time to the point where in 1949, the then six
denominations had exclusive control over their own schools. That
practice was entrenched in the terms of union of that date. There is
no other province in Canada in which there are only denomination-
3246
al schools and no public school system. To that extent, with that
history and background, Newfoundland and Labrador is a province
that is unique.
Quite apart from the lawyerly argument that the circumstances
and principles in this instance stand apart, there are still those who
worry that we are establishing a precedent that would imperil
religious education elsewhere. To that I say that concerns about the
power of such a precedent ignore the right and the responsibility of
Parliament to exercise an independent judgment in each instance to
determine each request for an amendment on its own merits and to
decide in any future case whether a proposed change to another
province's system is in the interests of the public and of the
children.
Should another province come forward next month or next year
with a proposed change to its terms of union or to section 93 to deal
with the involvement of religious education in schools, it will be up
to us to make our own assessment on the facts of that case, on the
question whether minority rights are respected, educational quality
is preserved and denominational involvement will continue.
(1025 )
On the facts of this case I have explained our reasoning in
concluding that we should proceed. In the facts of a future case it
will be open to us to conduct the same analysis and to arrive at our
conclusion. Parliament must not think that by acting in this
instance we are creating a rigid rule which will bind us in all future
cases to do the same. We shall make up our minds on the facts of
those cases if and when they arise.
I say to those who are concerned about the power of precedent
from that perspective that they need not be. We shall be here, we
shall be vigilant and we shall examine critically any future
proposal on its merits. Should Ontario for example come forward
with a proposal to change the arrangements entrenched in section
93 of the Constitution Act of 1867, we shall examine such a
proposal. If it does not meet the standards which we think are
appropriate, we can decline to give our support.
There are also those who worry more broadly about minority
rights. They contend that if this change can be made by a bilateral
arrangement between one province and the national Parliament that
minority rights in a broader sense might be imperilled and might be
subject to a similar change.
There are those who are concerned about minority language
rights in education in Ontario, in Manitoba and in other provinces.
Concern has been expressed about aboriginal rights. It has been
said that if we are prepared to act bilaterally to change the way
school rights are exercised or administered for separate
denominations, what is to protect the minority language rights in
Manitoba or Ontario if the governments of those provinces come to
Ottawa to ask our collaboration in a change?
As I have just said, in any such instance the Parliament of
Canada would make up its own mind independently. More directly
and more importantly, minority language education rights cannot
be changed bilaterally. They are governed by section 23 of the
Constitution Act, 1982. Any such change would require the broader
amending formula to be applied. At least seven provinces with at
least 50 per cent of the population would have to concur in such a
change. It could not be carried out bilaterally. The instance we have
before us is profoundly different from what would arise with a
proposal to change minority language education rights entrenched
and protected by section 23 of the charter.
Similarly, by sections 25 and 35 aboriginal rights are respected.
Those rights cannot be changed. The terms of those articles in our
Constitution cannot be amended without the operation of the
general amending formula requiring at least seven provinces with
at least 50 per cent of Canada's population. There need be no
concern arising from this resolution in relation to minority
language rights.
[Translation]
Finally, it does not affect official language educational minority
rights in any way. These are constitutionally protected by section
23 of the charter and nothing in this amendment will diminish that
protection.
[English]
I conclude by commending this resolution to the House. The
Prime Minister has seen fit to direct that the vote be free. I invite
members of this Chamber as they make up their minds on the
question to look at the substance of the case and to meet the
concerns which I have dealt with on their merits as well.
This is a case in which a member of the federation has properly
and validly invoked section 43. A legislature has not only adopted a
resolution as required, but more recently has unanimously called
for urgent action on our part. It is an instance in which minority
rights are not extinguished, they are not eliminated and they are not
defeated. It is a case in which seven specific denominations will
continue to be proprietors of a school system, those denominations
with entrenched rights and representing 95 per cent of the
population.
(1030)
It is a case in which Parliament, by acting, will not be binding
itself to automatic agreement with all future possible requests for
change in the same field under section 43. It is a case in which the
action under section 43 cannot and will not imperil minority
language or aboriginal rights because they cannot be changed
bilaterally. Last, this is in instance in which we can illustrate that
3247
the Constitution of Canada is a living, flexible and responsive
instrument which can meet and serve the needs of all provinces and
all Canadians.
With that I ask the House to support this resolution to modernize
the school system for the children of Newfoundland and Labrador.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to speak to the
motion the justice minister has just tabled. This motion reflects
faithfully the amendments requested by Newfoundland regarding
its education system as set out under Term 17 of the Terms of the
Union of Newfoundland with Canada.
I think the minister spoke very eloquently of the concerns
surrounding the consequences of the amendments, especially the
sense of security this amendment may provide with regard to the
situation in this province as it stands for minorities among others.
As members of the Bloc Quebecois, a sovereignist party and the
official opposition in this House, we will naturally consider this
amendment to the Canadian Constitution in a broader context.
Indeed, to understand what this amendment is all about, one has to
look at the history of how Newfoundland joined the Confederation,
under what terms it joined, and how it is now asking for these
amendments, which are raising a lot of concerns and questions on
the part of the people of Newfoundland.
Everybody in Canada knows that Confederation has been in
existence since 1867. Through the years, provinces and territories
have joined Canada. In 1949, Newfoundland entered
Confederation. How and under what terms?
How? Through a referendum. Quebecers did not invent
referendums, they have been part of the Canadian Confederation
for many years. Therefore, on March 15, 1948, the government in
the United Kingdom passed an act paving the way for the
referendum process. It asked three questions and provided for a
second referendum should none of the proposals made by the
government receive the support of the majority during the first
referendum. Of course, since there were three proposals, the one
with the least support from the public would be dropped.
Therefore, in 1948, there was a referendum on an extremely
important issue: Would Newfoundland adopt a new constitutional
status? Would Newfoundland enter the Canadian Confederation?
It should be noted that neither Ottawa nor the other provinces
which were already part of the Canadian Confederation intervened
to choose a date, draft the question or dictate the rules. Moreover,
the federal government even had reservations regarding the
wording of the question. Even then, the federal government argued
about the percentage required to come into the Canadian
Confederation. Things never change, do they? We have the same
concerns today about a province that wants to leave Confederation.
Let us look at history, let us see what it tells us. In Britain, since
Newfoundland was part of the United Kingdom in those days, they
immediately recognized that 50 per cent plus one would be enough
for Newfoundland to become part of the Confederation. We will
see that Ottawa upheld that decision, and quite properly so.
(1035)
So Newfoundland held its first referendum on June 3, 1948. It is
important to know about the three proposals to evaluate the impact
of the amendment before us in an historical context. Let me briefly
review with you those elements of history.
The wording and the order of the questions in the referendum act
were as follows. First, it proposed to the Newfoundland population
a commission of government which was to govern for a five-year
period; second, a confederation with Canada; and third, a
responsible government, as it existed in 1933.
Obviously, there were pros and cons for all three. Some
criticized the text saying it was biased in favour of the commission.
The federal government did not agree with the wording of the
proposals and was very reluctant. Ottawa condemned the fact that
nothing was said about Great Britain no longer being able to
financially support Newfoundland. The Canadian High
Commission said the terms of the question were ambiguous and
equivocal. I feel I have heard that same comment recently, but that
was in 1948. The high commissioner even wrote: ``The
Confederation entered the battle with a great handicap and even if
it were to win with a majority, it would probably be necessary to
review the bases of the union''.
All this goes to say that, according to Ottawa, the question
submitted to the constituents on June 3, 1948 was unclear and
ambiguous and nobody knew the ins and outs of the plan. There
were reservations regarding the process.
However, there were good reactions. On the whole, the media
said that, yes, Newfoundland should join Canada under certain
conditions. The Church played a very important role and that is
why, today, we should look correctly at the amendments. It must
also be pointed out that there were very strong sentiments against
joining the Canadian Confederation.
In any case the campaign in Newfoundland, in June 1948, was
democratic. Each side had a chance to express its point of view. It
is not clear whether Ottawa got directly involved or not in the
referendum debate in 1948, and it is not clear either whether
Ottawa actually invested money in that debate. One thing is certain,
agreements, with the Americans in particular, favoured the
3248
federalist option, and in the end Newfoundlanders decided to join
the Canadian Confederation.
What were the results of the first referendum? For responsible
government, 44.55 per cent; for Confederation, 41.13 per cent; for
commission government, 14.32 per cent. As you can see none of
the three options had the absolute majority recommended by the
United Kingdom, that is 50 per cent plus 1.
Therefore, a second referendum was held within 30 days. It was
held on July 22, 1948. It was identical to the first one, that is to say
that each party exposed its program and tried to convince voters,
presented the pros and the cons, the reasons why Newfoundland
should join Confederation or why it should choose a responsible
government, etc. The result of this new referendum was: for
Confederation, 52.34 per cent and for responsible government,
47.66 per cent.
What we should note today, and what might explain the fears or
some points raised by various denominations concerning religion,
with regard to the amendment to Term 17, is that 67.18 per cent of
the people in the Avalon peninsula voted in favour of responsible
government. At the time people in the Avalon peninsula, which is
now part of Newfoundland, voted massively in favour of
responsible government and not for joining the Canadian
Confederation.
(1040)
If we look at Quebec today, it is roughly the island of Montreal
voting no in a referendum and the rest of Quebec voting yes to
Quebec's sovereignty. But, at the time, the Avalon peninsula voted
by a margin of 67.18 per cent in favour of a responsible
government. It did not want to join Canadian Confederation.
The vote, when analyzed, seemed to follow denominational
lines. That is why it is important to analyze what we have before us
today. Note that the Avalon peninsula was for the most part roman
catholic. In fact, the archbishop had taken position against
Canadian federation.
The results were interpreted different ways, of course. The
people of Newfoundland decided to join Confederation by a margin
of 52.34 per cent, and this was interpreted all sorts of ways. Some
were even concerned about disturbances in Newfoundland because
of the narrow majority margin. Yet, that was not the case.
Government members, democratically elected people had voted
against the project to join Canadian Confederation, but they went
along with the wishes of the 52.34 per cent majority and worked to
build Newfoundland within the Canadian Confederation. What I
am saying is, if a 52.34 per cent margin is enough to join Canadian
Confederation, I should imagine a 52.34 per cent margin-a
minimum in any case-would be enough to leave it. At least in my
view.
Furthermore, the Avalon peninsula rejected Canadian
Confederation by a margin of 67.18 per cent, and I want to
emphasize that. Was there any mention of partition? Did anyone
say the results were too low to have Newfoundland join
Confederation? Was anything said about a two-tier democracy,
public disturbances, instability, or even about two kinds of
referendums in Canada, about different values in referendums? No,
nothing was said about that.
I have not checked, but I imagine that, at the time, in 1948,
Canada, and Ottawa in particular, had a very responsible Minister
of Intergovernmental Affairs, because he did not challenge these
results. No, the minister and the government acted responsibly
because democracy had spoken. By a margin of 52.34 per cent, the
majority had made its position known.
What did this result lead to? To negotiations between the
Government of Newfoundland and the Government of Canada on
the terms of their union. Negotiations were held between October
and December 1948 to finalize the terms of the union, which,
among other things, resulted in Term 17 before us today through a
government motion, a motion that faithfully reflects the
Newfoundland government's position on amending, among other
things, the school education system in that province.
Everyone knows that Newfoundland joined the Canadian
Confederation on March 31, 1949. But when Newfoundland joined
Confederation in 1949, the clause on education in the terms of the
union, which is part of the Canadian Constitution, specified that the
Newfoundland legislature would not have the authority to pass
legislation infringing on the rights or privileges of denominational
schools as they were in 1949.
There have been many changes since 1949. In order to save
money, to modernize the school system, or for other reasons, the
people of Newfoundland decided in a referendum to give the
government a mandate to amend Term 17 in the Canadian
Constitution.
(1045)
History is once again repeating itself. On September 5, 1995, a
referendum was held in Newfoundland. In studying this matter, I
became aware of the similarities between Newfoundland and
Quebec, which hold periodic referendums to help their people
move forward by seeking their opinion on some extremely
important issues. I think education is extremely important, because
our progress as a people and as a country is based on education, on
the training of young people in our society. I think the amendments
proposed by Newfoundland are worthwhile; they are not
insignificant, as I read in the newspapers, but extremely important
because they will have an impact on all future generations of
Newfoundlanders. I think this needs to be said.
3249
But on September 5, 1995, the people of Newfoundland were
presented with a referendum question, a question selected by the
Newfoundland government and written by the Newfoundland
government, asking them if they agreed Term 17 be amended so
as to reform the education system.
Only 52 per cent of Newfoundland voters participated in this
referendum, which means that about half the population voted on
deciding that future. So be it. That is democracy. There is nothing
we can do about it.
Of this 52 per cent, which represents approximately 201,710
voters, 54 per cent said yes to the proposed reform, to give their
government the mandate to reform the education system, while
another 45 per cent said no. The Newfoundland government
derived the mandate to submit constitutional amendments, which
we are debating today, from a yes majority of 19,941. That is a
rather slender majority. But the people have spoken,
democratically. For the sake of argument, let us round off these
19,941 votes to 20,000. With a 20,000 vote majority, the people
have given the Newfoundland government the mandate to initiate
amendments and reform the system.
The question approved by the legislative assembly of
Newfoundland was a legitimate question. It was selected by
lawfully elected MPPs. Those who complained about the wording,
those on the yes side and those who took issue with the question all
participated in this referendum, each in support of their own
position. In this case, 54 per cent of the people of Newfoundland
who voted said yes.
An information campaign was conducted. A proper referendum
was held. The result was a democratic one.
I read in the newspapers that some thought it was strange that the
opposition, the Bloc Quebecois, would agree with the action taken
by Newfoundland Premier Brian Tobin. As a responsible official
opposition in this House, we acknowledge the result, and we will
act upon the wish of Newfoundlanders by supporting their request.
We do not support the motion of the justice minister or of the
government opposite, we support the motion tabled by the Minister
of Justice as the spokesperson for Newfoundlanders regarding a
decision they arrived at in a democratic fashion.
Indeed, we support the motion before us because it reflects the
wish of Newfoundlanders. In so doing, we are only acting like a
responsible opposition.
We would have liked to get absolute guarantees, including for
French speaking minorities, because we have always protected the
rights of francophones outside Quebec. No doubt about that. We
would have liked to see the Government of Newfoundland provide
full guarantees.
(1050)
We did not get such guarantees, but we got some assurance that
these minorities would continue to enjoy the same rights, following
the amendments proposed by Newfoundland to Term 17.
We carefully reviewed the proposed amendment and we came to
the conclusion, as did the Minister of Justice earlier, that this
amendment, which we support, takes nothing away from
minorities. Obviously, we would have liked to get more, to have
things in writing, including things that do not currently exist but
relate to the amendment. It goes without saying that such
guarantees would have been beneficial.
Newfoundland's education minister, with whom I met on
Wednesday, gave me an assurance. He told me about the funding
and management of French speaking schools by francophones. I
trust him to be true to his word. We did everything we could
possibly do. We defended the rights of francophones within the
limits set by our jurisdiction. Let us not forget that this is the
federal government. We, Bloc Quebecois members, are respectful
of the various jurisdictions.
Unfortunately, we read and heard comments in the newspapers,
as well as here in this House and in the Senate with which we do not
agree. We have to set the record straight. Some said the rights of
minorities are sacred and must be protected when threatened by the
majority. These people claim that the rights of the religious
minorities will be challenged by the proposed measures to amend
the Constitution of Canada.
I have heard some people say and I have read in the papers that
the amendment before us would stifle or rather threaten the rights
of religious minorities. According to their arguments, we have to
vote against the motion before us, nip this dangerous precedent in
the bud, because if we do not, other religious and linguistic
minorities will be threatened by all the referenda other provinces
may hold on various issues.
Their reasoning does not withstand close examination. These
statements are unwarranted. The changes proposed to the education
system in Newfoundland, however major or important they are, as I
said earlier, do not threaten the fundamental rights of religious
minorities, or for that matter linguistic minorities.
In fact, the goal here is not to abolish the separate school system,
but to no longer impose a school system on a majority that does not
care for it anymore. I would urge the ultraconservatives and the tale
spinners to show a modicum of intellectual honesty.
Although I agree with the initiative he has taken, I would also
invite the premier of Newfoundland to be fair, because from what I
read in the newspapers about the meeting he had with the Leader of
3250
the Opposition, where I was present, his account does not fully
reflect the discussion we had.
I think Captain Canada should put away his hero's attire when he
meets the official opposition. When he wants to inform the public,
he should put aside his political options and talk clearly about what
was really said during these meetings, because he put words in the
mouth of the Leader of the Opposition that the Bloc leader never
uttered.
(1055)
Also in attendance at that meeting were the Newfoundland
premier, naturally, the Newfoundland leader of the opposition and
the leader of the third officially recognized party in Newfoundland.
This is to show you, Mr. Speaker, that when the people express
themselves, everyone gets behind the victor to move democracy
forward, to make the people progress.
In the Newfoundland legislative assembly, the leader of the
opposition and the leader of the third party were against amending
term 17. On the 29th, the three leaders stood side by side to show
their support of the democratic will of the people.
This is exactly what will happen in Quebec. Some may have
their doubts about this, but after a yes vote in Quebec, the leaders
of the main parties will all stand by the decision of the people.
We must remember that that meeting dealt mainly with two
things: first, the recognition of the democratic process in
Newfoundland and second, as I said earlier, the protection of the
French minority.
As I said, the people expressed themselves clearly. Even if a
province wanted to challenge in court the decision made by the
people of Newfoundland on this constitutional amendment, it could
not do it. Even the Constitution itself could not stand in their way.
The people decided to accept this amendment.
To show how important democracy is, a Liberal member of the
legislative assembly, Walter Carter, said that the wording of the
referendum question was too complex. Even the opposition, as I
said earlier, was against the question and the amendment.
According to the Church, in Newfoundland, the wording was
biased in favour of the yes side. The participation rate was not high,
and that could raise questions.
But the wording of the question was decided upon by the
democratically elected representatives of the people. Everyone was
able to make himself or herself heard. This was a legitimate
initiative and we, as members of the House of Commons, must
accept it, period. The people of Newfoundland have spoken and we
must accept the verdict wether we favour pluridenominational
schools or not. Is my time up, Mr. Speaker? I still have points to
make.
The Speaker: My dear colleague, I believe you do have a lot of
points to make, and you will have the opportunity to pick up where
you left off after question period.
It being eleven o'clock, the House will now proceed to
Statements by Members.
_____________________________________________
3250
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I consider
it a privilege to announce that today is National Transportation Day
and next week is National Transportation Week in Canada.
Celebrations are being held today in Vancouver and in cities
around the country next week. Over the last three years, the
government has worked hard to modernize Canadian
transportation. It has reduced subsidies, commercialized services
and updated transportation policies and regulations. However, it
cannot all be done from Ottawa.
Canada's transportation system is really a network of
interlocking systems. We need the active participation of all
Canadians. Canada's urban centres are particularly important.
Every day more than 145,000 Canadians travel between cities by
bus, rail or air. Every day, trains, trucks and ships move almost 2.3
million tonnes of freight to market.
That is why the theme for National Transportation Week 1996 is
the Urban Connection. I am pleased to have this opportunity to
recognize all the men and women who plan, build, operate and use
our transportation systems, who ensure that trade relationships and
tourism industries can rely upon safe, secure transportation.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the remarks
made in this House by the Minister of Human Resources
Development, supported by the Prime Minister, show once again
the contempt of these two men for those who do not share their
opinion.
Many new Quebecers who voted yes in the last referendum came
from countries where freedom of expression no longer existed. By
choosing Canada as their new home, they were hoping to find what
they had lost without having to renounce their political judgment.
3251
In becoming part of Quebec's society, the members for Bourassa
and Blainville-Deux-Montagnes became aware of the limitations
of federalism and embraced the sovereignist cause. They deserve to
be congratulated. They are proof that nationalism in Quebec is not
the exclusive prerogative of those who were born in that province.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister for Human Resources Development noted
earlier this week that Canada's persistently high unemployment
rates are a puzzle to him and that most European countries face the
same problem.
What the minister neglected to mention is the United States has
very low unemployment rates. He also failed to note the OECD
studies which have identified generous social programs as the main
cause for the persistent high unemployment rate in Europe and
Canada. I wish the minister had mentioned these facts.
We need in Canada a dialogue over the trade-off between
unemployment and the generosity of social programs. We may
wish to keep the present system intact but we should do so with a
full understanding of the trade-offs involved.
* * *
Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and
Addington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to
invite my colleagues to explore the three counties of
Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington this summer.
They would be greeted by friendly people and find serene beauty
in the rugged landscape, charm in the rural villages and adventure
in locating the ghost towns and river mill ruins that dot the region.
From the Loyalist Parkway alongside Lake Ontario in the south,
through historic sites like Bedford Mills, to Algonquin Park in the
north, HFL&A beckons visitors. Join us to fish for walleye in the
St. Lawrence, Lake Ontario and the Bay of Quinte, the walleye
capital of Canada.
Rock hounds will find more minerals in the Bancroft area than in
any other location including blue hued princess sodalite. Mazinaw
country offers more pictographs on a single rock face than in any
other site in North America. HFL&A is also home to artists, potters
and woodworkers whose open studio doors welcome visitors.
For wilderness camping, gourmet inns, canoeing, hiking or
searching out artefacts, my neighbours in HFL&A and I extend an
invitation to members to spend their summer vacations with us.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
some time ago, the government announced its intention to
withdraw from the area of manpower training and to transfer that
responsibility to the provinces.
Right now, several francophone communities have access to
training programs in French. It is a right that is essential to the
development of the language as well as the community. I think it is
imperative that the government fulfil its obligations under the
Official Languages Act when it enters into negotiations with the
provinces.
We have a responsibility toward these communities not only to
maintain training services in the minority language but also to
improve these services where necessary. I am pleased to see that
the government has made such a commitment.
* * *
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we must not
hesitate to condemn the xenophobic remarks directed by the
Minister of Human Resources Development at my colleague, the
member for Bourassa. The minister's remarks smack of a
deep-rooted and invidious attitude that advocates intolerance and
encourages aggressiveness towards anyone who is not a genuine,
old stock Canadian.
The member for Bourassa is a model citizen, who is keenly
interested in making his own individual contribution to the life of
his adopted community. So it does not matter whether the minister,
who does not share his political ideals, likes it or not. It is
disgusting, not to say shameful, that an hon. minister would make
such remarks.
The least one could do, in such a case, is first to make a public
apology, and then, without delay, to step down and offer one's
resignation.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Liberal government has a red book full of broken promises. It has
3252
reneged on pledges to kill the GST, renegotiate NAFTA, reform
MP pensions and provide stable multi-year funding for the CBC.
(1105)
Its throne speeches promised to reduce federal-provincial
duplication and overlap, and yet it clings to control and meddles in
areas better left to the provinces.
Vancouver waterfront workers have to bear the brunt of federal
inaction. They receive safety training from the province where
modern standards and up to date regulations prevail, but B.C.
regulations are unenforceable because these workers are still
subject to ten year old federal health and safety laws. Union
negotiators were so concerned for the safety of their members they
won the right for injured employees to be treated by provincial
occupational first aid attendants.
The government should seize the opportunity to practise real
flexible federalism and provide health and safety to Canadian
workers. This is a chance for the government to live up to at least
one of its commitments.
* * *
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this past month many members of Parliament and their
staff have taken to the road to talk to Canada's youth regarding
employment needs and opportunities. This information will be
used to provide a report to the ministerial task force on youth and
ultimately to develop a national youth strategy to be unveiled this
fall.
In Cumberland-Colchester my staff has met with students from
many schools across the riding to gain insight on what can and
should be done to alleviate the problem of high youth
unemployment in the Atlantic region. Both my staff and I were
very impressed with the thoughtful and intelligent ideas our youth
had to share.
It is my hope the ministerial task force on youth will seriously
consider and act on suggestions made by these bright young minds.
Canada's youth must be our priority. They are the future of the
country and their opinions must weigh heavy in our policy
decisions.
* * *
Mr. John Richardson (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in today's fast paced world it is easy to lose
perspective. However, things come quickly into focus when we
look at the challenges overcome by a very special constituent of
mine, Ms. Tonya Schweigert.
On July 2, 1993, four days before her 16th birthday, Tonya was
in a car accident that nearly took her life. Rushed to the children's
hospital in London, she was treated for serious head injuries. Later
she developed reoccurring, life threatening complications.
However, through her tremendous motivation and determination,
Tonya was released from the hospital only four months after the
accident.
While her balance and co-ordination are still a bit inconsistent,
that does not stop Tonya from riding her horse or being a successful
figure skater.
Presently Tonya is working with 11 other special young
Canadians who have triumphed over adversity. In conjunction with
the Children's Miracle Network they are raising funds for children
across Canada and the United States.
I salute these resilient Canadians who possess a willingness to
fight the odds. They are role models for all of us.
* * *
Mrs. Jean Payne (St. John's West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, training
our young people for success in the competitive economy of the
21st century is the most important investment Canada can make in
its future. Over the past month, in conjunction with the ministerial
task force on youth, I have held round table meetings in Trepassey,
Mobile, Mount Pearl and St. John's to discuss the obstacles facing
our young people as they make the transition from the classroom to
the job market.
Young people are sometimes hindered by outdated curriculum
and a lack of practical experience. They are hindered by a system
which encourages a lack of confidence in themselves and in their
abilities. Young people have the energy, drive and potential that all
employers value. They simply need a foot in the door and a chance
to prove themselves. Given such an opportunity youth quickly
learn how to apply their knowledge in the workplace.
Government, educators and business leaders all have a role to
play in the education of our youth. If each sector can do its part,
Canada will reap a fine profit from its investment in young people.
Government must provide the environment so that educators and
business leaders can do the rest.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once
again, our government has shown that it keeps its promises.
Yesterday, in this House, the Minister of Human Resources
Development made public a proposal by our government to the
provinces with respect to manpower training.
3253
The plan unveiled will make it possible to meet the longstanding
and legitimate expectations of the provinces and of Quebec in
particular. The provinces will henceforth be responsible for active
job measures, and they will receive approximately $2 billion from
our government to help the unemployed re-enter the labour
market.
(1110)
Our Prime Minister has, once again, kept his promises, and our
government will soon withdraw from the manpower training
sector. This is eloquent proof of our determination to work in
partnership with the provinces.
* * *
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, in Quebec, this week is National Access
Awareness Week, for the integration of persons with disabilities.
This is a excellent opportunity for Quebecers to get to know and
become more aware of the numerous barriers persons with
disabilities have to overcome if they are to participate in
mainstream society, both socially and in the workplace.
It is fortunate that Quebec and other provinces have decided to
celebrate National Access Awareness Week, because the federal
government has clearly abandoned these people since the end of its
national strategy, on April 1. Since they came into office, the
Liberals have managed to dismantle the office of the secretary of
state for disabled persons, restrict the admissibility to the tax credit
for disabled persons and cut the funding for advocacy groups.
This government has demonstrated an unheard of contempt and
arrogance for people with disabilities, who simply want to be
recognized and treated as full-fledged citizens.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Liberal government would have Canadians believe crime is falling.
I have two words in response: hog wash.
Violent crime and offences committed against Canadians have
increased by an appalling rate over the past 30 years. In 1962 there
were 221 violent crimes per 100,000 population in Canada. Current
statistics show the violent crime rate is now well over 1,000
incidents per 100,000 population and the property crime rate is
three times higher than in 1962.
In overall terms the average Canadian stands a 99.9 per cent
chance of being victimized by crime at least once in their life. So
much for falling crime.
The only issue in decline is the credibility of a government
which has praised itself for making our streets safe when clearly
the opposite is true. The Canadian voters will not be fooled. The do
nothing Liberal government is soft on crime and Canadians know
it. Watch out Liberals-
The Speaker: The hon. member for St. John's East.
* * *
Mrs. Bonnie Hickey (St. John's East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for
many MPs and their constituents, coast guard and fisheries and
oceans services are an important part of community life.
This is hardly surprising considering that 88 per cent of the
workforce is located in the regions, including my own. I recognize
my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, for his efforts
to bring about change.
With the merger of the coast guard and the DFO the minister is
leading a historic integration of these two fleets. With an emphasis
on multi-tasking, this merger allows each vessel to perform several
duties, including science research, enforcement of rights, fishery
patrols and search and rescue such as the recent daring rescue of the
Amphion.
With a long history of co-operation, this merger will result in
streamlined services, elimination of duplication and a reduction of
overhead expenses. The result is substantial savings and better
value for taxpayer dollars.
I urge the minister to ensure stakeholders are part of this decision
making process and continue on this challenging path.
* * *
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, enough is enough. It has become evident the Prime
Minister and his government have absolutely no plan to deal with
the national unity issue, no plan A or plan B. In the next
referendum the government will be caught again with its pants
down around its ankles.
Here is a plan for the Prime Minister. I have put forth a private
member's motion that outlines the five criteria under international
law required for an area to secede: one, a clear question; two,
passed by two-thirds majority; three, the secessionist unit is a
people meeting international standards; four, these people have to
show their rights and freedoms have been discriminated against;
five, they must demonstrate they can form a government.
The Prime Minister must also dispel the myths between
federalists and separatists. He must bring members of Parliament
from across the House together to build bridges of tolerance and
3254
understanding. If he does not do this, the country will fracture,
compromising the health and welfare of all Canadians.
The Speaker: Colleagues, I am sure we always welcome
colourful language in the House. Nonetheless, I urge all members
to consider very seriously when using such terms as used by the
member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca.
* * *
(1115 )
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
we hear much talk these days about what individual Canadians are
doing in the interest of national unity.
In my riding of Nanaimo-Cowichan one person has done a
great deal of writing and broadcasting about Canadians who have,
through their achievements, made us proud of the country in which
we live and call home, Canada.
Dick Drew has written a book entitled The Canadian Achievers
as part of his effort to highlight the outstanding contributions made
by people from coast to coast. His best selling book and ongoing
radio show outline the accomplishments of some of Canada's least
known and well known personalities and in so doing focuses on the
very source of Canadian unity, our people.
For those looking to find a source which highlights the spirit and
motivation of individual Canadians, Dick Drew's radio show and
book on Canadian achievers are a welcome contribution to
Canadian unity.
_____________________________________________
3254
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, in 1986, the governments of Quebec and Canada signed a
framework agreement on vocational training for a duration of three
years. Since that agreement came to an end, negotiations have not
led to its renewal, and the $130 million paid to Quebec has never
been indexed. This has been the situation for seven years now.
My question is for the Minister of Human Resources
Development. Is this present government offer, again limited to
three years, not likely to have an identical outcome, since Ottawa
still controls the employment insurance fund?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the offer made to
all of the provinces and territories of Canada is as follows. We
wanted to ensure that there was some element of certainty, if ever
we were able, as I hope we will be, to reach some agreement that
would last a minimum of three years. We wanted to be sure that it
lasted at least three years. That is not the maximum, nor the set
duration.
In this way, we hope to be able to show our good faith, our desire
to find a new way of doing things, assuring the provinces and
territories that any agreement concluded would last at least three
years. This is not merely a question of revision; for as long as
agreement continues thereafter, once the three years are over, we
ought to be able to continue these agreements for an indefinite
period.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, it would also be worthwhile to set some guidelines, as in
the case of the agreement on immigration, because the agreement I
am talking about has not always proved entirely successful.
For the last ten years as well, the federal government has been
paying $130 million to Quebec from the consolidated fund.
Yesterday the minister admitted that his government would be
withdrawing from the manpower field within three years, with no
compensation.
Will the federal government continue to invest in this sector the
funds it was previously paying to the provinces, such as the $130
million Quebec was, and still is, receiving under the 1989
agreement? If so, is this not proof of its continuing to be involved
in this area, despite its avowed intention to withdraw?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to suggest that we
will not manage to sign any agreements, but even if it happened
that no agreement was reached, we are already committed to
withdrawing from the field of manpower training. Our decision in
that connection was made months ago. As far as the estimates and
appropriations earmarked for manpower training are concerned, it
was our intention, and continues to be our commitment, to
withdraw totally from manpower training.
This means the budgets will drop to zero. We will not be
getting back into that area again; we have absolutely no
intention of doing so.
As for the agreements we hope to negotiate, however, there is no
doubt that for active measures, if the provinces so desire-and it
will be of their own choosing-they will no doubt be able to do
certain things in the occupational training sector which they
consider to be legitimate and worthwhile.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, there would appear to be a number of clarifications
needed in this area; we have been told that the federal government
is headed toward elimination of the funding allocated to the
provinces. There is reference to a zero budget within three years.
3255
The money itself will not, however, disappear. It will not go to the
provinces, but neither will it disappear.
What we need to know is what the federal government intends to
do with that money. This strikes me as a good question, and one
that we will certainly be getting back to, for at some point I would
like to have a response.
(1120)
Taking a different tack on this same subject, in his recent budget
the Minister of Finance announced that he would be freeing up
$315 million over three years for the young people of Quebec and
Canada, to help them break into the work force.
Can the Minister of Human Resources Development indicate to
us why this vital program is not part of the proposal made to the
provinces, since it is quite obviously a manpower program? Even
more important, it involves not only today's work force, but
tomorrow's as well, the work force of the future.
Why not integrate this project announced a few weeks ago by the
Minister of Finance with the offer made to the provinces?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is obviously a highly
complex matter, this entire area of training and active measures.
The hon. member is right, there are other departments in
addition to my own with responsibility in these sectors with which
we have long been involved. I wish to assure my hon. colleague,
and particularly the governments with which we are going to
negotiate, of our desire to ensure that these active measures,
tailored to the specific needs of the provinces, are delivered by
them.
As far as our withdrawal from manpower is concerned, the hon.
member indicated that the money we do not spend on training will
still be there somewhere, but that is not the case. As you know,
despite the valiant efforts of the Minister of Finance, we still have a
deficit in Canada.
It is not as if there were money left over somewhere. When
budgets are cut, or when we pull out of one or another sector, the
unspent moneys are reflected in the government's overall financial
plan, and it is in that context that we have already committed
ourselves to decreasing our expenditures year after year. This has,
moreover, already been done already for some time; when we are
no longer involved in manpower training, the budgets will have
been totally used up as well.
* * *
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Justice.
Yesterday, in responding to a question in the House, he refused to
say whether he would make public the report on the inquiry sought
by his department on the assistant deputy attorney general's
interference with the chief justice of the federal court. The minister
agreed to make public only the action he would be taking at the end
of the inquiry.
Why is the minister refusing to make public the complete report
of the inquiry by Mr. Dubin on such a serious case of undue
interference in the legal system?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am sorry my position was not
made clear yesterday. In response to the hon. member's question, I
intend to table Mr. Dubin's report when it is finished.
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, such a
serious error by a senior public servant demands quick action on
the part of the government.
Is the minister prepared to table the report of the inquiry sought
by his department by the end of the present session and not in the
summer when no one is here?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have only one hesitation in
committing myself to that. I will table Mr. Dubin's letter to me or
his report, whatever he produces. The House should see that. He
has expressed concern about doing that before the motion pending
in front of Mr. Justice Cullen is resolved.
Mr. Justice Cullen of the Federal Court has a motion before him
to stay these three revocation cases. Mr. Dubin is concerned that
producing his findings and his advice in advance of Mr. Justice
Cullen coming to a conclusion might not be proper.
There is no question that I will make the advice of Mr. Dubin
available to the House. My only hesitation in saying that I will do it
as soon as I receive it is that the matter may soon be pending before
Mr. Justice Cullen. If it arises after the House adjourns, I will mail
a copy to my friend as soon as I properly can.
(1125 )
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Assistant
Deputy Minister Ted Thompson's letter to Chief Justice Isaac,
dated March 1 states: ``Further to our meeting this morning in
which I advised that the Attorney General of Canada is being asked
to consider taking a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada to
determine some preliminary points of law, primarily because the
Federal Court trial division is unable or unwilling to proceed with
the subject cases expeditiously''.
Who asked the justice minister and what was the basis on which
the minister was asked to consider taking these revocation cases
from the hands of Justice Jerome and referring them to the
Supreme Court of Canada?
3256
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Department of Justice is
organized in such a way that recommendations would come from
what is called a litigation committee. Senior litigation lawyers in
the department meet regularly to consider the conduct of cases that
are before the courts.
At the time the letter was written, it is my understanding that the
litigation committee was considering whether to recommend to me
that these issues be referred to the Supreme Court of Canada so that
they could be moved along more quickly. They had not yet come to
a conclusion and I had not by that date received any
recommendation.
In fact, I spoke about this matter with Mr. Dubin yesterday. He
interviewed me over the luncheon hour. I have every expectation
that the report or the advice he eventually provides will deal with
the chronology of events. He is interviewing all the relevant
people, so I hope all these matters will be matters of record when
he completes his work.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, earlier this
week the justice minister was asked if he was prepared to lay a
complaint against Chief Justice Isaac with the Canadian Judicial
Council. He said no, claiming it was not up to him to order the
council to investigate the irresponsible actions of the chief justice.
Section 69(1) of the Judges Act explicitly gives the federal
Minister of Justice the responsibility and the authority to order an
inquiry by the judicial council into inappropriate behaviour by a
federally appointed judge.
Why did the minister not fulfil his responsibility by following
the appropriate course of action? Why did he not order the inquiry
by the judicial council?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, subject to being corrected, I think
it is section 63(1) that provides-
An hon. member: It is 69(1).
Mr. Rock: All right, it is 69(1), that provides that I may direct an
inquiry to be held under the Judges Act. However, on the facts as I
know them, at least at present, I do not believe this is a case that
warrants that kind of inquiry. We had one in the case of Judge
Bienvenue which is now before the judicial council.
The other thing that is important is the judicial council has
already acted in relation to this matter. I told the House yesterday
of the information that I have, that the judge who chairs the judicial
conduct committee of the council, Chief Justice McEachern of
British Columbia, has invited Chief Justice Isaac to explain what
happened so that the committee can consider it and decide whether
further action is warranted.
It is not as though nothing is happening on that front. The
council is looking at the conduct and will respon appropriately.At least in my judgment at this time, on the basis of the facts as I
know them, I do not believe it is an appropriate case for the kind of
formal inquiry that is contemplated by the section to which my
hon. friend has referred.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
concerned that the justice minister is not considering this to be an
important issue.
Yesterday the Ottawa Citizen stated: ``Judge Isaac's actions
constitute one of the most serious erosions of judicial
independence in Canadian history''.
My final supplementary question is this. The Minister of Justice
admitted yesterday that he learned of the judicial interference
involving his deputy assistant one week after the March 1 meeting.
Why did he wait almost three months to make a ministerial
statement in the House? Why did the minister not immediately
reveal to the House and Canadians the inappropriate actions of Ted
Thompson and Chief Justice Isaac.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first in relation to the extent to
which I consider this matter serious, when I spoke on Monday, I
made it clear that I consider this a very serious matter and that I
take it seriously. It is for that reason that I brought in a person of the
stature and independence of former Chief Justice Dubin to look at
the facts and provide advice on what should happen.
Second, as to what happened after March 1, I believe when Mr.
Dubin recounts the chronology, it will disclose that within a week
or two after March 1, this incident came to light within the
department. Ted Thompson acted on his own initiative in having
the meeting and in having the correspondence. Then it came to the
light of people in the department.
As soon as that happened, we ensured that copies of the
correspondence and particulars of the meeting were put in the
hands of the lawyers acting for the three parties in the Federal
Court. Then they brought motions in the court based on that
correspondence.
These events were the subject of news reports in April. The
matter was entirely in the open. We did not try to hide or cover up
anything at all.
As to my ministerial statement being made last Monday and not
in March, our first focus was on the court cases and responding to
motions brought to stay those three cases because we believe they
should go forward. After that was in hand, I then turned to internal
matters in the department. I took advice from the deputy. We
involved Mr. Dubin and I made my statement.
The chronology speaks for itself. The matter is now in the hands
of an independent party to look at the facts. I have already told the
House that I will put his advice before the House for its
information.
3257
(1130 )
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister.
Yesterday, when Mr. Harris and Mr. Bouchard, the premiers of
Ontario and Quebec, met, they together asked the federal
government to include compensation for the harmonization of the
GST on the agenda of the conference on June 20 and 21. On May
27, the Minister of Finance relegated the issue to a meeting with his
colleagues.
Will the Acting Prime Minister confirm, given the importance
accorded this particular issue by the premiers of the two largest
provinces, that he will put the GST on the agenda of the June 20
and 21 meeting?
[English]
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the finance minister
has already mentioned that it will be part of the agenda of the
finance ministers' meetings some time next month.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I think the member did not understand my question and
has certainly not understood the request by the premiers of
Canada's two largest provinces that this be included on the agenda
of the meeting of June 20 and 21.
In response to the consensus forming among the provinces
swindled by this agreement, will the Acting Prime Minister
suspend all agreements and negotiations with the maritime
provinces?
[English]
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this question is clearly
part of the finance minister's meetings. It is a matter that the
finance ministers will discuss at their meetings, which will very
likely be next month. That is the appropriate place for discussions
to take place.
I would like to remind the hon. member that the agenda for the
first ministers' conference has not been released yet, therefore I
cannot comment on that.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, as has
been pointed out, the premiers of the two largest provinces have
said that they are opposed to the new Liberal GST.
They are looking for a 1.5 per cent reduction in taxes in Ontario
and Quebec to compensate for the $1 billion payoff to Liberal
premiers in Atlantic Canada. They believe that Quebec deserves
compensation for harmonizing its provincial sales tax in 1992.
Alberta has made similar requests.
Will the government be acting on these requests? Will it
continue to have one policy for its friends, the Liberal premiers of
Atlantic Canada, and another policy for the other provinces?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would remind the
hon. member that the GST deal with the Atlantic provinces is
available to all provinces that lost funds on that.
It is interesting to look at the results from Quebec. Quebec
benefited from harmonization. If one looks at the first year alone of
harmonization, Quebec tax revenues increased by something like
20 per cent after harmonization.
(1135 )
Since harmonization, Quebec has benefited by about $2.5 billion
to $3 billion. Maybe we should be looking at that $2.5 billion to $3
billion in increased revenues that Quebec gained from
harmonization. Maybe Ontario should be looking at that as an
opportunity for a better revenue performance of its own.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
minister is trying to take credit for some economic growth and
trying to pretend that there is not one set of arrangements for some
provinces and one for others.
This ill-conceived plan for harmonizing the GST has at least
managed to bring about some national unity. We have had the
uniting of the premiers of Ontario and Quebec, not to mention the
Governments of Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba and
Saskatchewan in opposition to the federal government.
Premiers Harris and Bouchard, who are not finance ministers,
they are premiers, want the issue of GST harmonization,
compensation and reduction on the table at the upcoming first
ministers' conference. Will the GST be on the agenda of the first
ministers at their meetings in June?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind
the hon. member that I would be happy to take credit for the growth
in the GNP in the early nineties. Unfortunately this party was not
the government at that time. However, there was not very much
growth if he will recall that time.
As far as this being on the agenda for the first ministers'
conference, as I mentioned a few minutes ago, the agenda has not
3258
been set up yet. The finance minister has already stated it will be
on the agenda and surely that is enough to satisfy the member's
question right now.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister.
In 1980, the largest press baron owned 20 per cent of all
Canadian newspapers. The then Liberal government, concerned
about the situation, set up a royal inquiry commission, the Kent
commission.
Today, Conrad Black's Hollinger owns 42 per cent of all
Canadian newspapers. What steps does the government intend to
take to maintain a balance between the economic interests of
newspaper owners and the public's right to information?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Secretary of State (Federal Office of
Regional Development-Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to thank my colleague for his question.
In fact, the director of the bureau of competition is aware of the
buyout the hon. member has just mentioned. He has already made
some representations and done a number of analyses, and I want to
say that, in the past, every time there has been a deal involving
newspapers, the government has taken action by introducing
relevant legislation if necessary.
In this case, the director informed us that the deal was legitimate.
I would point out to my colleague that Canada's Competition Act
ensures that fair competition can be maintained across the country,
and that all Canadians can take advantage of it through a
mechanism provided for in the act.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, according to Quebec's main publishers, the future of the
Canadian Press agency in Quebec is at stake, at a crucial time in
our history. Will the government intercede with Southam and
Hollinger to maintain a minimum of jobs in this organization? A
minimum of jobs?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Secretary of State (Federal Office of
Regional Development-Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I just
said, the director of competition was informed of this transaction.
We conducted a number of analyses and came to the conclusion
that this deal did not significantly reduce competition in Canada as
provided for in the legislation. Once again, I remind my colleague
that the law is there to be used in accordance with the mechanism
provided.
[English]
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday I was pleased to meet with a number of people in
Hamilton East. I was saddened, however, to hear the bad news that
violent crime in the area has increased 187 per cent over the last
eight years. In addition, criminal charges against young offenders
jumped 37 per cent from 1994 to 1995.
When will the minister admit the Young Offenders Act,
including Bill C-37, is not working, it is a joke, as many young
people profess.
(1140 )
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, at the time Bill C-37 was
introduced by this government, we described it as only the first step
in dealing with the youth justice system in Canada. That bill has
now been passed and became effective on December 1, 1995.
The second step is work by the justice committee of the House of
Commons. I asked that committee to travel the country looking at
the evidence, speaking to parents, police, school principals and
young people themselves and to come back to Ottawa with
recommendations for change.
The Young Offenders Act has now been on the books for 12
years. It is time to look at the fundamentals of the statute. The
justice committee is now engaged in that work. Indeed, members of
my hon. friend's party are well represented by hard working
members on that committee.
Next week the committee is going to be in metropolitan Toronto
listening to evidence, looking at youth detention facilities and
getting the facts so it can come back to this House with
recommendations. I have already said that those are
recommendations we will pay close attention to.
By working together, we can improve the act.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
January 1994 the minister asked for submissions from all across
the country. I saw those submissions. I know what the people of
Canada were asking for and so does he. He has done nothing since
then.
The most unhappy people are the young people themselves as
the majority of victims come from that age. Too bad you people do
not take this more seriously. When will the minister hear their
voice, scrap the Young Offenders Act and make violent criminals
fully accountable for their actions?
3259
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we take this matter very seriously.
It is neither fair nor right for the hon. member to say that nothing
has been done.
Bill C-37, which became effective on December 1, introduced
important changes to the Young Offenders Act. We doubled the
maximum penalty for first degree murder. We said that 16 and
17-year olds accused of crimes of serious violence will be tried in
adult court unless they can satisfy the courts otherwise. The onus
rests on them. We have provided for information being freely
shared among police, school officials and others. Those changes
are important and are already having an effect. As to further
changes in the act, we will wait for the recommendations of the
committee on which the hon. member sits.
The other thing we have to bear in mind, which the hon. member
forgets, is that as difficult a problem as youth crime is, it is not
going to be resolved by changing the words in the statute. That
alone is not going to be enough. Until the hon. member works with
us in our efforts on crime prevention and getting to the causes of
crime, we will never be able to make the streets of this country
safe.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry.
The Archer-Daniels-Midland company has announced plans to
buy out Maple Leaf Mills. As a result of this transaction, 75 per
cent of the Canadian flour market would be concentrated in the
hands of two American subsidiaries.
What does the Minister of Industry intend to do regarding this
potential concentration of 75 per cent of the milling industry in the
hands of just two companies?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Secretary of State (Federal Office of
Regional Development-Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said
earlier, in Canada, a mechanism is provided under the Competition
Act.
We have experts at the competition bureau who have a great deal
of experience in the field of competition and who know the
economic market place well. Needless to say, we are keeping a
close watch on all deals made from coast to coast. If the
competition bureau notices a decline in competition on the
Canadian market, it will take action.
Otherwise, there is a mechanism available to all Canadians,
which any six citizens from anywhere in the country can use to call
for a review, if necessary.
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, BQ):
We certainly hope, Mr. Speaker, that our experts are experienced.
Otherwise, we would be in trouble.
Does the Minister of Industry intend to sit on his hands and allow
this transaction, which will effectively transfer to two American
companies the power to set the price of flour in Canada?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Secretary of State (Federal Office of
Regional Development-Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, at the risk
of repeating myself, in 1986, Canada put in place a process to
analyze mergers, buyouts and cases of unfair competition. This is a
great and highly effective process. We have a bureau employing a
number of experts called upon to analyze the market and its
transactions. When they find that competition is declining, they
take action; alternatively, individuals can use the mechanism
provided for in the legislation.
* * *
(1145)
[English]
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade.
A new softwood lumber agreement has gone into effect. Can the
minister assure the House that this agreement with the United
States will benefit Canadian producers?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the agreement on softwood lumber was signed
yesterday by our ambassador in Washington and a United States
deputy trade representative. It reflects the policy I announced early
in April with respect to this matter. It will go into effect on April 1.
This is an unprecedented agreement. It provides for secure
access for a period of five years. It has in writing the agreement of
the United States government not to pursue trade remedies in
that period of time on the issue of softwood lumber. It is a
position our industry strongly supports. It helps to preserve its
export market into the United States. That in turn helps to
preserve thousands of jobs.
In fact, if an amount of lumber which is equivalent to the average
over the last three years is exported, not a nickel in fees will be
paid. It will be a free flow. Last year was a record year. The
industry could go to over 90 per cent of the amount and still have it
as a free flow. Any fees that are paid over that will be staying in
Canada. They will not be going to the United States treasury.
3260
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, for the last two years the Liberals' explanation for
cancelling the Pearson airport development contract was that the
developer's profits would have been excessive. Now the
government has admitted that the potential profits were far from
excessive. In fact, the Liberals in a court of law are stating that the
developer would have lost money on Pearson.
Can the Minister of Transport please tell us which Liberal
statement we should believe: the one which was made in the House
that the developer would have made too much money, or the one
which was made in a court of law that the developer would have
gone broke?
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government is facing a lawsuit
in Toronto on this issue. It would be entirely inappropriate for me
to comment on the particulars of this case at this time, save to say
that the plaintiffs in this case were claiming $172 million for lost
profits. Then what happened? They upped their claim to over $600
million in lost profits.
The government has a responsibility to the Canadian taxpayer to
test the validity of that claim. To that end, the government retained
the experts who provided the government with the correct advice
on the plaintiffs' case.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Pearson Development Corporation was prepared to spend
more than $800 million of private sector money renovating
Canada's most essential airport. Instead what we got was a contract
cancellation from the newly elected Liberal government. More
than two years later, there is still no alternative development of
those terminals under way.
Now that the Liberals have admitted in court that the developer's
profits were not excessive, will they admit to the House that the
real reason they cancelled the Pearson contract was to cover up
more misspoken election rhetoric?
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is a little behind
the times. If he read the papers and paid attention to the news
broadcasts he would understand that negotiations for the
changeover from the federal government to a new local airport
authority are proceeding ahead of schedule. In fact, the government
expects to transfer the Pearson International Airport to a local
airport authority in the very near future.
Despite the huffing and puffing of the hon. member opposite, the
member who cares more about his lobbyist friends than he does
about the Canadian taxpayer-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Daviault (Ahuntsic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we learned
today that, after cutting in half its funding to francophones in
Saskatchewan, the federal government wants to do the same to
Franco-Ontarians. This reduction is totally unacceptable,
considering that Franco-Ontarians must still fight to protect their
most basic rights.
Instead of protecting the 340,000 Franco-Ontarians who still use
French, why does the government choose to cut their funding?
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy
Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to tell the House that negotiations are underway. It
is not our custom to negotiate in public.
(1150)
Mr. Michel Daviault (Ahuntsic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if it can
help the federal government in its negotiations, let me remind it
that the Commissioner of Official Languages and the Fédération
des communautés francophones et acadienne have clearly indicated
that this government does not fulfil its obligations under the
Official Languages Act.
With these cuts, is the government actually giving up its
responsibilities towards francophone minorities in Canada?
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy
Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am very surprised because, two weeks ago, they
complained when the commissioner congratulated us for
improving the situation of francophones living outside Quebec. I
want to make it clear that we need no lesson from this party.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have a very
solemn question today for the Prime Minister or whoever is
speaking for him.
Integrity was the theme of the red book. Yet we have this case
before us of the defence minister using split contracts to avoid
tendering so that he can award his campaign workers. Senior
officials at Treasury Board have said this is unacceptable, unethical
and should be disciplined.
3261
If ever the ethics counsellor was needed to clear the air on
behalf of Canadian taxpayers, this is the occasion. Will the Prime
Minister call on the ethics counsellor to investigate this blatant
abuse of public funds?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
explained this matter a number of times in the House.
There are budgets for full time employees. There are budgets for
people who are hired on a short term project basis. The one that has
been referred to in the House was a short term project which
obviously was extended because of the nature of the legislative
changes that were made with respect to the War Veterans
Allowance Act.
The key thing here is that the arrangement followed Treasury
Board guidelines. That was stated by the President of the Treasury
Board. It has been stated by me in this House. It has been stated by
my officials.
The hon. member is giving the false impression that what was
done in the case of those people whom I retained contravened
Treasury Board guidelines. I would hope that the member would
stop giving out this misinformation because it is absolutely false.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this is getting
absurd.
The Prime Minister promised that we would have an
independent ethics counsellor, yet that counsellor reports to the
Prime Minister. Now we have this minister standing up in the
House to say why he should not be investigated. Where is this
going to lead?
If it is the minister who is going to respond to these questions, I
am going to ask him specifically: What did this individual do? He
got contracts of over $100,000. It would take most people probably
two or three years to earn that amount. What did this individual
specifically do that would earn him this kind of money and how
was that justified?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again this
question has been answered.
The individual concerned assisted with finding a solution to a
very difficult matter and then implementing it. Certain individuals
by an adjudicator's decision were given benefits to which they
were not entitled under the War Veterans Allowance Act which was
passed by this House in the 1920s. As a result there was an
overpayment of nearly $30 million a year for 10 years. That was
unacceptable.
This government reviewed every single spending priority and
found that we could not sustain this kind of expenditure because
Parliament did not originally intend members of the resistance to
get those funds. In fact Canada was the only country paying those
particular individuals.
The hon. member is so concerned about the administrative
procedures within my budget but can he assure me that his own
leader's budget is not being used in the same way? Can he assure
me that his leader has not been making similar arrangements with
people associated with the Reform Party? We know that at least
three defeated Reform candidates are working for members
opposite, including the leader of the Reform Party.
* * *
(1155)
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians are proud of our national health care system. They
become concerned when the five principles which guide its
operation are threatened.
I understand that an agreement has been reached with the
province of Alberta on the issue of user fees in private clinics. I
would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health to
tell the House what this agreement will mean for Albertans.
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am happy to report that an agreement
was struck between the Minister of Health for Canada and his
counterpart in Alberta.
The agreement is essentially twofold. As of July 1 private clinics
will no longer be permitted to bill patients for facility fees for
insured services and at the same time bill the province for
physicians' fees. The federal deductions in the transfers to Alberta
will cease immediately upon this decision.
For Albertans and Canadians everywhere, this means that the
Canada Health Act does work and the principles are being upheld
because of co-operation between governments. It means the
citizens of Alberta are guaranteed access to universally guaranteed
medical services.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
As part of the restructuring of employment centres, the Granby
CEC, which is located in the riding I have the privilege to
represent, saw its staff cut to an extent that is unjustifiable if we
compare it to cuts made at the Cowansville CEC, in the
neighbouring Liberal riding of Brome-Missisquoi. The Granby
centre will now have the same number of employees as the one in
Cowansville, although it must serve twice the number of taxpayers.
3262
Although the minister has repeatedly said that the purpose of
the restructuring was to improve services, can he tell us the logic
behind a decision to allocate the same number of employees to
both centres, when one of them serves a population twice as large?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the process of restructuring a
department and changing service delivery to our clients, decisions
are never easy.
However I would like to explain to my hon. colleague, as we
have already tried to do on numerous occasions, that we are always
ready and willing to provide him with all the information and
explanations, either through our director general for Quebec or
through officials of my department and myself. We had to take
decisions throughout Canada and Quebec, and these are always
very difficult. They are never decisions that will please those living
in the communities hit the hardest.
As for the purpose of the exercise, we have only one criterion:
that is to be certain that, at the end of the exercise, we can provide
the necessary services to people. With yesterday's announcement, I
hope that we will have strategies in the future that will perhaps
improve the situation. But, for the time being, we believe we have
acted fairly and equitably, particularly toward our clients.
* * *
[
English]
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the minister responsible for citizenship in
Quebec claims that since his province receives half of the refugees
to Canada, Ottawa should pay for the services that Quebec provides
to them. While many refugees are attracted to Quebec because of
the high rate of acceptance of refugee claims in that province, the
Quebec government fails to mention that almost half of the
immigrants to Quebec leave that province within the first two
years.
I ask the minister of immigration to assure the House that federal
taxpayers will not end up footing the bill as the separatist forces in
Quebec attempt to display some compassion for newcomers to that
province.
Ms. Maria Minna (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is not
unusual for major ports of entry like Montreal to receive a large
number of refugees. Much the same occurs in Toronto and
Vancouver. It fluctuates among the ports of entry in this country.
Immigrants come to all the large centres of the country. Once they
are here there is freedom of movement in the country. We do not
order people to stay where they have landed. They are allowed to
move across the country.
(1200 )
Refugee policy is set by discussions with the provinces, with
NGOs and with communities. It is not set in isolation. We have one
of the best systems in the world in terms of refugee acceptance.
An hon. member: It is the easiest.
Ms. Minna: If you do not want to listen to the answer, you do
not have to.
* * *
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food often says, this sector of our economy is
living through a period of incredible change. Can the parliamentary
secretary tell us what the government is doing to help the industry
adapt?
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Canadian
adaptation and rural development fund was announced in the 1995
budget. It really is an excellent example of how the federal
government and industry are working together.
The federal government is taking a new approach to the whole
problem of working with industry. We are encouraging it to appoint
stakeholders in a common way to decide how those rural adaptation
dollars will be used in order to benefit the industry.
The Agriculture Adaptation Council, a non-profit coalition of 47
groups in Ontario, has established a fund and is working to make
certain Ontario establishes positive movements for adaptation.
Quebec is doing the same thing with two very prominent
agricultural groups in Quebec. They have already received funding
as well.
_____________________________________________
3262
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I believe you would find unanimous consent for the
following motion. I move:
That the Vice-Chair of the Standing Committee on Transport and one
researcher be authorized to travel to Washington, D.C., on June 11, 12 and 13,
1996 to gather information on the creation of a bi-national structure for the St.
Lawrence Seaway.
This motion amends the motion adopted previously on May
16, 1996.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it agreed?
3263
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy
Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to
table, in both official languages, the government's response to 6
petitions.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.) for leave to
introduce Bill C-291, an act to amend the Criminal Code
(prohibited sexual acts).
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce my private
member's bill in the House today. The bill would amend the section
of the Criminal Code dealing with prohibited sexual acts with
children under the age of 14 or in the presence of children under the
age 14.
If implemented the bill would raise the age of a child as defined
for this purpose from the current age of 14 to 16. In effect, the bill
would allow for criminal charges to be brought against any adult
who engages in sexual relations with any person younger than age
16.
I urge all members of the House to seriously consider the bill's
intent and purpose.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
(1205)
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have a petition signed by 100 members of the public asking that
Parliament consider the advisability of extending benefits or
compensation to veterans of the war time merchant navy equal to
that enjoyed by veterns of Canada's World War II armed services.
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have another petition signed by 128 constituents from the
Chemainus area who call on Parliament not to amend the
Constitution as requested by the Government of Newfoundland and
to refer the problem of educational reform back to the Government
of Newfoundland.
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have two final petitions signed by 144 constituents that call on
Parliament to refrain from changing the Canadian Human Rights
Act to include reference to sexual orientation.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have two petitions, one from my riding of
Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, calling on Parliament to enact Bill
C-205, introduced by the hon. member for Scarborough West, at
the earliest opportunity to provide in Canadian law that no criminal
profit from a committing a crime. That is signed by 36 people from
my riding.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the second petition is from Canada Indivisible and
involves 101 Canadians from across the country who say to
Parliament that Canada is indivisible and that the boundaries of
Canada, its provinces, territories and waters be modified only by a
free vote of all Canadians through the amending formula stipulated
in the Canadian Constitution.
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
these petitioners want the Government of Canada to refuse to
accept the amendment to the Constitution being proposed by the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. They believe it is
changing the rights of minorities without their consent. They feel
that if an amendment is needed it should be brought forward as one
that has the support of all of the key stakeholders.
They propose the changes should be tried to the educational
system and then and only then if an amendment is required in order
to make them go forward that should happen. They also point out
there could be an impact in other sectors.
Mrs. Jean Payne (St. John's West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to
present a petition today on behalf of my constituents who call on
Parliament to consider the advisability of extending benefits or
compensation to veterans of the wartime merchant navy equal to
that enjoyed by veterans of Canada's World War II armed services.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have a petition with 128 signatures from
constituents in my riding who oppose the government's legislation
to include sexual orientation in the human rights bill.
3264
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have two petitions on the same subject, both from
citizens of Canada within my riding, one from the employees and
their families of A.M. Ford in Trail, one from the employees and
their families of Kalawsky GMC in Castlegar.
The petitioners point out the right to lease automobiles would
provide unfair competitive advantage to Canada's banks because of
their privileged access to consumer credit and loan funding as well
as confidential bank-client financial records.
Auto leasing by banks would likely increase unemployment in
local communities and effectively decrease, not increase,
competitive options for Canadians.
They therefore call on the Government of Canada not to allow
the Canada banking sector to get into the automobile leasing
industry.
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have a
petition with 199 signatures from residents of my Lethbridge
constituency.
The petitioners pray and request that Parliament enact Bill
C-205, introduced by the hon. member for Scarborough West, at
the earliest opportunity so as to provide in Canadian law that no
criminal profit from the committing of crime.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have two petitions, one being 406 signatures, dealing with sexual
orientation.
The people from my riding pray that Parliament oppose any
amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act or any other
federal legislation that would provide for the inclusion of the
phrase sexual orientation.
(1210)
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
second petition, bearing 226 signatures, deals with abortions.
Approximately 100,000 therapeutic abortions are performed each
year in Canada at a cost of over $50 million a year.
Residents in my riding request that Parliament support a binding
national referendum to be held at the time of the next election to
ask Canadians whether they are in favour of federal government
funding for abortions on demand.
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present two petitions.
In the first petition, 53 petitioners pray and request that
Parliament oppose any amendment to the Canadian Human Rights
Act or any other federal legislation that will provide for the
inclusion of the phrase sexual orientation.
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in the
second petition, 255 petitioners pray and request that Parliament
direct Health Canada to amend its proposal in order to allow the
production and sale of unpasturized cheese to continue in Canada.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy
Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if question No. 36 could be made an order for return, that
return would be tabled immediately.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Text]
Question No. 36-Mr. Milliken:
What are the municipal addresses of all properties in the federal riding of
Kingston and the Islands that are not single family residences in respect of
which CMHC is owner or mortgagee and for each property: (a) how many living
units are at each address; (b) what terms with respect to use, disposition or
consent to transfer, if any, are contained in the deed or mortgage by virtue of
which CMHC holds title; (c) is the property or part thereof classed as ``social
housing'' for the purpose of the 1996 budget announcement that administration
of such housing would be transferred to the provinces; and (d) what is the total
subsidy paid by CMHC in Kingston and the Islands with respect to all
properties?
Return tabled.
[Translation]
Mr. Arseneault: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
3264
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, before question period, I was saying that the leader of the
3265
Bloc Quebecois and I met with the premier of Newfoundland and
with the Leader of the Opposition and a third person, the leader of
the third party in the Newfoundland legislature, to discuss the
proposed amendment to term 17 in the Canadian Constitution.
This meeting was held May 29. We discussed two issues: first,
the recognition of the democratic process and, second, the
protection of francophone minorities. I think no one will be
surprised that we in the Bloc Quebecois have always been
concerned about the rights of francophone minorities across
Canada.
We discussed in very broad terms the democratic process and the
rights of francophones. We know how they proceeded in that
province; we know that, when the referendum question was
drafted, even some of the Liberal government members were
opposed to its wording because, in their opinion, it was not specific
enough, it was too ambiguous, it very much favoured the yes side at
the expense of the no side. We also know that, when the referendum
question was adopted by the Newfoundland legislature, the Leader
of the Opposition and the leader of the third party were against it.
Furthermore we know that religious authorities in Newfoundland
had major concerns about the wording of the question, which they
deemed not specific enough. They thought the amendment would
reduce their jurisdiction and powers. We are aware of the low rate
of participation in the referendum. However we in the Bloc
Quebecois simply recognize the democratic process, which was
discussed at that meeting.
For us, the question was legitimate since it was chosen by duly
elected members of the legislature. This referendum was also held
in accordance with good practice, in that both the yes side and the
no side agreed to express their views and to work to publicize the
approach they favoured in relation to the amendment of Term 17 in
the Constitution. This was a legitimate project, a very clear process
in that province.
(1215)
We, as members of the House, must acknowledge that. Whether
or not we support denominational schools, whether or not we
approve the proposition made by the Government of
Newfoundland, the population has rendered a clear verdict: 54 per
cent of Newfoundlanders said yes to the constitutional amendment
proposed by their provincial government. In other words, the
Government of Newfoundland had its political decision confirmed
through a referendum, and this is sacred for the Bloc Quebecois.
We must not interfere with the democratic process. This is why
we support the proposed amendment to Term 17 of the Terms of
Union of Newfoundland with Canada. Following our meeting with
the Newfoundland premier and the others I mentioned earlier, the
Bloc Quebecois leader immediately sent a letter to the premier, to
inform him of our support.
I will take the time to read this very short letter. It is, of course,
addressed to the Hon. Brian Tobin, Premier of Newfoundland.
Honourable Premier,
The federal government is about to table in the House of Commons your
province's request to amend Term 17 of the Terms of Union of Newfoundland
with Canada, so as to restructure Newfoundland's school system.
Your government proceeded by way of a referendum and a majority of voters
supported the amendment.
The Bloc Quebecois has decided to support Newfoundland's decision, since
it was made in compliance with recognized democratic rules.
However, we are concerned about the inadequate school rights of
Newfoundland's French speaking minority. Therefore, we strongly hope that
your government will take the opportunity provided by the restructuring of the
school legislation to give francophones in your province, through legislative
and administrative means, full responsibility for the management of their
schools.
This letter accurately reflects the discussions that took place
during the meeting with the Premier of Newfoundland.
As you can see, this is a far cry from the issues referred to by Mr.
Tobin regarding this meeting, as reported in various newspapers,
including Le Devoir, in its issue of Thursday, May 30, 1996. I was
stunned when I read the article in that newspaper, since I was
present at the meeting.
The title read: ``Constitutional amendment for Newfoundland:
Tobin pleased by the Bloc's position. According to him, the
sovereignist party recognizes the rule of law under any
circumstances in Canada''. I do not know where the premier got
such information. This issue was certainly not discussed during the
meeting. As I said, we talked about the democratic process, the
referendum and the fact that the population had clearly expressed
itself through that referendum.
A bit further on, we also read: ``The Bloc Quebecois and, by
extension the sovereignist movement as a whole, shows that the
rule of law must prevail in Canada, whatever the circumstances,
according to Brian Tobin''. There is even an allusion to the fact
that, since the Bloc Quebecois endorses the approach that the
Government of Newfoundland wishes to take, it is even saying that
the Canadian federation is working well, that it is far from being a
prison, that it is possible to amend the Constitution.
These topics were not discussed, as I said earlier. And, by the
way, how do you expect that we in the Bloc Quebecois, we who
represent the people of Quebec, can recognize the rule of law of a
Constitution that we never signed? Has everyone forgotten that
Quebec did not sign the Constitution Act of 1982. Mr. Tobin must
be aware of it. If not, I hope he is listening today, but I am sure he
knows it full well. I am sure he was just trying to score political
points on an issue that is nonetheless very important.
3266
We in the Bloc Quebecois have not stooped to this sort of
political trick. We have simply bowed to democracy, which
expressed its view of Term 17.
(1220)
I will conclude as follows. If Mr. Tobin and the Government of
Newfoundland's approach works, it is no thanks to the
Constitution, but rather to the fact that the people of Newfoundland
spoke democratically and that certain responsible members of the
House of Commons are acting accordingly.
The person making irresponsible and inflammatory remarks and
acting like the warder of the Canadian Constitution is not a member
of the Bloc, he is none other than the Prime Minister of Canada. If
the supreme Constitutional gaoler, the source of Canadian truth,
listens to the democratic expression of the people, this precedent
does not mean that the Constitution is flexible and effective, but
rather that the democratic choice of a people in a referendum is
decisive and irreversible.
The history of Newfoundland is and will be useful to us in
Quebec. As I said at the start of my speech, the people of
Newfoundland became Canadians in 1948 with only a small
majority, with only 52.34 per cent in the second referendum.
Today, in 1996, with only 54 per cent, the government of
Newfoundland will throw the whole system of education into a
state of upheaval, thereby causing fear, anxiety and questions.
The best part of the democratic process is when Newfoundland
taxpayers spoke, their decision was heard. Newfoundlanders have
changed this fear and anxiety and these questions into a coalition
among themselves aimed at meeting challenges.
Elected officials worked, as they did in 1948, as responsible
statesmen, independent of party affiliation-I saw it when I met the
premier of Newfoundland with the two other party leaders-and
will work in the future to advance the people of Newfoundland and
to improve their future.
I truly hope that the Bloc Quebecois' action in this matter will
inspire the view taken by certain individuals of the democratic
choice the people of Quebec will make in the very near future, I
hope.
[English]
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, as the
Reform Party's critic for intergovernmental affairs it is my
responsibility to respond to the government's request to pass a
constitutional resolution on Term 17 of Newfoundland's terms of
union in Confederation.
The terms of union were established when Newfoundland
entered Confederation in 1949. Generally, the provision of the
terms covered a wide range of issues, including education, social rograms and such things as the margarine trade, which were of vital
importance to the new province at the time of Confederation.
Specifically, Term 17 guaranteed powers to various religious
denominations for the administering of education in the province
of Newfoundland and Labrador. There was, prior to Confederation,
a long tradition of denominational education in the province.
There have been some changes to the system over the years. In
1969, on their own, several Protestant denominations consolidated
their efforts by creating what is known as the integrated school
board. In 1987 Parliament and the Newfoundland legislature
specifically amended Term 17 to grant to another denominational
group, the Pentecostal Assemblies, the same rights and privileges
that were in the original terms of union that we are debating today.
Nevertheless, in spite of these changes, today there remains a
large number of school systems and school boards in the province
of Newfoundland. There are no fewer than four school systems and
twenty-seven school boards throughout what is one of our smaller
provinces.
(1225 )
In 1992 the province of Newfoundland and Labrador appointed a
royal commission to look into education issues. It recommended
changes to the structure of the current system. For several years
deliberations have been ongoing between the denominational
school boards and the provincial government to negotiate changes.
Unfortunately a final agreement on all matters has not been
reached.
The motion before us will allow the Government of
Newfoundland to proceed to make some changes without
additional lengthy, difficult and possibly fruitless discussions.
Nevertheless I want to add that as parliamentarians representing
other provinces we regret that the Government of Newfoundland
and Labrador has not been able to resolve this matter and bring it to
a satisfactory conclusion among all the parties.
Section 43 is being invoked to pass this amendment. The House
will know that section 43 of the Constitution Act, 1982 requires
constitutional amendments affecting only a particular province to
be passed by the assembly of that province, in this case the
Newfoundland Assembly, and also the federal Parliament, both the
House of Commons and the Senate, although the Senate's power
over this is only of a suspensive nature.
As parliamentarians representing not Newfoundland in this case
but other parts of the country, the Reform Party takes the role of
Parliament in the section 43 amendment procedure very seriously.
It is not in our view our job to merely rubber stamp constitutional
change because it comes from one particular province. We are
entrusted with a job to examine the impacts of the changes and
decide what course of action is best from the federal perspective. In
3267
so doing, the Reform Party caucus has examined the wide range of
issues and interests involved in this question.
It is not our intention, nor is it our desire, to see the federal
government or federal political parties run the education system in
Newfoundland and Labrador or in any other province, particularly
when we all know that the administering of these systems are and
will require in the future very difficult decisions to be made locally.
Instead, as parliamentarians, we have focused our attention on
two issues. First, was sufficient effort made by the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador to obtain democratic consent for the
changes that are being proposed today? Second, are the questions
of rights protection and minority rights-we are talking about
denominational or faith based education-being done in a way that
would be broadly consistent with or acceptable to other parts of the
country?
These are difficult questions, all the more so for those of us who
believe very strongly in the importance of separate and religious
education in Canada and who recognize the central and important
role, and I think very beneficial role, that is made up education
today by Catholic schools and Catholic education in particular
across the country.
As Reformers we have been very serious about the fact that
governments, in particular when it involves constitutional change,
should make broader efforts to encourage democratic participation
and consensus in major government constitutional decisions. We
believe this is important to increase the legitimacy and acceptance
of our foundation constitutional documents but also that broad
participation of the public in such decisions improves the quality of
those decisions.
It should be pointed out that under section 43 of the Constitution
Act, the Newfoundland government was not required to go beyond
a mere vote of the legislature in order to resolve this issue or to
present it to this Parliament. All that was required was a resolution
of the Newfoundland House of Assembly. In fact, the
Newfoundland House of Assembly has held at least two votes. It
held a vote on the main resolution we are presented with today, a
vote in which the major parties allowed freedom of expression and
in which there were dissenters in each of the major political parties.
Nevertheless the vote passed in the legislature by a clear majority.
As well, there has recently been a unanimous resolution asking the
governments of Newfoundland and Canada to proceed with these
changes.
(1230 )
Although it was not required by the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador by constitutional law, the government
did hold a referendum on the issue of constitutional change with
respect to term 17. That referendum was held on September 5 of
last year. At that time the people of Newfoundland voted in favour
of revising term 17 along the lines proposed by the government by
a majority of 54.7 per cent, although admittedly the turn out for
that referendum was low.
Newfoundlanders are familiar with referendums. A referendum
got them into Confederation in the first place. There were two
referendums, one on June 3, the other on July 22 of 1948, in which
Newfoundlanders were asked to determine their future. This led to
an eventual decision to join Canada. The eventual decision was
also by a narrow margin.
In our examination of the procedures followed in Newfoundland
the majority of our caucus is satisfied that Newfoundland held the
referendum in good faith in accordance with normal electoral law
and referendum practice that would be acceptable in other parts of
the country.
[Translation]
With regard to the use of referendums and the position of the
Bloc Quebecois, I have one comment to make. Some separatists
believe that the willingness of the Canadian government to accept
the result of the Newfoundland referendum means that the same
should apply to Quebec after a future referendum on sovereignty. I
must point out that the premier of Newfoundland and his
government have abided by the legal process and recognized the
specific role of the Canadian Parliament in this matter. We expect
the same from the Quebec government and its premier. So far, it
has been exactly the reverse, they have been acting unilaterally,
even illegally.
The Reform Party will not accept this constitutional amendment
and the referendum result as a precedent, unless the Quebec
government is willing to accept the rule of the law and the
constitutional process, the role of the Canadian government and
other legislatures and, in so doing, the rights of all Canadians, as
did the Newfoundland government.
[English]
It is a totally different situation, particularly in the attitudes of
two governments, in the attitude of the Government of
Newfoundland compared with the Government of Quebec on its
own constitutional agenda.
I turn to the second consideration, denominational education, in
particular whether what the Government of Newfoundland is
proposing is consistent with national standards and the rights of
practices across the country.
Section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867 established basic
protection for minority religious education, at that time largely
Catholic education in the three English speaking provinces and
Protestant education in the province of Quebec. As various
provinces have been admitted to Confederation there have been, in
most cases, equivalent terms established in the Constitution Act
for
3268
section 93 in all of the provinces. There are terms established for
Alberta under the Alberta Act.
Across the country there are over five million students enrolled
in full time elementary and secondary schools. They are served by
over 15,000 schools according to figures from 1990-91. The
Constitution Act, 1867 placed education exclusively under the
control of each provincial legislature. This was later confirmed by
the Constitution Act, 1982.
Canada therefore has 10 provincial education systems plus those
of the territories. There are considerable differences among them
and there are some similarities. In particular, there is the broad
rights protection provided under section 93.
Funding required by school boards for provincial or territorial
coffers varies widely. For example, as a percentage of total school
board revenues the portion provided by a province varies from a
low of 40 per cent in Ontario to a high of 100 per cent in Prince
Edward Island and New Brunswick.
Several provinces provide tax support to school boards
organized on a denominational basis. School acts in Quebec,
Ontario, Saskatchewan, Alberta and the Northwest Territories give
such support for elementary and secondary education in both
public and separate, or in the case of Quebec dissentient, school
boards.
(1235 )
A non-sectarian public education system operates in Manitoba,
British Columbia, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Price Edward
Island. I note the British Columbia government does provide some
funding to religious schools and denominational education does
exist. In Yukon both public and Roman Catholic schools receive
tax support.
In the view of the majority of the Reform caucus the revisions to
term 17 do not destroy the rights to religious education in
Newfoundland and Labrador. As I just mentioned, in comparison
with other provinces and territories, the changes to term 17 will not
create a situation out of line with the other provinces. That is very
generous considering the practices in some provinces.
From section (a) of the new term 17, let me quote: ``That except
as provided for in the new administrative structure, schools
established, maintained and operated with public funds shall be
denominational schools, and any class having rights under this
term as it read on January 1, 1995 shall continue to have the right to
provide for religious education, activities and observances for the
children of that class in those schools, and the group of classes that
form when integrated schools system by agreement in 1969 may
exercise the same rights under this term as a single class of
persons''.
Section (b) of the proposed term allows for the establishment of
new schools on both a non-denominational and a denominational
basis and the provision of these schools to receive public funds.
Section (c) provides for the right to religious education in all
aspects of denominational schools, including not only religious
education but a say in the religious element of the curriculum in
other aspects of the program and control over teaching staff in
these areas.
Section (d) provides for non-discriminatory allocation of public
funds among denominational groups on a non discriminatory basis.
Section (e) allows that on the new school boards to be
established by the government, two-thirds of the representatives
will be denominational representatives or representatives elected to
represent specific classes of persons, although the overall school
board will be organized on a multi-denominational basis or on a
uni-confessional basis.
Where does the new term 17 differ enough from the practices
that went on before? From all indications Newfoundland and
Labrador will continue to have denominational schools; broadly
speaking, a denominational school system within the larger
framework. The right to religious education is in no way removed.
The doubts about these changes happening to term 17 occur
where the wording states ``subject to provincial legislation that is
uniformly applicable to all schools specifying conditions for
establishment or continued operation of schools''.
Education in every province and territory is subject to provincial
legislation. This clause does not make the issue exceptional but
instead makes it rather ordinary in terms of the practices of other
provinces.
I reiterate the official position of my party on these two
questions, both the democratic consent and the process by which
Newfoundland adopted this position and also the general standards
of rights and freedoms to denominational education as we know it
across the country. In evaluating those two positions the clear
majority of the Reform caucus is in support of this amendment and
is supported as the official position of the Reform caucus.
As this is a sensitive and controversial issue that involves a wide
range of conflicting interests, interpretation of specifics and
questions of conscience, the Reform leader has made it clear this
will be subject to a free vote when it is voted on in Parliament. On
ordinary business of Parliament Reform MPs enjoy substantial and
unprecedented latitude in expressing and voting their political
views and those of their constituents.
3269
I am glad to see that in both Newfoundland and in the position
taken by the Liberal government, the government is finally
showing some movement in this direction not only toward free
voting in the House but toward accepting the practice of consulting
the people and having referendums on constitutional change.
(1240)
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the debate concerns
chapter 5 of the Constitution Act, 1982, which is addressed to
constituent power, the ultimate source of constitutional power in
the state.
It is an area in which there is an absence of compelling or
binding precedents or practice. It is proper therefore for Parliament
to attempt to lay down constitutional ground rules as to what is
involved and what is not involved.
The first of these, of course, is that what Parliament says in a
constitutional debate, unlike the position Parliament views in
ordinary legislation, amounts to travaux préparatoires,
authoritative sources regarding what Parliament intended, which
are controlling on the courts in their approach to that matter.
Whether this is, as presented, a section 43 matter involving only
Parliament and one other province is a matter for Parliament to
decide, not the province, and that it is judicially reviewable as such
by the courts.
Further, it is a mandate to Parliament in the sense of both
chambers under chapter 5 of the Constitution, not to the cabinet,
not to the Prime Minister.
I have argued, as members would be aware, for the attrition of
the Senate's powers over the House as an unappointed body in
other areas, but it is difficult to deny in the case of an act adopted as
recently as the Constitution Act, 1982 that the Senate does not have
full power equal to that of the House in this matter.
I reiterate that Parliament is not a rubber stamp for a proposal
submitted by a provincial legislature. It is no mere ministerial one
to follow up the wishes of provincial legislatures. Parliament has
full political discretion in exercising its role to accept, to reject or
to send back to the province with suggestions of desirable
amendments that the province should make to obtain Parliament's
approval.
I stress again that Parliament in approaching its role is aware of
the principle of economy in the use of power which is applicable as
much to constitutional matters as to military matters.
There is an obligation on a province approaching Parliament to
exhaust the ordinary political processes within the province before
escalating to a constitutional amendment which it would ask
Parliament to adopt.
Parliament in this case is limiting itself to the facts presented by
the provincial legislature of Newfoundland. It is a Newfoundland
situation, and Parliament's decision to approve or not to approve
the project of resolution should be understood in that context.
In particular, it should be taken in the context of chapter 5 of
whole of the Constitution Act, 1982. It sets out various procedures
for amending the Constitution with different degrees of difficulty
in the procedures of amendment which are intended to correspond
to the seriousness or otherwise of the proposals concerned.
Since section 43-based amendments are limited to the province
or provinces actually approaching Parliament, Parliament in
responding and carrying forward a proposal for an amendment is
limiting itself to those provinces. What we are saying is no
precedent in constitutional legal terms is created from this
disposition that might apply to other provinces not represented as
parties to the action. Section 43-based constitutional amendments
have no application to any other than the particular moving parties
concerned.
I suggested earlier when the matter first arose in political arenas
that there might be merits in obtaining an advisory opinion from
the Supreme Court that would address itself to the issues on which I
have spoken. However, an advisory opinion can of course be a prior
opinion, or a subsequent one if questions of doubt or interpretation
arise. After the adoption of the present resolution, they could
properly be referred to the Supreme Court for an advisory opinion.
(1245 )
In approaching this matter I am very sensitive to the principles
of federal comity, that is to say the particular obligations of good
faith and mutual trust and respect that link provinces and the
federal government in a federal system such as ours.
I have already spoken of the prior obligation of a province to
exhaust the ordinary political processes before approaching us for a
constitutional amendment. The federal Parliament, in responding
to a provincial request, will bear in mind what the late Mr. Justice
Frankfurter of the United States Supreme Court said about the duty
of the federal government, in exercise of federal comity, to defer to
a province even if on particular facts the federal government might
have chosen to act otherwise in the legislation that is involved.
It is in that spirit that we approach this resolution. I have taken
note of the fact that representations have been made to many
members of the House by individual voters in Newfoundland on
this question. We do take in mind the fact that the premier of
Newfoundland has met with us and has given assurances that he
will, in the application of this resolution of amendment, if it is
adopted, negotiate and deal with people within his province.
Federal comity works two ways. It is a reciprocal obligation, and
we take very seriously the assurances given by the premier of
3270
Newfoundland who is well known and respected as a distinguished
former member of the House.
I am acting on the basis of these assurances, and also my
awareness that the application under section 43 cannot, in
constitutional law terms, extend beyond the project submitted by
the province of Newfoundland that it does not constitute a
constitutional legal precedent for other cases and that, in particular,
it can have no constitutional application to parties not represented
before the Parliament in this proposal. It cannot touch fundamental
rights or other matters. It would require other amending procedures
with extraordinary majorities and processes not present in the
relatively simple section 43 application.
Therefore, it is on that basis and having expressed these views
which, as travaux préparatoires, do indicate an intent of Parliament
and which we would expect the courts, as a co-ordinate institution,
to respect that I am prepared to support the resolution.
[Translation]
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
with a certain sadness that I rise on this motion we are discussing
and on which we will have to vote very shortly. It seems to me we
are dealing with and debating a fundamental issue.
We are changing the constitutional rights acquired by minorities
in exchange of their promise to join Canada-so it was an
exchange-without their consent.
[English]
Changing the rights of minorities without their consent,
particularly when they were given to Newfoundlanders in exchange
and as part of the package for joining Canada and especially since
they were broadened in 1987, is something I take very seriously
and needs to be thought about very carefully. That is my principal
and major concern in this debate.
[Translation]
There are other aspects that puzzle me and that I must absolutely
talk about. There were other alternatives, other options.
(1250)
[English]
What were those other options or alternatives? I guess it would
have been a bold stroke of leadership to have come forward with an
amendment which would have responded to the rights, hopes,
dreams and aspirations of all of the key stakeholders. That is what I
would have preferred. Then it would have gone through the House,
probably unanimously.
There was another one. Why not proceed with the
implementation of the changes that were supposedly required now?
Some of them are happening today. Senior administrators have
received notices that they will no longer be working as of August
31. Obviously, some movement is occurring. Later on, if it had
been necessary to bring forward the amendment, it could have been
used then.
I am told from very reliable sources, including both government
and others who oppose, that an agreement has been reached, at least
in principle-and one could quibble about that-on the number of
school boards there would be, on funding of capital expenditures,
on the viability of schools, busing and a construction board. Those
are major issues that had been discussed and, at least, agreement in
principle had been reached.
Why could this agreement not have been turned over to the court
of appeal of the province or the Supreme Court of Canada in order
to see whether it is consistent with Term 17? That would have been
another alternative, besides the other two I have mentioned.
[Translation]
Some people maintain there will be no effects on education
elsewhere or on minority rights in other areas. If we look at this
issue from the legal viewpoint, they are absolutely right. We do not
even need to debate the issue. But will links be made? Of course.
Already, Newfoundland francophones are asking the following
question: ``Why is there no concern for our rights to manage our
own system at this time when we are discussing the rights of other
minorities?'' This is a question that has been asked before. I am
told there will be no impact, legally speaking. There will be no
legal impact. It will not change everything overnight, but there
will, of course, be an impact.
The Federation of Newfoundland Indians said this: ``What about
our rights that have not yet been recognized? Why not recognize
them now?'' Some public school commissioners were quoted in
Ontario newspapers as saying that something like this proposed
amendment was needed in Ontario.
You are totally right in saying there will be no legal impact. I
fully agree with you. However, it is not quite the case when we look
at the links that will be established.
[English]
There has been some significant discussion with respect to
lobbying. The Roman Catholics and the Pentecostal people
performed all kinds of lobbying. I commend them. However, there
was lobbying on the other side. In fact, I had more lobbying from
the government side than I did from the other side which
supposedly was doing a lot more than the government. Of course
the resource base was not at all equal.
3271
Let us put that aside very quickly. I do not know if I was a
fortunate MP who got more attention from government than
others, but I have to tell the House that there was lobbying from
both sides.
Much has been said about the academic achievement of
Newfoundlanders. Some people have suggested that because the
system is as it is, the achievement is not what it ought to be. Listen
to what the department of education of Newfoundland and
Labrador had to say: ``The general level of education among all age
groups in Newfoundland has risen dramatically since the
mid-1970s to where the gap with the rest of Canada has all but
closed''. Does that suggest a large gap? Hardly.
The former minister of education said: ``The gap in higher
education between our province and the rest of Canada is becoming
a myth-Our university participation rates are higher than the
national average. If the present trend continues, Newfoundland and
Labrador will soon have educational levels equal to the rest of the
country''.
(1255 )
I could have found another half dozen to a dozen quotes from the
department of education, bureaucrats and elected officials but I
chose those two just to make the point. Let us not exaggerate that
situation.
The other point that needs to be mentioned is that the
government is the one that has complete authority on curriculum,
text materials, numbers of teachers, funding, teacher education and
performance standards. The government has the responsibility
now. If there is poor performance who are we going to blame? Of
course I have shown that there is not necessarily poor performance.
Some people have spoken about the referendum as an ideal, a
model mechanism. Referendums can be useful but they can also be
extremely dysfunctional. This referendum by the way was held on
September 5. It was preceded by the summer months which is not a
great time for substantive debate on an important question.
I wonder who had more resources at their disposal in order to
make the point. Let me share with the House the question. This is
what the people of Newfoundland were asked to vote on: ``Do you
support Term 17 in the manner proposed by the government to
enable reform of the denominational educational system?''
With a question like that one could expect to get 50 per cent even
with no debate. Ask the question in any province or territory: ``Do
you support reform of education?'' Ask parents whether or not they
support reform. Yet the turnout was 52 per cent and 54 per cent in
favour of such a question.
Was that an appropriate tool to use to legitimize what the
government wanted? Frankly, I would have preferred no
referendum. Now in a sense we have a benchmark. Again, it has no
legal basis but do we really believe that someone is not going to try
to use this to advance a political agenda? It has already been done.
[Translation]
It was done in the House of Commons here in Ottawa not too long
ago, and it will happen again.
[English]
Let me share just a couple of points very quickly. I contend that
schools are at the mercy of provincial legislation. I want to quote a
bit of the legislation. It reads: ``Subject to provincial legislation
that is uniformly applicable to all schools specifying conditions for
the establishment or continued operation of schools''. This is
subject to provincial legislation so the constitutional right has been
lost. Someone could be premier today, later another premier and it
is subject to that provincial legislation.
Further it states in part: ``and to direct the teaching of aspects of
curriculum affecting religious beliefs''. The idea was to ensure that
those groups that were affected would still have something to say.
To direct is not to determine. It does not give a policy decision
making capability. It limits involvement.
Why could we not at this time bring forward an amendment to
the amendment that would respond to those legitimate concerns
which would respond to other concerns that have been voiced that
are legitimate, that really strike at the heart of the concerns which
have been expressed here.
I know that I have but a few seconds left, and I want to finish on
this note. It seems to me that we need to hear more about this issue.
As I said before there are other alternatives: a reference to the
courts, an amendment that would respond to the needs of all people
or proceeding with the changes and then coming with the
amendment. That would prevent us from having to address this
whole issue of a changing of constitutionally acquired rights of
minorities given to them as part of a package to join Canada. If we
can find a rationale in this situation, why can we not find one in
another situation that is convenient to us in the future?
[Translation]
I could have said much more on this whole matter, but I would
simply like to say, in closing, that if this amendment is passed, I
think Canada will survive. On the other hand, I am convinced
reference will be made to how a referendum was used in this
situation. I am also convinced that some people will make other
attempts to erode the rights of minorities in other areas.
(1300)
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I must compliment the hon. member for St. Boniface on
his excellent speech. I agree with what he said. I share his concerns
about this amendment to the Constitution of Canada.
3272
I would like to put a question to the member for St. Boniface,
who, like me, has a great deal of experience in education. In fact,
I gathered from his speech that the hon. member was once Deputy
Minister of Education of his province. This means that whatever
he may say on this subject is very important and that he speaks
from experience. It is clear from what the hon. member said that
some people have real concerns about this and that we should
think twice before voting for the motion.
I am concerned about French speaking minorities. I wonder why
French-Canadians cannot run their schools in their own language in
Newfoundland. The hon. member said other alternatives could be
considered. In light of his experience, I would be curious to know
what he has in mind.
Instead of taking the major step of asking the Parliament of
Canada to approve this amendment, what intermediate step could
the Government of Newfoundland have taken before asking us to
amend the Constitution?
He raised another point that caused me some concern, and I
would like him to clarify this for me. He mentioned that people in
Ontario were interested in something similar in order to make
changes to the education system in Ontario. As a French speaking
catholic, both minority groups in Ontario, I wonder if he could
elaborate on this.
Mr. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
questions. It seems to me I clearly indicated that there were a
number of alternatives, such as a reference to the courts to
determine whether the agreement already reached meets the
conditions of Term 17, or an amendment that would meet the needs
of all those involved, or bring in changes, as was done before, and
use the amendment later on, if necessary.
These are at least three options. As for francophones in
Newfoundland and the fact that they do not manage their own
schools, I do not know. It must be recognized that progress can
sometimes be very slow in some provinces. However, I do hope
that the new premier, who made a commitment and who showed
some openness, will be able to remedy the situation. I say this in all
sincerity, and I applaud the efforts of Newfoundlanders in this
regard. I am prepared, along with my French speaking colleagues,
to try to help them.
With regard to the comment made about Ontario, this is what I
have been told. That comment was from a public school trustee
who thought some savings could be made by somehow merging or
restricting the powers or the authority of catholic schools or school
boards.
Let us not get carried away. I do not believe that, if the
amendment is adopted, minority rights will completely changed,
whether in the education sector or in any other one. I suggest that a
lot of questions will be raised. Debates will take place and they will
not necessarily promote unity, whether at the community,
provincial or national level.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to speak after the hon. member for St.
Boniface, whose speech I really appreciated. I know he has always
shown great concern about all the French speaking Canadians from
sea to sea, whether we agree or not, as is the case with the Bloc
Quebecois, with that. I think however that we should point out to
those who are listening that what we have before us is not a bill, but
rather a constitutional resolution that has to be approved by this
House and the other place, according to a very specific process, as
described in our own constitutional regulations under section 43.
(1305)
I will come back to the rights of French speaking Canadians,
because it is of course an issue we are all concerned about, but I
would like all those who take part in this debate to keep in mind
that what we have before us, the starting point of the motion before
us, was a democratic referendum held according to rules accepted
by all of us. In a democracy like ours, we have the responsibility to
recognize that the best choice is the people's choice.
I am not among those who believe that when we do not agree
with the option chosen by the majority in a referendum, we can
take issue over the complexity of the referendum question, as some
people have gotten used to do in Quebec. It is as if a province,
whether it is Quebec with the self-determination issue or
Newfoundland with the education system and Term 17, can go
through a referendum, with all the rallying and the effort it
requires, without the citizens getting all the information they need.
There are two premises to my speech. First, that it is possible
under our constitutional rules, the rules that we were in some
respects critical of in Quebec, since we did not sign the
Constitution Act, 1982, but it must be recognized that, in this
Parliament, under the existing rules, it is possible under the terms
of section 43 for a province to ask the federal government to sign a
bilateral agreement to amend certain provisions of specific concern
to it. This is certainly the case for the conditions of admission into
Confederation of Newfoundland in 1949.
You will recall that, on three occasions in recent years, we have
seen, particularly those who have more experience than I do in this
House, an amending process under section 43. I want to remind
those listening today of this so that there is no confusion.
Under section 43, there was a constitutional amendment putting
Newfoundland's Pentecostal schools, one of eight religious
denominations now recognized, on an equal footing with the seven
others in 1987. This meant that they were recognized as full
managers in
3273
the educational system, with all that that implies in the allocation
of resources.
There was a second, more recent, constitutional amendment in
1993. In fact, members of the Bloc Quebecois took part in the
debate at that time, but not yours truly. The 1993 amendment
sought to guarantee the linguistic equality of French and English in
the province of New Brunswick, which, as a result, became the
second officially bilingual province in Canada, after Quebec.
The third amendment, I remember it well, I took part in the
debate, dealt with the erosion of the insular nature of Prince
Edward Island which was to be linked to the mainland by an
interprovincial bridge. Therefore, in recent history, the possibility
of amending the Constitution was given to Parliament on three
occasions.
I have not been feeling very well these past few days, but nothing
will prevent me from taking part in this debate. We must start from
the premise that a referendum was held in Newfoundland. We are
not in a situation whereby authority has been usurped. There was a
referendum and the issue has been discussed in Newfoundland for
some time now. It has been the subject of official talks since 1992.
A referendum was held under the auspices of the province; I am
somewhat surprised that, except for the justice minister, none of the
speakers taking part in the debate since this morning has taken the
time, for the benefit of the viewers, to read the question.
(1310)
I do not think, on the face of it-and I will read the
question-the wording of the question was particularly clear,
particularly enlightening.
The question read as follows:
[English]
Do you support revising term 17 in the manner proposed by the
government to enable reform of the denominational education
system?
[Translation]
There was no beating around the bush, the question mentioned
solely Term 17 regarding the denominational education system.
This is what brings the Bloc Quebecois to support the resolution.
We have two good reasons. The first one is the fact that there was a
referendum. A referendum is a consultation tool which is called for
by the Reform Party, which is recognized by government and
which is sought by the Bloc Quebecois.
The referendum-and I think it is important to remember
that-allowed the people of Newfoundland to say what they
wanted. We note that only 52 per cent of registered voters exercised
their right. Of course this is not very much when you compare it to
the extraordinary exercise in democracy in Quebec a few months
ago, where more than 90 per cent of the people exercised their
right to vote.
But again, in a democracy, the best choice is always the one
made by the people. And 54 per cent of the people of
Newfoundland who were eligible to vote according to the rules said
they preferred a review of the education system. That is why the
Bloc Quebecois supports the motion. We support it because there
was a referendum whose results may not have been spectacular, but
did yield a majority opinion. And, once again, every scheme and
trick can never make us forget that, in our rule, in international law
as well as within Canadian boundaries, when there is a referendum
and when there is a general election, the rule that must apply is 50
per cent plus one.
So, as far as legitimacy is concerned, those who do not wish to
have this amendment agreed to cannot in any way challenge this.
Second, what we are talking about here is a matter under
provincial jurisdiction. It deals with the way the province that was
the last to join Confederation wants to organize its school system.
Of course, it has connections with minority rights. But it seems to
me this is also a distinct issue, because minority rights, particularly
the right to public services, is inscribed in section 23 of the
Canadian charter.
It is certainly not I who will tell you today that I consider Canada
to be a model of services towards francophones outside Quebec.
We are well aware that there are some difficulties in the western
provinces. I spent the week before last in British Columbia, and I
know very well that, in British Columbia as well as in
Newfoundland, people are far from being well served in terms of
the education rights in the language of the minority. That is what I
believe makes Canada, in its present configuration, a most unlikely
country. But the fact that certain minorities have difficulty
obtaining services, and particularly having their right to education
in their own language, cannot be negated by the fact that, as we
speak, in 1996-and this should be first and foremost in our
thoughts-not one single school in Newfoundland is not a
denominational school.
Can you imagine, in our modern world where education must be
connected with the labour market and with our plans as a society,
not having one single secular or non-denominational school in a
province like Newfoundland, one of Canada's gateways? In
Newfoundland, school organization is still based on
denominations.
(1315)
Personally, I think it does not make any sense, in a society, to
organize the provision of educational services on the basis of
religious conviction. I am by no means inferring that I am not a
God-fearing man myself or that religion does not have its place in
3274
schools, but I do believe that no school system should be organized
on the basis of religious affiliation, whatever the denomination.
What is going on in Newfoundland in particular is an aberration.
It is incredible that such a situation still exists. For the benefit of
our listeners, I would like to point out that it has not been so since
the beginning of time. There was a commission of inquiry on this.
It seems to me that when there is a board of inquiry, it means that a
public debate takes place, that experts give their opinions and that
the public can be heard.
The board, which started its work in 1992, came to the
conclusion, understandably so, that Newfoundland could not
modernize its structure unless its school system underwent major
changes. The proposed review seeks to eliminate a structure with
four different school systems managed by seven religious
denominations. How could one not be concerned? How could one
not have questions about the fact that, in Newfoundland, seven
denominations, and I will name them, coexist through four
different school systems, with all the confusion and duplication
that this situation implies?
Just imagine. A young schoolboy gets up in the morning and gets
on a school bus that drives by three schools, but they are not his
school. He has to travel further away because the school system is
based on denominational and not on secular criteria.
The seven denominations include the Church of England, the
Pentecostal Assemblies, the Presbyterian Church, the Roman
Catholic Church, the Salvation Army, the Church o the
Seventh-day Adventists and the United Church of Canada.
I am convinced that all those denominations have a value system
that are quite be beneficial to kids. I am convinced as well that
people in the school system are profoundly dedicated and very
much involved, but it does not make sense from the point of view
of resource duplication, and it is not a modern way of structuring a
school system.
Who better to address this issue in the House of Commons than
the Bloc members, especially those representing the Montreal
region. As you kow, I am a member from Montreal.
Mr. Pomerleau: Me too.
Mr. Ménard: The hon. member for
Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies who sits right behind me is also a
member from the Montreal area. We have the same situation in
Montreal. We have the Montreal Catholic School Commission
which co-exists with another type of school organization, and
again, not only do we have a duplication of the structure, but this is
not the right way or the modern way to set up a school system,
especially with the changes we will need to face the new
millennium.
You could say: ``Yes, but what does it mean ultimately in terms
of management?'' This is the most questionable aspect of our
school system, the impact of a denominational school system,
because it creates links within the management process that have
no justification. It means that these denominations and their school
commissions have some powers over which teachers are hired and
fired. They have some powers over the building and maintenance
of the schools. They have some powers over the way the education
and school operating budgets are spent and, of course, over the
creation of school districts and especially boundary adjustment.
(1320)
Members, no doubt, have all received a letter from the premier
of Newfoundland. I think I can say his name since he is no longer a
member of Parliament. We have all received a letter from the
premier of Newfoundland, Brian Tobin. His main theme is the need
to review the education system in order to integrate it into only one
multidenominational structure.
The premier of Newfoundland, based on the findings of the
commission of inquiry, has determined that the province of
Newfoundland can save as much as $17 million. Of course, $17
million is not the end of the world, but it is a considerable amount,
given the population of Newfoundland.
We are extremely supportive of what is going on in
Newfoundland. This reminds us of the use of referendums as a
means of consultation. We will not be able to forget it, and the hon.
member for St. Boniface is right in saying that he is concerned with
the precedent that could be set by the interpretation. I believe that
he is right in reminding us that in a democracy, on a Canada-wide
scale or in a Quebec-only context, it is obvious that there cannot be
two interpretations.
If, as parliamentarians, we recognize that 54 per cent of
Newfoundlanders voted for a profound reform of their school
system, when 52, 51 or 54 per cent of Quebecers decide in a
democratic referendum held according to the rules adopted by
Quebec's national assembly to become sovereign, we hope that the
Canadian Parliament will show the same generous and democratic
disposition toward Quebec as it is now showing toward
Newfoundland.
Even if there were no debate on Newfoundland and no debate on
Quebec's right to self-determination we, as the official opposition,
would still say exactly the same thing we are saying today, which is
that Newfoundland, following the results of its referendum, has the
right to ask this and the other House of Parliament to examine a
constitutional resolution allowing the province to proceed with a
complete reform of its school system. We would say exactly the
same thing and, moreover, we think that this is an important
democratic step.
3275
Let me conclude, since I see that my time is running out, by
reminding members that, from what we heard from the
Newfoundland government, with the proposals put forward by
premier Tobin and his education minister, it will still be possible
for parents to send their children to a unidenominational school
if they make such a request and if there is a sufficient number
of students. It is very similar to section 23.
I think that the Newfoundland government obviously believes
that this system will be less popular and that the great reform which
will be proposed will lead to more and more multidenominational
schools. We want to salute such an initiative.
I think we would not have much credibility as parliamentarians
if, in a debate such as this one, we started to ignore the validity of
the democratic processes put in place by the provinces.
In closing, I urge all members of this House without exception to
give their warm, enthusiastic and positive support to this resolution
from the Government of Newfoundland.
(1325)
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened to the member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve and I thank
him and his party for their participation in this debate.
I have observed two positions in the discourse of members of the
Bloc Quebecois. The first is support for the results of referendums,
particularly in this case, and the second is almost unconditional
support for the rights of francophones outside Quebec. I must
examine both these positions.
If there is a referendum outside Quebec on the status of French
or the rights of francophones, and the result is in favour of change,
will the Bloc Quebecois accept the results of this referendum or
will it say that referendums affect only the rights of others and not
those of francophones?
Mr. Ménard: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I forget the member's
riding, but I would like to congratulate him on his excellent French.
If I understood his question, he wanted to know whether I would
accept the results if there were a referendum outside of Quebec on
the rights of francophones that was not organized by the National
Assembly and concerned the rights of francophones and therefore,
necessarily, the rights of francophones outside Quebec.
I would say yes right off, but I would ask him to remember two
things. The first is that no member of the Bloc Quebecois would
say in this debate that francophones outside Quebec had sufficient
rights. We are very aware, from what we read in reports on official
languages, that the situation of francophones outside Quebec in all
provinces, from British Columbia to the maritimes, is of great
concern.
We are well aware of that and have urged this government to
expend additional resources and to ensure that the provinces accord
francophones the same rights as those enjoyed by the anglophone
minority in Quebec. I hope the member is aware that no province in
this country treats its minority with as much regard, generosity and
resources as Quebec treats its anglophone minority.
Second, I am beginning to know the member, one of the brightest
in his party-the member for Outremont is, of course, but I am
talking about the Reform member. We must never forget that what
is sacred about the future of Quebec is its right to
self-determination. The member has his own ideas on the matter.
We have had debates and we will have more. A referendum is the
right process for the people of Quebec to decide their future. When
I speak of the people of Quebec, I mean all the component parts,
including the first nations and the anglophone community along
with the several hundred other ethnic communities in Quebec.
I say to him, however, that the only legitimate and acceptable
way for Quebec to acknowledge the results of some future exercise
of the right to self-determination is for Quebec itself to decide
under the law of the National Assembly and the conditions set out
in the Quebec Referendum Act.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Colleagues, being aware, as
we all are, of how members feel about beginning a speech only to
have it interrupted by the Speaker for one reason or another, I
wonder if we might agree that I see the clock as being 1.30 p.m. Is
it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It being 1.30 p.m., the House
will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members'
Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
3275
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
(1330 )
[English]
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.) moved that Bill
C-224, an act to amend the Criminal Code (arrest without warrant),
be read the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I want to state at the outset that I have
mixed feelings about presenting my private member's Bill
C-224 today.
3276
On one hand I am honoured to have the opportunity to present
what has been asked of me by the police officers of this country.
In my travels across Canada I have met with many police officers.
All have stated that in order to make society safer, they need more
power to enforce the law. Bill C-224 addresses this need.
On the other hand I know that after today it will be the end of the
line for this issue. After today there will be no further discussion,
no further debate and worst of all, no vote. Certainly there will be
no new legislation to help our police forces. I feel I have failed
them in their request. I can only blame our legislative process.
I stand here today with yet another example of how our private
members' business is in desperate need of massive reform. So far
in this 35th Parliament there have been no private members' bills
passed with regard to reforming our criminal justice system. There
have been many proposed bills from all parties which would have
made our streets safer. Yet the committee with the authority to
decide what is good for us decided behind closed doors to turn
down these proposals by deeming them not votable.
There are currently 59 private members' bills on the Order
Paper. Sixteen of them deal with reforming our criminal justice
system. This has to send a signal to the government that there is a
need for reform which the government is not meeting.
One of the more important bills was proposed by the hon.
member of York South-Weston, a bill to prevent murderers from
applying for parole after 15 years. This bill has been before the
justice committee for the past two years with no movement toward
making it law. The bill would scrap section 745 of the Criminal
Code.
Of the 59 private members' bills, nine have received second
reading but many of these were done away with last week. The
whole process is a disaster and a sham. It all comes down to the
standing committee on House management which makes the final
decision in determining which of the items added to the order of
precedence are to be put to a vote in the House.
The committee's track record of picking bills which it feels
should be voted on is suspect. The only private members' bills that
have been given the go ahead and have been passed into law have
been mostly uncontroversial bills that will not rock the boat. For
example, there was a bill on whether to make lacrosse or hockey
the official national sport.
I was sent here to represent the people of Wild Rose. I promised
them I would try to make their country a little more safe. I have
found this is nearly impossible within our present system, with the
government having free rein in making decisions behind closed
doors.
My private member's Bill C-224 first and foremost would have
helped our police officers. It addresses their needs by stating that if
a person fails or refuses to comply with the condition of their
parole or of an unescorted temporary absence or who on reasonable
grounds the peace officer believes has breached or is about to
breach such a condition, the peace officer may then have the power
to arrest that person without a warrant.
A frequent example of this is when a person has been told they
are in violation of their parole conditions because they have visited
a bar or an establishment that sells liquor. In many cases the police
know who is out on parole in their jurisdiction. While patrolling
these establishments they may spot an individual who is violating
these conditions. The situation now is that the police have no
authority to arrest the person. They have to contact the suspect's
parole officer and wait for the processing of a warrant in order to
arrest the individual. This could take many hours and the person
could be long gone by that time.
(1335 )
If my bill had been votable and was accepted, it would have
restored power back to the police to arrest the individual on the
spot. In many cases this would prevent the individual from
committing a further crime or endangering society in any other way
which has happened on many occasions.
Another frequent incident where this bill would be effective is in
the case of those who are out on parole and are stalking an
individual. Criminal Code sections 264(2) and 264(3) define what
criminal harassment is and the punishment for this crime. The
government's new Bill C-27 addresses the case of death occurring
during criminal harassment. In both of these measures, there is no
prevention in place. Prevention is something this government has
talked about on a number of occasions.
There are examples every day of an ex-husband who has
threatened to get revenge at any cost. In many of these cases these
people are out on parole. Even though they are violating their
parole order, the police must once again wait for a warrant in order
to arrest them. If the police had proper authority as provided in this
bill and they found the individual in the vicinity of the ex-wife and
the individual was breaking the condition of parole or unescorted
temporary absence pass, then they would be able to arrest him right
there and then. This would ultimately protect many women in their
fight to survive. This is another issue that has been talked about by
government members, but only talked about.
This bill could have saved lives and should have been made
votable. In order that the people of Canada and the police officers
who asked me to do this can understand the issue, I will discuss my
private members' bill in a different manner. I will present the
discussion in the context of the criteria the standing committee
responsible for private members' business sets for the selection of
votable items. I want the Canadian people to be the judges and to
see, as I do, that this bill certainly meets the guidelines, remember-
3277
ing that the only reason it was stopped was that one committee
behind closed doors decided to stop it without any explanation.
The first criterion is that the private members' bill must be of
national, regional or local significance. It cannot be highly
contentious or controversial, trivial or insignificant.
This bill has national significance since it affects the Criminal
Code of Canada. In no way is this bill contentious, controversial,
trivial or insignificant. It essentially enhances the safety of all
Canadians by increasing the number of people who are able to
monitor those individuals who are out on parole. The bill will allow
our police officers and our parole officers to patrol the streets. This
would ultimately increase our frontline workers. It would reduce
crime and save lives.
The members of the Canadian Police Association have agreed
with the importance of this bill. After they looked at it carefully,
they liked it and they offered their support for it. They stated it
would make their difficult job of peace officers that much easier
and hoped it would be successful.
The second criterion is that the bill must not appear to
discriminate or be in favour of or against a certain area or region in
this country. In no way does the bill do that. This bill would apply
across the country. The police have been calling for this authority
from coast to coast in order to effect safety for all Canadians.
The third criterion is that the bill cannot concern electoral
boundaries or constituency names. Obviously it has nothing to do
with boundaries or constituency names.
The fourth criterion is that the bill should not require obvious
amendment because it is substantially redundant with the law, is
fundamentally ineffective to implement its own intent, is unclear in
its meaning or otherwise defective in its drafting. I have been
assured that Bill C-224 is not redundant with the existing laws nor
is it ineffective in its intent and meaning nor is it defective in its
drafting.
(1340 )
The fifth criterion is that the subject of the bill should be
different from specific matters already declared by the government
to be on its legislative agenda. This bill does not affect the
government's legislative agenda. If anything, this bill is providing
further clarity to section 733.1 which was outlined in the
government's Bill C-41 that was passed last June. The bill did not
address the expansion of powers to police officers. My private
members' bill would rectify that situation.
The sixth criterion, depending on the context of political issues
and events, the number of times the topic has appeared in the
House may be of significance. In our debates in the House of
Commons we have seen on a week to week basis many examples of
how the police could have made a difference if they had had more
authority. This topic has occurred in the House on a regular basis
and is of great significance to Canadians.
In the seventh criterion, all other factors being equal, lower
priority should be given to motions which deal with matters which
the House could address in some other way or through another
procedure. All in all this bill should have received high priority
since this matter cannot be dealt with through another procedure.
The government has just completed significant amendments to the
Criminal Code in Bill C-41 and is now proposing further
amendments in Bill C-27. It is unlikely this issue will be back
before the fall session. Now is the time to deal with this bill.
The eighth criterion is that motions couched in partisan terms
should not be selected. This is not a partisan bill. This bill is about
the safety of Canadians.
The ninth criterion is that bills will be set aside in the selection
process if they are clearly unconstitutional in that they infringe
upon provincial legislative authority, the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms or other entrenched constitutional rules, or if
they impede or are contrary to normal federal-provincial or
international relations. In no way does this bill infringe upon
provincial legislation or provincial relations.
The terms of parole are set by court order, while cases of
unescorted temporary absence orders are deemed by the federal
parole board. This bill will work as a means of carrying out both of
these agencies' orders by giving police officers the authority to
oversee their judgments. In addition, this bill will enhance
federal-provincial relations by giving the provincial and municipal
police forces the powers to effect enforcement in our society.
The tenth criterion is that bills relating to a question that is
substantially the same as a question already voted on by the House
in the session should not be selected as a votable item. This issue
does not relate to any question that has been voted on in this House
in this session, not at all.
The eleventh criterion is that items relating to a question that is
substantially the same as a question contained in an item already
selected as a votable item in the session should not be selected.
Once again, no bills on criminal justice reform were chosen as
votable items. Therefore this is not infringing on any other item.
This bill certainly meets the criteria and then some. It would
have affected everyone in the judicial process. Ultimately it would
have given our frontline workers the authority they need in order to
make our streets safer and to save lives in the process. This will not
happen because of a select few who behind closed doors deemed
that it was not important enough to give our police officers the
power to fight against crime.
The problem with our justice system is perfectly expressed in a
Mackenzie Institute occasional paper entitled: ``Streets of Fear:
The Failure of the Canadian Criminal Justice System''. It states:
``One of the principal functions of organized society is the
protection of all members from physical harm. Over long centuries,
3278
western societies struggled to establish the supremacy of the rule of
law. The state was to enforce the law on behalf of the law-abiding,
thus protecting the individual and giving him the freedom to live
and work in peace. The surest measure of any government is how
well its criminal justice system serves the citizen. By that criteria,
the Canadian government is a failure. This government certainly
does not serve our citizens by giving such measures as this bill any
credibility in our discussion on crime''.
(1345 )
Having looked at all the criteria and realizing the criteria are
written out, they say quite plainly to each and every member that
when we prepare our member's bills they are to meet these criteria
in order to be votable. I have been assured by all the experts that
my bill has certainly met all the criteria and yet it is deemed not
votable.
I ask that we do not deny the Canadian people to have a voice in
this decision or in many others, as far as that goes. We do not deny
them by giving them a vote. We give them a vote through their
members of Parliament. That is democracy. That is something the
Canadian people have been asking for a long time, to have a
stronger voice. We are their voice. Let us express it through a vote.
The bill meets all the requirements as written by the government.
It has passed the test. I ask for unanimous consent to make this a
votable item.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Does the House give its
unanimous consent to make Bill C-224 votable?
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I had 20
minutes and I put forward that motion before my 20 minute period
was up. I would like to have the opportunity to finish my speech.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Regrettably, when a member
puts a question to the House and in so doing retakes his seat, for all
intents and purposes that intervention is completed. We make the
request to the House based on the original request of the member.
If there is a bit of time left at the end, from time to time under
right of reply members have had the opportunity to make a closing
statement about their bill, particularly when it is not a votable item.
Should that be the case later in the hour and if the hon. member
wishes to avail himself of that privilege, the Chair will deal with it
at the appropriate time.
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor-St. Clair, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to address the House on private member's
Bill C-224, an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to the
arrest without warrant provisions.
The hon. member has spoken, as is his wont to do, with quite a
bit of passion about the bill. In reality his bill does two things, one
of which was done a long time ago in the Criminal Code.
He is trying to set out in section 495 of the code the authority of a
peace officer to arrest without warrant someone who on reasonable
grounds is believed to have breached or who is about to breach a
condition of probation. Second, he wants to amend the same
provision to give new authority to the peace officer to arrest
without warrant an offender who on reasonable grounds is believed
to have breached or who is about to breach a condition of parole or
unescorted temporary absence.
What is interesting about this is that while public protection
from conditionally released offenders is a matter of very serious
concern to the government, an area where we have already made
several legislative and practical improvements, there are some
misconceptions which have to be cleared up.
With respect to violation of probation conditions, I stress that
section 740 of the Criminal Code, which the hon. member may not
have directed his attention to, already authorizes a peace officer to
arrest without warrant persons found to be breaching a condition of
their probation. More specifically, his bill tries to put the same
condition into another section, which is redundant. This provision
defines breach of probation as a criminal offence, which is very
important.
(1350 )
Pursuant to Section 495 of the code, is the focus of this private
member's bill, police have the authority to arrest without warrant
any person who is caught in the act of committing a criminal
offence. A breach of probation is a criminal offence.
Nevertheless, this is an important public protection issue which
the government has taken many steps to effectively address. I
really would like to set the record straight on this.
With respect to breach of a probation order the government has
tightened the provisions in the code to promote stricter compliance
with these orders. Bill C-41, which was opposed because of the two
little words sexual orientation by the member who proposes this
bill, comes into force in the next few months, allowing a breach of
probation to be prosecuted, not just summarily but also by
indictment, which means much higher penalties.
This change means police will have the authority to arrest
without warrant any person who on reasonable grounds is believed
to have breached or is about to breach a condition of probation.
This fully addresses the first amendment proposed by the hon.
member, and quite frankly makes clause 1(1) of his bill redundant.
3279
Bill C-41 also increases the penalty for breach of probation on
summary conviction to 18 months. The hon. member opposed that
bill. In the case of an indictable conviction it increases it to two
years. It actually goes much farther than Bill C-224 does.
With respect to breaches of parole and unescorted temporary
absence conditions, the current legislation provides authority for
the National Parole Board and Correctional Service Canada to issue
a suspension warrant for the offender's arrest by police. This
authority for a suspension warrant is provided under section 116 of
the Corrections and Conditional Release Act for unescorted
temporary absences from an institution and under section 135 of
the same act for breaches of parole.
Both the correctional service and the parole board have the
authority to issue suspension warrants for an offender on an
unescorted temporary absence where grounds for granting the
absence have changed or no longer exist or when new information
becomes available that would alter the original decision.
With respect to an offender on parole, Correctional Service
Canada and the parole board can issue suspension warrants at any
time when they believe it to be necessary and reasonable in order to
protect society.
I agree that some may reasonably question why the police do not
have the same direct authority to arrest parolees as they do for
probationers. There is an answer to that. It lies in the fact that a
condition of probation is set out in a court disposition. It is the
breach of that order or the expected breach of that order which
gives the officer the right to arrest without warrant.
A breach of probation becomes a criminal offence because it
constitutes a violation of a court order or defiance of a court order.
When a breach of probation occurs, police have the authority to
arrest without warrant, as they would any other person committing
a criminal offence.
Parole and temporary absences, on the other hand, are not court
orders. They are conditional release terms granted by the parole
board or Correctional Service Canada which are designed to
facilitate the reintegration of offenders into the community of
law-abiding citizens. These conditions place limits on the freedoms
of parolees while they are out of the correctional facility. They
could apply to a variety of matters, conditions such as the
requirement to return to a halfway house at a specific time,
curfews, restrictions placed on the offender that assist the parole
supervisor in managing him or her. Their mobility may be limited
to a certain part of the country, their freedom of association and
many other factors.
Breaches of these conditions do not constitute criminal activity.
Board members and Correctional Service Canada staff are people
in a position to determine when they have to suspend.
The real question the hon. member's bill raises is whether
current police powers and correctional practices are sufficient to
enable police to respond promptly to situations involving
conditionally released offenders.
There have been several initiatives to improve the flow of
information from the correctional service and the parole board to
police to allow the police to better manage conditionally released
federal prisoners and to keep the parole board and the correctional
service more efficiently informed in the event something like this
does happen. These steps include a new correctional policy
ensuring that the police are notified in advance about every
offender who is being released. They include a requirement
ensuring that police receive all relevant correctional information
about any high risk offender being released at sentence expiry, and
this is enshrined in law under the Corrections and Conditional
Release Act.
(1355)
Also included are a computer link that gives police direct access
to information on conditionally released offenders, including the
conditions of their release, and a national network of correctional
officers that police can contact 24 hours a day whenever they
suspect a federal offender has breached a release condition.
Upon being advised by police of a breach or a potential breach of
parole, the correctional officer can issue the suspension warrant on
the spot to ensure the police can then respond as quickly as
possible.
The act further authorizes the facsimile transmission of
warrants, giving police officers the authority to arrest offenders
without warrant on the knowledge that one has been issued. This is
simply a case of the law catching up with technology but doing so
for the protection of society.
There have been amendments to the code to enable police and
courts to better intervene in situations in which a person's conduct
may be potentially threatening. Section 161.1 allows a court to
make an order prohibiting an offender who has been convicted of a
sex offence involving a child from being in the vicinity of a school
or playground. Section 264 addresses the new offence of criminal
harassment to cover stalking.
Bill C-42 the government passed to make it easier for those who
are victims of domestic abuse to seek conditions of a recognisance
to keep the offender away.
Through these changes, policy improvements and information
mechanisms police officers have sufficient authority and the means
available to promptly intervene whenever they observe federal
offenders in breach of the conditions of their release.
Although the hon. member suggests police are limited in the
actions they can take or face unreasonable delays in taking that
action, I emphasize he has brought no concrete evidence forward.
In the absence of such evidence, giving police broader authority to
3280
arrest without warrant for non-criminal conduct runs the risk of
being defeated by a charter challenge.
The hon. member's bill draws attention to the important issue of
better protection from conditionally released offenders. The
government supports this objective fully and has moved on many
fronts to ensure that police officers are well informed about the
release of offenders and can intervene in a timely and effective
manner whenever necessary.
In considering new legislative initiatives, however, we have to
be mindful that they address real gaps and rectify real problems
that cannot be dealt with by other mechanisms. There is simply no
basis and no foundation for the amendments proposed in this
private member's bill.
I will comment on the what the justice committee has done with
respect to private member's bills and correct a couple of things the
hon. member has said.
At the present time there are four proposed amendments to the
Criminal Code in that committee, not all from the hon. member's
party; one from an independent member, two from the Bloc and
one from the Reform Party. The committee, because of the new
freedom in terms of government members voting freely on private
members' bills, has put in place with the consent and the
approbation of the Reform Party and the Bloc a procedure so that
these bills cannot get buried in committee, that they will be treated
with the respect they deserve. This bill, however, simply misses the
mark.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard St-Laurent (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in
order to briefly discuss Bill C-224, presented by my colleague from
Wild Rose, I propose a rather cursory, and somewhat simple,
analysis. First, we shall analyze the difference between what
should happen by the book and what happens in real life. Then, we
shall attempt to address the problem in order to take some position
on it, even though the bill is not votable at this time. There is,
however, nothing to stop us from having an opinion.
First of all, the question of arrest without warrant. Although it is
a rather cursory way of looking at a bill, that is more or less what it
comes down to. This situation is of enormous concern to us.
Let us look at how things are done. A policeman arrives at the
scene of the crime, and runs into an individual whom he suspects to
be in breach of parole for instance. If there is some doubt in his
mind, he can take the suspect to headquarters, question him and try
to check out the situation.
(1400)
If everything checks out OK, he releases him, but if something is
wrong, he can charge him. However, real life seldom goes by the
book. Let us imagine the most common and most critical situation,
perhaps the one that led to this bill.
Same scenario. A police officer arrives on the scene of a crime,
on a Friday night, and stops an individual. We know that parole
officers who could inform the police work 9 to 5 weekdays and are
off during the weekend. Very often, problems arise the night and
police officers must wait till the next day. The thing is, on
weekends, it means they must wait till Monday morning. The
police officer stops an individual and, if he doubts his innocence,
takes him to the police station.
Police officers already have the power to detain an individual for
24 hours without a warrant. They already can do that. Of course, if
a crime-other than breaching the conditions of parole-is
committed, the main crime takes precedence. A charge will be laid.
Let us imagine that the only crime is a breach of the conditions
of parole, as is often the case. I know because I worked for some
time in this field. Let us say that this individual is forbidden to be in
such and such a place and is seen there by the police. This is the
main issue. The only crime committed by this individual is to be in
this place.
Since it is Friday or Saturday night, the probation officer cannot
be reached. Even with the current 24-hour period, the police must
release the individual since it is still not enough time to reach the
probation officer who only returns to his office on Monday
morning.
I understand that, in order to solve that problem, correctional
services have developed an emergency response system allowing a
police officer to get a probation officer to fax him warrant in short
order, thus enabling him to arrest a parolee who has violated a
probation order or a condition of parole.
A very specific and touchy situation was described. We realize
that the issue has been somewhat simplified as regards what could
go wrong. The computer-since everything is done by computer,
fortunately-could break down, the communication system
allowing us to check whether the individual is committing an
offence could break down. In that case, the police officer would
need a bill like this one. We agree on that point.
Let us say there is a vote and the bill is passed, then arrests
without warrant will be allowed. The Bloc Quebecois does not
agree with arrests without warrant for very obvious reasons;
tomorrow we might ask for searches without warrant. I think that
people who must enforce the law want to protect the public and
ensure its security. I think they have enough tools right now not to
need this one.
In my opinion, such a measure would open wide the door to
taking certain liberties and maybe even lead to abuses much worse
than those which might occur because this small detail is missing.
3281
(1405)
The House will recall the famous firearms bill that was
introduced. I do not remember the specific clause, but the initial
bill specified, in terms that were almost clear, that police officers
could, if they thought there were firearms in someone's home,
seize them without a warrant. In the end, even the minister and
therefore the government amended this provision because they felt
it went too far. It went too far because quality of life is included in
individual rights. There are ways to do things and, for a start, police
officers must learn to do them right, with the tools they are given,
of course.
In my opinion, it is when these things happen on a weekend,
returning to the example I gave at the start, that there is likely to be
a major problem. Then it becomes a conflict between the parole
officers' collective agreements and the government. Here, instead
of creating legislation to deal with this problem, they are putting
the cart before the horse, or however you might like to put it.
Legislation ought not to be altered to compensate for shortcomings
in collective agreements. Instead, the government should say:
``One parole officer will be on weekend duty in such and such a
region, because it has a higher incidence of weekend incidents''. I
have no problem with its passing legislation to that effect, but
legislation ought not to be altered because of flawed collective
agreements. Instead, the collective agreements must be brought in
line with the legislation. That is more or less the logic of this.
Someone also mentioned overpopulation. As you are indicating
that I have two minutes left, Mr. Speaker, I will not move on to the
next topic, although I would dearly have loved to.
I will conclude simply on this point by repeating that we could
not have given our approval, even if this bill had been voted on,
because it would permit arrest without warrant thereby opening the
door to searches without warrant, which would be totally
unacceptable.
Finally, in our opinion, it is much more a problem of lack of
availability of parole officers, and therefore a collective agreement
problem, and a law does not adapt to a collective agreement, but
rather the reverse.
[English]
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today in
support of my colleague's private member's bill. It is a good bill.
Therefore it is regrettable that it has not been deemed votable.
When my hon. colleague from Wild Rose asked for the support and
consent of the House, two people said no, the member for Prince
Albert-Churchill River and the member for Windsor-St. Clair.
We are very secure as we sit in this House. We have security all
around us. We cannot go anywhere in this building without seeing
the security. If we were threatened in any way in this House you
had better believe we would hasten to enhance the power of those
people who provide for our security. Yet we are not prepared to do
that for the people we represent which is absolutely regrettable and
unacceptable.
When I hear the hon. member for Windsor-St. Clair, who sits as
the chair of the justice committee, making the kinds of comments
she made against the principle of this bill, of giving peace officers
the right to arrest someone who they find in violation of their
parole conditions, I cannot believe it nor can I understand it.
During debate on Bill C-68 the justice minister said this: ``If you
want to learn something or if you need information about health
care, ask doctors. If you need to know something about law, ask
lawyers. If you need to know something about policing, ask police
officers''. Police officers were the motivation for this bill.
However, the justice minister and his colleagues obviously only
want the input of police officers when it suits them, not when they
are making a recommendation which will help them to protect
society.
(1410 )
Back home in my constituency a person said to me: ``What we
want you folks to do is to stop the fighting and just get on with the
business. We need changes in our legislation in a number of areas,
including the area of justice''.
What is wrong with giving a peace officer the power to arrest
someone at four o'clock in the morning who is violating the
conditions of his or her parole? Why are these members prepared to
deny the police the power to protect the abused wife, to protect
children and to protect society from people who have demonstrated
by their past behaviour that they can be a threat to society under
certain conditions?
When people are out on parole, the conditions of that parole are
such that they must avoid sitting in a bar or being in the vicinity of
a playground or children. Why is it that these members are not
prepared to grant the police the power to take those people into
custody when they have violated the very conditions which have
allowed them freedom from prison? I cannot understand it.
The mugwumps I have heard today have spoken against the bill
which is surprising and disgusting to me. They pretend that they
have the best interests of society at heart and they want to create
conditions which will protect society from those who, for one
reason or another, are a threat.
I have seen the justice minister stand time after time in the
House to say that he has done this, he has done that and he has done
the next thing to make society safer, and yet a very simple
amendment to the Criminal Code that would grant peace officers
the power in the middle of the night to protect an ex-spouse,
children and society is being denied. For what reason? It is
regrettable.
3282
The Liberals campaigned on a promise to give backbenchers
more weight in the government through added private members'
bills. That was the promise. I suppose it was a bit like the GST
promise, which they simply broke.
By admission of the Liberal member for Mississauga East this
promise has been broken. The government backbencher accused
the Liberal dominated, four-member committee that determines
which private members' bills will be votable of short circuiting
controversial bills. The Mississauga East MP said: ``We
supposedly have open government, but we have secret committees
and I'd guarantee that no member of that committee would oppose
the bill openly. They were just encouraged in secret. I'm not
suggesting it's a kangaroo court, it's more like a cockroach court.
You can't see them at work and they run''.
My hon. colleague, who is the chairman of the justice
committee, spoke about the four private members' bills that have
made it through the House and now sit in committee. Where are
they? The bill that would eliminate section 745 of the Criminal
Code has been sitting there for a year and a half.
I told the member in committee that I respect every member of
that committee, but if that private member's bill is still lying
dormant by the time Clifford Olson has the opportunity to spend
between $200,000 and $1 million of taxpayers' money appealing to
have his parole ineligibility reduced, I will be ashamed of the
committee and its work. Those bills are there, but they are being let
lie. Yet when Bill C-33 came along, it was rammed through the
committee in eight days. I am wrong. It was not rammed through
the committee in eight days; it was rammed through first, second
and third reading, all stages in eight days.
(1415 )
If we wanted to move on those four private members' bills that
are languishing before the justice committee we would move on
them. They are good bills and they should come back to the House
and be considered by the members of this House. Why are we not
moving on them?
Mr. Speaker, you ought to sit with us in the steering committee
that makes those decisions and then come back when the steering
committee's recommendations come before the committee. We get
our marching orders. I have said to the committee that when the
people of Canada elect a majority government, it has a mandate. I
do not debate the mandate. I do not challenge the mandate but I
sure challenge the manner in which that mandate is used.
I am not going to challenge our committee to push these private
members' bills through. There is no point in doing that. It is
incumbent upon us to move those bills through but they are not
being moved. They should be back in front of the elected
representatives of the people.
Concerning the bill that deals with section 745, over 70 members
of the Liberal Party stood and voted in this House on second
reading in support of the bill. Why has it been almost a year and
one-half and the bill still has not come back to the House?
I can go along with the mandate of the government, but I cannot
support the marching orders it seems we have in some of the
committees. We set up a procedure. I acknowledge what the
member for Windsor-St. Clair said. We looked at that and set up a
procedure so that the bills would not languish. If that is the case,
why are they still languishing? Why are they still there? That is the
question everyone in Canada should know is being asked in this
House and there is no answer.
Why has the bill sat for a year and one-half? It is a bill that
caused people to come to public meetings across the country by the
hundreds and thousands because they are concerned. They do not
want to see first degree murderers like Clifford Olson and Paul
Bernardo given the opportunity to waste taxpayers' money in an
attempt to reduce their parole eligibility after serving only 15 years
of a so-called life sentence.
What are we doing here today? We are talking about an issue and
we do not have any hope of moving it forward. Number one, they
would not deem this bill votable; number two, members of this
House who are present here today when unanimous consent was
requested, denied it. They denied it not only to the sponsor of the
bill but also to the people represented by the bill in Canada: the
police officers who know what they need to protect us, who know
what they need in the middle of the night or on a weekend when a
parole officer is not to be found as the hon. member from the Bloc
pointed out.
What do the police officers do? They see a person on parole who
has committed dangerous and violent offences sitting in a bar at
two o'clock in the morning contrary to the parole conditions. What
does that police officer do to protect society, to protect that
person's children or that person's ex-wife who may be in danger
because of his intoxication? What does that police officer do? This
bill would give the police officer the authority to arrest that person
because he has violated the very condition he agreed to to get out of
prison and to live a peaceful life. He has violated it.
What has happened in this House today is disgusting to me. We
will take this message into that constituency called Windsor-St.
Clair. We will take it into Prince Albert-Churchill River. We will
tell the people: ``This is what we tried to do but this is what your
member refused to allow us to do''.
3283
(1420 )
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
must say a few words in response to a number of the suggestions
that have been put forward by the hon. member for Crowfoot.
The member seems to take great exception to the fact that this
private members' bill was not deemed votable. The bill went
before a committee, as do all other private members' bills from all
of the parties and all the independent members. That is where a
determination is made as to whether or not these bills are votable.
The committee determines in a unanimous fashion which bills
are votable and which are not. This is not an unusual procedure. It
is not a procedure that the hon. member is not familiar with. This is
a procedure that has been followed and has been very successful in
ensuring that the best private members' bills come forward for full
debate and are voted upon by representatives of the people in the
House. This government has done a great deal of work to ensure
that private members' bills which come forward are debated.
Individual members of Parliament have their say significantly
increased.
This government, for the first time, has made votable private
members' bills free votes which allow each and every member to
express their viewpoints either for or against the piece of
legislation. There have been a number of other types of free votes
in the House. There will be more to come. On this side of the House
we are very supportive of that initiative, to give individual
members of Parliament more access to free votes.
Many of the bills presented by hon. members of the Reform
Party with respect to criminal justice come forward. Many of these
bills obviously have not been given very much thought. On the face
of them they are not legal, they are inconsistent with other
provisions of the Criminal Code, or they are in some other matter
completely unacceptable, making a mockery of law making in this
country.
It is my view that when we put forward legislation, in particular
criminal legislation, great care must be taken to ensure the integrity
of the Criminal Code, the consistency within the Criminal Code.
We must ensure to the best of our ability that changes
recommended to the Criminal Code are to be for the betterment of
the criminal law as a whole and not some superficial piece of
politics simply designed to arouse emotions and not really get at
the root of the problem.
In addition, it just simply does not matter if these provisions are
legal or not. A little more respect needs to be paid to the provisions
of the Criminal Code of Canada rather than making it a political
plaything for the purpose of political points.
The justice system in this country is something we all hold in
high esteem. Our purpose ought to be when we see real problems
to respond to the needs of the people. I must say in relation to the
constant criticism by the Reform Party that the Minister of Justice
has put forward more reforms and more significant reforms in the
field of criminal law in this country than has been done in the
history of any previous Parliaments. This is a tremendous
accomplishment.
Criminal law and criminal law amendment are not simple
matters. We must on a continual basis be consulting with all the
parties affected, whether they be victims groups, the crown
lawyers, defence lawyers, the provinces, the provincial authorities
who under the Constitution have the responsibility for the
administration of justice. Each of these items and changes needs to
be the result of extensive consultations. Not only has the minister
brought forward many significant pieces of legislation, but in each
case the proper consultations were undertaken.
(1425 )
There was never such energy in the Department of Justice until
the present minister took over. For instance, he has already taken
steps to improve the Young Offenders Act by increasing the
sentences for the most serious crimes and for reversing the onus on
16 and 17-year-olds, making it more likely that they will be tried in
adult court.
He has left the further review of the Young Offenders Act to the
justice committee which will be touring the country, hearing from
stakeholders from coast to coast who are involved in the criminal
justice system. As well, the committee will be working, in addition
to the federal, provincial and territorial task force on youth crime,
to make recommendations for appropriate further adjustments to
the Young Offenders Act.
In addition to the above, many amendments have been made or
are being proposed to the Criminal Code. The Minister of Justice
has proposed that section 745 be toughened up. Provisions to
ensure long term offenders are more appropriately dealt within the
system are being introduced. These measures to deal with long
term offenders will ensure there are significant community controls
for up to 10 years after the individual comes to the end of a finite
sentence to ensure that within the community the controls are in
place.
There is also the possible extension to the window for bringing a
dangerous offender application, which will make these types of
provisions more available. A flagging system has been introduced
nationally to allow crown prosecutors to see which of the likely
candidates could be brought forward for a dangerous offender
application.
There have been improvements to the gun legislation which will
ensure there mechanisms in place to make our society safer. They
will give the police mechanisms, with due process involved, to
remove firearms from individuals who have committed or
threatened violence. All these types of measures have significantly
improved the criminal justice system.
3284
Many changes have been introduced within legislation to
enhance the role of victims within the criminal justice system.
Many of these measures are designed to make our homes,
communities and streets safer places. There are also changes to
enhance the role of victims within the criminal justice system.
Reform does a lot of talking and makes a lot of noise about safe
streets, but every time these recommendations or laws are brought
forward the Reform Party votes against them. All it can think about
is caning and spanking people. We need a little more creativity in
our criminal law than that. We need to ensure strong criminal laws.
In addition, we need to ensure we are getting at the root causes of
crime at an early stage so we can truly have a safer society.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Colleagues, let me put this
before you. I have three options. I do not believe the first option
will fly, which is that we call it 2.30 p.m. The second option is that
I look to the opposite side for someone to speak, keeping in mind
the member under whose name the bill stands could take the last
minute. Or I could go to the member for Calgary Northeast, who is
seeking the floor.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate being able to address this private member's bill, put
forward by my colleague from Wild Rose. The purpose is to give a
peace officer the power to arrest without warrant a person who is in
breach of a probation order binding the person or a condition of the
person's parole.
I was a police officer for 22 years serving in the city of Calgary. I
listened to the parliamentary secretary to the justice minister spout
about the great laws we have in the Criminal Code and on our
books. The unfortunate part about that is it has all been made up by
lawyers, special interests. The people of this country have not been
listened to.
They desire to have safe streets and safe homes. The Liberal
government, the justice minister, the solicitor general and the
Prime Minister do not want that to happen. They are catering to the
special interests, and that is the bottom line.
I could cite all kinds of examples of individuals-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The time provided for the
considered of Private Members' Business has now expired. The
order is dropped from the Order Paper.
It being 2.31 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday,
June 3 at 11 a.m.
(The House adjourned at 2.30 p.m.)