CONTENTS
Monday, December 2, 1996
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 6933
Motion for concurrence 6937
Division on motion deferred 6938
Divisions on Bill C-29 deferred 6938
Motion for concurrence 6938
Division on motion deferred 6938
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 6942
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 6946
Consideration resumed of ways and means motion 6946
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 123; Nays, 82 6946
Consideration resumed of ways and means motion 6947
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 123; Nays, 84 6948
Bill C-29. Consideration resumed of motion for thirdreading 6949
Amendment to the amendment negatived on division:Yeas, 82; Nays, 125 6949
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas: 125; Nays, 82 6950
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.) 6951
Consideration resumed of motion 6951
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 6951
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 6952
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 6952
Mr. Bernier (Beauce) 6952
Mr. O'Brien (London-Middlesex) 6953
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 6955
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 6955
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6956
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6956
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6961
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6961
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 6961
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 6961
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 6962
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 6962
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 6962
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 6963
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6964
Bill C-69. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 6964
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6964
Bill C-70. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 6965
Bill C-71. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 6965
Bill C-357. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 6965
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 6965
Mr. Bernier (Beauce) 6965
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 6967
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 6967
Consideration of motion resumed 6969
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 6969
Mr. O'Brien (London-Middlesex) 6973
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 6978
Mr. O'Brien (London-Middlesex) 6986
Mr. O'Brien (London-Middlesex) 6989
6929
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, December 2, 1996
The House met at 11 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.)
moved:
That, in the opinion of the House, the government should consider strengthening
penalties in those sections of the Criminal Code which deal with impaired driving
offences in order to: (a) enhance deterrence; and (b) bring the penalties into line with
the seriousness of the offence.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to lead off the debate on this
very important Motion No. 78.
I was also pleased to take part in the kick off for the red ribbon
campaign by the Mothers Against Drunk Drivers which occurred
on Parliament Hill over the weekend. This campaign involves tying
red ribbons around the antennas of vehicles through the holiday
season to tell people that they should not drink and drive and to
publicize the epidemic in this country of drinking and driving.
Last year MADD Canada distributed over three million red
ribbons to tell people about the hazards and the consequences of
drinking and driving. This year they expect and hope to have a red
ribbon on every single antenna of every single car in Canada. I
absolutely support that and I will do whatever I can to promote it.
September 19 was the last time I spoke in the House on the
important issue of impaired driving. That was the third and final
hour of debate on my Bill C-201. The bill would have established
minimum sentencing and stronger deterrents against impaired
driving in particular to deal with people who choose to drink and
drive and as a result kill. Unfortunately, Bill C-201 was narrowly
defeated in this House by 31 votes, with the help of the Bloc
members almost all of whom voted against it, and with the help of
many of the Liberal members who voted against this bill.
I did receive support from some of the Liberal backbenchers,
from numerous NGOs, including MADD Canada, and tens of
thousands of Canadians across the country. Despite the defeat of
Bill C-201, this support has only strengthened my resolve to push
forward to ensure that some day the federal government will take
the lead in developing measures to combat impaired driving in this
country.
Once again I remind members of the Liberal Party opposite that
this issue transcends all political lines. It is an issue that is so
important in the minds of Canadians yet Liberal government
members refuse to grasp that. They play party politics with the
lives of Canadians.
I would like to thank the Liberal members who did support Bill
C-201. On behalf of hundreds of thousands and perhaps millions of
Canadians who are keenly interested in this issue, I know that their
appreciation has been shown as well.
For those Liberal and Bloc members who opposed it, I sincerely
hope on behalf of all of Canada's impaired driving victims that they
see the value of Motion No. M-78. I hope that they see this as an
opportunity to get into real and positive debate on the issue of
impaired driving. I hope the comprehensive approach to impaired
driving that Motion No. M-78 offers will give the Liberals some
comfort zone that it will not go against their policy or philosophy
of being soft on crime.
We all have our own ideas of how to combat impaired driving.
Motion No. M-78 gives the government, particularly the Minister
of Justice, as well as the Bloc members the opportunity to discuss
Motion No. M-78 in the justice committee setting. They could
bring forward their ideas and witnesses would appear. It would
bring this terrible, senseless and 100 per cent preventable crime to
the forum that it deserves, the justice department of the
Government of Canada.
Almost every province has taken action on this issue. Almost
every province has taken steps to deal with the crime of impaired
driving in a way that reflects the severity and epidemic state of this
crime, but the Liberal government has refused to follow their lead.
It is the very government that should be setting an example in being
proactive on the issues which concern the Canadian people, but the
Liberal government has refused to deal with impaired driving to
treat the issue with the respect and seriousness it deserves.
6930
Ontario has recently followed the lead of many other provinces
and introduced a 90-day roadside licence suspension. Other
provinces have lowered the blood alcohol content for temporary
suspensions and have established higher mandatory minimum
licence suspensions for those convicted of impaired driving. Some
provinces have set lower BAC limits for young drivers. Some will
impound the vehicles of individuals who are caught while driving
under suspension. These are positive steps, just a few of the efforts
that have been put forward by some of the provinces.
What does the federal Liberal government which should be the
leader in this country do? It refuses to deal with the issue. What
efforts have come from the Liberal government? None. Just
opposition. What proposals have come from the Liberal
government? None, even though it voted against Bill C-201.
(1110)
If the government had been seriously concerned about the issue
of impaired driving, it could have brought forward its own
proposals. I do not care whether it wants to take some sort of
recognition for dealing with impaired driving and leave my bill on
the sidelines. The issue is that the government has an obligation to
the Canadian people to deal with this issue which is of great
concern and it has refused.
The pleas of victims of impaired drivers and their families have
been met with opposition and silence from the Liberal government.
In 1995, 1,650 Canadians were killed by impaired drivers. I
understand that after my presentation the member for Halifax is
going to stand up and tell us that is not important.
Ms. Clancy: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would ask that
the hon. member not anticipate my remarks.
Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, the member for Halifax did in fact
vote against Bill C-201. Therefore I assumed and probably
correctly but we will wait to hear what she has to say, that she is
going to oppose M-78 as well because the Liberal government
members opposed Bill C-201. The member for Halifax in her duty
does everything the Liberal government members tell her to do.
The justice minister took no pains to move quickly to follow a
personal agenda when he brought in gun control measures. He said
that he wanted to fight crime because 196 people are murdered
each year by firearms in the hands of criminals. We support the
fighting of crime. And if that bill were effective, we need effective
controls to keep guns out of the hands of criminals because gun
deaths are no less a crime. However, considering that 196 people
are killed each year in Canada at the hands of criminals who have
firearms and considering that 1,650 people were killed last year by
impaired drivers, I ask the question: What reasonable justice
minister would fail to recognize the severity of the crime of
impaired driving and the consequences? What reasonable thinking
justice minister would fail to recognize that? The justice minister
of the Liberal Government of Canada is the person who fails to
recognize it.
The Liberals are on the wrong track. They refuse to act on
impaired driving. They prefer to follow their own agenda with
useless and ineffective gun control legislation. They refuse to deal
with a crime that killed over 1,600 people in this country last year.
The Liberal government talks about promoting safety in our
society. I say that the Liberal government is incapable of promoting
community safety and it has shown it by refusing to move on the
issue of impaired driving. It is the justice minister who is
compromising community public safety by pursuing his personal
agendas rather than dealing with the serious crime of impaired
driving.
I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice
whether his government will take the time to deal with Motion
M-78. He stated in his presentation on Bill C-201 that the justice
committee was too busy to deal with Bill C-201. Motion M-78
gives the Liberals an opportunity to deal with impaired driving in a
far more comprehensive manner than Bill C-201 offered so let us
give it that opportunity. Will the justice committee once again be
too busy to deal with this serious crime?
(1115 )
Why is the government not doing everything possible? It is
beyond me. Why is the government not doing everything possible
to deal with impaired driving, which is at an epidemic stage? Why
does the Liberal government continue to look on impaired driving
as some sort of social ill? It is a crime to drink and drive in this
country. It is a crime to make that choice, to get behind the wheel of
your car when you are impaired. Certainly it is a crime when you
kill or injure someone.
Yet the Minister of Justice refuses to recognize that. He prefers
to treat it as some sort of social ill, and that must stop.
Why does the Minister of Justice have no initiatives whatsoever
to deal with impaired driving in Canada? It is the number one cause
of criminal death and injury in this country. Yet the Minister of
Justice and the government members have refused to deal with it.
Why? What do they have to say to the families of victims of
impaired drivers?
I support Mothers Against Drunk Drivers and the organization's
recommendations that the blood alcohol content be lowered to .05
and the two hour sampling time be extended or eliminated. I
support that. I believe those caught driving while impaired should
face higher fines, longer jail terms and licence suspensions.
The Liberal members in opposition to my last bill said
deterrence is not a factor here, that we cannot deter someone by
threatening to impose a stiff sentence or a stiff fine. I would say
6931
that of all the crimes in this country that are preventable by
deterrence it is impaired driving.
Mr. Speaker, you could go outside now and ask the first 100
people you meet on the street why they prefer to take a taxi when
they have been drinking, and the number one answer will be
because they do not want to get caught. That is the number one
answer.
Why do they say that? They know there is a fine involved and a
licence suspension. They do not want to get caught. It is not the fact
that they do not think they can drive home all right, but they do not
want to get caught. That is deterrence. If we stiffen up the fines, the
licence suspensions and the jail terms in case of death or injury I
know we are going to see a marked improvement in the statistics
concerning impaired driving.
As well, I support a two and a seven year minimum sentence
respectively for those convicted of impaired driving causing bodily
harm and impaired driving causing death. I believe we have to have
sentences that reflect the severity of the crime.
I believe that sentencing ranges are commensurate with the
gravity of the crime and mirror the sentence available for those
convicted of criminal negligence causing death. I believe we have
to get tough with people who drink and drive.
I am aware that changing the Criminal Code is not the silver
bullet to end all impaired driving but it is important that this
Liberal government show some leadership on this issue. It is
important that it take an important step, but it is not the only step
that needs to be taken. It has to examine the whole range in the
Criminal Code that deals with impaired driving. It also has to look
at rehabilitation for impaired drivers while they are in prison.
Evidence suggests that the majority of impaired drivers have a
problem with alcohol and have faced similar charges in the past.
Statistics show that up to 70 per cent of the people who cause death
and injury through impaired driving do have alcohol problems.
Accordingly, and the Liberals are going to hate this one, the
government should consider using its order in council powers to
amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to ensure that
those serving time for impaired offence absolutely must
successfully complete a rehabilitation program as a condition of
parole.
(1120 )
Some Liberals will stand up and say this is a human rights
violation, that we cannot force anyone to get better, that we cannot
force anyone to turn their life around. Tell that to the victims of
impaired driving. Tell that to the families of the victims of
impaired driving.
The federal government should encourage the provinces to
introduce random breathe tests. This would give the police the
opportunity to make random stops and request the breath test
without having to prove reasonable and justifiable cause. Members
know that lawyers have a field day with the reasonable and
justifiable cause section of the Criminal Code. However, areas that
have introduced random breath testing have found a dramatic
decrease in the incidence of impaired driving. That is because the
chance of getting caught has been made even greater.
At present some provincial forces do use random breath tests to
deter and catch impaired drivers. As I said, research indicates that
random breath testing has an effect on the number of impaired
drivers.
We must look at a whole range of measures in order to deal with
the very serious issue of impaired driving. Motion No. 78 allows us
to look at those measures. It allows government members, Bloc
members, Reform members, NDP members and Conservative
members to come together in the justice committee to seriously
deal with the issue of impaired driving.
The Liberal government must get away from its belief that
impaired driving is some sort of social ill. It has to start looking at
it as a serious crime. I look forward to the debate which will follow
on this motion and I will listen with interest to the suggestions and
recommendations that come from colleagues in this House.
However, it is important to point something out which probably
reflects the feeling of Liberal government members. The
philosophy of some Liberals has been stated in a letter by the
member for Simcoe North. He believes that this is some sort of
political game. He believes that Reformers, I included, have
grabbed this issue for some sort of political gamesmanship. I am
saddened to see that comment in a letter.
The member for Simcoe North also says that the federal
government cannot dictate to the provinces how they should deal
with impaired drivers. I know that some areas that deal with
impaired driving are within provincial jurisdiction. But the fact is
this Liberal government has to take some leadership on this issue.
It is duty bound to take leadership. It should encourage the
provinces to deal more effectively with impaired drivers.
The member for Simcoe North also said in his letter: ``The issue
is whether Motion No. 78 will be effective and appropriate
measures to deal with the problem. I can't support them because of
serious reservations which I have explained and substantiated''.
Whatever they were.
``One reservation is that these measures are based on the false
premise that longer sentences lead to reduced repeat offences. The
evidence simply doesn't support this view''.
Longer sentences and mandatory rehabilitation will reduce this
crime and I urge the members to deal with this.
6932
Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it gives me great
pleasure to speak in complete support of Motion No. 78, that the
government should consider strengthening penalties in those
sections of the Criminal Code that deal with impaired driving
offences. I am honoured to speak on this motion immediately after
the mover, the hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley
who gave an excellent speech. I have always been of the firm
conviction that if it makes sense I will support it. This motion
makes a lot of sense.
(1125)
I feel it is important to state that this issue goes beyond our party
lines. The fact that this motion was introduced by the hon. member
for Prince George-Bulkley Valley of the Reform Party,
supposedly my opponent, has nothing whatsoever to do with the
fact that strengthening penalties for those who commit an impaired
driving offence is a good idea.
I previously supported the hon. member's bill, Bill C-201, which
called for amending the minimum sentence of seven years for
impaired driving causing death. Although, unfortunately, that bill
was narrowly defeated, I believe this motion will accomplish the
same principle.
Drunk driving is a very serious offence. It is high time that our
courts have a tool to discipline and deter an offence which often
ends in death. People, especially young people, are dying every day
due to impaired driving and we have to try to stop it.
Recently the Ontario government attempted to crack down on
drunk driving offences by imposing an automatic 90 day licence
suspension for drivers who blow over the legal alcohol limit or who
refuse a breathalyser test. This is a step in the right direction, but it
certainly does not go far enough. These drivers can easily appeal on
the grounds of mistaken identity or the inability to give a breath
sample for medical reasons. Besides that, a 90 day suspension is an
administrative tool for the government and does not act as a real
deterrent. We need to impose a sentence which will make an
impaired driver think twice about getting behind the wheel after
drinking alcohol.
I come from a rural part of southwestern Ontario and I am sad to
say that I often see the reality of impaired driving close to home.
Where there is an absence of public transportation or taxi cabs,
young and old alike will often get into their vehicles after a night
out and attempt to drive the dark, back country roads. I am sad to
say that I have often witnessed horrific accidents due to drunk
driving right on the corner of my property. That is not to say this is
exclusively a rural problem. Nevertheless, without any alternative
form of transportation we have to send a clear message to people in
rural Canada that driving drunk is dangerous, if not deadly.
It is my belief that the sections of the Criminal Code dealing
with impaired driving do not act as a sufficient deterrent. Currently
there is a 14 year maximum sentence available for impaired driving
causing death. How often is it imposed? It is similar to our old gun
laws, some of the toughest in the world, but never enforced by a
lenient justice system. Indeed, most sentences are for one or two
years, even with a previous conviction. It is a joke.
The hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley once told
me of a sad story in his riding where three family members were
killed by a drunk driver with previous convictions who was
sentenced only to three and a half years. People are justifiably
outraged by these kinds of sentences. They do not at all reflect the
views and the concerns of average Canadians.
In the United States the transportation research board has
suggested a tough crackdown on repeat drunk drivers, which would
include impounding vehicles and police stakeouts of people
convicted of driving under the influence. The board's committee
said that current policies in Canada have been effective in
discouraging most people from drinking and driving. However,
there remains a group of persistent drunk drivers who do not appear
to be deterred by the threat of social disapproval or legal
punishment.
According to the report, repeat offenders are four times more
likely than other drivers to take part in a fatal traffic accident.
Twelve per cent of drivers involved in alcohol related crashes had
at least one prior conviction. An interesting study in the New
England Journal of Medicine in August 1994 entitled ``The risk of
dying in alcohol related automobile crashes among habitual
drivers'' came up with some revealing conclusions.
(1130)
The scientists linked about 3,000 drivers to their driver history
files. The study showed that aggressive intervention in the cases of
people arrested for driving while impaired may decrease the
likelihood of a future fatal alcohol related crash.
In the United States, motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause
of death among people between the ages of one to 34. Almost 50
per cent of all traffic fatalities are related to alcohol. Furthermore,
40 per cent of the people in the U.S. will be involved in an alcohol
related crash at some time during their lives.
Similar figures are available for Canada. In 1994 87,838 people
were charged with impaired driving. More astonishing is that in
1994, 1,414 people were killed as a result of impaired driving,
which is three times higher than our murder rate.
The government has fervently committed itself to imposing gun
control to help reduce crimes committed using a gun.
Unfortunately it is a lot easier to get a driver's licence than to get a
gun licence and according to these statistics a car is even more of a
lethal weapon.
6933
It seems that the attorney general of Ontario, Mr. Charles
Harnick agrees with me. He says: ``Drinking and driving is the
number one cause of criminal death and injury in our society, and
alcohol is the greatest single factor contributing to automobile
accidents in Ontario''. But this problem goes beyond the borders
of Ontario. It is a national issue. Transport Canada found that there
were 113,731 injuries as a result of impaired driving accidents.
To make it more clear, that means there are 3.8 deaths and 311
injuries per day, due to drunk driving.
Last week the government introduced some tough legislation to
crack down on smoking. The principal incentive was the cost to the
health system. Everybody knows that smoking inevitably leads to
ill health. But if everyone knew that just one fatal drunk driving
accident costs the Canadian taxpayer $390,000, I think more
people would be up in arms about the high cost of getting behind
the wheel after drinking. If this is not a very serious national issue,
I do not know what is.
Motion No. 78 is worthy of the support of members of all sides
of the House. We are here to represent our constituents as well as
the betterment of all Canadians. I truly believe that toughening the
Criminal Code to crack down on impaired drivers would benefit
every Canadian.
I remind my colleagues that partisan politics have no place in
Private Members' Business. This is a votable motion and I will
certainly be voting in its favour.
My brother-in-law was in a Scandinavian country, I cannot recall
which country it was, but the law there stated that if you are picked
up with the smell of alcohol on your breath, it is an automatic
one-year suspension of your licence. If you are charged the second
time you lose your licence for life. I think our laws, in comparison,
are very lenient.
As I mentioned previously, within one mile in my area, more
than five people have been killed because of impaired driving. I
live on a dead end road where there is very little traffic. However, it
is sad to meet the families of these people who were killed in these
accidents. It never leaves them.
I appreciate the opportunity to be able to speak on this bill.
(1135 )
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
a pleasure to speak on Motion No. 78, a votable motion dealing
with impaired driving.
Today Reformers are wearing red ribbons in support of project
red ribbon which is carried on by Mothers Against Drunk Driving.
It is a strong reminder to everybody that we should do our best to
stop tragic deaths, in particular, those dealing with drunk driving.
This motion calls on the government to deal with all areas of the
Criminal Code with regard to drunk driving. It take steps to deter
drunk driving and it also provides for sentencing which reflects the
circumstances.
Critics during discussions on drunk driving often say we want to
implement stiff sentences. I really cannot think of any greater stiff
sentence than personally losing somebody because an individual
has been drunk behind the wheel. I remember only too well the
years in our family we had with Sheena who was the best buddy of
my son Jason in the early years. Sheena was his cousin and my
niece.
Sheena was a very bright young lady, with all the best prospects
in life, doing well until she was 13 years old. In 1983 a drunk driver
took her life. I can remember those days as if they were yesterday.
The call we got at home, the disillusionment, the reasons why.
Then came the questions: What could have prevented it? Why did it
happen to such a nice young girl? It has been 13 years and I still
cannot forget two things. Why did the individual who killed her get
a very minor suspended sentence and end up out on the street right
away doing goodness knows what, and the lives that were
destroyed.
I talked to Sheena's mom, Winnie, this morning and I know that
she does not forget. I know she has forgiven. I know it has stuck
with us for many years. Sheena will never be forgotten. I somehow
guess that the person who was behind the wheel that day has maybe
forgotten about it because nothing much happened to him. That is
very sad. This motion addresses the hurt and pain of families
resulting from this action.
Then I think of the reality that Ken and Eileen Roffel of Langley,
B.C. have been dealing with. I just talked to Ken a few moments
ago. Ken is going around the country looking for 300,000 plus
signatures to deal with zero tolerance of drunk driving. Last March
his son Mark was killed by a drunk driver. This drunk driver had
five previous convictions for alcohol related charges.
Mark was 23 years old. He was killed at 8.30 p.m. last March.
Very few people in the country know that at 3.30 p.m. the same day
the drunk driver who killed this young man had had another drunk
driving accident.
(1140 )
This type of thing has to stop. We have to look beyond partisan
politics in a House that is filled with partisan politics. We have to
try to understand the heart and the pain of people like the Roffels
and my family. We have to rise above the occasion of Reform,
Liberals or separatists and deal with the issue of drunk driving in a
fair, reasonable and responsible manner.
The drunk driver who killed Mark had no licence, no insurance
and stole a truck. He had five previous convictions. What more can
I say? How many more people must die on the roads before a
responsible government does something?
6934
Mark's dad, Ken, is working hard to get a focus on zero
tolerance. He is travelling across the country to raise awareness,
as many other parents before him have done, as MADD is doing
today and as the Reform Party members are doing. My colleague,
who is sitting here today, has raised this on several occasions in
the House, mostly to deaf ears of a majority government that is
far too partisan for the good of all Canadians. We are very likely
to hear that in one of the speeches to come from the Liberals.
What happened the last time this came before the House? The
separatists, who the Liberals claim are the official loyal opposition
in this House, voted against it. That is nothing new. Shameful, I
suppose. One wonders where things are going in this country when
one party cannot deal responsibly with social issues of the day and
its only concern is with separation from a country that needs all of
its parts.
What does voting for this motion really mean? Does it mean that
if my colleague gets this passed in a vote that the Liberals should
be ashamed and we should have an election because of it? No, that
is not it at all. It means that this would go to a committee and it
would be discussed. Witnesses would come before the committee
from across the country, giving their perspective, their feelings and
their good suggestions on how laws that are fitting against drunk
drivers should be developed. It means an open debate on an issue
that is far overdue. It just means we should bring it forward to the
people of Canada.
I praise my colleague and those who have the courage of their
convictions on the Liberal side to deal with this issue of drunk
driving. I can assure the House that my family will not forget
Sheena nor the issues around her. Ken and Eileen will not forget
Mark. And all those parents, families and friends of victims will
not forget those who have been injured or killed by drunk drivers.
I only ask that the Liberal government members take the
responsibility that is afforded them as a majority government and
deal with the issue on a non-partisan basis.
(1145 )
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there can be no
dispute about the potential for serious harm that impaired driving
poses. Many of us, tragically, as was pointed out by members on
the other side, know intimately the suffering that impaired drivers
can and do cause. Our first reaction because of this as legislators,
and a very understandable one, is to consider changing the
penalties in the Criminal Code.
We should, however, clearly understand what the criminal law
does now about impaired driving. We need to do this in order to
ensure that we are proceeding wisely and not simply setting out
upon a course, however well motivated, that will turn into a
journey that does not lead us toward meaningful change. Only after
such an understanding is reached can we then wisely consider
whether there are appropriate changes that ought to be made to the
Criminal Code.
Driving is a legal behaviour, given the appropriate provincial or
territorial licence. Drinking alcohol is also a legal adult behaviour.
Clearly one may engage in either behaviour separately and not
offend against the Criminal Code. What the criminal law does
prohibit is driving when one's ability to do so is impaired by
alcohol. The code also prohibits driving with a concentration of
alcohol in the blood that is greater than 80 milligrams of alcohol in
100 millilitres of blood. This is regardless of whether the person
shows actual signs of impairment or not.
I understand that scientists have indicated that the significance
of alcohol as a discreet factor influencing driving behaviour
becomes demonstrable only above the level of 80 milligrams of
alcohol. Therefore the present over 80 limit is one that can
withstand scrutiny by the courts. It respects fundamental principles
of criminal law relating to culpability being a limit that rests
securely upon a foundation of blame worthiness which is
demonstrable by study results that are statistically significant.
I want to turn to the penalties associated with the criminal
offences that are committed by persons who consume alcohol and
then operate a vehicle. Where the crown prosecutor can bring
evidence proving that the drinking driver's pattern of driving was
so bad as to constitute criminal negligence there is a maximum
penalty of life imprisonment where the driver caused a death.
Clearly this is the most serious maximum penalty available. If the
criminally negligent driver caused bodily harm, the maximum
penalty is 10 years imprisonment. Where driving behaviour is
involved the proof which the crown prosecutor must offer in court
for the offence of criminal negligence is a proof of very high
divergence from normal driving behaviour.
The Code also has an offence of dangerous driving causing
death. The level of behaviour required for this offence is less
divergence from normal behaviour than the behaviour
contemplated for the criminal negligence offence. The maximum
penalty for dangerous driving causing death is 14 years
imprisonment. For the offence of dangerous driving causing bodily
harm the maximum penalty is 10 years imprisonment, the same as
for criminal negligence causing bodily harm.
In 1985 Parliament amended the code to introduce the offence of
impaired driving causing death. The level of proof of divergent
driving behaviour or an impaired ability to operate a vehicle which
the crown prosecutor must offer in court is far lower than would be
the case in criminal negligence cases. This offence carries a
6935
maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment, the same penalty as
the offence of dangerous driving causing death.
Parliament also introduced the offence of impaired driving
causing bodily harm in 1985. This offence carries a maximum
penalty of 10 years imprisonment, the same as the offence of
criminal negligence causing bodily harm and dangerous driving
causing bodily harm.
For impaired driving and driving while over 80 where no death
or bodily harm is involved there are various minimum penalties
available. For a first offence the minimum penalty is a fine of $300.
For a second offence the minimum penalty is 14 days
imprisonment. For a subsequent offence the minimum penalty is 90
days imprisonment.
Impaired driving and driving while over 80 can be prosecuted by
summary conviction or by indictment. Where prosecuted by
summary conviction procedure, the maximum penalty is six
months imprisonment. Where prosecuted by indictment, the
maximum penalty is five years imprisonment. The crown
prosecutor's choice to select procedure by indictment over
summary conviction procedure would be influenced by such
matters as the circumstances of the offence and by the prior record
of the drinking driver.
(1150)
In addition to the minimum and maximum penalties there is a
prohibition from driving anywhere in Canada which a judge is
required to impose under the Criminal Code. The maximum
prohibition from driving anywhere in Canada is three years. For a
first offence the minimum period is three months. For a second
offence the minimum period is six months. For a subsequent
offence the minimum period is one year.
This prohibition period is a criminal law penalty and is separate
from any provincial or territorial driver's licence suspension that
might follow upon a Criminal Code conviction for impaired
driving or for driving while over 80.
I should note that we have before the House some proposed
amendments-
An hon. member: Fascinating.
Ms. Clancy: Mr. Speaker, I am going to stop briefly. The hon.
member from British Columbia says it is fascinating. I know it is
fascinating. The point is the hon. member understands what I am
getting at. However, there are a number of other hon. members who
do not. With the best of intentions, they do not understand how the
law is formed, how the law is practised or how the law is
administered. I do know that the hon. member does understand
that. Therefore I appreciate his response that these things, while
somewhat dry, are indeed fascinating.
This prohibition, as I mentioned, is a criminal law penalty and is
separate from any provincial or territorial driver's licence
suspension which might be extremely severe as well, depending on
the province, and rightly so.
I should note that we have before the House-
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Gutter politics.
Ms. Clancy: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member keeps talking about
gutter politics. I do not understand why my discussion of criminal
law provisions should be called gutter politics.
Apparently there have been some differences on the amendments
contained in Bill C-17. These amendments are aimed at ensuring
that periods where the convicted drinking driver is imprisoned will
not be deducted from the period of the prohibition from driving.
The approach of various provinces and territories has been
different in this matter and the amendments will clarify the
approach to be taken.
The penalties in the drinking and driving provisions of the
Criminal Code represent a measured approach to the drinking and
driving crimes. They are serious penalties. We should be very
careful not to confuse challenges in investigating drinking and
driving crimes or the heavy onus on the crown in proving drinking
and driving crimes beyond a reasonable doubt in order to obtain a
conviction with the sufficiency of the penalties we presently have
for these crimes.
We should remember that provinces may also use their
legislative powers in areas relating to driver licensing and
suspension and in the area of highway safety to address the
problem of drinking and driving. For example, some provinces
have chosen to use a lower blood alcohol concentration limit with
regard to the suspension of licences than the criminal law might be
able to justify using when creating a criminal offence. Also, some
provinces have chosen to use administrative roadside suspensions
of driving privileges for drinking drivers which take effect
immediately. Such suspensions are not criminal law penalties.
Under fundamental principles of criminal law, criminal penalties
can follow only upon a conviction for a crime and cannot proceed a
conviction.
This should remind us that the criminal justice system and the
criminal law, including penalties, are parts of a combined effort to
address the problem of impaired driving and driving while over 80.
The concerted effort of governments, educators and community
groups against drinking and driving can be traced to the
implementation of the 1985 amendments to the Criminal Code. In
my view the Criminal Code penalties are already serious penalties,
containing deterrent value. To increase the criminal penalties
would not at this time mean that people would be more deterred
from drinking and driving than they are currently with criminal law
penalties.
6936
Thankfully, over the years there have been increasing efforts
by provincial governments in the area of provincial highway safety
legislation and licensing which have contributed toward a solution
to drinking and driving crimes. Similarly, education, which really
is the true answer, and example in the home contribute to the
solution. The alcoholic beverage and hospitality industries have
also taken a role in reducing drinking and driving problems.
(1155)
In my view the present Criminal Code penalty along with the
amendments that relate to prohibition in Bill C-17 do provide-
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member,
but her time has expired.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
congratulate and extend my appreciation to the hon. member for
Prince George-Bulkley Valley for bringing this motion forward
and for his determination to have this area explored in view of our
desire and thousands of Canadians' concerns about the possible
reform of our impaired driving laws at the federal level.
The hon. member for Halifax has quite rightly pointed out the
maximum penalties for drinking and driving, but that is not the
issue. The issue is the courts are not issuing penalties anywhere
near the maximums. The concern is that there should be minimum
penalties which the courts must deal with.
This House passes legislation in order to tell the courts what to
do, which is exactly what this motion is designed to do. At least it
brings forward the opportunity for reasoned debate on this very
important issue.
There are over 110,000 members in the Mothers Against Drunk
Driving organization. This organization was born out of the
anguish and pain caused by impaired or drunk driving. This
organization was formed as a result of the inaction of the federal
government. If the government were addressing this issue, this
organization would not have any need or basis to lobby, to raise
funds and to do what it can to bring this matter to the attention of
politicians who seem oblivious to the need to do something in this
area.
Last Thursday night I arrived home in Cameras, Alberta. The
very next evening a drunk driver ran into a car which was being
driven by a father. The mother was in the front passenger seat and
their four children were in the back. Both the mother and father
were killed while the children were left alive. The oldest is fourteen
and the youngest is five. It happened in the area of Armenia which
is in my constituency as a result of the boundary change. The
family was from the small city of Cameras which has a population
of approximately 12,000 to 13,000.
That catastrophe will touch thousands of people in that area. And
what is being done about it? Nothing is being done about it at the
federal level. Some of the statistics on the subject have been
introduced into this debate by my colleagues. From 1983 to 1991,
17,630 people died in Canada in alcohol related crashes and 1.1
million people were injured. In 1992, 14,014 were killed. In 1987,
5.2 million days of employment activity were lost.
Justice Peter Cory of the Supreme Court of Canada stated in
1995: ``Every year drunk driving leaves a terrible trail of death,
injury, heartbreak and destruction. In terms of the deaths and
serious injuries resulting in hospitalization, drunk driving is clearly
the crime which causes the most significant social loss to the
country''. I hope this is not lost on hon. members.
The justice minister stood in this House and justified Bill C-68 at
least in part with the horrific statistic that every six days a woman
is shot to death in this country. I would just point out that every six
hours someone is killed in this country by an impaired driver.
Certainly the House and the Government of Canada should be
looking at this issue. It should not simply brush it aside because as
the member for Halifax has stated the maximum penalties are what
they are; the maximum penalties are not worth the powder to blow
them up unless they are utilized. What is the purpose of having a
maximum penalty if the courts never consider the maximum
penalty or anything near the maximum penalty?
(1200)
I understand my time has expired. I have appreciated the time to
speak and perhaps I will be able to continue later.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Crowfoot will have
five minutes when the debate resumes again, if he so wishes.
The time provided for the consideration of Private Members'
Business has now expired. The order is dropped to the bottom of
the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
Mr. Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I have a comment on the private
members' motion, just so that I understand it correctly. The motion
is printed on page 21 of today's Order Paper in the name of the hon.
member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley and thereafter it states
that pursuant to Standing Order 86(3) it is jointly seconded by a
number of members.
As I read the motion before us, it asks that we vote on the
following:
That, in the opinion of the House, the government should consider strengthening
penalties in those sections of the Criminal Code which deal with impaired driving
offences in order to: (a) enhance deterrence; and (b) bring the penalties into line with
the seriousness of the offence.
6937
As I understand it, that is all we are being asked to vote on.
Am I correct in my submission? Just so that I can understand
precisely what the debate is, it is just this motion and nothing else.
Is that correct?
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. minister will appreciate that
being a votable matter the motion will come up for debate again for
two further hours. Private Members' Business expired about three
minutes ago and I would urge the minister to raise this point the
next time the matter comes up in the House.
Mr. Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I am seeking clarification on the
substance of the motion before the House and whether this is the
totality of the motion before the House. Perhaps the Chair or the
Clerk could inform the House that the totality of the motion is as I
have read it. If there are additional sentences to be added, I would
like to know that as well. However, as I understand it, the motion
before the House is what I have read and nothing else.
The Deputy Speaker: With great respect, I think the minister's
question is one of debate.
Mr. Dingwall: It is not a question of debate.
The Deputy Speaker: Private Members' Business has now
expired.
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if it might be helpful to the
House if the hon. member in whose name the motion stands might
very briefly clarify the point of order raised by the minister. In fact,
it possibly may even enhance his own motion.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent for the
member to clarify?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, for clarification to the Minister of
Health, the motion as it is written is in its entirety and that the
government should consider. Let me just add if the motion is
passed by the House, the hope is that the government knowing its
responsibility will indeed send the motion to the justice committee
for the recognition this serious issue deserves. That is the intent of
the motion.
_____________________________________________
6937
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
(1205)
[English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (for Minister of Finance, Lib.) moved
that a ways a means motion to amend the Income Tax Act, the
Income Tax Application Rules, the Bankruptcy and Insolvency
Act, the Canada pension plan, the Children's Special Allowances
Act, the Cultural Property Export and Import Act, the Customs
Act, the Employment Insurance Act, the Excise Tax Act, the Old
Age Security Act, the Tax Court of Canada Act, the Tax Rebate
Discounting Act, the Unemployment Insurance Act, the Western
Grain Transition Payments Act and certain acts related to the
Income Tax Act, laid upon the table on Wednesday, November 20,
be concurred in.
The Deputy Speaker: This motion is not debatable.
Mr. Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We are being
asked to vote shortly on a ways and means motion that just arrived
in our offices at 11.45 today. My understanding is that when a
motion or a bill is tabled it is available to members for study
presumably for eventual vote and debate. This is some 350 pages.
It arrived on our desks 20 minutes ago and we are being asked to
vote on it. There is not a single member in this House who has even
looked at it let alone read it.
It seems to be highly irregular that members of Parliament are
being asked to vote on a comprehensive tax bill-
The Deputy Speaker: The member for Kamloops would know
that this is not a point of order. In fact the Order Paper indicates
that the matter was tabled on Wednesday, November 20.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I think you would find that there is
agreement with the whips of the official opposition and the Reform
Party that the votes on the ways and means motions be deferred
until 1.15 p.m. with a 15-minute bell. Over and above ways and
means Motions Nos. 10 and 12, we would also deal with the votes
on third reading of Bill C-29 which originally had been deferred
until later this day. They will also take place at 1.15 this afternoon.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is the whip of the official opposition in
agreement with this proposal?
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, we are in agreement, and wish to
express our most sincere appreciation to the other parties for their
co-operation, given the circumstances.
6938
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, yes, we have had consultations and
that is fine with the Reform Party. There will be a bell at 1.15 and
we will do it all at 1.30.
The Deputy Speaker: Under Standing Order 45(7), this request
is acceptable and the divisions on the specific matters are deferred
until 1.30 p.m.
(1210 )
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (for the Minister of Finance, Lib.)
moved that a ways and means motion to amend the Excise Tax Act,
the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, the Income Tax
Act, the Debt Servicing and Reduction Account Act and related
acts, laid upon the table on Friday, November 29, be concurred in.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 45(7), the
division on the motion is deferred until 1.15 p.m.
* * *
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (for Minister of Justice, 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.''
Citation
2. This Amendment may be cited as the Constitution Amendment, year of
proclamation (Newfoundland Act).
(1215 )
Hon. Roger Simmons (Burin-St. George's, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to address myself to this resolution. I spoke on it in
June when the House first dealt with it but since then the Senate has
had some time dealing with it and now it is back here for us to deal
with one more time as provided for in the Constitution.
6939
Perhaps I may mention something of my own personal
educational background to show how I come at this particular
issue.
Mr. Strahl: Are you with us or against us, Roger?
Mr. Simmons: I am always with the member for Fraser Valley
East when he is advocating sensible things. I believe on this one he
is advocating something very sensible.
I was raised in the Salvation Army, so I completed my high
school education in a so-called church school, a Salvation Army
school. I spent a number of years teaching. Half my teaching career
was in a Salvation Army school and in two communities, one in
northern Newfoundland called St. Anthony, the other on the
northeast coast in a community called Springdale. I spent about the
same amount of time teaching in the so-called amalgamated or
integrated schools, those schools in which a number of the
religious denominations including the Salvation Army had come
together for educational purposes.
I spent three years as a clergyman with the Salvation Army. I
spent a couple of years as president of the provincial
Newfoundland Teacher's Association. I mention that in the context
that we had a number of dealings in those days with changes to
legislation including the 1969 Schools Act, for example, which
legislated during the period of my presidency of the teacher's
association.
Both in terms of my own education and in terms of my own
career path I have had fairly close involvement with the subject that
we are dealing with here today.
I, like just about every other Newfoundlander, have a particular
perspective on it. We are not clones. We have different
perspectives. We had a referendum on the issue a couple of years
ago. It triggered some pretty strong views on either side of the
issue. I will come to that in a moment.
Let us refresh ourselves on what is the background of this
particular resolution, and why it is before us now. First, it is before
us now for the same reason that it was before us last June. It was
because the Parliament of Canada has a role in responding to
requests from particular provinces having to do with changes to the
Constitution that affect only that province or those provinces
making the request. This particular amendment falls in that
category.
As many will be aware, a whole lot of activity, planning and
involvement has preceded the arrival of the resolution, the
proposed amendment, on the floor of this Chamber last June and
again today.
The genesis of this proposed change is that for many years the
Newfoundland education system has been seeking better ways, not
only more efficient ways in dollar terms, but more effective ways
to pursue its educational objectives while at the same time ensuring
the very values that have been part of the system and that have
made the system such a success over the years because, despite the
financial constraints, the so-called church system of education in
Newfoundland has served us very well for many years.
Were there time I would take members back and tell them how
we got into this rather unique system in the first place. It had to do
with the way that Newfoundland was settled. It had to do with the
early laws that prevented settlement. Settlement was illegal in
Newfoundland until 1824. If there was no legal settlement there
was no, at least in technical terms, need for a government. It was all
done by fiat from Westminster. What education there was was
provided by the churches in the absence of a state controlled
system, because there was no state, except in the context of being a
colony of Great Britain and a reluctant colony at that particular
time; reluctant in the context that we were not supposed to be there.
(1220)
The churches became involved and performed a very pivotal,
crucial role in the early days of education in Newfoundland, such
that when government decided in the late 1800s that it was time to
formalize the education institution in Newfoundland it was an easy
step to look to those who had been providing the service over the
years, the churches, and ask them to carry on. That is exactly what
was done.
As a result of the first education act in the late 1800s a
partnership was developed. Put in simplest terms, the taxpayer
would pay the bill, the state would pay the bill, and churches would
run the schools. We did not have five, six or seven church schools
in the sense that there are in the province of Ontario or in certain
other jurisdictions in Manitoba and so on. We had, operating side
by side, seven state funded school systems. Each got its money
from the state and its leadership from the church. That system
evolved over the years and served us very well.
As I said a moment ago, I am a product of that system both in
having graduated from it and in having worked in it as a teacher
and a school administrator. Were there time I could talk for hours
on the many advantages and the many good things of the system. It
is a very good system. We need to preserve the best of it while at
the same time do our best to get rid of that which impedes progress
in the system.
I want the House to understand the two things I have said. We
have to find ways to reform the system. That was the resolve of the
Newfoundland people when this exercise had its beginnings. We
have to find ways to help the system progress, but not at the
expense of the values which are implicit in the system.
6940
I believe the Newfoundland government found a way to do that.
Having tentatively found that way, it did not just arbitrarily bull
through with it and force it down people's throats. It looked to
the people of Newfoundland in a referendum in September of last
year and asked the people of Newfoundland what they thought of
the proposed changes, what they thought of the proposal to seek
a constitutional amendment to enable the changes to go forward.
Fifty-five per cent of the people who participated in the
referendum gave the government and the legislature of
Newfoundland and Labrador the green light or the authority to
proceed with the proposed amendment to the Constitution.
That was in September of last year. That was one vote of the
people directly involved. It was one vote which said: ``Let us get on
with it. Let us do it''.
Of course there was at that time a vote of the Newfoundland
House of Assembly which said the same thing. It was a vote of the
elected representatives of the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
There was a more recent vote which was held last May in the
Newfoundland House of Assembly. That vote was unanimous. All
members of all parties in that House, Liberal, Conservative and
New Democratic, voted unanimously to call on this House to
expedite the proposed amendment to the Constitution. The leader
of the opposition, a Conservative, Mr. Loyola Sullivan, in
Newfoundland, voted in that particular amendment. He, like all
other members of the House, called on this Parliament to expedite
the proposed change to the Constitution.
(1225)
Then of course in June here in this Chamber we, the
representatives of the people of Canada, including the seven
members from Newfoundland and Labrador, also participated in a
vote. By a majority, the House has given its approbation to the
proposed amendment.
Even before we take a vote on the resolution now before the
House, there have already been four votes on this issue: the
referendum in Newfoundland, the two votes in the Newfoundland
House of Assembly and a vote in this Chamber in June.
Of course, my critics will remind me that there was a fifth vote
as well on this issue. There was a fifth vote last Thursday in the
Senate, although not quite on this resolution. But in fairness, I
believe I should deal with it briefly.
There was a fifth vote on this subject and some people, well
meaning, in the other place had more of an eye on politics than on
the issues at hand. If we look at the breakdown of the vote, there
were four Liberal Senators who voted for the Senate amendment.
But with that exception, there was a straight split along Liberal and
Tory lines in the Senate in which all the Tories wanted to do
something different from what the Newfoundland people were
asked in the referendum and what the Newfoundland House has
asked in its two motions and that we had asked in the June vote
here. All the Tories voted to oppose the will of the Newfoundland
people in the referendum and oppose the will of the Newfoundland
House of Assembly in its two votes.
All the Liberals, save four, voted to uphold what this Chamber
had already done and what had been done in the referendum and in
the Newfoundland House.
It can be argued that in the other place it was largely a vote along
partisan lines. I would submit, having been around this business for
a while, that politics probably fueled as much of the argument over
there as did any concern for other issues.
However, not to be unduly unkind at the beginning of this new
week, let us recognize that part of the argument which was put over
in the other place had to do with the concern of minority rights. The
Senate spent a fair amount of time on this and, indeed, its
amendment stated ``where numbers warrant''.
It is interesting that the Senate had chosen those very words, but
it was no accident. First it comes straight from the minority
language context. Those are also the very words that the
Newfoundland House of Assembly had initially considered. This
was part of the original proposal that the Newfoundland
government was going to bring to us.
I am told, having followed this one very closely, that it was
decided by the Newfoundland government that the phrase ``where
numbers warrant'', while pretty innocuous and helpful on the
surface, was rejected as a viable option primarily because of the
potential legal interpretation of the phrase.
The intention here is not to give special treatment to anybody,
not to people who have uni-denominational schools or any other
kind of school. The intention of this amendment is to treat all
denominational schools in exactly the same way. Consequently the
right to a unidenominational school was made ``subject to
provincial legislation that is uniformly applicable to all schools,
specifying conditions for the establishment of continued operation
of schools''. That is a quote directly from the resolution now before
the House.
(1230)
The clause I have just read authorizes the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador to set the standard for establishing
and maintaining the school. However, it requires that the same
standard be applied to all schools, whether interdenominational or
unidenominational. In effect, the government is prevented by this
6941
clause from setting a higher or different standard for
unidenominational schools than would apply to other publicly
funded schools.
That last sentence is at the very crux of the issue that was dealt
with in the Senate. I have mentioned I have a few suspicions but if
we put aside the partisan hanky-panky that might have gone on
over there in the name of this resolution, in the name of minority
rights, and recognize that there were people in the Senate and
people at large in Newfoundland and across Canada who say when
they heard about this proposed amendment to term 17: ``What does
this have to do with minority rights? Is there an implication for
minority rights in other parts of the country?''
To them I say that the amendment to the resolution in the Senate,
the ``where numbers warrant amendment,'' would have played into
the hands of their concern. It would have set a different standard. It
would have obliged the Government of Newfoundland and
Labrador to apply a different standard, a lower standard to
unidenominational schools than to the multidenominational
schools. That is exactly what the Government of Newfoundland
and Labrador wanted to avoid. It is why the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador elected not to put ``where numbers
warrant'' in its request for a change.
Let me reiterate the sentence I read a moment ago. In effect, the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is prevented from
setting a higher or a different standard for unidenominational
schools than would apply to other publics funded schools.
Prohibiting the government from setting a different standard is
only there as long as we stick with the wording before us. The
introduction of the words ``where numbers warrant'' is a licence to
a government at some future time to apply different standards to
unidenominational schools than to multidenominational schools.
I said earlier that this debate as it unfolded in Newfoundland
caused a fair amount of confrontation, division and some rancour.
Some of that rancour is the inevitable result of the dramatic change
being proposed. There are always those who are most comfortable
with the status quo. To a degree I am one of those people because I
have never felt that you should change for the sake of changing.
But if change offers the prospect of something better then it is
worth considering abandoning the status quo.
However, whenever the status quo is tampered with, some
rancour, some suspicion is triggered. Therefore, it is no surprise
that something as integral to the Newfoundland way of life as the
school system would trigger that kind of apprehension, indeed that
kind of rancour. Unfortunately the rancour was cranked up
somewhat by a bit of misinformation. No matter what the debate,
someone has a vested interest. There is always somebody who
says: ``I do not really trust the judgment of people on this, so I have
to do some fear mongering on it''.
(1235)
We had a fair amount of rhetoric in Newfoundland about godless
schools and that kind of thing. I invite critics to look at this
proposal and they will find that it does two things only. It puts the
governance of the school system in Newfoundland where it already
is in every other jurisdiction in Canada. Into the hands of the
government.
Second, and most important, it continues and enshrines even
further the role of the churches in so far as religious education is
concerned in Newfoundland. The role of the churches will continue
and will be constitutionally protected by this amendment.
I think I told the House this before but if not let us get it on the
record. In the referendum in September last year I voted no, not
because I opposed the changes being proposed and not because I
had concerns about minority rights, although I had some questions
there at the time and I will come to these in a moment. I voted no
for a couple of reasons. First, I felt that a proper opportunity had
not been given to resolve the issues of difference between the
government and the church leaders outside the constitutional
context. I felt that the government appeared to be rushing to
judgment on this one and more time was needed to seek an
accommodation outside the constitutional context in which we are
now operating.
The result of the referendum and the resolution in the
Newfoundland House of Assembly triggered a whole set of
initiatives for both sides to try to get together one last time. After
the referendum and after the first vote in the Newfoundland House
of Assembly it was that exercise and the result of that exercise
which turned out to be an abysmal failure.
It was a failure of that latter exercise which told me that
whatever my concerns were earlier, it was clear that no amount of
knocking heads together was going to solve the issue. The only
route left was the route that the government of Newfoundland had
chosen to go, the route we are participating in and the route we are
now on today.
I initially had some concerns about the minority rights situation
until I realized that this is a minority rights situation only in the
semantic context. The right we are dealing with here is the same
right for every living, breathing Newfoundlander and Labradorian.
Absolutely the same one.
Second, the accommodation that has been made in this proposal
will see to it that those rights continue to be protected. In matters
relating to the religious content of the curriculum in Newfoundland
the churches will have full say.
(1240)
Do you know, Mr. Speaker, what the criticism was in those days
in Newfoundland, if you had been following the local media in
Newfoundland? I do not mean in the last week but in the last few
6942
months. It is from those who want to get on with educational
reform. The criticism was that the government in its latest
negotiations was giving more say to the churches than they had
before. I do not subscribe to that but I am saying that is a criticism
that is much in print. It has been said many times by proponents of
the reform in the past few months.
As a Newfoundlander, as an educator, as a person who got part of
his schooling and spent part of his teaching years in a
unidenominational school in Newfoundland I can say that I am
extremely comfortable with the route we are on here.
I want to mention one more thing before I sit down. It has to do
with the role of the Senate. I have seen some effort in recent days
for people to bring on board other agenda items here, to talk about
this appointed Senate and that kind of thing. I have my views on the
Senate. I think the sooner we can find a way to elect it the better.
But that aside, the Senate has a role in this. I have never felt its
members were outside their bounds in dealing with this issue.
The Senate has served the overall process very well with their
hearings, with their proposed amendment. The whole process held
it up to the light of day just a little bit more. I hope one of the things
it has done is to convince the people of Canada, those who have
been watching or following, of something of which I am
convinced. This is not a minority rights issue. It is not an issue that
affects anybody outside of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Those who get on that tack and begin advocating this as a human
rights issue should be careful of the precedent they are setting.
What they are saying in effect is, notwithstanding what section 43
says in the Constitution, we can never have an issue that affects
only one jurisdiction, in this case one province. It can never have
dealt with and processed here because we have to be always
cognizant, always held under the threat of how it might be
perceived in some other jurisdiction.
Newfoundland and Labrador has the full right to seek a
constitutional change. The Parliament of Canada has the full
responsibility to respond to that request, to scrutinize it. Lord
knows we have scrutinized it, here last June, all this fall in the
Senate and back here again. It has been well scrutinized. That is the
process.
At the end of the day the request came only from the jurisdiction
concerned. However, it came with the strength of a referendum and
with the strength of two resolutions in the House of Assembly of
Newfoundland and Labrador. It has certainly kept up its part of
bargain as provided for in section 43. I think we have too. We dealt
with it for the first time last June, in the Senate subsequently, the
Senate hearings, the Senate amendment, and now here.
I believe the time has come to get on with the vote. I hope we can
do it expeditiously because we are dealing with the education of
some young people whose education has been in limbo somewhat
because of the way this process has been dragged out.
I felt from the beginning it would take some time. Nobody can
argue that it has been rushed through. We have had a good run at it.
There can be nobody left in the country, certainly in Newfoundland
and Labrador, whose rights are involved here, who does not know
about this initiative and who has not taken sides on this initiative. I
can say that I still get mail from people in Newfoundland who tell
me they feel it is a minority rights issue. I get mail from people
who are concerned that the role of the church is being minimized
here. I respect those views. Some are from my constituents and
some from other across the province. I respect those views very
much.
(1245)
At the end of the day I have to make a judgment. I believe I have
made the right judgment on this one, that the overall process will
be best served if we get on with the amendment to the Constitution.
I am satisfied that the values which have served the
Newfoundland education system so well are being adequately
protected here. If they were not, I would not be making the speech I
am making today because, as I said before, I have been intimately a
part of that system and I am proud of what it has been able to do in
terms of education in Newfoundland and Labrador. I would not
want to see it watered down or interfered with.
I believe this amendment, far from interfering with it, allows it
to proceed in an effective manner. It is for those reasons that I take
great pleasure in supporting the resolution before the House.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak today in support of resolution 17. I do so as the
intergovernmental affairs critic for my party.
I enjoyed hearing from the member for Burin-St. George's. I
have always had a great deal of respect and admiration for him. I
must say that after listening to his presentation that has grown
when I heard him talking about the status quo and that it is not
always the best way to go and he certainly supports referendums,
something this party feels very strongly about.
I think I even heard his support for an elected Senate. Indeed, the
comments that came from the other side I wholeheartedly endorse.
We may want him to come over to our side.
I am pleased to speak in support of this. I regret that we are
debating this again. I do regret that those in the other place, the
unelected, have ignored the true democratic judgment of the people
of Newfoundland and Labrador. It seems as though the common
6943
sense of the common people has been ignored. That is something
the Reform Party very much believes in.
Before I get into our position on that, I think it would be
appropriate to review the process that has brought us to this point.
This is not some knee-jerk reaction that is taking place. It actually
goes back to 1992 when there was a royal commission that looked
at the problem of education in Newfoundland and Labrador. The
recommendation was that it needed to be changed and the change
was the subject of three years of negotiations in that province.
Unfortunately, the negotiations with the government and the
churches failed to bring about an agreement on the changes, but
basically everyone agreed there had to be changes made.
The resolution we are talking about today and which we talked
about in June was voted on a passed in the Newfoundland House of
Assembly in a free vote of a clear majority. Then the referendum
was held. I should mention that the referendum was not required by
the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, but it is to its
credit that a referendum was held on a major change such as this to
the Constitution. We applaud the fact that the referendum was held.
The referendum passed by a clear majority of 55 per cent, which
clearly indicated agreement to the changes proposed by the
government to term 17.
After the referendum passed in October 1995 the Newfoundland
House of Assembly adopted the resolution and all parties supported
it.
There was a provincial election in Newfoundland and Labrador
in February 1996, and of course reform was an issue in the election
because the referendum had been held and of the 52 seats
contested, 36 of those seeking election supported the referendum.
Once again in a provincial election there was overwhelming
support for reform. Then, of course, back in June of this year we in
this House overwhelmingly endorsed the change by 170 to 46 on
what was a free vote.
(1250)
That is the background leading up to what I would certainly
argue has been a very fair and open democratic process where the
will of the people has been heard and accepted.
Certainly in coming to this place we have a role to play. In my
view, we had three things we had to address. The first was the
consideration of the democratic consent. The second consideration
was that it conform to the national standards of the rights and
freedoms of our citizens. The third was the consideration of the
minority rights in other provinces, that they were not going to be
impacted.
Dealing first with the consideration of the democratic consent, I
think I have just outlined the process that was followed, starting
with the royal commission in 1992 which brought us to the point
where we are at today, clearly indicating that the democratic
consent was solicited and indeed achieved.
The second point is on national standards of rights and freedoms.
In my interpretation in review of this bill, the rights and freedoms
of the churches and citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador are not
impacted in any way. Their rights and freedoms are actually more
enhanced than they were under the bill because of the new changes.
On the third point, considering the impact of minority rights in
other provinces, term 17 refers only to the people of the one
province and in fact does on impact on any of the other provinces.
As I mentioned, minority rights have been actually enhanced
because prior to this resolution 5 per cent of the people in the
province of Newfoundland and Labrador had no rights under term
17. When we talk about minority rights, this bill actually enhances
the rights of all the citizens. That is really what this bill is about,
equality. There is no longer going to be special status based on
religion. Everyone will be treated equally. I find it difficult that
anyone could argue against that concept.
The province of Newfoundland and Labrador is the only
province that has exclusive denominational schools. Therefore
Newfoundland will join all the other provinces by being free in that
area.
This bill is not about minority rights. It is about bettering and
improving the quality of education in that province. It is about
streamlining the system and putting more money into the
classrooms and taking it out of the bureaucracy. It is projected to be
a savings of some $25 million, which is significant. In a province
that needs to improve its education and do a better job, that is
absolutely a move in the right direction.
There has been some comment about the fact that the question
was perhaps not as clear as it might have been. I have read the
question and I do not know how it could be made any clearer. In
attempting to make it as some might describe as too clear, one
could be accused of oversimplifying it. It is important that the
question be understood and in my view it was a very clear question.
We do a disservice to the common sense of the common people
when we suggest they could not understand what was in the text.
People do understand and to a far greater degree than some
members of this House and certainly many members from the other
place.
We understand as Reformers that this is a sensitive and
controversial issue. My leader made it clear on the first vote that it
would be a free vote by my party and we continue to feel that way.
However, the majority of the Reform caucus supports the
government on this term 17 amendment. We believe it is a move in
the right direction and a move away from the status quo. It is
6944
respecting the democratic wishes as expressed by referendum of
the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. We will be supporting
it.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, last June this House held a two day debate on the
amendment to term 17 proposed by the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador and referred to the Parliament of
Canada for sanction according to the Canadian Constitution.
(1255 )
The amendment to term 17 was approved by a significant
majority of this House in a free vote and submitted to the Senate for
adoption. The Senate has now returned the proposed term 17
amendment to us, modified by a Senate amendment providing two
measures to which I will refer later. The Senate amendment was
adopted by a significant majority of senators in a free vote.
Last summer when I spoke on this issue I was one of 36 Liberal
members who voted against the adoption of the proposed
amendment to term 17. The reasons I gave then are, in my
considered view, still valid today. These are my reasons.
There is a broad consensus for the need for reform of the
educational system in Newfoundland and Labrador and, to my
knowledge, no parliamentarian opposes this worthy objective.
However, many parliamentarians have strong reservations that,
worthy as the objective may be, the amendment should not
interfere with the rights of certain minority groups and certain
groups now protected by the Constitution under the terms of union
of Newfoundland with Canada.
Those of us who hold these reservations believe that the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador had two alternative
options available to reach the objective it seeks while protecting
the existing rights of defined educational groups under the
Constitution.
First, it could have persevered with a framework agreement that
it was negotiating with the various stakeholders and which was
close to a consensus last spring, according to the words on April 24,
1996 of no less than Newfoundland's minister of education, Mr.
Grimes.
The second option, if it preferred, as it eventually chose to do, to
move on the constitutional front would have been to propose an
amendment to term 17 which would have at the same time made
clear and watertight the protection of existing rights under the
projected reform.
However, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador chose
to go forward with an amendment which would give complete
power to itself to modify the present educational system regardless
of the protected rights of religious groups under the Constitution.
Those who believe that the House should simply accede to the
amendment proposed by the Government of Newfoundland hold
that the decision of the Government of Newfoundland was a
democratic choice, sanctioned by a majority vote in a public
referendum.
Many of my colleagues who support the amendment proposed
by Newfoundland feel that it is presumptuous and arrogant of us in
this House to interfere with a democratic decision of a legitimate
government seeking its own reforms.
I respectfully submit that this argument is not justified. If the
modern fathers of confederation presiding over the terms of union
of Newfoundland with Canada had viewed educational reform as
strictly a matter for the provincial Government of Newfoundland to
decide, they would not have enshrined clear and unequivocal
protections for certain religious groups related to education in the
terms of union.
Having done this, those who crafted the terms of union
obviously agreed and decided that term 17 went beyond the power
and authority of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador,
and that is why we in this House have become involved. Being
involved, according to the clear designs of the authors of the terms
of union and of term 17, we have the duty as members of
Parliament, indeed an onerous duty, to examine any changes with
special care. If in doing so our conclusion is that the amendment
proposed by the Government of Newfoundland eliminates the
constitutional protections that the authors of the terms of union
deliberately intended to enshrine, then it behoves us to either reject
the proposed amendment or modify it so as to continue the
protections intended for certain educational groups by the
Constitution.
(1300 )
In a recent free vote the Senate adopted an amendment that
provides for two modifications to Newfoundland's proposed
amendment to term 17. It would affirm both the spirit and intended
protection of the original term 17. The first part of this amendment
is the insertion of the words ``where numbers warrant'' and the
present paragraph (b) which starts with the words ``subject to
provincial legislation''.
This is an important change. If the authority for changing the
protection of certain educational groups under the Constitution is
left to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, why should
the same not be done in the cases of the provinces of Ontario,
Manitoba, Quebec or any other province where certain educational
rights are now protected by the Canadian Constitution?
Today we have a certain type of government in Newfoundland.
Colleagues here may feel very comfortable leaving this authority
with the present Government of Newfoundland. But what
government will it be tomorrow? What will be the design of the
future government 25 years hence? This is why the fathers of the
Constitution, when dealing with matters as sensitive as education,
6945
educational rights, protection of minority rights, protection of
religious groups, made it so that these rights were deliberately
enshrined in the Constitution to make it much more difficult for
any provincial government to change at will the educational
system. Maybe a government more daring than others, more
autocratic than others could eliminate these very protections, these
minority rights like religious rights for certain educational groups
just by its own will with perhaps a tiny majority in the House.
The second amendment intends to substitute the words ``to
direct'' with the words ``to determine and direct''. This puts a far
greater onus on the Government of Newfoundland to determine
before directing any changes involving substantial reform that they
are warranted.
I suggest that in both cases these amendments make eminent
sense. They do not detract from the thrust of the term 17
amendment. In other words, the worthy objective or reform the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is seeking is
continuing in a reasonable manner the protection of the educational
groups enshrined under the terms of union.
[Translation]
I am particularly interested in the question of constitutional
protection. As a matter of fact, this same question of the
constitutional provisions on education is undergoing a thorough
and ongoing scrutiny at this very moment in Quebec.
The recent general assembly on education recommended that all
religious education in Quebec, which is essentially linked to the
protection of minority rights in Quebec, be abolished. A consensus
is gradually developing in Quebec around dividing school boards
by language. What will the present government of Quebec decide
eventually, since we all know that it is opposed to any interference
by the Canadian Parliament in its affairs?
It is not mere coincidence that the Bloc Quebecois voted
unanimously in favour of the amendment proposed by
Newfoundland. The Bloc's argument is that, since the Government
of Newfoundland has made a democratic choice, it is not the
business of us here in the Canadian Parliament to interfere. The
Bloc is already paving the way for the possibility of the Quebec
government's referring to us some proposal for an amendment to
the protection of education in Quebec, at which time it would suit
both the Bloc and the PQ government if we were to accept it
without a murmur.
Certainly, if ever there were an amendment to the constitutional
provisions on education, and if this included sufficient protection
for minorities, I would be the first to accept it. But if it did not, I
consider that it is the duty of all parliamentarians to oppose it
vigorously.
(1305)
[English]
Some of my colleagues have stated that the amendment to term
17 has nothing to do with minority rights. Many colleagues have
expressed the fact that it is going beyond our duty to interfere with
the rights of the people of Newfoundland, the Government of
Newfoundland, to decide its own thrust, its own objective of
reform. I do not think this is what we are doing. I certainly do not
think this is what I have in mind.
I really believe that this question is essentially linked to minority
rights. I truly believe that if we were to accept, to rubber stamp any
constitutional change proposed by any provincial government
without expressing our opinion, without expressing dissent if this is
what we feel should be the case, then what is the point of
constitutional enshrinement in the first place?
After all, the Constitution today, whether we like it or not,
provides that the Parliament of Canada, this House and the Senate,
should examine any constitutional change. The reason for it is
patently obvious.
I suggest that this question is far bigger than that of the authority
of any provincial legislature to decide by itself. This is why we are
involved. This is why I continue to believe that in assenting
unchanged to the amendment to term 17 as proposed by the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador we would be doing a
disservice to all those who believe that constitutional enshrinement
in Quebec, in Ontario, in Manitoba and elsewhere are really the
finest guarantees we have for minority rights.
These minority rights express themselves in different ways.
Sometimes, as happens in Quebec, they are tied up through the
Constitution through religious enshrinement. There has been an
evolution in mores, an evolution in our societal realities which
makes it so today that religion is not the key issue any more in our
schools. But the fact of religious enshrinement in Quebec is tied up
closely to minority rights in Quebec. Were we to accept this
amendment today without any argument, by rubber stamping it, no
doubt that our friends of the Bloc will rejoice once again when they
prepare their own proposition for us one day to put before this
House, hoping that again we would rubber stamp it.
I continue to hold that we should look at the amendment to term
17 very carefully, that we should back the amendments made in the
Senate and that we should move in that direction which is a fair
compromise to the Government in Newfoundland and Labrador
and all those who hold, as we all do, for educational reform in that
province. We should keep the thrust of the amendment to term 17
6946
while keeping the protection of religious groups enshrined in the
terms of the union.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to once again talk on term 17.
I would like go back to my colleague for Burin-St. George's
who spoke in the House earlier today. He made the assertion that
any difference of opinion on term 17 was driven by partisan
interest. I want to assure my friend that he is someone I continue to
hold in high respect and regard. He has been a tremendous
supporter of mine over the last nine years. However, I believe that
the member is really not accurate when he states that our motives
for being involved and having a point of view on this issue are not
grounded in the best of intentions.
(1310)
Back in June when this resolution was debated, certain members
of the House opposed the constitutional amendment that was
before the House. We were very sensitive to the fact but we
recognized that the educational system in Newfoundland needed
reform and modernization. No attempt was made to interfere with
the management of the educational system.
Having said that, a constitutional amendment cannot be put to
the House without some examination, without some discussion and
debate. If we feel that there are some genuine concerns, as the
member for Lincoln has so eloquently expressed, then it is our duty
and responsibility to stand in the House and flag these concerns and
put them forward to the House. Ultimately precedents that are set
in this Chamber on constitutional amendments will have a
profound effect for other provinces in the country.
As the member for Lincoln has just said, he has deep concerns
about the fact that the reasons for the Bloc supporting this en masse
last June were that they were setting the terrain under a referendum
condition where if they were looking for constitutional amendment
that the amendment in Newfoundland would be a terrific precedent.
How can we rubber stamp something in Newfoundland and have a
difference in Quebec?
There is something else that is really important of which
members of the House and the people of Canada should be aware
and that is what has happened in the Senate over the last four
months. Without exception most bills that the House of Commons
has put to the Senate have been supported in a timely fashion, in a
constructive way. We could count on our hands the number of bills
which have come back to the House for amendment over the last
three years.
There has to be some concern, some heads up, when we have an
amendment to term 17 that is supported by a majority of the
Senators. When the speeches that were given on this issue in the
Senate are analysed, it is interesting to read some of the remarks
that some of the Senators who have great constitutional experience
and credibility have tabled in the other chamber.
I would like to refer specifically to Senator Kirby who gave a
speech in the other chamber on November 7. It is important when
members read Senator Kirby's remarks that they realize the
experience and background of this Senator. This Senator was the
most senior public servant constitutional adviser for the then
minister of justice who campaigned coast to coast, and even in
Westminster, for the repatriation of the Constitution.
This is the Senator, who was the most senior adviser, who spent
literally thousands and thousands of hours along with expert
lawyers from the Department of Justice and other expert lawyers
across Canada to make sure that the Constitution was crafted in a
way that would ultimately be accepted by this chamber. Having
Senator Kirby weigh in on this issue so profoundly is something
this Chamber cannot ignore. His experience, respect and sensitivity
were brought to bear on this issue such that the entire membership
of the other Chamber gave him extended time so that his remarks
could be fully recorded.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I am sorry to interrupt the
hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood, but it being 1.15 p.m.,
pursuant to order made earlier this day, the House will now proceed
to the taking of the deferred recorded division on Motion No. 10
under ways and means proceedings.
* * *
The House resumed consideration of a ways and means motion to amend the Income
Tax Act, the Income Tax Application Rules, the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the
Canada pension plan, the Children's Special Allowances Act, the Cultural Property
Export and Import Act, the Customs Act, the Employment Insurance Act, the Excise Tax
Act, the Old Age Security Act the Tax Court of Canada Act, the Tax Rebate Discounting
Act, the Unemployment Insurance Act, the Western Grain Transition Payments Act and
certain acts related to the Income Tax Act.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The vote is on
concurrence in ways and means Motion No. 10.
Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 190)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bélanger
Bellemare
Bernier (Beauce)
Bertrand
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Bonin
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
6947
Byrne
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Catterall
Cauchon
Clancy
Cohen
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Cullen
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fry
Gaffney
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Guarnieri
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McTeague
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murray
Nault
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Walker
Wells
Whelan-123
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Asselin
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Brien
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Epp
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Gilmour
Godin
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Jacob
Kerpan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Manning
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McLaughlin
Ménard
Mercier
Meredith
Nunez
Paré
Penson
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Riis
Ringma
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Silye
Solomon
Speaker
St-Laurent
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams -82
PAIRED MEMBERS
Allmand
Canuel
Caron
Gauthier
Grose
Kirkby
Mifflin
Picard (Drummond)
(1340 )
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I declare the motion
carried.
The House resumed consideration of a ways and means motion
to amend the Excise Tax Act, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal
Arrangements Act, the Income Tax Act, the Debt Servicing and
Reduction Account Act and related acts.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The question is on ways
and means Motion No. 12.
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree, I propose
that there would be unanimous consent that we apply the results of
the previous vote taken on ways and means Motion No. 10 to ways
and means Motion No. 12.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Is there unanimous
consent?
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, two members of our caucus who were
not present for the last vote, the hon. member for Medicine Hat and
the hon. member for New Westminster-Burnaby, would like to be
counted with the Reform Party on the next vote.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Is it agreed, subject to the
terms of the whip of the Reform Party?
[Translation]
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Members of the official opposition will
vote no, Mr. Speaker.
6948
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I am sorry, but I did not
hear what the official opposition whip said. Could she please
repeat what she said?
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Official opposition members will vote
no on the motion before the House.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The hon. member for
Regina-Lumsden on a point of order.
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the House of
Commons how the NDP are going to vote on this matter. Are we
voting, Mr. Speaker, or are we just discussing points of order?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The chief government
whip suggested that the vote taken on the previous motion be
applied to this motion. I understood there was unanimous consent
for that, subject to the addition of two names from the Reform
Party.
Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 191)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bélanger
Bellemare
Bernier (Beauce)
Bertrand
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Bonin
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Byrne
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Catterall
Cauchon
Clancy
Cohen
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Cullen
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fry
Gaffney
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Guarnieri
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McTeague
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murray
Nault
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Walker
Wells
Whelan-123
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Asselin
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Brien
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Gagnon (Québec)
Gilmour
Godin
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Jacob
Kerpan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Manning
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McLaughlin
Ménard
Mercier
Meredith
Nunez
Paré
Penson
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Riis
Ringma
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Silye
Solberg
Solomon
Speaker
St-Laurent
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams -84
PAIRED MEMBERS
Allmand
Canuel
Caron
Gauthier
Grose
Kirkby
Mifflin
Picard (Drummond)
6949
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I declare the motion
carried.
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, you did not take the vote with
respect to the NDP caucus and with respect to ways and means
Motion No. 12, New Democratic Party members in this House vote
no on the motion.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The hon. member for
Regina-Lumsden will know that was the effect of the consent that
was given in the application of the vote, because I believe his party
voted no on Motion No. 10 as well.
The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
recorded division on the subamendment.
Mr. Gilmour: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Unless I
am mistaken, you asked for the approval of the House, but the
government whip did not say which way the government was going
to vote.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Just to clarify the position
for the House, the chief government whip asked that the vote taken
on Motion No. 10, which was the first vote, be applied to the
second vote. I sought the consent of the House to make that
application. Two names were added by the Reform whip and
subject to that, I thought there was House agreement that it be done
and I declared the motion carried. That is why there was not an
indication as to how the government would be voting. It was clear
from the proposal which the chief government whip put to the
House.
* * *
[
Translation]
The House resumed from November 29 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-29, an act to regulate interprovincial trade in and
the importation for commercial purposes of certain
manganese-based substances, be read the third time and passed;
and of the amendment and the amendment to the amendment.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The House will now
proceed to the recorded division on the amendment to the
amendment of Mr. Sauvageau at the third reading stage of Bill
C-29.
[English]
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree I would
propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who voted
on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion
now before the House, with Liberal members voting nay.
[Translation]
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Official opposition members will vote
yes, Mr. Speaker.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present are
voting yea, with the addition of the hon. member for North
Island-Powell River. He is in on this vote as well.
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, New Democrat members of
Parliament present vote no on this matter.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier (Beauce): No, Mr. Speaker.
[English]
(The House divided on the amendment to the amendment, which
was negatived on the following division:)
(Division No. 192)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Asselin
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Brien
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Gagnon (Québec)
Gilmour
Godin
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Jacob
Kerpan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Manning
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Ménard
Mercier
Meredith
Nunez
Paré
Penson
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Ringma
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
St-Laurent
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams -82
6950
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bélanger
Bellemare
Bernier (Beauce)
Bertrand
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Bonin
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Byrne
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Catterall
Cauchon
Clancy
Cohen
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Cullen
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fry
Gaffney
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Guarnieri
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McLaughlin
McTeague
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murray
Nault
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Riis
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Solomon
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Walker
Wells
Whelan-125
PAIRED MEMBERS
Allmand
Canuel
Caron
Gauthier
Grose
Kirkby
Mifflin
Picard (Drummond)
(1350 )
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I declare the amendment
to the amendment lost.
The next question is on the amendment.
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I will try one more time for unanimous
consent to apply the results of the vote on the subamendment to the
vote presently before the House which is on the amendment.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The House has heard the
terms of the proposal of the chief government whip. Is there
unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 192.]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I declare the amendment
lost.
[Translation]
The next question is on the main motion.
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, you will find there is unanimous
consent that those members who voted on the previous motion be
recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with
Liberal members voting yes.
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, official opposition
members will vote no.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present will
vote no, unless instructed otherwise by their constituents.
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, New Democratic Party members in
the House of Commons today vote yes on this matter.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier (Beauce): I will vote yes, Mr. Speaker.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 193)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bélanger
Bellemare
Bernier (Beauce)
Bertrand
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Bonin
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Byrne
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Catterall
Cauchon
Clancy
Cohen
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Cullen
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
6951
Easter
Eggleton
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fry
Gaffney
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Guarnieri
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McLaughlin
McTeague
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murray
Nault
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Riis
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Solomon
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Walker
Wells
Whelan-125
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Asselin
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Brien
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Gagnon (Québec)
Gilmour
Godin
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Jacob
Kerpan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Manning
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Ménard
Mercier
Meredith
Nunez
Paré
Penson
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Ringma
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
St-Laurent
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams -82
PAIRED MEMBERS
Allmand
Canuel
Caron
Gauthier
Grose
Kirkby
Mifflin
Picard (Drummond)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I declare the motion
carried.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.)
* * *
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I realize that I will probably only have three or four
minutes before question period after which I will resume my
debate.
(1355 )
Before the taking of the votes I said that we had a responsibility
to look at the work of Senator Kirby who took part in the debate on
the proposed amendment to term 17 in the other House. We on this
side of the House should show some respect for the remarks that he
made in the other House on term 17.
As I mentioned earlier our Liberal government put almost total
trust in him when we were developing the campaign to repatriate
the Constitution. It would be abnormal for us to dismiss his
remarks just because subsequent to his career as a public servant
advising the government we put him in the Senate. To think that
just because a person has been appointed to the Senate he loses his
ability to judge and be fair does not make sense in my view.
As I mentioned earlier, the Senate with unanimous consent gave
Senator Kirby extended time to develop his argument. I am sure
many members after they read his speech and go through his
remarks will realize that his motivation for proposing this
amendment to term 17 is not for partisan reasons. There is no
mischief here. He has had great loyalty to the Liberal Party and the
government for over 20 years.
Some of the other senators who supported the amendment are
highly respected constitutional lawyers.
6952
The Speaker: My colleague, of course you will have the floor
after question period when we resume debate.
[Translation]
It being almost 2 o'clock, the House will proceed to statements
by members.
_____________________________________________
6952
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want
to share with other members of this House the grave concerns of
my constituents on the state of health care in Ontario.
Kristine Etten wrote about the lack of prenatal care for Ontario
women. She stated: ``Women are being turned away by
obstetricians-.When the time comes for them to deliver there will
be no pediatrician available if there are any complications with the
baby. If this had been the case seven months ago, I have to wonder
if my daughter would be with me today''.
I was also moved by a letter from Mrs. Maria Pankratz, 89 years
old, who wrote last month about the extra burden being placed on
seniors for medication costs. She stated: ``I just don't know what to
do. I have willingly fended for myself all my life till I no longer
could. I've been very thankful for what my country has done for
me. But now I'm scared and sick. What now?''
Cuts to health care are not trivial. They hurt those who are most
in need of help. They hurt seniors and children who are the
innocent victims of Ontario's attack on health care.
I appeal to the province of Ontario to come to its senses. Do not
follow in the footsteps of Alberta and cut, cut, cut only to back
pedal and return money to a wounded health care system after
people have been hurt and jobs have been lost.
There are some things we must support and demand. One of
those things is proper health care.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is my
great pleasure to congratulate Bilkis Vissandjée on winning the
Thérèse F. Casgrain Fellowship. She will be doing in depth
research on female genital mutilation and its effects on immigrant
women in Quebec.
In 1994, I brought the problem of female genital mutilation to
the attention of this House and I note with pleasure that my efforts
have brought some measure of results. This practice was again
criticized at the Beijing conference, because it threatens the
physical and psychological well-being of women.
Ms. Vissandjée's research points strongly to the importance of
striking a balance between the needs of women and those of men in
the area of research. We can only hope that this research will
provide some help to girls and women.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, in Canada every year we have an epidemic that few are
willing to talk about and that is the epidemic of teen pregnancies.
(1400)
The statistics are staggering, with teen pregnancies doubling in
the last 10 years alone. One-fifth of girls under the age of 20
become pregnant and 58 per cent give birth. One-third of these girls
drop out of high school and the children of these mothers often
have higher educational and social problems. The costs to our
social system is over $7 billion a year.
The future is often quite bleak for the mothers and children who
often live a life of poverty, and yet this is an avoidable tragedy. To
stem the tide schools need effective sex education programs, and
sexual active teens need safe, effective measures of birth control.
Prevention is the best medicine. I implore the Minister of Health
to work with his provincial counterparts to develop intelligent, safe
strategies to address this terrible tragedy among us.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce, Ind.): Mr. Speaker, in the matter of
copyright reform, I would encourage the Minister of Canadian
Heritage to ensure that broadcasters will obtain justly and
permanently the time-shifting and ephemeral recording rights they
are after.
It is essential these rights be included in Bill C-32 to avoid
unduly complicating the operations of small regional radio stations
on a small budget. This is often the only way to provide good
service to their evening and weekend listeners.
Furthermore, time-shifting rights do not deprive artists of their
royalties, and broadcasters are prepared to accept measures to
protect against the abuse of these rights. I hope that common sense
will prevail throughout the legislative process of Bill C-32.
6953
[English]
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the longest
journey begins with one step. I congratulate Health Canada for
taking a step in the fight against myalgic encephalomyelitis and
fibromyalgia.
Health Canada has recognized a revised chronic fatigue
syndrome case definition for research purposes. This is thanks to
the 10,000 people in Ontario and the 5,000 from other provinces
who have signed petitions presented to the House in May.
It is also thanks to the efforts of the ME/FM Action Network.
Health Canada can now take the step to boost further awareness by
formally announcing the recognition of ME/FM. Parliament should
move forward by setting up a health subcommittee to study and
hear witnesses on ME/FM.
These diseases affect over 100,000 Canadians. Many times
healthy, vital people are reduced to an inability of coping. We can
no longer afford to be robbed of so many productive citizens by a
disease for which we do not know the cause and we do not know the
cure.
Let us remedy this situation. We must act now to raise
awareness, continue research and find a cure.
* * *
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians regard our health care system as a fundamental part of
our national identity. In all regions of Canada, whenever they are
consulted, the people of Canada express very clearly that they
expect governments at all levels to preserve and protect our
national system of health care.
Canadians insist that we maintain a single tier system equally
accessible to all Canadians based on need and not on one's ability
to pay. This government agrees with this fundamental principle of
fairness. Provincial premiers who think they can ignore the
national health care act and the wishes of the Canadian people had
better think again.
It is pathetic to see irresponsible right wing premiers slashing
health services only to restore funding later because they admit
they got carried away.
Canadians treasure our health care system but they are worried
about its future. This Liberal government can and will ensure that
the system is improved and maintained for the good health of all
Canadians; one national system accessible to all Canadians on the
basis of need and not on their ability to pay.
Mr. Benoît Serré (Timiskaming-French River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Canadians have been telling us time and time again that
maintaining our health care system is by far their first priority. In a
recent survey close to 80 per cent of Canadians said that they
preferred to maintain a good health care system even if it means
fewer tax cuts.
Also, medicare provides competitive advantages to companies
operating in Canada. These advantages include lower employee
benefit costs-I would like the Reform to please listen to the
House-a mobile workforce that can respond to where the jobs are,
the elimination of health care as a major source of
labour-management disputes and work stoppages and a health work
force.
[Translation]
Our health system is the envy of the entire world. It must be
maintained at all cost. This member and this government will not
make cuts in the style of Mike Harris and then cut taxes for the well
to do. I would willingly give back the $600 that Mr. Harris would
have me save in order to insure the health of my parents, children
and grandchildren.
(1405)
[English]
This member and this government will not compromise with the
health and welfare-
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last
week, Justice René Dussault, co-chair of the Royal Commission on
Aboriginal Peoples, recognized that the situation of aboriginal
people was significantly better in Quebec than in the rest of
Canada. Their economic situation, as well as the protection of their
language and agreements like the James Bay agreement reflect the
development of aboriginal nations in Quebec.
Since 1983, the Quebec government has developed a clear policy
that shows respect for aboriginal people by adopting 15 basic
principles to guide the government in negotiating with them. These
principles include the recognition of Quebec's aboriginal peoples
as distinct nations.
This recognition is a necessary first step to any serious
negotiation, especially respectful negotiations, with the aboriginal
peoples of Canada. Quebec granted them this recognition 10 years
ago. What is the federal government waiting for to follow suit?
6954
[English]
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, let
the battle of the bow ties begin.
At the Press Club tonight, Financial Times columnist and CFRB
radio talk show personality Michael Coren will square off against
the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. We are all looking
forward to a spirited discussion on the viability of social
conservatism.
Special thanks to the Laissez Faire Club of Ottawa for
co-ordinating tonight's event. Laissez Faire has also offered to
sponsor a Reform-Liberal debate on crime and punishment. On
behalf of Reform I accept the challenge.
Through you, Mr. Speaker, I put the challenge to the justice
minister. Meet Reform at the Press Club, 6 p.m. on March 3. Come
out and defend your government's soft on crime record. Explain to
Canadians why killers like Clifford Olson and Karla Homolka are
eligible for early parole. Explain why our prisons have become
comfort cottages. Tell Canadians why sexual predators are running
lose and why violent youth crimes continue to surge upward.
Reform, on the other hand, will present our fresh start plan to
get-
The Speaker: The hon. member for Rosedale.
* * *
Mr. Bill Graham (Rosedale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to
acknowledge the achievements of Women's College Hospital
located in my riding of Rosedale.
For over 80 years Women's College Hospital has been dedicated
to the advancing concerns of women's health in an atmosphere
unlike any other hospital. It has enabled us to craft some innovative
responses to women's health concerns that have received global
recognition.
It is becoming increasingly apparent that the health of women in
all countries, particularly in the developing world, is of extreme
importance since women are largely responsible for the education,
health and safety of children and the overall management of the
family.
For this reason, Women's College Hospital has been very active
in the worldwide promotion of women's health. In fact, the World
Health Organization is currently considering an application
submitted by the hospital for it to become one of the World Health
Organization's collaborating centres.
I urge all members of the House to join me in supporting this
application and in wishing Women's College Hospital continued
success.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in
September I wrote the Liberal government asking for an
investigation into gas prices. After two months of investigation, the
Competition Bureau has yet to report its findings.
Now, in addition to high gas prices, we are seeing skyrocketing
propane prices across western and northern Canada. Propane has
increased by more than 130 per cent in Manitoba alone. This means
an added major expense for farmers trying to dry their wet crops,
homeowners paying higher costs to heat their homes and business
people who use propane.
Meanwhile the Liberals in Ottawa continue to ignore the effects
of energy price hikes. They continue to spin myths about
consumers having a choice in buying their fuel from a handful of
multinational oil companies that all raise prices at the same time,
gouging Canadians equally.
Propane is the fuel of choice for many who are trying to be
environmentally friendly but it is now being priced out of reach
unjustifiably.
I am now calling on the Liberal government to take action to
defend consumers, farmers and business people from propane price
gouging by the big oil companies.
* * *
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak in the House on the matter of public health care in
Canada. Many Canadians, I included, hold dearly to the principle
of publicly funded health care services for all Canadians.
Several constituents from my riding, namely Helen Heeney, Jay
Cody, Donna Kumagai, Judy Rogers, Doug Sneyd and Merle
Larsson Totten, were instrumental in the publication of a book
entitled Life Before Medicare.
(1410 )
The book was launched on November 21 during an
intergenerational ceremony with the Minister of Health in
attendance. Through actual life experiences of contributors, the
book conveys a sense of sacrifices required of Canadians before
universality in health care services became a reality.
[Translation]
Free health services are the sign that a society supports all its
members regardless of their financial means. We cannot afford
anything less either for ourselves or for future generations. Let us
all be courageous and clear-headed enough to oppose those who
want free health services to disappear.
6955
[English]
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
past weekend we witnessed a most exciting leadership convention
to elect a new leader for the Ontario Liberal Party. Dalton
McGuinty, a 41 year-old lawyer and father of four, was one of
seven talented candidates running for the position of leader. All
candidates demonstrated outstanding ability and leadership.
The third of 10 children, Dalton McGuinty comes from a
political family. His father, Dalton McGuinty Sr., served the
Ottawa South riding as a Liberal for many years. Dalton McGuinty
successfully served his constituents for six years as MPP for
Ottawa South.
Under his leadership the Liberal Party of Ontario will get rid of
the slash and burn Tories of Ontario. Dalton has a greater
sensitivity to the social and economic needs of the people and will
bring much integrity and stability to Ontario politics.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure that you and everyone in this Chamber
will join me-
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday, Sunday, December 1, thousands of people
around the world marked World AIDS Day. At home, in Quebec,
between two and three people are infected by this virus every day.
In the face of such a scourge, all resources must be mobilized to
ensure prevention, treatment, care and research continue.
Each new victory is the result of concerted efforts both
nationally and internationally. This government hardly contributes
to these efforts, as the departure of our most brilliant researchers
and the lack of funding for long term research jeopardize the
future.
That is why I urge the federal government to maintain, better yet
to increase, funding for the National AIDS Strategy and
particularly for AIDS research. We must carry on and press ahead.
Most importantly, the necessary steps must be taken to fight this
disease so as to keep the hope of a definitive victory alive.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my office has been flooded with calls because the price of
propane has more than doubled since August. Desperate seniors
have contacted me to ask how they will afford to pay for heat with
their fixed incomes. Some northern farmers are still struggling to
dry whatever damp grain they manage to harvest. Those who
depend on propane are now spending $100 per week to heat their
homes, with further increases predicted.
People believe these hikes represent the gouging of a captive
market by the big gas companies. Propane is a byproduct of natural
gas production, yet we have not seen a similar doubling of natural
gas prices.
Producers say there is a shortage because of a fire in one plant in
Mexico. Is this credible? With no adequate explanation or
justification from the industry, consumers view these increases as
extortion. Reform believes in the operation of a free market but it is
free only when there is no price fixing and when anti-combines
legislation is effectively enforced.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Statistics Canada is in the process of changing the
data collection program it uses to prepare its monthly
unemployment figures.
The existing procedure has not been changed in over 20 years
and no longer provides a true picture of the new labour market
reality. As we all know, the labour market has undergone
significant changes in recent years. New categories of employment
and employees were created, and these major transformations are
thought to be just the beginning.
The decision made by Statistics Canada will have a very positive
impact on all Canadian workers. The various categories of
unemployed people will be better defined and more precise. The
various levels of government and other stakeholders in the labour
sector will be better equipped to develop more focused services and
strategies.
* * *
(1415)
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in today's
edition of the
Journal de Montréal, there is an article entitled
``Dumping and panicking'' which reads as follows: ``Reductions in
federal transfers to the provinces were much greater than the
budget cuts within that same federal government. For the current
fiscal year and the year 1997-98, the federal will cut close to $5
billion, including $1.8 billion in Quebec alone''.
This statement is inaccurate and we have a duty to correct it, so
that the public is not misled.
Since we took office, federal government program expenditures
have been cut by 12 per cent, while transfers to the provinces have
only been reduced by 8.6 per cent. Even though Quebec only
6956
accounts for about 25 per cent of Canada's population, it still
continues to receive 31 per cent of all federal transfers.
[English]
In fact, Quebec pays roughly $29 billion in taxes yet receives
over $40 billion annually from the federal government.
_____________________________________________
6956
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, in the Canadian affair-
Some hon. members: We want Gauthier.
Mr. Duceppe: They are getting excited on the other side, Mr.
Speaker.
In the Canadian affair, the Minister of Finance said, in reply to a
question from the official opposition, that the fuel tax rebate will
apply to all airlines. The minister added that, in return, companies
will have to give up, and I quote, ``substantial'' tax write-offs.
Exactly how substantial are these tax write-offs, and for how
long does the minister expect this measure to be in effect?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there is a precedent in this case, that being the offer made to
airlines in the early 1990s.
We are holding discussions, which include the Minister of
Transport, in order to work out the details and decide if the offer
will be the same one or a different one. As soon as all the details
have been worked out, and the minister is in a position to make an
announcement, he will do so.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, in other words, when the minister used the term
``substantial'', he had no specific figure in mind. In other words, he
made a statement without knowing what the consequences would
be. This is interesting, Mr. Speaker.
I put the following question to the minister. Perhaps he has an
idea on this one: How many tens of millions of dollars will
taxpayers have to fork over in order to make up for the financial
shortfall arising from this fuel tax rebate?
I imagine that, in announcing a tax rebate, the Minister of
Finance has some idea of the cost. I hope he does.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member across the way knows very well that there is a time and
a place for announcing details. As I have just said, what I did
Friday was to give a general indication of the offer that will be
made to all airlines; this indication is based on a precedent. When
the Minister of Transport and I are ready, the Minister of Transport
will make the details public.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, when a finance minister talks about a tax rebate, he should
normally anticipate certain results. I do not think these are details.
They may be details for the Minister of Finance, but they are a
source of worry for Canadians.
This same minister admitted that Canadian's main problem was
its poor management, thereby agreeing with the opposition. He
confirmed the Prime Minister's statement of two weeks ago that
there was no question of coming to the financial assistance of
Canadian.
How can the Minister of Finance square such vague statements
with the recent decision to help Canadian get back on its financial
feet again?
(1420)
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the position of the government was clear all along. We
believe that the restructuring proposal of a private company which
requires not only the agreement of management but of its unions
should be put in place before there is any government response.
It was, in large measure, put in place by Wednesday of last week.
We then responded to the proposal put forward by the management
of Canadian and four of the unions. Two unions were outside the
proposal. One has since joined. We are now waiting-five unions,
one company management and three governments-for the
response of the final union.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
To provide some background, just before the Prime Minister left
for Asia, he stated that there was no question of bailing out
Canadian International. A few hours after the PM's departure, his
Minister of Transport met behind closed doors with the directors of
Canadian International and employee representatives. The outcome
of this was a promise of assistance via a fuel tax reduction, a
promise on which we do not yet have details on either the exact
mechanisms or the financial impact on the taxpayer.
Is the Minister of Transport aware that, by decreasing the fuel
tax for all airlines, he is not helping Canadian International in the
least, because its competitors will be able to take advantage of the
cut to reduce fares, so, in the long run Canadian will end up in just
6957
as much of a hole as before, and the big losers in all this will be the
Canadian taxpayers?
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Bloc members should co-ordinate their questioning a little
better. On the one hand, they say that we are trying to favour
Canadian Airlines and, on the other hand, their official critic on
transport is saying that it would in fact be even-handed.
The hon. member is more or less correct. It is even-handed. It
will apply to all airlines and is not specific to Canadian Airlines.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Bloc is concerned with the future of air travel in
Canada, not the protection of one company.
How could the Minister of Transport have shown such a lack of
basic prudence and judgment as to announce government
assistance to Canadian International, without even knowing the
costs and the mechanisms for the measure he was proposing?
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the earlier questions from the Bloc asked for very specific
information. Now we have another question which is much more
general.
Yes, there will be a loss to the treasury and to various airlines
from the reduction in tax. But there would be a much greater loss to
the federal treasury if the second carrier in Canada, the one which
provides competition and is one of the fundamental components of
our competitive air transport policy, was allowed to go down for
want of a relatively small amount of tax.
The fact is, if Canadian got into more serious trouble, we would
not be collecting those taxes in any event.
* * *
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Krever inquiry was established, as members know, to
get to the bottom of Canada's tainted blood tragedy. It is
responsible for finding out how HIV infected our blood supply,
leading to the deaths of thousands of Canadians.
Justice Krever's inquiry has now led him right to the doorstep of
a previous Liberal administration. Legislation was drafted in 1984
which might have prevented this tragedy, but the Liberal
government of the time chose to ignore it because a federal election
was on the horizon.
Will the present government now co-operate fully with the
Krever inquiry and release all the documents surrounding the draft
legislation of 1984?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government has every
intention of assisting the Krever commission in getting to the
bottom of the events surrounding the tainted blood scandal. In fact,
it was the commission's lawyer, in December of 1985, who made
the decision not to call previous ministers of health to testify before
the inquiry.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Justice Krever thinks this information, particularly the
information about why the legislative regulations were not
proceeded with, may hold the key to why our blood supply killed
thousands of Canadians, yet the government refuses to release all
of the pertinent documents. We are talking about the national
interest, the public interest in health. Is the security of our blood
supply not part of the national interest? Is finding out why
Canadians died not in the national interest?
(1425)
Why does the government place cabinet secrecy ahead of the
national interest in health? Why does it place the political security
of Liberal politicians ahead of the security of Canada's blood
supply?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I categorically deny the
claim of the hon. member. In fact, the former minister of health,
who could shed some light on the situation, stated publicly that she
would be very happy to testify before the Krever commission.
Unfortunately, the commission's counsel made a decision not to
call any previous ministers. I would advise the hon. member that if
he is quite serious about getting to the bottom of the matter, he
might advise the commission to rethink its decision not to call any
ministers to testify before the inquiry.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the commission wants documents that pertain to why draft
legislation and draft regulations that might have prevented this
tragedy were not proceeded with. Those are the documents the
commission wants.
In August 1984 when the current Prime Minister was Deputy
Prime Minister, Health Canada scientists were sounding alarms
about the dangers of AIDS and legislation was drafted that might
have protected the blood supply. The warning and the legislation
was ignored by both Liberal and Tory governments and tainted
blood victims, their families and all Canadians deserve to know
why.
Will the government dispel the appearance of a cover-up by
giving Krever all the information he needs to get to the bottom of
the tainted blood supply?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have already been
advised by the Clerk of the Privy Council that among the 30
documents that were certified as subject to prohibition under the
6958
Canada Evidence Act, there are no documents referring to the time
when John Turner was the leader.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Solicitor General.
The Canadian Security Intelligence Service has appointed
Normand Chamberland to the position of director general, Quebec
region. Mr. Chamberland is a former RCMP officer, a member of
the G-2 section, which had the task of infiltrating and destabilizing
the separatist movement in the 1970s. Furthermore, it was
acknowledged before the Keable commission that Mr.
Chamberland had been part of an operation involving the theft of
dynamite from the firm Richelieu Explosives.
Why has the minister allowed CSIS to appoint a person involved
in a series of illegal RCMP operations in the 1970s to the position
of director of its Quebec service?
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I will have to inform myself further about the matter. I am sure the
individual in question met all the legal requirements. However, I
will be happy to get more information for my hon. friend.
[Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker, might I
suggest to the hon. minister, while he is gathering information, that
he check whether it is true Mr. Chamberland got around it by the
skin of his teeth and only because he testified under the protection
of the Canada Evidence Act?
Does the minister himself not find it odd that, as its senior
official in Quebec, CSIS is appointing Mr. Chamberland, a
specialist in undercover work, who, as the Keable commission
confirmed, never apparently hesitated to use illegal means to
achieve his ends?
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
all these matters were gone into thoroughly by the McDonald royal
commission. Its report was received and acted on by the
government, in particular, in creating a separate security service in
the form of CSIS. I think that the action in question has been
proven appropriate and in the public interest over time. I think this
speaks for itself.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the government has been very adamant that the changes to
the tax regime for Canadian Airlines will help them in the current
situation. It is conditional on the employees accepting the
restructuring plan.
Earlier in question period the Minister of Transport stated that he
is waiting on the response from the sixth union, the CAW. We have
heard that response and it is very clear that Mr. Hargrove is equally
adamant that his members are not going to be allowed to vote.
(1430)
All weekend I have been receiving faxes from Canadian Airline
employees, some pleading for help, some stating: ``Regretfully to
Hargrove we did not authorize you to have the final say. We only
authorized you to negotiate on our behalf''.
Is the Minister of Transport prepared to take some action or is he
actually prepared to allow Canadian's restructuring plan to
collapse?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in no way do we want the Canadian restructuring program
to collapse. It is extremely important to that company.
I must be very candid with the House and the hon. member. It is
a matter of great regret that one of the six unions is refusing to take
part in the restructuring proposal of three governments, the
company and the five unions.
However, if I can respond directly to the hon. member's
question, it is a matter of my experience over the last week that the
Canadian autoworkers and Mr. Hargrove did not always take
exactly the same position from day to day. I think now that he
realizes that the management of the company is attempting to
restructure debt repayment, Mr. Hargrove will realize the critical
importance of joining in a collective effort to save this airline.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have met with many labour groups in the past to discuss
problems with strike lockout settlement mechanisms. They have
pointed out it is very rarely used because the threat of using it
generally causes settlement.
My question is for the Minister of Labour. Given that the labour
code does not permit the government to ensure the democratic
rights of Canadian's employees, if the government is not ready to
act yet, will it at least amend section 108(1) of the labour code so
that it would be in a position to take action when it decides it may
be necessary?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I told the House last week that section 108(1) does not
apply in this case. This is the restructuring of a company. I invite
the leadership of the union, the president of the Canadian auto-
6959
workers, to negotiate with the Minister of Transport and come to a
settlement like the other unions who accept this package so that
Canadian Airlines International can continue to operate.
I do not think it is proper for the government to amend the labour
code at this time. As a matter of fact, we are in the process of
amending the labour code. It is before a committee of the House. It
took us three years to get it there, negotiating and creating a
consensus with union and management, something the Reform
Party does not believe in.
* * *
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
directed to the Minister of Transport.
On November 22, when asked why people in the Magdalen
Islands had been waiting since 1994 for the federal government to
buy a new ferry, the minister refused to reply, claiming he was not
aware of the case. However, over two years ago, his department set
aside $30 million to replace the ferry, and the minister is now
sitting on this money instead of responding to the needs of the
people in the Magdalen Islands.
Now that he has had two more weeks to read a file that has been
on his desk for two years, could the minister tell us why he does not
go ahead and buy the new ferry as requested by all groups in the
Magdalen Islands?
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if the member will recall his earlier question, he related it
to a letter that had been sent the day before of which I did not have
a copy at that time.
With respect to the issue of the ferry to the Madeleine Islands,
the situation is quite clear. He is correct, there was money put aside
for the purchase of a new ferry. I might add there is also an existing
ferry which will serve well for the immediate future. In due course
we will replace that ferry with another one.
The important fact to remember is that there are many changes
taking place in Atlantic Canada with respect to ferry services. A
good number of vessels are coming free or being released from
certain routes which previously were taken up. The situation is
flexible. We hope to obtain a ship within the price limit that he has
suggested to this House.
(1435)
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on November 22,
we also pointed out that the federal government had failed to
follow up on recommendations made in a 1992 report ordered by
Transport Canada, which revealed that the Lucy Maud Montgomery
urgently needed repairs to be up to safety standards.
At the very least, until a new ferry is finally purchased, can the
minister guarantee without a doubt that the Lucy Maud
Montgomery is perfectly safe to operate?
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this is not the first time the hon. member has referred to a
1992 report which is previous to this government being elected.
I can assure him that report was looked at with the greatest care.
The alleged deficiencies of the Lucy Maud Montgomery were
examined and the vessel was brought up to full safety compliance.
* * *
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is rumoured that the government will be introducing a
new government program to deal with the problem of child
poverty.
The Reform Party agrees that something must be done to address
this issue. Will the Minister of Human Resources Development
consider giving low income Canadians tax relief as an approach to
child poverty rather than create another big government program?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to see that the
opposition will be working with us to improve the lot of children in
Canada. This is a very important issue and I thank the member very
much.
We were very successful last week at the ministerial council with
the provinces. We identified child poverty as something we really
wanted to work on. We are looking into an integrated child benefit.
That was a prominent issue on all of our agendas. We were quite
pleased to see that the provinces welcomed that initiative. They
could see that we could work in a complementary fashion with
them.
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, bigger and better government programs may be
well-intentioned but have left a very poor track record. We will
thank the minister when he actually accomplishes something.
However, statistics tell another story of the past.
One in five Canadian children live in poverty. That is 1.4 million
children in all. The most recent increase is among children who
6960
live in families with working parents. Families have suffered a
$3,000 national pay cut since 1993 due to tax increases. Rising
taxes are exactly why the working poor have less money for their
children.
Does the Minister of Human Resources Development not see
that it makes more sense to cut taxes to the working poor? That
would leave more money in each pay cheque rather than giving
them a government cheque through another big government
program?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, very often low income families
do not pay taxes which is the reason we are looking for a more
sophisticated system.
We have done our share. I am very pleased to belong to a
government that has doubled the working income supplement for
low income families. This is what we have done and we are proud
of our record, but we will do more.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
On Thursday, the minister said, and I quote: ``We have a lot of
compassion for the Singer employees, and because these workers
deserve more than pretty speeches, we will examine the substance
of the case''. However, we learned this morning that the minister's
compassion does not extend beyond rhetoric. He refuses to follow
up on the request made by retired Singer employees and leaves
them no choice but to go to court.
Will the minister tell this House the true reasons for his
department's refusal to give fair treatment to retired people?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the compassion we feel for
retired Singer employees is very real. The issues they raised are
extremely complex. These are legal issues which are complex and
also very important.
As the minister, I have a duty to make sure the plan is
administered in accordance with the law. It is for reasons of justice
that we could not reach an out of court settlement, as Singer
employees may have wished, given the very complex legal issues
involved.
(1440)
We could not do this, because depending on the agreement
reached, as many as 70,000 other retired people could have been
affected, based on the information I have. This is why we have to
go to court.
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I think
the truth just came out. The minister alluded to the financial
implications that a favourable settlement could have, given that it
could affect 2,000 other groups. He referred to 70,000 people, but
in fact there are 2,000 other groups that could also seek fair
treatment from the federal government.
Will the minister admit that the government is trying to avoid its
responsibilities, and showing contempt for Singer's retired
employees who, on average, are 80 years old?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the way to ensure fairness is
precisely to go before the courts. There are complex legal issues
involved. It will be up to the courts to decide what constitutes fair
treatment. It is because of the complexity of the case that we
decided to go that route.
Had we reached an agreement based on humanitarian grounds,
we might have been forced to reopen 2,000 other cases affecting an
additional 70,000 people. It is precisely to make sure we respect the
law that we decided to go before the courts, instead of reaching any
kind of agreement.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Don Valley North, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade.
As a Pacific nation and a founding member of the Asia-Pacific
Economic Cooperation forum, Canada has an important window on
this dynamic part of the world. Further, Canada will be hosting the
APEC conference in 1997.
Can the minister explain to the House the significance of the
recent APEC conference in the Philippines and trade visits to
Pacific rim nations?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Asia-Pacific is the most dynamic economic
region in the world. It is a great opportunity for Canada as one of
the 18 members of APEC and the incoming chair of APEC to
advance our opportunities in the Asia-Pacific.
Next year we will have the opportunity to host APEC. From
coast to coast there will be a wide variety of activities which will
fully engage the business community so that we can help to
advance our export and investment opportunities. As I have said
before, that means jobs and economic growth here in Canada.
6961
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, no
matter how the government tries to spin it, the government's record
with respect to the poor is absolutely appalling: 10 per cent
unemployment, record high levels of personal debt, record
bankruptcies in this country, and record high taxes that amount to a
$3,000 national pay cut since the government came to power. This
has transformed many middle class families into the working poor.
The working poor do not have the option of registering their assets
offshore to lower their taxes.
Why is our millionaire finance minister so opposed to lowering
taxes for the working poor?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
should be made very clear lest the Reform Party members are
trying to convey another impression, that their budget would deal a
devastating blow to the working poor.
The Reform Party would cut welfare. Reform members have
said themselves that they would cut welfare substantially. They
have said that they would cut equalization payments. Does that
mean that the working poor in Atlantic Canada, Saskatchewan and
Manitoba are not entitled to a fair shake? They would cut health
care upon which the working poor are so dependent.
What we have essentially said is that we will provide directed
programs to help the working poor. As the Minister of Human
Resources Development has said, in the last budget we doubled the
working income supplement from $500 to $1,000. That is money in
their hands which is what the working poor require.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Reformers would put $4 billion back into health care after the Jack
Kevorkian of health care almost pulled the plug on it in the last
several budgets.
The finance minister is a great defender of welfare. His friends at
Bombardier can hardly wait to get their welfare cheque every
month.
(1445 )
Reformers believe that the best social program is a good, long
term permanent job and a strong family.
Can our millionaire finance minister explain why he is in favour
of corporate welfare but is against lowering the taxes for the
working poor?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
could the members of the Reform Party explain why it is that in this
House they voted against the doubling of the working income
supplement? Can they explain why in this House they voted against
broadening eligibility for the child care expense deduction, why
they voted against extending the age limit for children? Can they
explain why they voted against enriching the tax credit for infirm
children? Can they explain why they voted against improving the
child support amendments brought in by the Minister of Justice and
by this government?
Can the Reform Party explain why it is since it has taken office it
has voted against every single piece of progressive legislation
brought forth in this House?
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister for International Trade.
With respect to France's ban on asbestos, French Prime Minister
Alain Juppé recently announced his government's decision not to
grant the exemptions Canada had asked for regarding asbestos
cement in particular. Bear in mind that more than 2,000 jobs
depend directly on this industry in Thetford and Asbestos, in
Quebec.
In light of the fact that France's reaction is guided by emotional
rather than rational, scientific reasons, what is the minister waiting
for to file a complaint with the World Trade Organization to obtain
the exemptions sought or $20 million in compensation for lost
exports?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was recently in Thetford Mines and engaged
in a consultation with the people of that community with respect to
this matter. I assured them that the federal government will be
doing everything it possibly can to preserve the jobs and those
communities that depend upon the asbestos industry.
The representations we have made to the French government are
not stopping. Yes, they have made a political decision that they
want to ban the product, but they also have a review mechanism.
Every year they have to look at the question of substitute products.
It is our hope and expectation that they will look at the safe uses of
asbestos products, particularly in cement piping, as something that
will be acceptable. We will continue to press that case.
Meanwhile, we will continue to press that this does not spread
into other parts of the European Community or other parts of the
world. We are fully committed as a government to working with
the people of Thetford Mines and the people in the industry in
Canada to preserve those jobs in Quebec and the rest of Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I was
asking the minister when he plans to file an official complaint with
the World Trade Organization.
6962
Given that the Netherlands, which is scheduled to assume the
presidency of the European Union on January 1, is likely to try
to impose a ban on asbestos across the EU, what positive steps,
aside from visits to Thetford Mines, does the Canadian
government intend to take to prevent this from happening?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are watching the WTO situation very
carefully. As I indicated to the people who are employed in the
industry, if there is a case that we can pursue with the WTO, we are
quite prepared to do that.
However, we have to await the next moves that occur in terms of
the French government as to substitute products. That will give us
the kind of information we need in order to decide if we should
proceed to the WTO.
(1450 )
With respect to the European Union, it recently held a vote and
the efforts by those who wanted to ban it Europe wide failed. Our
efforts are already paying off in that regard. Our expert team which
went to France to speak with the European commission has been
successful in holding off any attempt to ban this on a European
basis.
We know it is still an uphill battle. We are going to continue to
fight it as best we can. We want to do everything possible to
preserve that industry and those jobs with respect to the safe uses of
that product.
* * *
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Health claims that Canadians are getting
access to health care services when they need it. The fact is that
waiting lists are growing year by year.
Reform's solution is to increase spending by $4 billion to relieve
the suffering. What will the health minister do to relieve the
suffering of Canadians today?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member should be aware that the Government of Canada
in co-operation with the provinces is working on a number of
initiatives across the country in order to relieve the pressures which
are on our health care system. Many individuals, including
ministers of health from across the country, have indicated quite
clearly that the problems in our health care system, which I have
acknowledged and which they have acknowledged, are not as a
result of lack of funding. They are due in large part to the
inappropriate management of the various systems across the
country.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, let us look at what the minister has been doing.
In the last five years cardiac surgery waiting lists have increased
31 per cent. In order to get breast cancer treatment in Quebec,
women have to wait six and a half weeks.
The plans of the minister and the government for health care are
killing Canadians. Canadians are suffering. What is the
government going to do to alleviate the suffering of Canadians?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am not surprised that the hon. member would make those kinds of
statements. He refuses to acknowledge the fact that the problems in
our health care system today in various provinces are not because
of a lack of funding.
The hon. member makes reference to the fact that the Reform
Party would provide an additional $4 billion. What he forgot to tell
us is that the Reform Party wishes to have user fees and facility
fees reintroduced into the system. We on this side of the House are
against user fees and facility fees.
* * *
Mr. Bernie Collins (Souris-Moose Mountain, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food.
On Tuesday the auditor general gave his most recent report.
Since then members of the Reform Party have charged that western
grain transportation money is not going to the farmers who deserve
it. I believe they are wrong. Is this money going to the farmers who
are entitled to it or not?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this program involved 242,000
applications. It covered 77.6 million acres of farm land, 720,000
different parcels which had to be adjusted for 924 distance factors
and over a dozen different soil zones. This was the largest and most
complicated program of its kind in Canadian history.
I am very pleased to note the auditor general's observations. He
said in his report: ``Nothing came to our attention in the course of
our review to suggest that there were significant problems with
these payments''. Given the dour and taciturn nature of auditors,
that is as close as we can come to high praise.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the secretary of state for
regional development.
The Liberal government has set in motion its plan for pulling out
of airport management with no regard for the consequences of
such a decision on the development of a number of regions in
Quebec. Last November 4, representatives of the Charlevoix,
Forestville, Rivière-du-Loup, Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu and
Sherbrooke regional airports met with the secretary of state for
regional
6963
development to argue that these infrastructures were necessary to
the economic survival of these regions.
Has the secretary of state looked into these demands and when
does he intend to take follow-up action?
(1455)
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Secretary of State (Federal Office of
Regional Development-Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
members know, the government introduced the national
transportation policy in order to give full responsibility for certain
facilities back to communities. At issue are wharves and airports.
The policy was introduced so that regions could manage airport
facilities in a manner better suited to their particular situations and
needs.
There are, in fact, a number of airports in Quebec that do not
meet the national transportation policy criteria. I met with a good
number of stakeholders. We are now at the analysis stage.
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am not asking the secretary of state for
regional development to defend the transportation policy. Everyone
knows that it is disastrous for regional development.
Does the secretary of state realize that his government now has
an opportunity to take action on infrastructure issues that are not
just useful but indispensable to the economic future of these
regions?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Secretary of State (Federal Office of
Regional Development-Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, so aware
are we of the importance of these airport facilities that my
colleague, the Minister of Transport, introduced the national
transportation policy in order to give regions more responsibility
for organizing, restructuring and managing airport facilities.
As I mentioned, because they do not have regular flights, certain
airports do not meet the national transportation policy criteria.
I met with mayors and various stakeholders. We are in the
process of looking at what can be done, always with an eye to our
ultimate goal of transferring responsibility to the regions and
paving the way for improved development of airport facilities.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
heritage minister and her department are ramming Bill C-32 which
amends Canadian copyright law through committee. However
today in Geneva, Canadian government officials are participating
in discussions on intellectual property rights, copyright. These
international treaties will render Bill C-32 obsolete before they are
even debated in this Chamber.
Does the heritage minister have any idea about what is going on?
Why are we wasting our time in committee?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western
Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the
Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Canada is participating in the international copyright
negotiations that are going on in Geneva under the auspices of the
World Intellectual Property Organization. This is normal. I am sure
the hon. member would not expect that we would do other than
participate in these discussions.
I am sure he is also aware that in the case of many of these
agreements, Canada does not necessarily sign on. For that matter, if
agreements were entered into at an international level that required
obligations on the part of Canada which were inconsistent with the
provisions of our copyright law and to which we wished to
subscribe, then of course we would present the appropriate
legislation to Parliament.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is no
surprise that the heritage minister did not stand, even though Bill
C-32 was brought to this House under the heritage minister.
I ask again. Considering that the legislation which is presently
before committee was brought forward by the heritage minister and
that Canadian officials are presently in Geneva negotiating on
copyright legislation that very well may end up making Bill C-32
redundant, can she possibly explain to the House what is going on
and who is in charge?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can only speak on behalf
of the members of Parliament who have participated in the process
over the last number of months. I believe they have heard 60
representations which represent thousands of Canadians. It is a
very significant piece of legislation and will complement existing
copyright laws which date back a number of years.
I only hope that the work the members of the committee have put
into the copyright process will be respected. I certainly have no
reason to suspect that the work of the members is irrelevant. In fact
members on all sides have made very significant contributions. We
expect to entertain approximately 60 or 70 amendments precisely
because of the work by members of the standing committee.
6964
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport and concerns
Canadian Airlines.
As the minister knows, it has been federal Liberal and
Conservative deregulation policies that have led to massive
overcapacity and empty seats and destructive competition in the
airline industry.
(1500)
Will the minister ensure the level of federal funds needed to keep
Canadian Airlines flying, bearing in mind that the B.C. government
alone has committed over $12 million? Most important, will the
government show leadership and put in place policies necessary to
stabilize the airline industry and to ensure the continued long term
survival of Canadian Airlines?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am always amazed by the New Democratic Party's
enthusiasm for moving forward into the past.
We have a deregulated system now which has created dramatic
opportunity, first for Canadian consumers for whom the whole air
transport system is set up. They have more choice, cheaper fares
and they are using these fares in occupying these seats more
frequently.
Deregulation has increased, in addition, the jobs available to
Canadians as flight attendants, ticket agents, machinists and pilots.
The whole industry has benefited by increased employment.
Again, the hon. member and his party would prefer to cut out
those jobs and go back to the old system of regulation where fares
would be, I point out, approximately $1,700 across this country
instead of an average of $700. That is their policy, Raise fares,
reduce competition, reduce jobs and in turn have people travel on
foreign airlines instead of Canadian.
* * *
Mrs. Jean Payne (St. John's West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
sales for Canada savings bonds have been released and I notice that
they are looking very good. I wonder if the Minister of Finance
could tell us what these figures mean to Canada savings bonds.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would be delighted to. As the hon. member knows, this is the first
year of the new government retail debt agency, Canada Investment
and Savings. In this, the first year, I am delighted to say that 1996
Canada savings bonds sales have totalled $5.7 billion, an increase
of 24 per cent over last year.
After redemptions the sales were 38 per cent higher than last
year. This reflects partially certainly the innovative 10 year
guaranteed minimum pricing structure that is so well suited to
Canadians.
For those who might not have had a chance to buy Canada
savings bonds and who would like to, the government will be
introducing a new retirement savings product to be launched in
February in time for the RRSP season.
I would like to thank all participating employers for their efforts
and all Canadians who bought Canada savings bonds.
_____________________________________________
6964
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
Hon. Don Boudria (for the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 5 of the International
Development Assistance Act, it is a pleasure to table, in both
official languages, two copies of an order in council to be presented
in this House.
In addition, I am also tabling a document describing the
procedure that applies in this case. The order in council is tabled on
behalf of my colleague, the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official
languages, the government's response to three petitions.
* * *
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward-Hastings, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present the third report of the
Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. It deals with
Bill C-60, the Canadian Food Inspection Act. I am proud to report
this bill with several amendments.
* * *
(1505 )
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.) moved for leave
to introduce Bill C-69, an act to amend Income Tax Act, the
Income Tax Application Rules, the Bankruptcy and Insolvency
Act, the Canada Pension Plan, the Children's Special Allowances
6965
Act, the Cultural Property Export and Import Act, the Customs Act,
the Employment Insurance Act, the Excise Tax Act, the Old Age
Security Act, the Tax Court of Canada Act, the Tax Rebate
Discounting Act, the Unemployment Insurance Act, the Western
Grain Transition Payments Act and certain Acts related to the
Income Tax Act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (for Minister of Finance, Lib.)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-70, an act to amend the Excise
Tax Act, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, the
Income Tax Act, the Debt Servicing and Reduction Account Act
and related Acts.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
[
Translation]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-71, an act to regulate the manufacture,
sale, labelling and promotion of tobacco products, to make a
consequential amendment to another act and to repeal certain acts.
(Motion deemed adopted and bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-357, an act to provide for the expiry of
gun control legislation that has not proven effective within five
years of coming into force.
He said: Mr. Speaker, today I am reintroducing an amended
version of my firearms law sunset act which I first introduced in
this House on September 28, 1995. My bill is the total opposite of
Bill C-68 and the regulations tabled by the Minister of Justice last
week.
Bill C-68 and any subsequent decrees issued by the minister are
based on his opinion and the false hope that they will somehow
improve public safety.
The reason I say my bill is the opposite of Bill C-68 is that my
firearms law sunset act is based on the premise that any gun control
laws passed by the government should be automatically repealed
after five years unless they can pass a public safety test
administered by the auditor general.
The constitutionality of Bill C-68 is being challenged in court by
four provinces and two territories. They are also opting out of the
unreasonable burden of administering this federal boondoggle. My
bill will be supported by people and politicians in these provinces.
Bill C-68 will guarantee that gun controls are both costly and
ineffective, whereas my bill will guarantee that every gun control
law has to be both successful and cost effective in saving lives and
reducing the criminal use of firearms. People arguing against my
bill would have to argue that they support gun control even if it
does not work and no matter how much it costs.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
(1510)
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce, Ind.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
table a petition signed by 1,810 residents of the riding of Beauce,
Quebec, Canada, all of whom are Canadians but are receiving a
U.S. pension. Their U.S. pension has been reduced by 25.5 per cent
since the amendments to the Canada-U.S. income tax treaty came
into effect. These pensioners are being penalized, and this
reduction represents a major drop in their income. Furthermore,
some of these people are already receiving social assistance.
I table this petition before Parliament in the hope that a solution
will be found to compensate for the loss of income of these 1,810
residents of the riding of Beauce and others as well.
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
three petitions today. The first comes from Hampton, Ontario.
The petitioners draw to the attention of the House that our police
and firefighters place their lives at risk on a daily basis as they
serve the emergency needs of all Canadians. They also state that in
many cases the families of officers who are killed in the line of
duty are often left without sufficient financial means to meet their
obligations.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to establish
a public safety officers' compensation fund to receive gifts and
bequests for the benefit of families of police officers and
firefighters killed in the line of duty.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition comes from Stony Plain, Alberta. The petitioners
draw to the attention of the House that managing the family home
6966
and caring for preschool children is an honourable profession
which has not been recognized for its value to our society.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to pursue
initiatives to assist families that choose to provide care in the home
for preschool children, the chronically ill, the aged or the disabled.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
final petition comes from River Bourgeois, Nova Scotia.
The petitioners draw to the attention of the House that
consumption of alcoholic beverages may cause health problems or
impair one's ability and specifically that fetal alcohol syndrome
and other alcohol related birth defects are 100 per cent preventable
by avoiding alcohol consumption during pregnancy.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to enact
legislation to require health warning labels to be placed on the
containers of all alcoholic beverages to caution expectant mothers
and others of the risks associated with alcohol consumption.
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to table a petition signed by the constituents
of Lambton-Middlesex and surrounding areas which has been
duly certified by the clerk of petitions, pursuant to Standing Order
36.
The petitioners request that the House of Commons enact
legislation or amend existing legislation to define marriage as the
voluntary union for life of one woman and one man to each other to
the exclusion of all others.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have two petitions to present today. The first has to do with the
Canadian Human Rights Act and the charter of rights and
freedoms. The petitioners ask that they not be amended in any way
that would indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or
homosexuality. They ask that Parliament deal with that issue,
which unfortunately it already has.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, for
the second petition I would like to add another 1,000 names to a
petition with some tens of thousands of names that I have presented
on this subject. The petition deals with serious personal injury
crimes and sexual offences involving children.
The petitioners ask that the government amend the Criminal
Code to allow for post-sentence supervision and/or detention of
those involved in sexual offences against children, a public
notification of sex offenders being released, a central registry
including fingerprints that would be available to all people, a
registry for life of those people convicted of this type of offence, a
Criminal Code amendment to prohibit pardons and to prohibit for
life all those convicted of sex offences against children from
holding positions of trust and responsibility regarding children. It
is a pleasure to present this petition.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have four petitions to present. In the first your petitioners pray and
request that Parliament not amend the Constitution as requested by
the Government of Newfoundland and refer the problem of
educational reform in that province back to the Government of
Newfoundland for resolution by some other non-constitutional
procedures.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the second petition is signed by people who pray and request that
Parliament not amend the Human rights code, the Canadian Human
Rights Act or the charter of rights and freedoms in any way which
would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships
or of homosexuality, including amending the human rights code to
include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined
phrase sexual orientation.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the third petition deals with Bill C-205, introduced by the hon.
member for Scarborough West, that it be passed at the earliest
opportunity so as to provide in Canadian law that no criminal
profits from committing a crime.
(1515 )
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
my final petition states that the undersigned humbly pray and call
on Parliament to ensure that the CRTC recognizes that Canadians
do not need to be shocked to be entertained. Foul language,
excessive violence and explicit sex are not necessary to provide
quality entertainment.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the residents of my riding draw to the attention of the
House that legislation was passed in Canada for equal pay for work
of equal value, that the Canadian Human Rights Commission
concurred with the findings of an independent inquiry, and that
federal government workers have waited for 12 years for this
legislation to take effect.
Therefore, the petitioners request that Parliament direct the
Government of Canada to hear them and to make their views
known to the Government of Canada and that this Government of
6967
Canada act to have the legislation take effect immediately and
workers be reimbursed at the rate recommended.
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron-Bruce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to
bring before the House today a number of petitions that have been
given to me by my constituents.
The first petition is from concerned citizens who believe there is
profound inadequacy in the sentencing practices concerning
individuals convicted of impaired driving charges.
They therefore pray and request that Parliament proceed
immediately with amendments to the Criminal Code that will
ensure that the sentence given to anyone convicted of driving while
impaired or causing injury or death while impaired reflects both the
severity of the crime and zero tolerance by Canada toward this
crime.
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron-Bruce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition is from citizens who are concerned about the justice
system and how it continues to show leniency toward criminals.
They believe that the current justice system has failed to address
society's concerns. Current methods of punishment, they believe,
are not acting as proper deterrents and are not producing the
desired effects of lower crime rates and safer communities.
The petitioners humbly pray and call on Parliament to amend the
appropriate laws to include corporal punishment as an alternate
method of punishment for those adults who are repeat offenders
and choose not to be governed by more conventional methods.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I welcome this opportunity to table
petitions signed by 736 petitioners residing in the riding of
Verchères, and in ridings in the greater Outaouais region, the
greater Montreal region and in Quebec generally.
Your petitioners call upon Parliament to initiate proceedings to
abolish the Senate, in spite of the fact that a motion to that effect
has already been rejected by this House. Your petitioners argue as
follows: they consider that the Senate consists of non-elected
individuals who are not accountable for their actions; that the
Senate's operating budget is $43 million annually; that the Senate
refuses to account for these votes to committees of the House of
Commons; that the Senate does not fulfil its mandate for regional
representation; that the Senate duplicates the work done by
members of the House of Commons; and that there is an urgent
need for modern parliamentary institutions.
[English]
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have a number of petitions, one of which has 1,809 signatures.
Apparently it is a result of the Liberals not going with a national
victims' bill of rights.
It states that the charter of rights and freedoms protects all
Canadians, including those convicted of crimes. Victims of crimes
require a specific right in the justice system as it is they, as
members of society, for whom our laws are designed to protect.
Our justice system must give victims specific rights as it does with
the criminal to make our justice system fair for all.
Therefore, the petitioners call on Parliament to support the
development of a national victims' bill of rights.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have three more petitions relating to the Nova Scotia gas pipeline.
The petitioners state that in June 1996 the Prime Minister of
Canada announced he would work toward diverting the Sable
Island gas pipeline to Quebec City, that it is unacceptable for the
Prime Minister to decide the destination of Nova Scotia natural gas
without consulting Nova Scotians, that Nova Scotians assert their
right to control the destination of Sable Island gas and demand that
the federal government cease tampering in this issue.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present two petitions on
behalf of my constituents and other Canadians.
The first petition asks Parliament not to proceed with the Liberal
GST scheme or any other plan to further reduce the remaining
corporate taxes at the expense of the middle class, working
individuals and families.
The petition requests the government to undertake a fairer tax
reform program so that consumers do not suffer even more
financial insecurity and unfair costs at this critical time after
receiving 47 tax increases from this Liberal government since it
came into power in 1993.
(1520 )
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
the second petition, again from many of my constituents and other
Canadians from across the country, concerning the unbelievably
high cost of gasoline and propane.
6968
The petitioners feel that they are being gouged at the pumps
as well as with respect to propane for drying agricultural grain,
for use in taxi cabs and in their homes for heating.
They ask the House of Commons and the Government of Canada
to set up an energy price review commission to keep the price of
gasoline, propane, home heating fuel and other energy products in
check.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan-Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to table a petition from thousands of
residents, primarily from the Okanagan Valley, which draws
attention to the increasing frequency of spousal abuse and violence.
In the hopes of averting future violence, the petitioners ask that
Parliament enact legislation which will prohibit the issuing of a
gun permit for 12 months after the initial report of a threat of
violence against a spouse regardless of whether that report is
investigated or not.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by residents
of Burnaby, B.C., as well as a number of other communities in B.C.
and Ontario.
The petitioners note that in Canada corporate contributions to
public revenue are already the lowest among all major G-7
economies. It notes that the individual share of federal revenue has
risen steadily while the corporation share has declined. It is very
critical of the Liberal GST scheme announced in April this year
that would add another $6 billion of corporate tax responsibilities
to individuals.
Therefore, the petitioners call on Parliament to not proceed with
the Liberal GST scheme or any other plan to further reduce the
remaining corporate taxes at the expense of middle class working
individuals and families.
Finally, they urge the Government of Canada to undertake a fair
tax reform instead so that personal consumers do not suffer even
more financial insecurity and unfair costs at this critical time.
Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am honoured
once again to present, pursuant to Standing Order 36, a petition
from not only my constituents but the constituents of other
members. The petitioners are from Wallaceburg, Chatham,
Paincourt, Ridgetown, Tilbury, Charing Cross, Blenheim, North
Buxton and Port Alma.
The petitioners state that there are profound inadequacies in the
sentencing practices concerning individuals convicted of impaired
driving charges. Canada must embrace a philosophy of zero
tolerance toward individuals who drive while impaired by alcohol
or drugs. Victims of the crime of impaired driving must be given
the highest priority as reflected by their statements prior to
sentencing of anyone convicted of impaired driving. In the case of
impaired driving causing death or injury, sentencing must reflect
the severity of the crime.
The petitioners pray and request that Parliament proceed
immediately with amendments to the Criminal Code that will
ensure the sentence given to anyone convicted of driving while
impaired or causing injury or death while impaired reflects both the
severity of the crime and zero tolerance toward this crime.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is a
privilege, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present a petition on
behalf of a number of constituents, particularly a woman called
Penny Tardi from Kamloops, who points out the increased costs of
propane in western Canada, 30, 40, 80 and 100 per cent increases in
some communities, all of which have taken place over the last few
days.
The petition also points out that to heat a typical mobile home in
Kamloops using propane costs about $75 a week as a result of these
increased costs. It is a serious situation.
The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to take action,
whether it is in the form of an energy price review commission or
asking the combines investigation bureau to investigate, but to do
something to bring some sense to the marketplace with regard to
propane.
(1525 )
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have another
petition which has to do with tax revenues. The petition is signed
by constituents of Kamloops.
The petitioners point out that tax revenues from the corporate
sector now account for less than 7 per cent of all national revenues,
with the balance being paid by individuals. A few years ago it was
on a 50:50 basis. Now it is on a 90 plus basis for individual
Canadians.
The petitioners point out that this is wrong, unfair, unjust and
needs to be reformed. They ask the Parliament of Canada to
undertake a fair tax reform process so that consumers will not
continue to suffer even more financial insecurity due to unfair costs
at this critical time.
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have a petition which concerns term 17.
The petitioners say that it is inappropriate and unacceptable to
remove the constitutionally acquired rights of minorities extended
to them in 1949 when they joined Canada without their consent.
6969
The petitioners say that removing the rights of minorities
without their consent is totally unacceptable. It makes minority
rights subject to the provincial legislature and, therefore, they are
no longer constitutional rights.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask that all
questions be allowed to stand.
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to draw your attention to the fact that on September 26, I
put three questions on family trusts on the Order Paper and I have
yet to receive a reply, although the Standing Orders provide for a
maximum of 45 days. I am counting on your support to ensure that
the parliamentary secretary concerned takes care of this case,
because it a matter that is very much in the public's interest.
For instance, I asked how many family trusts have been
recognized by the Liberal government since 1972; how much this
represents in terms of assets and how much revenue the Canadian
tax system had to forego as a result of the introduction of this tax
shelter. That was one of the three questions.
I think that is of interest to all parliamentarians and all taxpayers
in Canada and Quebec. I hope to receive a reply, especially
considering the additional tax burden on all taxpayers, especially
the neediest in our society. I think it is time to shed some light on
the past and potential contributions of those who are in a better
position to make them.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on a
point of order. I would like to draw your attention to the fact that on
September 17, I had three questions entered on the Order
Paper-Questions Q-802, Q-812 and Q-822-and I have yet to
receive a reply, in spite of the fact that the 45 days provided for in
the Standing Orders have now expired.
I shall reread them briefly, if I may, just to refresh the
government's memory. Question Q-802 reads as follows:
Q-802-With regard to the total budget for the Department of Natural Resources,
and for each year since the 1987 fiscal year: (a) how much (in actual figures) and
what proportion (in percentages) of its research and development budgets have been
invested in Quebec, (b) how much and what percentage have been invested in
Ontario (including the Ontario side of the national capital region and excluding the
Quebec side of the national capital region), (c) what economic spin-off effects have
there been from the Candu reactors in Quebec, (d) what economic spin-off effects
have there been in Ontario, and (e) what financial commitment has the department
made to the neutrino detection project in Ontario, the Triumph project in British
Columbia and to Chalk River, Ontario?
The other two questions were complementary to this one. When
can we expect a reply in your opinion?
[English]
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Mr. Speaker, the House leader and the
parliamentary secretary to the House leader are not in the House
today. I will bring these concerns to their attention and they will
advise me.
The Deputy Speaker: Shall the remaining questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
6969
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
(1530)
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, just before question period I tried to make the point that
the speech in the other Chamber of Senator Kirby's was something
I thought all of us in this House should take a look at.
For those who have not had the benefit of reading his remarks I
would like to take a couple of minutes and read an excerpt of his
speech:
Honourable Senators, in 1867 this institution, the Canadian Senate, was set up
specifically to safeguard minority and provincial rights. The issue in this debate is
about minority rights. It is about the removal of a vested constitutional minority
right. Section 93 of our 1867 Constitution, which is the equivalent of Term 17 for
Newfoundland, was put in our Constitution specifically to protect minorities. There
is no doubt about that fact.
In 1867, the Roman Catholic minority in Ontario was looking at a Protestant
majority. Section 93 was put into the Constitution so that Ontario Catholics would be
empowered to set up their own separate school system. Ontario Roman Catholics
could have got that same power from a provincial statute. But statutes are subject to
change by the provincial legislature. So, instead, section 93 was put into the
Constitution. It was put there specifically to take the power to change the system
away from the hands of the legislature. The exact same can be said of Section 22 of
the Manitoba Act, Section 17 of the Saskatchewan and Alberta Acts, and
Newfoundland's current Term 17.
To get around these facts, proponents of the proposed Amendment to Term 17
have made the argument that minority rights are not being effected in this case. They
argue that a strong constitutional guarantee continues to exist for religious minorities
to operate their own schools under the proposed Amendment to Term 17. They point
to the language of the proposed amendment that says schools established,
maintained and operated with public funds shall be denominational schools.
6970
But the right to have a publicly funded denominational school under the proposed
Term 17 comes under the words ``subject to provincial legislation that is uniformly
applicable to all schools specifying conditions for the establishment or continued
operations of schools''.
What does this mean? It means that the grant of a constitutional right to establish a
denominational school in the new proposed Term 17 is subject to the laws
established solely by the provincial legislature.
In other words, it would be possible for the Newfoundland government to pass
legislation making it practically impossible to have a denominational school and
there would be no recourse to the courts for the minorities currently protected by
Term 17. The rights granted them in 1949 would be extinguished. In essence, the
constitutional guarantee given to them at the time of the union with Canada would
cease to exist.
The courts could only say to the aggrieved minority that yes, they do have the
right to establish their own schools but it is subject to provincial legislation. The only
inquiry after that is whether or not the provincial legislation in question is
``uniformly applicable to all schools''. In the case that it is, courts could not help the
aggrieved minority.
Are constitutional rights of any permanence or do minorities only possess them at
the pleasure of the current provincial legislature? Let me set out my views on these
questions.
I believe that a basic purpose of a constitution is to establish and protect rights, not
diminish them. That is an axiom that any first year law student learns. I know this
because even though I am not a lawyer myself, I frequently lectured law school
students on the Constitution.
While it is true that no rights exist in isolation from other rights, we look to the
courts to balance them, not to provincial legislatures or indeed even to the Parliament
of Canada acting alone. I can only conclude that the intention of the Newfoundland
legislature in keeping the power under the proposed Amendment to term 17 to
unilaterally change the education system in Newfoundland is at some point in the
future the legislature may decide to exercise it.
I want to be careful to say that I do not want to imply any ill will on the part of the
Newfoundland legislature. I am only emphasizing the assumption that lies behind all
exercises in constitution making. Simply stated, we have constitutions so that no
party to a constitution can ever act unilaterally or arbitrarily.
For us to vote in favour of the proposed Amendment to Term 17 then, simply
because the legislature of Newfoundland wants it, would be a gross abrogation of
our duties as senators. We have an important part to play in this process and I am not
willing to rubber-stamp this proposal simply because the Newfoundland legislature
wants it.
Therefore, I reject the proponents third argument, that the Parliament of Canada,
and we as Senators, have only a rubber-stamp role to play with respect to the rights
of minorities in Newfoundland.
(1535)
Senator Kirby goes on. I believe that his argument has been
made in my judgment in such a way that we in this House have a
responsibility to really look at this closely. In light of that and in
light of the vote in the Senate I would like to table and move an
amendment. I move:
That the motion be amended in the schedule entitled ``An amendment to the
Constitution of Canada''
(a) by adding the words ``where numbers warrant'' immediately before the word
``any'' in subparagraph (b)(i) and;
(b) by adding the words ``determine and'' immediately following the words
``observances and to'' in paragraph (c)
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member's amendment has
already been ruled receivable in the past and is certainly receivable
in this debate as well. The debate will proceed on the amendment.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): Mr. Speaker, in
conclusion, I appeal to this House that we consider this amendment
because if we pass term 17 as it is currently on the floor of the
House, we may eventually have a legislature in the province of
Newfoundland that we do not feel as comfortable with as the
current government. We might then one day be faced with a
situation that could not work in the favour of minorities in that
province and not be as reasonable. At the same time I would argue
that we would also be setting a precedent that could be used in
other provinces across Canada. As we know, these rights, as many
have said, are part of what brought this country together, those
rights that were enshrined in the Constitution.
I would appeal to members to consider that in our vote later on
today.
(1540)
[Translation]
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a few comments to make on the speech by my
colleague from Broadview-Greenwood.
It is both a duty and a pleasure for me to support the proposals by
the member for Broadview-Greenwood, modifying the federal
government motion to change term 17 of the agreement which
brought about Newfoundland and Labrador's joining with Canada
in 1949.
At that time, the Constitution had been modified to enable
Newfoundland and Labrador to join Canada under certain
conditions. Term 17 gave Newfoundland the right to have
denominational schools.
Canada is made up of minorities, religious minorities, linguistic
minorities, racial minorities. The Constitution protects the rights
acquired by those minorities, and those acquired rights must not be
changed without the minorities affected consenting to the
constitutional changes, I repeat, they must not be changed without
minority consent.
In the early 20th century in Ontario, we had an example of
regulation 17 preventing French-language education. Such a thing
should never be allowed to happen again. Acquired rights are
acquired rights, and the federal government has a duty to defend
the rights and freedoms of individuals and communities when those
rights and freedoms come under attack by the provinces.
It is true that a referendum was held in Newfoundland; 50 per
cent of the voters turned out. Just over 50 per cent of the number
6971
that voted were in favour, which represents just barely over 25 per
cent of the population who voted to change minority rights.
Referendums are a dangerous thing. They make it possible for
majorities to crush minorities. We saw that when the province of
Quebec wanted to separate, or at least certain Quebec politicians
wanted to separate Quebec from Canada, and a referendum was
held.
The members of the Reform Party would like to see a
referendum held to abolish bilingualism and break the country
apart. They have not yet, fortunately, succeeded in getting that
referendum.
The minority denominations in Newfoundland are not in favour
of the federal government motion, but they would be, if it were
modified as proposed by the Senate on November 27, 1996.
My colleague has read the Senate proposals, and I am in
agreement with them. I appreciate the fact that the federal
government saw fit to allow a free vote on the first, second and
third readings of this bill the first time around.
Now that the bill has come back to us from the Senate, I trust that
the government will do the same again, and I feel obliged to say
that I will, once again, vote against this proposal.
[English]
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): Mr. Speaker, I support
the member's view. We hope the executive of the government will
decide once again to make sure this is a free vote when it comes
forward.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I had a strange feeling when I saw this bill coming back to
the House of Commons. The first time, I wondered what was
happening. We had debated all these points, we had already put
them on the table and had voted on this bill.
It is the outcome of a referendum in a province, where there was
a majority. I am told that some 50 per cent of the people voted. No
one prevented the others from voting. They chose not to do so.
Voting is not mandatory in Canada. So, the rule of democracy is to
respect the outcome.
I therefore wondered and I am still wondering why this bill is
back before us after a vote was taken, a decision was made, in this
House of elected representatives and after it was sent to the Senate,
whose members are not elected. The people there are appointed for
all sorts of reasons, often because of their political allegiances or
for other reasons. Often it is because they contributed to society in
one way or another. Still, as members of an unelected House of
Parliament, they will never have to answer for their actions either
tomorrow, next week, next year, in five years or in ten years from
now.
(1545)
The people in the other House did not have to consult their
fellow citizens to see whether or not they favoured this motion. We
have before us a bill passed by the House of Commons based on a
referendum held in a province on specific issues, clear issues,
which showed a desire for change in that province.
And now we are monopolizing the House's time in order to
resolve matters that were already resolved by those elected. I
would take the liberty of proposing to the Liberal majority, which
only a few weeks ago voted against the abolition of the Senate, to
reconsider.
Is there anything to be gained by bringing this bill back here?
Especially since the other House has a tendency at the moment,
with the election coming, to put more pressure on the government.
The fact is that there is a strong Conservative representation in the
Senate. Those who did not manage to get members elected in this
House are using this as a tool. They are also making use of another
tool: the people who were appointed there for various reasons,
including their political opinion and their contribution to the
political parties. These people are being used as a political tool, as
if they represented the people, which is not the case.
Are there people in the other House who can claim to really
represent the constituents of the riding they were appointed for?
Can any senator today say that he was elected? There was one in
Alberta, who unfortunately is not with us any longer, but the
senators do not represent anyone.
The fact that they bring back amendments like these makes us
wonder how this came to be. How can the senators come back to us
with these amendments? What business, authority or right do they
have to do such a thing?
It is important to see the implications. This House is back,
debating and considering again the same issue and amendments,
because the fact is that the amendment presented a moment ago by
the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood is oddly similar to
the one presented the first time the issue was debated in this House.
Basically, this is what could be called a remake. The same bad
arguments that did not convince us the first time around are being
put forward again. After going to the Senate, they are coming back
to us, forcing the government to put these things back on the table,
even though a decision had already been made.
I think there are several indications that the Senate does not
represent what the people want. Consider this. As elected
representatives, we can expect to go before the voters in the next
year. All members from Ontario should think about this. As they
travel to various parts of Ontario during the upcoming election
campaign, they will be able to tell the people, with their hands tied
behind their backs: ``It is a shame the Pearson airport legislation
died. It is
6972
not our fault; the Senate killed it''. Really? Is this normal? Is this
democratic? Is this acceptable?
Now, about Newfoundland. Even if only 50 per cent of the
people participated in the referendum, the majority of them voted
in favour of what was being proposed. In my mind, those who
claim that this referendum was not representative enough are very
dangerous people. But this should not come as a surprise from
people who said the same thing about a referendum in which 93 per
cent of the population participated.
I say that a referendum is an interesting weapon in a democracy.
It puts important issues directly to the people, whose capacity to
understand must not be underestimated. They are very capable of
following the debates. Their common sense is something that must
be respected.
(1550)
As regards this debate, I am tempted to say that the sooner we
will be done, the better it will be. I cannot prevent MPs from
expressing their views on this issue, but I want to make them aware
of the fact that we are having a discussion that has already taken
place in Newfoundland. This debate has certainly taken place
before, because the issue had been discussed for several years
among political parties. It was the subject of a referendum and
referred to the House of Commons. It resulted in an amendment to
the Canadian Constitution, an amendment that was supported by
both the party in office and the official opposition. This is quite
something.
This kind of thing does not happen every day in this House of
elected representatives. Indeed, it is not every day that the official
opposition agrees with the government on a bill of this nature.
In spite of this approval by the two parties representing the
largest number of ridings in Canada, the two most prominent
parties in this Parliament, the two parties whose role is the most
official, the most necessary and the most significant, we find
ourselves having to start the debate all over again because the
Senate told us: ``No, even if you are the elected ones, even if you
represent the public, even if you are going to call an election next
year, we cannot accept that, we have to take other considerations
into account, and we are therefore proposing additional
amendments''.
This is a golden opportunity to show that we will not let them
walk all over us. We cannot let the Senate, which costs us $43
million per year, have such power because, after all, it plays no
effective and efficient role in our democracy. The Senate is just a
group of lobbyists who are paid, and better paid, by the state,
instead of by the private sector. In the early years of Confederation,
the Senate may have made a contribution because, at the time,
elected representatives may not have had the same training as they
do today, and they may not have had access to the same research
services either. The government did not have the same resources.
Today, when the Senate opposes a bill, we can tell that it is
because of effective lobby groups that undermine the influence of
voters. People should realize that to politicians, and I think this is
an important point, it should be the electorate that has the most
influence on elected representatives.
In the present case, the House of Commons is debating a motion
which has come back from the Senate, because a bunch of
non-elected individuals insisted there should be a decision to send
it back to the House of Commons.
The Senate seems to be getting too big for its boots as far as this
bill is concerned. Consider this. When the bill arrives in the Senate,
there is already a general consensus to pass the bill. The
government and the official opposition agreed on this bill. They
submitted it to the Senate to fine-tune certain aspects. But now we
get it back with amendments that call into question the very intent
of the constitutional amendment.
I think we have to send a clear message. We must have a clear
vote on this matter. We must reject the Senate's amendments. We
have previously discussed items that were tabled again, for
instance the amendment of the hon. member for
Broadview-Greenwood. That debate has already taken place in
the House.
I realize that to educate the public, we have to repeat certain
arguments. That is understandable, but we must not forget that in
this case it is pretty useless, because we have given a democratic
body consisting of non-elected members a responsibility it should
no longer have.
We should learn a lesson from this bill, the same one we learned
from the Pearson airport legislation and a number of other
decisions by the Senate in recent years.
Just imagine, the previous Prime Minister had to appoint 10
additional senators to be able to do in the Senate what the House of
Commons had already done. That took some doing! We had to
appoint additional senators to do that. Today, the Liberal
government has managed to rebuild its majority in the Senate, but
since they do not have a strong majority, we get situations like the
one we have today.
(1555)
The solution is not necessarily to stack the Senate, but rather to
do away with it. Stacking it with a Liberal majority is not the
solution. Instead, it is to make sure that the Senate no longer has the
possibility of overthrowing the decisions of elected members.
I believe that we, as members of the House of Commons, ought
to promptly vote against these amendments, in order to ensure that
the version accepted by Newfoundland in a referendum is the one
respected by the House of Commons. We must, therefore, act as
6973
soon as possible, as soon as the various parties involved have done
what they have to do.
In the current system, it is true that parliamentarians have the
responsibility to continue the debate, because the Senate is entitled
to make this type of amendment, but this is a situation which ought
to be remedied in the future.
It is my most heartfelt wish that, in the months to come, for the
next election campaign, each party represented in this House will
include in its platform a position which will make it possible,
during the next mandate, to settle this matter of the Senate, to
prevent a body made up of unelected members, a democratic organ
made up of unelected members, from having the power it has at the
present time. It is an anachronism, a remnant of another time, and
something that does not in the least represent what a modern state
will require in the years to come.
We must, therefore, resume consideration of this bill. We must
ensure that the Senate's amendments are not accepted, in order to
respect the wishes expressed by the people of Newfoundland.
Mr. Dan McTeague (Ontario, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened
with interest to what was said by the hon. member for
Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup. I thought for a minute the hon.
member was going to give us some advice on how to deal with
minorities, since we are members from Ontario.
I do not know whether the hon. member of the Bloc Quebecois is
up on Canadian history, especially the history of the Province of
Ontario. There we also saw the abolition of the rights of
francophones to be educated in their own language. I wonder
whether he realizes that in 1912, Regulation 17-an ironic
twist-was introduced by a Conservative government and
supported by a Liberal opposition, a regulation that suspended,
denied and suppressed the minority rights of francophones as far as
education was concerned. It is rather ironic that history is repeating
itself.
I also listened to the hon. member's comments on referendums.
He thought there should not be another referendum. I would like to
put the question to this member, because I think it is rather ironic
and even a little hypocritical to say first of all, they are not in
favour of a referendum, and then that they respect the first
referendum that was held in Newfoundland. Could he explain why,
because I think their position is certainly not a very wise one.
Mr. Crête: Mr. Speaker, I hope I understood the question
correctly, because I never said we should not respect referendums.
Quite the contrary. In 1980, in Quebec, we had a referendum. We
obtained 40 per cent of the vote. We came back and worked very
hard and tried to persuade people. We got as far as 49.4 per cent last
fall, and we are going to suggest having another one, and that will
be decided in the next election. Every time, the people decided. We
never imposed decisions. We always made sure the decisions were
made by the grass roots.
As for the issue of minority rights in Ontario, yes, I learned my
history of Canada from the examples I was shown. When I was
young, I heard a lot about Manitoba. I was told about certain
decisions, as a result of which the Province of Manitoba, which
should have been a bilingual province, never agreed to become one,
thus altering the balance across Canada. But at the time, as far as I
know, there were no referendums, not in Ontario either, although I
would have liked to see the Ontario majority vote to remove the
rights of the francophone minority.
We in Quebec use referendums. We never talked about rights in
this way.
(1600)
Mr. McTeague: What about signs?
Mr. Crête: Mr. Speaker, I challenge any minority in Canada to
come and see whether it wants to trade places with the English
minority in Quebec. We are prepared to sign reciprocity
agreements at any time with the rest of Canada.
No minority in Canada is treated as well as the anglophone
minority in Quebec. Whether we are talking about education,
health services or the courts, these services are provided in the
second language, while in the rest of Canada, people have to fight
to have schools where numbers warrant. Last year in Ontario they
had to fight to have washrooms installed in a French school.
I think there is ample proof of a double standard. We are
prepared to prove to the rest of the world that we have nothing to
learn from the rest of Canada about the way to treat our minorities.
[English]
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am amazed the member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup can
tell us with a straight face that he is for respecting the results of a
referendum.
I well remember, as do other Canadians, the night of the first
Quebec referendum in 1980 when René Lévesque simply uttered
``à la prochaine fois''. In other words, he said that they did not
accept the results that night, that they were going to have another
referendum and another referendum. We have a term for it now in
English: neverendum.
The people of Canada are fed up with the kind of approach where
the separatists of Quebec, of whom the member is one, simply
refuse to accept the democratic will which has been expressed
twice now by the people of Quebec. They will continue to come
back again and again with whatever question they need to form in
6974
order to get the answer they want. I wonder if the member can
address himself to that.
Also, the member made the point that the Senate should just
simply pass this amended term 17 which the House passed recently.
I was not supportive of it. To believe that is fundamentally to
misunderstand the role of the Senate. We can debate here whether
we should even have a Senate, whether it should be appointed or
elected. I have very clear views on that. However, if anyone takes
the trouble to understand the role of the Senate, it is precisely to
review legislation and to refer legislation back that it feels is
deficient, particularly vis-à-vis minority rights. Can the member
understand that point of view?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to do a little review of
history with the member across the way.
I would like to remind him that a few things happened between
1980 and 1996. There was the decision, in 1984, to send the federal
Liberals packing. Quebec decided overwhelmingly to send
Conservative MPs to Ottawa, one reason being that someone,
somewhere, in 1982, signed the Constitution Act without the
agreement of Quebec. Since that time, it has not been ratified by
any Quebec government, whether led by Robert Bourassa or Daniel
Johnson, and obviously not by any sovereignists.
Why was there a referendum in 1995? Because the sovereignists
won the election in 1994. There was no coup d'état, nothing was
imposed on anyone. We went to the people. We won the election by
saying: ``If you elect us, there will be a referendum on
sovereignty''.
The public gave the government this mandate. We held a
referendum and obtained 49.4 per cent of the vote, with 93 per cent
of the population voting. We say it again: we are going to give
Quebecers an opportunity, in the next provincial election, to elect a
party whose goal is sovereignty.
Mr. O'Brien: Two attempts is enough.
Mr. Crête: There is no doubt that Quebecers on the other side
are in a rather difficult situation. The federal government has
nothing to offer, no opportunities.
All that the present Prime Minister of Canada has managed to
do, in a flagrant absence of leadership, is to pass a meaningless
resolution on distinct society. He was unable to win over-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Your time has almost
expired.
Mr. Crête: I will conclude, Mr. Speaker. I think I should have as
much time as the member who preceded me. I will therefore wrap
up in one minute. I will be quick.
The people of Quebec are a people that decide things
democratically. We can bide our time. We do not give up easily. We
will not be prevented from reaching our goal.
(1605)
As for the role of the Senate, I am told that I do not understand it.
In fact, I understand it perfectly, as do Quebecers who all agree it
should be abolished.
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
what I would like to raise this afternoon is the key issue which, as
you know, is not the Senate. We must not let ourselves get
sidetracked by what the elected representatives or the appointed
representatives have done. The key issue, the only one, is: What
will happen if this amendment initiated by the government of
Newfoundland and Labrador is adopted? What will happen to
minority rights there? What is the possible impact on minority
rights elsewhere?
Let us take the time to discuss this. Let us drop the questions of
Senate, House of Commons, this power struggle, let us look instead
seriously and carefully at what we are in the process of doing at this
time. Are you, as a group, ready to suppress the rights of
Newfoundland and Labrador minorities?
[English]
Before voting on the Newfoundland schools question, I urge
members to consider the following carefully, extremely carefully. I
know we have busy agendas and sometimes we tend to listen to
people who would have us do certain things without having the
time to reflect but let us reflect on this one. It has come back to us
for a second look, for more study.
What is the effect of the current term 17? What is the effect of
what is now in the Constitution? The current term 17 of the terms
of union extends to various religious minorities in Newfoundland
and Labrador the constitutional rights to establish and operate
schools that reflect their particular religious beliefs and practices
and the right to receive a fair share of public funds for the operation
of those schools. That is what the current constitutional
arrangements do.
This right is now immune from any legislative enactment which
might prejudicially affect it. For Newfoundland, term 17 is the
equivalent of section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867, a section
that provides a constitutional underpinning for denominational
school systems in a number of other provinces. That is what we are
talking about. Let us forget about the games and the power and who
is going to decide what. Are we prepared to remove those rights?
That is what we have got to answer.
If the proposed term 17 passes without amendment, what effect
will that have on minority rights in Newfoundland? If the proposed
term 17 passes without amendment, the constitutional right to
establish and continue to operate minority religious schools in
Newfoundland and Labrador will become, and this is so important
6975
to remember, wholly subordinate to provincial legislation, wholly,
totally, completely, unequivocally subordinate to provincial
legislation. There is no example in the Constitution of Canada,
none whatsoever, where a guaranteed constitutional right would be
subject to provincial law. There is not one single example because
when it passes through that door it is no longer a constitutional
right.
A constitutional right subject to a provincial legislature is no
constitutional right at all and could never be subject to the ruling of
a court of law. That is what we are doing if we pass this amendment
without the other amendments that have been proposed by my
colleagues; ``where numbers warrant''; and the right to not only
direct but to determine and direct.
If the proposed term 17 is amended in accordance with what was
proposed in the Senate, what will be the effect of those particular
amendments? This is so terribly important to understand as well.
The first amendment proposed in the Senate is to replace the
clause ``subject to provincial legislation'' because if it is subject to
provincial legislation it is no longer a constitutionally acquired
protected right. The term ``subject to provincial legislation'' would
be changed to ``where numbers warrant''. Surely this is fair. This
term will not provide for the continued existence of separate
denominational school boards. However, it will provide for schools
for the separate denominations where numbers warrant.
(1610)
The minorities that have been affected have accepted less than
they now have. Surely the federal government and the Government
of Newfoundland and Labrador are prepared to look at this with
some common sense and sensitivity. Surely they are prepared to
reach out and seize the opportunity.
The amendment will ensure that parents may choose schools of
their own denomination where numbers warrant. It still gives the
provincial legislature a whole lot of power. The amendment would
preserve the constitutional right of minority religious groups in
Newfoundland and Labrador to establish and continue to operate
religious minority schools subject to having adequate numbers of
students.
The expression ``where numbers warrant'' is well known in
Canadian constitutional law. It is the language in the education
section of the charter of rights and it has already been ruled on by
the courts. Such an amendment can and should be supported. The
Senate amendment merely asks the government to be true to the
commitment it made during the referendum, that is, the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.
The second amendment proposed by the Senate provides the
guarantee that when minority religious schools are established, the
denomination for whom the school exists will have the
constitutional authority not only to direct but also to determine and
direct all those matters that affect the denominational integrity of
that school.
This amendment should also be supported because ``merely to
direct'' could be interpreted to mean only having the power to carry
out policies determined by someone else. Surely we do not want to
take it all away from these groups.
The current constitutional protection for Newfoundland and
Labrador schools cannot now be changed unless both levels of
government, the Government of Canada and the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador, in partnership decide to do so. That is
what the deal is now.
If the proposal of the Government of Newfoundland and
Labrador passes, the constitutional right that I have just described
becomes subject to the decision of the provincial legislature. It
could be changed unilaterally by this or some other provincial
government. Therefore it is no longer a constitutional right.
That is what we are in the process of doing here. We are in the
process of removing constitutional rights and placing them at the
whim and fancy of those who draft provincial legislation and
subject to provincial legislation. Is that what members want to do?
Well I do not and I will not. This is a question of the rights of
minorities. The amendments proposed by the Senate have the
support of the minorities but that was a challenge initiative.
The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador came forward
with an amendment that was not acceptable to the minorities
affected. But the minorities affected have stepped back and said:
``Let us put in the term where numbers warrant. Let us put in
another clause so that we are more involved and can participate
more fully. We will buy in''.
It has changed considerably. Whereas the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador was proceeding without the support of
minorities, now it has the support of those minorities. It also has
my support and I hope the support of my colleagues.
This is a question of the rights of minorities. Let us not fool
ourselves. It is nothing more or nothing less. I oppose the changing
of the constitutional rights of minorities without their consent. I
would hope my colleagues would also oppose those changes
without the consent of those minorities.
Surely we are not going to impose the will of majorities on
minorities unless what the minority is doing is dysfunctional for
the whole, and that is not the case. That is why I propose passing
the original amendment with the additional amendments proposed
in the Senate which are now proposed by my colleagues in the
House and which are accepted by the affected minorities.
6976
(1615 )
I want to share with the House some information of which my
colleagues may not be aware. Prior to the referendum of September
1995 the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador distributed a
householder across the province. I have that householder here. It is
called ``The Education Referendum: A Decision on the Future of
Education in Newfoundland and Labrador''. The householder
discussed the main changes proposed in the amendment which was
being initiated by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Page 2 of the householder reads:
The new Term will not provide for the continued existence of separate
denominational school boards. However, it will provide for schools for the separate
denomination where numbers warrant-
That is what this official government publication says.
Under the question of which school students will attend under
the new system, the householder reiterated: ``However, parents
may choose schools of their own denomination where numbers
warrant''. That is in the official documentation sent out by the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.
The other House suggests that the amendment include the phrase
``where numbers warrant''. I hope, because that same amendment
has been proposed here, we will consider it seriously. We should
not simply slough it off because it came from the other House. That
is not the issue. It is not whether we have been elected or appointed,
it is not making fun of other people, it is looking at what we are
doing. By this amendment, ``where numbers warrant'', we are
asking the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to be true
to the commitment it made during the referendum. That is what we
are trying to do. We are trying to ensure that it remains true to that
commitment.
People will ask why the member for St. Boniface is so concerned
about this issue affecting the education system in Newfoundland
and Labrador. It does not only concern the education system in
Newfoundland and Labrador. Changing or reducing the
constitutional rights of minorities without their consent is wrong. It
is contrary to what we as a party have traditionally supported and
what most parliamentarians have normally supported.
One of the promises Canada made to Newfoundland when it
joined Confederation in 1949 was to protect denominational
schools. That became term 17 of the terms of union. That promise
was used to get Newfoundlanders to join Canada. Less than 50
years later it is being proposed that the promise be changed without
the consent of the minorities. We have given them an opportunity,
by presenting motions in this House, to do it honourably in order to
respond to the needs, the aspirations, the hopes and dreams of
those minorities and yet be able to go on with reform that is, no
doubt, very much needed.
Surely as a government it is our role and our duty to protect these
constitutionally acquired rights. Canadians are counting on the
House of Commons to do exactly that.
Some will argue that there was a referendum and the people
decided. This is a major issue and 52.2 per cent of the people voted.
There was a 54.9 per cent response in favour. In favour of what?
Here is the question: ``Do you support revising term 17 in the
manner proposed by the government to enable reform of the
denominational education system?''
I bet that we could go out and ask that question of Canadians
today and a majority would be in favour of it. ``Do you want to
improve education?'' Of course Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians said yes. Why not?
Let me read that important question again. Fifty-two per cent of
the people said yes to this question: ``Do you support revising term
17 in the manner proposed by the government to enable reform of
the denominational education system?'' We are trying to use the
results of that referendum on a fuzzy question to pretend that it was
decisive and there is now a mandate to go forward.
The people of Newfoundland and Labrador accept that changes
are needed in the education system. The denominational schools
understand and accept that changes are needed in the education
system. A constitutional amendment is not the only way to achieve
a modern and effective school system.
Church representatives and the Government of Newfoundland
and Labrador have already agreed on many points: the number of
school boards, the funding of capital expenditures, the viability of
schools and busing. These have been discussed and agreed on
already without any constitutional amendment. In four days the
government and the church officials were able to agree on points
that had been discussed for years with the previous government.
(1620)
The framework for school board consolidation is a perfect
indication of the possibility of a made in Newfoundland solution.
This framework has been established for the setting up of 10
interim school boards in the provincial construction board. These
changes could be validly implemented by the legislature of the
province without the necessity of an amendment.
Let me talk to that more specifically, quoting an authority. In the
legal opinion of Mr. Colin Irving, constitutional adviser to the
Catholic Education Council: ``The Newfoundland legislation
adopting the proposals just outlined would not be found by the
courts to be in violation of term 17 of the present terms of union''.
6977
We must guarantee the protection of these rights of minorities.
All minorities note it is not easy to have. They need the protection
of the majority for the kind of country we are going to have.
[Translation]
I personally believe that a referendum which takes away certain
minority rights and allows the majority to decide is unhealthy,
except if the minorities are involved in something that imbalances
society and harms the majority. This, I feel, sets a dangerous
precedent. What message are we sending by supporting such an
action?
[English]
Why not see the implementation of provincially negotiated
changes to the educational system and if subsequent to this the
amendment is still deemed necessary, it could be brought forward
at a later date.
Why not an amendment that would be agreed on by all parties?
We have two choices here. We could postpone this and do it if it
was necessary, or we could take the amendments, which is what I
prefer because it has the support of those minorities, that is,
``where numbers warrant' and ``determine and direct'' and put
those amendments through because they have the support of the
minorities. We can now have an amendment that has the support of
all parties if we stop playing games, if we stop worrying about
power, if we stop worrying about whether it was the elected or les
gens qui sont nommés qui vont décider.
Some people have been using the argument that the academic
results of students in Newfoundland and Labrador when compared
with those of other students are among the lowest in the country.
[Translation]
It is absolutely false, unhealthy, and dishonest to use such
information. According to the Department of Education for
Newfoundland and Labrador, and I quote:
[English]
The general level of education among all age groups in
Newfoundland and Labrador has risen dramatically since the
mid-1970s to where the gap with the rest of Canada has all but
closed.
According to Chris Decker, former minister of education: ``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 education levels equal
to the rest of the country''. Why is this being done?
However, if some people are still not satisfied with the
performance in Newfoundland schools, the government is the one
that has complete authority on curriculum, test materials, numbers
of teachers, funding, teacher education and performance standards.
Does it really think that this change is going to bring about a
dramatic change in performance? Let's get serious.
To blame the level of education in Newfoundland and Labrador
on the denominational school system is absurd and is not a valid
argument.
I propose that we look seriously at the main amendment but only
pass that main amendment with the other amendments that have
been proposed so that the people of Newfoundland can still
determine and direct what is going to happen in their schools.
Surely such an amendment should have the support of the
Government of Canada, the support of the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador. It has the support of the people
affected.
In a sense we would be changing the Constitution but with the
consent of the minorities as opposed to going forward without
those other amendments that have been introduced, we will be
changing constitutionally acquired rights promised to
Newfoundlanders so that they would join Canada without their
consent. I for one do not want to be part of that, particularly when
in an official Government of Newfoundland and Labrador
document it states, and I have quoted it twice today, that it will be
possible for parents to choose the types of denominational schools
they wish for their children where numbers warrant.
(1625)
[Translation]
I am asking my colleagues to look at this question again, to set
aside what the Senate, the House of Commons, the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador have said, and to look carefully at
what we are in the process of doing.
[English]
Unless we are extremely prudent, we will be taking away the
constitutionally acquired rights that were promised to minorities
when they joined Canada. We have an opportunity to change that.
We have some amendments that would permit us to change it with
the consent of minorities.
I ask my colleagues to support that common sense approach.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened very carefully to the impassioned presentations
of the member opposite and to his colleagues. I also listened at
great length to one of my colleagues who is trying to sway my
decision to vote on this bill.
My position to vote in favour of the bill and support the
government's position is based on my fundamental belief in the
words of one of the architects of the American Constitution,
Thomas Paine, who was an adviser to Thomas Jefferson. His words
were that every generation has the right and the responsibility to
govern for its own times and should not bind future generations any
more than this generation should be bound by past generations. As
a matter of fact, that was one reasons why I was so much against
6978
the Charlottetown accord, because it bound the Constitution for all
time because it required unanimity to change it.
It is the genius of the American Constitution: to change, to
reflect the times.
I would ask my hon. friend opposite, given what I have just
stated: the necessity of each generation to govern for its time, to
have the right to do so, not to bind future generations or to be bound
by past generations. The Legislative Assembly of Newfoundland
and Labrador has passed this. There has been a referendum. We
know it was a close one, but it was a much closer referendum that
brought Newfoundland into Confederation in the first place. Those
who say that it passed by a very few votes should have gotten off
their butts and voted. Once a vote is done, it is done and you go on
from there.
I would ask the hon. member if he would try to convince me,
based on my principled position and respecting the position of the
people who have already voted, how would he respond?
Mr. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his
question and his willingness to look at the questions that have been
raised today. I hope that is contagious and others will do likewise.
I understand the key point. If we make a decision today we do
not necessarily have to insist that the decision is forever. I
understand the possibilities of that.
However, here is what happened in 1949. Promises were made in
order to attract people and to get them to join Canada. Less than 50
years later we are saying: We got you in, now it does not matter
anymore if we change the rules or the promises that were made.
Second, and perhaps even more important, this is the wonderful
opportunity we have been given. We passed it, it went to the other
House and they said: ``Whoa, we are not happy about this. Here are
some things that could be done, where numbers warrant''. That was
in the official government documentation. The parents were told:
``You will be able to have your kind of denominational school
where numbers warrant''.
(1630)
My colleague from Broadview-Greenwood has introduced
with another colleague these same amendments: where numbers
warrant; and in order to be able to determine and direct. That is the
beauty of the wonderful opportunity we could seize, because we
have changed from 1949. We can change from 1949 and remove
those rights. We can say forget it, that it is over. Some people will
argue that we have not but let them look me straight in the face
when they say that. Here is an opportunity with these amendments:
where numbers warrant and to determine and direct, where it would
change them but would not eliminate them, would not remove
them.
Surely no one is going to argue that a right that is subject to
provincial legislation is no longer a constitutional right. Or at least
let them stand and say to remove that constitutional right. I could
live more easily with that kind of debate but the challenge that is
thrown to us by quoting a well known American personality is one
that is available to us today. We can move from where we were but
in a sensible way and still respond fairly to everyone's needs.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to compliment my colleague from St.
Boniface on his remarks.
The member for St. Boniface brought forth a very important
point in his speech. It is the one relating to the question that was
done in terms of the referendum, are the people of Newfoundland
in favour of reform? It is awful that we only had just a little over 50
per cent.
I think back to the moment when the current premier of
Newfoundland was sitting in this House. We all remember the great
job he did with the fishnet at the United Nations. He stood in front
of the platform and had the big fishnet behind him and he spoke for
that little fish, the little turbot, that was being squeezed out of the
system. He stood up for Canada. I would dare say that had we had a
referendum at that time on the popularity of the then minister of
fisheries who is now the premier of Newfoundland, we would be
talking about 100 per cent. He did a great thing.
The member for St. Boniface brought this forth so well. They
asked a question of all the people of Newfoundland in a
referendum: Are you in favour of reforming the educational system
in this province? It is strange that only 52 per cent said yes. It
should have been upward of 80 to 90 per cent. This whole issue of
percentages on the referendum has been glossed over.
I also want to build on the point my friend from Edmonton raised
earlier. He quoted Thomas Paine, saying that every generation has
a right to decide. I would like to bring to the floor of this House the
words of a leader of this country who sat in front of us just a few
years ago, a great constitutional leader, Pierre Trudeau. When he
was repatriating the Constitution he said that it is the duty of this
House, of this Chamber, not just to worry about the advantaged but
to speak out for the disadvantaged, and not just to worry about the
advantaged regions but to speak out for the disadvantaged regions.
We have a duty in this House to make sure that we who are the
custodians of minority rights in this House, have a serious debate
on this issue. We should not forget that.
6979
Mr. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, with respect to Mr. Paine's
statement that every generation has a right to decide, we cannot
take that too far. I chair the committee on aging and we are looking
at how the population is changing. One of the things that was noted
was the potential for intergenerational conflicts, that current
generations might want to do things dramatically differently which
would have an impact on others. While we have to be sensitive
to that, we cannot let it run our lives totally.
(1635)
I want to go back to the point I made, which is that with the
amendments that have been proposed we could respond to the
rights of those minorities in a very sensible way. That is what I
would ask my colleagues to look at. If members look deep down in
their hearts and souls they do not want to remove the
constitutionally acquired rights of minorities without their consent.
Members have an opportunity to do it with their consent. I would
ask all members to please concentrate on that.
Mr. John Cummins (Delta, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the issue before
us today is the extinguishment of constitutional rights of minorities
without their consent. In the case of the Newfoundland resolution
before us, we are given to understand that denominational schools
will be protected when all it will take to eliminate that protection is
a provincial statute. In other words, the constitutional guarantee is
being dropped. I do not think this is the proper way to proceed.
Until now the province has had jurisdiction over matters of
education subject to constitutional guarantees. Henceforth, it will
be able to legislate without regard to any guarantee. In particular,
the rights of a minority will be subject to the whim of the majority
as they were in the referendum. The truth of this is in the statistics
of the referendum. It has been established by reviewing the votes
on a riding by riding basis that Roman Catholics rejected the
proposed change. In effect, the majority voted to support the
reform that would remove denominational schools from Roman
Catholics against their will.
The issue then is: Is this resolution prejudicial to minorities? The
minority observations of a report from the Senate study seem
appropriate today. On page 48 of that report the question is asked:
Is the resolution prejudicial to minorities? The report goes on to
state:
Section 1 paragraph (b) would have the effect of placing the protection of the
constitutionally protected right to establish and maintain uni-denominational schools
``subject to provincial legislation''. The establishing and maintaining of
uni-denominational schools would thus, no longer be protected by Canada's
Constitution. The provisions contemplated in this resolution are a major departure
from the protection enshrined in section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867; section 22
of the Manitoba Act; section 17 of the Saskatchewan Act and the Alberta Act and in
Newfoundland's current Term 17. In all those sections, the power of the provinces to
legislate is subject to the denominational rights enshrined in the Constitution.
Under the proposed changes the protection for denominational rights in
Newfoundland would be subject to a provincial law of general application and if
accepted, create a dangerous precedent.
The committee heard the testimony of numerous witnesses who requested that the
resolution be amended so as to substitute in paragraph (b) the well known legal
expression ``where numbers warrant'' for the present introductory words. We
observe that substituting a ``numbers warrant'' test would mean that the courts
would remain the ultimate guardians of the rights of the classes of persons which the
section seeks to confer. This is consistent with how other minority protections are
dealt with in Canada.
A second issue of concern raised by the affected classes of persons who would
lose their present denominational school rights relates to the matter of who will
determine and direct the programmes in the uni-denominational schools. Paragraph
(c) of the proposed Term 17 resolution reads as follows: `-to direct the teaching of
aspects of-'. This would effectively abrogate a present constitutional right of the
people of Newfoundland. It was the view of many groups that this could be
mitigated if that section read as follows: `-to determine and to direct the teaching of
aspects of-'.
(1640 )
Without these changes it is my view that the proposed resolution
would be prejudicial to the constitutionally protected rights of
certain classes of citizens. Why were such rights guaranteed in the
Constitution? That is a question that should be answered. In that
same Senate study it was answered in a document which was tabled
with the committee by Professor Patrick Monahan, a constitutional
lawyer. He wrote:
It has generally been assumed that the various constitutional guarantees for
denominational education in different provinces are not subject to abrogation or
amendment simply because a majority of the citizens in a particular province would
support such a change. Indeed, to amend or abrogate these guarantees on such a
basis would be inconsistent with the very principle that led to their entrenchment in
the first place. Denominational guarantees were entrenched precisely so as to put
them beyond the reach of the majority sentiment in favour of abrogating the rights of
a minority. Therefore, I agree that a constitutional amendment to Term 17 that is not
supported by the classes of persons protected by that guarantee could be seen as a
precedent that would permit other provinces to seek similar changes.
It is interesting to note as well that there is a historical
perspective to the debate we are having today. In the Senate report,
Professor Robert Carney from the University of Alberta offered
some comments. He explained to the committee the similarities he
saw between the proposed amendment and the situation in
Manitoba between 1870 and 1890. There was a move from two
separate educational systems to a single public system. The
rationale given was to save money and to improve the quality of
schooling in Manitoba. The report goes on to state:
Professor Carney noted that it is not clear if either of these results were achieved.
Finally, the move was an expression of the will of the majority in Manitoba that affected
minority rights. However, the Privy Council, at that point in time the highest judicial
6980
authority in Canada, found that no rights had been taken away. Professor Carney
found this very reminiscent of the Newfoundland debate of today.
He stated that a compromise was arranged by Prime Minister Laurier and Premier
Greenway of Manitoba which provided time for religious education and the hiring of
teachers in proportion to the religious denomination of the pupils, the
Laurier-Greenway compromise. However, between 1896 and 1916 there were a
number of such steps towards eroding those rights, particularly the erosion of
linguistic rights in 1916. Professor Carney felt that passing the proposed Term 17
would result in the same type of controversy that existed in Manitoba 100 years ago.
Later I will reference the fact that we could avoid this type of
controversy by simply accepting the amendments that have been
proposed by the member for Broadview-Greenwood.
I have another problem with this motion. It is a significant
problem which concerns the referendum. The referendum was
fundamentally flawed. The question that was asked was a fuzzy one
as has been noted by others. We in this House and many people in
this country were especially critical of the question in the Quebec
referendum for the same reason. The same criticism applies to the
question which was asked in the Newfoundland referendum.
The question was: Do you support revising term 17 in the
manner proposed by the government to enable reform of the
denominational education system, yes or no? The question was
carefully crafted to imply falsely that amendment of the
Constitution was necessary to reform the educational system of
Newfoundland and that was an incorrect proposition.
The question talks about educational reform and who could be
against that? Who thinks that education in Newfoundland or
elsewhere in this country is not ripe for reform? The question pitted
this desire for change and reform against a constitutional right, a
conflict which does not exist in reality.
(1645)
The second problem with the referendum question was that in
order to understand the government's intentions a voter had to read
and understand term 17. The language of the term was certainly far
from clear. I believe that a fundamental of any referendum must be
that the question asked be very clear to the people who are
answering it. They must know clearly the results of either a yes or a
no response. That clearly was not the case here.
If each of the denominational classes of persons protected by
term 17 had voted to give up their rights no one could seriously
object to the proposed amendment on the basis of principle, but
that is not what happened. Roman Catholics did not vote to give up
their rights, as I suggested before, nor did Pentacostals. The
referendum vote was nothing more than a simple case of a majority
taking away the rights of two minorities in Newfoundland. Is it any
different in principle than the English voting to take away the rights
of the French? I would ask the House to consider that precedent.
Promises in government literature on the referendum included
the promise of ``where numbers warrant'', which is not provided in
the present resolution. As was pointed out earlier, in a brochure
which was distributed widely by the government,
Newfoundlanders were promised that where numbers warrant
schools for religious denominations would be provided, and yet
there is no such guarantee in term 17 itself. That is a serious flaw
which we must redress in this House. If there is a promise made in
the course of a referendum debate, especially when it is a
government promoted referendum, that promise should be kept.
That is not the case.
There is widespread support for the motion put forward by the
hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood and the amendments
which were proposed by the Senate.
I would like to read a letter from the Federation of Independent
School Associations in British Columbia. The Federation of
Independent School Associations represents over 220 independent
schools, enrolling over 50,000 students. The schools cover a wide
range of philosophical and religious adherence. They include
Montessori, Waldorf, special needs, Catholic, Jewish and
Protestant groups, and yet they all work together co-operatively
within the Federation of Independent School Associations.
I would like to quote a few paragraphs of the letter:
Even a cursory examination of the history of the formation of Canada, as a
country, indicates that the basis of union of the various parts to make the whole
include strong protection for the educational rights of minorities equally with those
of majorities. These rights were reaffirmed in the Constitution Act, 1982 which
includes the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. One of the key purposes of these
documents is the protection of rights, not only of individuals, but of certain classes of
people, especially if they are in a minority position.
The referendum held on September 5, 1995 to alter Term 17 of the Terms of
Union of Newfoundland with Canada is an attempt to remove Constitutionally
guaranteed educational rights by majority vote without the consent of those whose
rights are guaranteed. If such a process is admitted, then the whole structure of
Constitutional guarantees is no longer one of guarantees but a structural statement of
current practice which may be overridden at some future time by majority vote as the
mood of the electorate changes. It was precisely to avoid the arbitrariness of such
changes that various rights are protected in the Constitution Act, particularly rights
of minorities.
(1650)
The letter goes on to say:
Changes to guaranteed rights should be arrived at by negotiated settlement
following consultations with the parties involved. Decisions arrived at in any other
way, in which rights are removed under duress, ensures that the issue will be a cause
of severe dissension for years to come.
6981
We would, therefore, request that you consider only those constitutional changes
which have been negotiated to the mutual satisfaction of the parties involved. Should
you, nevertheless, desire to proceed, we request that you accept the amendments to the
amending proposals to Term 17 as adopted by the Senate on November 27, 1996.
The Catholic Educational Council in Newfoundland also sent a
letter to me in which it pretty much confirms and supports the
statement I just read:
We ask you, therefore, to do everything possible to see that the amended
resolutions of Term 17 adopted by the Senate are introduced for debate and passage
in the House of Commons.
It underlines the point that:
Without the amended resolution, the constitutional right to establish and maintain
denominational schools will be wholly subordinated to provincial legislation. There
is no example in the Constitution of Canada where a guaranteed constitutional right
would be subject to a provincial legislature. Indeed, a constitutional right subject to a
provincial legislature is no constitutional right at all.
I have as well a letter from the Pentecostal Education Council in
St. John's, Newfoundland, asking that we take note of the Senate
amendments:
Please note the amendments of the Senate ``where numbers warrant'' and to
``determine and'', redress the imbalance the original resolution. The amended
resolution is a compromise that satisfies our concerns while allowing the
Newfoundland government to proceed with educational reform.
I think that statement is worth repeating. It is not everything it
wanted but it is a compromise that satisfies its concerns:
With these amendments, the government may proceed to reduce the role of the
churches in governance, establish consolidated interdenominational school boards
and provide for interdenominational schools where the public wishes to have them.
Together, churches and government can work co-operatively to maximum
educational effectiveness and operational efficiency.
The whole issue that we have before us today is certainly a
constitutional concern but there is also a very practical concern of
who is ultimately responsible for educating the child. As I see it,
the motion as it stands unamended before us today takes away from
the parent the right to choose the type of system they want their
child educated in and is forcing them to accept a provincial system
of education. In other words, the rights of the parents are being
eroded by this legislation.
It would seem to me that in this day and age when one looks at
the turmoil in the educational system across this country, the drive
is for more parental control. Parents want more say in how their
children are educated. In what more fundamental way could that be
achieved than by selecting the denominational school, a school in
which they know that the values tied in that school are going to
reflect their values and their beliefs?
When we look at this bill we have to look not only at that the
constitutional question of minority rights and protecting minority
right, but we also must look at the issue of who ultimately should
be responsible for educating that child. I think the choice should be
with the parent and I think there should be as many choices there as
possible. I certainly support the motion of the member for
Broadview-Greenwood.
(1655)
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): It is my duty, pursuant to
Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be
raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon.
member for South Shore-food inspection agency.
[English]
Mr. Gerry Byrne (Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to provide comment
to the previous member's words on the term 17 amendment and the
subsequent passage of it in this House.
I am pleased also to see that the hon. member is taking the
constitutional obligations of the Government of Canada so
seriously. The Constitution is a sacred instrument, something we
cannot take lightly.
We as parliamentarians have a very strong and sincere interest in
protecting all the rights of all members of Canadian society. But we
are talking about a Newfoundland issue here, an issue which is
affecting Newfoundlanders. I want to make a comment and bring
the issue back a little closer to perhaps the hon. member's home
turf and talk a bit about other constitutional obligations.
The Constitution Act, 1982 and its interpretation, subsequent to
the Sparrow decision, requires that the Government of Canada
respect the rights of aboriginal groups to fish for food, social and
ceremonial purposes. That is a provision as interpreted by the
courts of Canada that is sacred and entrusted within the
Constitution.
We are talking about a Newfoundland issue. I do not want to
stray off the mark here to much but I think the commentary of the
hon. member is very valid because he feels, as do I, that the
constitutional obligations as they are described, whether within this
Parliament or within the courts, are an obligation of all members of
Canadian society.
The hon. member stated very clearly that the Government of
Canada has a constitutional obligation to maintain the right of all
aboriginal groups throughout Canada to fish for food, social and
ceremonial purposes. He also advocates that the Government of
Canada has to protect that right and it has the opportunity to enter
into various agreements to make sure that the enactment of that
right will be maintained for time immemorial.
6982
I will leave my commentary at that and say thank you to the
hon. member for his commentary, for saying to all the people of
Canada from the west coast to the east coast and central Canada,
everywhere, that he feels strongly that all aboriginal groups,
because of the interpretation in the Sparrow decision, have a
constitutional obligation, he has a constitutional obligation to
maintain the rights of aboriginals.
Mr. Cummins: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of my
friend.
The issue he is raising is very important, that in any democratic
society the rule of law must apply. The guarantee for the rule of law
is embedded in the Constitution. If we take constitutional change
lightly, as it seems to me that happened in this House when we
debated this issue earlier, we are in for big problems.
Our personal security must lie in a Constitution that is strong,
changeable but not easily changed. I think what we are doing here
is really flirting with an ease of change that could spell trouble for
us as a nation down the way.
(1700)
[Translation]
Mr. Dan McTeague (Ontario, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour to speak in this debate, which is taking place in principle
because of certain events. The issue was raised almost ten years
ago when the Government of Newfoundland wanted to change the
denominational school system for reasons of efficiency. This
debate led to a referendum in which 29 per cent of
Newfoundlanders voted in favour of a change.
[English]
While I accept the many debates that took place in the province
of Newfoundland with respect to the concerns about the direction
and the need for efficiency in its system, there is in that argument a
sense of need as far as the fiscal element is concerned. The
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is certainly to be
commended for taking this approach.
In the few days that this House has been given, many members
did not have the opportunity for debate because of the speed with
which this bill was passed. We had an opportunity to have the bill
reviewed by members of the other place and many senators took
the time to reflect and review it.
As the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood indicated a
little earlier, we should not simply dismiss their views. I think of
Senator Doody, Senator Carstairs and Senator Michael Kirby who
took the time to really reflect on the issue and its long term
implications. These individuals had a lot to do with creating the
Constitution in 1981-82.
These individuals took the time to consider the issue, because it
is one that does not just stop with the interests of the province of
Newfoundland. It goes well beyond that to every other province
because it will no doubt have an impact on minority legislation and
the question as so eloquently described by the member for
Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis, when he talked about what this is really
doing in terms of the definition of enshrinement.
I believe it is important for the House to also give sober second
thought, if I can use that term, to this proposal before us today.
Newfoundland has a population of some 650,000 people. I
should point out that the riding of Ontario has 235,000 constituents,
and there is not a single member in the House who would believe
that riding should be able to imperil or subvert or overcome a
question of enshrined or entrenched rights. I feel compelled to say
that certain rights are indefeasible. Certain rights cannot be traded
off like poker chips at a game when a poor hand is dealt.
What Newfoundland seeks and hopes to achieve with the 52 per
cent of the favourable vote has far more implications than simply
the concerns of Newfoundland. It has implications for the minority
rights of every individual across the country. I want to talk about
the historical.
[Translation]
In 1912, the Whitney government in Ontario, took away the
minority educational rights of francophones. In 1890, the Manitoba
government did away with the laws and constitutional rights
protecting minority rights.
I believe the architects of our Constitution of 1982 had the idea
of possibly protecting rights, here in the House of Commons, in
case a province, for one reason or another, had a different interest.
[English]
Therefore the architects of the 1982 Constitution respected not
only the House of Commons but the other House.
I need no lesson about whether or not there is legitimacy in that
House because it happened to come back with a few proposals. I
will discuss that in a moment. It is fair to say that whether we agree
or disagree with what was done by the Senate, the reality is it is
nevertheless a part of our Constitution, a part of this House.
(1705 )
We must respect that Parliament has been constructed that way
until this Parliament decides to do otherwise. I need no lesson from
any members on this side.
I recall what the member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup
said a little earlier with respect to the fact that so many members on
this side of the House had not supported the amendment to abolish
the Senate. I happen to be one of those few dissenting members
who did. However, that does not take away the indefeasibility and
strength of the argument that has brought forth the amendment that
we see here today. This proposed amendment, which is a carbon
6983
copy of what the Senate had proposed, is a question of describing
where numbers warrant.
I am a francophone Ontarian. I know a little about the dilemma
of trying to protect certain rights and to provide services where
those numbers are warranted. There are certainly many places in
my province and in my community of Durham where the French
community has been able to receive certain services in the
language of its choice simply because the numbers warrant it.
I believe that what the Senate has done is provided us with a
second chance at a good compromise which should not be simply
eliminated because of some political sense of expediency that
exists now in 1996 but opens the door to possible constitutional
chaos down the road.
I do not believe that is the intention of the Government of
Newfoundland. It is certainly not the intention of the good senators.
It ought not to be the intention of this House to commit that kind of
error.
This solemn like decision has taken the opportunity to weigh
both sides of the coin, the first side being of course recognizing the
fiscal constraints that exist in Newfoundland and then the flip side,
the reality of recognizing at least certain denominational
educational rights.
The history of this whole question I find troubling. In 1990 the
Government of Newfoundland appointed the Williams
commission. In 1992 that commission found that of the
denominational educational groups in the province of
Newfoundland almost 90 per cent of what was recommended was
adopted and acceptable by all players. What are we trying to
achieve in getting that extra 10 per cent that presses us to bring our
country possibly to the brink of constitutional chaos?
An hon. member: Too risky.
Mr. McTeague: As my hon. colleague from
London-Middlesex has said very eloquently, it is a deal that it
simply too risky. It is for this reason that I think we have a golden
opportunity here to review some of the wisdom that is coming from
that House which has had a little longer to think about this issue.
I know, having 235,000 constituents, that one, we should not be
making any changes to the Constitution that are binding. Second,
we have a lot of issues that go from this House and a lot require
expertise in many areas, but this is one that I do not believe this
House can afford the luxury of overlooking or simply saying ``I
voted for it that time and now that it is coming before us again I am
going to maintain my position''. I think our ability to think these
things out compels members of Parliament to reflect very carefully
on the door that they are opening. This is, in my belief, the very
thin edge of the wedge. I am not talking from the perspective of
Chicken Little.
Instead, I believe that what we have to consider this amendment
to be is something that would revoke something of a constitutional
guarantee. The speed with which this amendment is about to go
through must be worrisome in the context of the time it takes to
prepare for admission for provinces like Newfoundland.
The parties that consented in 1949 to join Confederation had
some very compelling and valid reasons. As the member for St.
Boniface indicated earlier, 50 years ago is not that long ago and
although I am the ripe age of 34, I know many changes have taken
place. Change is a good thing in and of itself but it must be
measured against the consequences that it has on all.
(1710 )
It is not good enough when we talk about the indefeasibility of
the rights of minorities, which is a hallmark of the Liberal Party of
Canada, to simply turn around and say ``we are going to apply
some kind of utilitarian principle here, we are going to say that the
happiness of the greatest number is the real reason we are here and
if it goes well for the majority, so be it''. I think that is illiberal as a
view.
Although we want to help the province of Newfoundland, it must
look to its own people, to its own denominational churches to find a
solution. It must not be allowed to open up the Pandora's box of
constitutionality, the kind of constitutionality that says 250,000
people can decide by fiat or by the wave of the hand. Perhaps it is
through a question they did not understand or by a question that
was articulated in such a way that it left a lot of confusion at the end
of the day with only 55 per cent participating. This leaves one with
the impression that perhaps they did not know at the end of the day
what they were voting on. Irrespective of that the reality is that
number is too small to bring about the kind of disruption this
amendment threatens to bring.
[Translation]
I expressed my fears earlier about minority rights. As a
francophone from Ontario, I am very familiar with the situation of
people who have found themselves in a position where
governments, with the wisdom of the time, have deprived
communities of their rights and interests. The effect of doing so is
harmful and creates tensions within the country.
[English]
For many years certain religions were guaranteed certain rights.
For instance, the Catholic religion in the province of Ontario was
guaranteed certain rights under section 93 of our original British
North America Act. Up until 1984 those rights those rights were
disrespected. Catholics were treated as second class citizens. They
6984
did not have control over their entire educational system. We
righted a wrong. Is it fair for this Parliament to wrong a right?
[Translation]
In my opinion, the eloquent words of Senator Michael Kirby
deserve the attention of this House. Members of all parties here
must give careful consideration to the force of his argument.
[English]
In essence the argument that has been made by those who have
proposed this amendment goes something like this. Newfoundland
needs a new school system. The minorities affected had a chance to
be heard. In the end nobody is losing much and if we go on they
will still have more than their fair share, certainly as far as their
counterparts are concerned. Therefore given all this, change can
take place.
That kind of argument says that as long as the process is fair, the
end justifies the means. I am not one who subscribes to
machiavellian philosophy, but I do not believe that the end justifies
the means. I believe that in a country as diverse as Canada where
we have expressed time and time again the intrinsic value of
minority rights, we must be careful to continue to nurture our
Constitution, a living document capable of changing with changing
times.
We must nurture and protect that Constitution so that it protects
those who cannot protect themselves and who are concerned that as
minorities they may suffer the tyranny of the majority. We know
the difficulties that are encountered by so many groups in this
country when we look at parliaments or governments or bodies that
say might is right. If you are not on the side of hegemony, if you are
not on the side of power then forget it. You have no voice. You have
no future.
(1715 )
On the economic plane we are even talking today about the small
voices that usually get drowned out. Big business, big labour and
big government get to be heard when it comes to resolving a
problem, but the new micro industries and young people coming
out of our universities with new ideas are simply getting squeezed
out. They do not have the traditional levers by which they can
express themselves.
The same applies to the wisdom of the Constitution. Our
Constitution protects people. It protects them because it believes
that at one point or another, no matter who we are as Canadians,
whether we live in Newfoundland, Ontario, in Ajax, Pickering or
Whitby, or whether we live in British Columbia, we are all, in one
way or another, a minority. The Constitution is there to protect not
only our status as minorities, it is there to protect our status as
individuals who are deserving of rights, rights against being
prosecuted unnecessarily by the government, rights against having
the rules changed midstream.
I implore the House to consider very carefully what this motion
really means. In my view, and I believe in the view of many people
in the House and across the country, it is a motion which opens the
door, is the thin edge of the wedge, which will allow other
governments with certain missions, based on rather important
arguments in 1996, in 1999 or a little farther down the road, to
remove delicately, softly, quietly, certain constitutional rights,
certain inherent rights which we have developed over the years,
rights for which many people of this country have fought and died.
I am pleased to say that the amendment which has been proposed
by the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood adopts the
wisdom not of senators or politicians but of people who have
actually taken the time to think, to consider and weigh that which is
Canada. These are people who have said that, yes, the interests of
Newfoundland in getting its financial house in order are important.
However, we cannot do that by laying waste to their rights.
This amendment, ``where numbers warrant'', means that we are
using a tried, tested and true method by which we are going to be
able to protect individuals down the road. I believe, if the House
sees fit, it will find that the wisdom of ``where numbers warrant''
allows it an excellent compromise to achieve the wishes of the
people of Newfoundland and their government while at the same
time letting the rest of the country breathe easily and know that
their rights and the rights that we share as Canadians will not be
suppressed.
[Translation]
I would ask this House to give due consideration to the remarks
by the member for Broadview-Greenwood, because this is an
amendment, a proposal that, in the end, gives us a way to protect
ourselves properly, effectively and in keeping with our identity as
Canadians.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
constitutional matters are always delicate ones. We know that
things are written into the Constitution, into the constitution of any
country, in order to ensure, in a way, that they remain unchanged.
In fact, what is written into a constitution is aimed, in some cases,
at protecting the rights of certain minorities, and in other cases,
certain majorities.
In the case of interest to us here, especially after the
Newfoundland referendum, we understand that what will be done
will affect rights a certain minority believed were protected for
ever.
(1720)
I am not taking a stand in this debate, but I would like the hon.
member who has just spoken to clarify his view of this duality
between permanently maintaining rights which are perhaps a bit
6985
outmoded, on the one hand, and this constitutional guarantee which
calls for the ongoing protection of minority rights, on the other.
These two points of view are contradictory, and I would like the
hon. member to explain how he resolves that contradiction.
Mr. Dan McTeague (Ontario, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
congratulate the hon. member on this good question. He addresses
the dilemma that exists at the present time surrounding that
question.
As I just said, I find that our Constitution is a document that
evolves from day to day. It is not a document that is intended as a
bottleneck, or a straight jacket. It is a document that is intended to
offer limited and minimal protection to the interests and the
proposals made at the time the document was signed.
[English]
The courts have played a very strong role in balancing
competing rights and interests. We know that the history of this
argument, of this whole episode, is one that is fraught with what
appears to be governments hell bent on imposing their will,
notwithstanding the fact that within the province of Newfoundland
there is ample room if not ample evidence of an agreement.
[Translation]
We also acknowledge that perhaps a 52 per cent vote in favour of
a question may not be enough for questions where people's rights
are involved.
[English]
Fifty-two per cent voting on the rights of minorities who are
themselves minorities without their consent is certainly a recipe for
tyranny of the majority. The dilemma of a constitutional
requirement of protection versus the democratic will of a certain
number of people are two competing theories within the terms of
our federalism. Yet at the end of the day the rule of law must
prevail. The rights of minorities must prevail. The right to free
speech must prevail. We know these as sacred values within our
system.
While the question is an excellent one, the resolution cannot be
found by simply adopting one side and saying: ``To heck with the
Constitution. It means nothing. What we are interested in doing
here is achieving 1996 fiscal expediency''.
Mr. John Cummins (Delta, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the
comments of the member for Ontario. He has a well deserved
reputation for sticking up for those who cannot defend themselves
regardless of personal cost. He certainly has earned my admiration
for that.
The question I have for the member is a simple one. Is the
protection that he is seeking for religious minorities in educating
their children any different than the protection that would be
available to say linguistic minorities, or is it something far beyond
that level of protection for which he is arguing?
Mr. McTeague: Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the member.
I did not have an opportunity to refer to his speech a little earlier. It
took me as a bit of a surprise that he stated the position he had. It
shows there is quite a bit of diversity in that caucus on this issue as
well.
Do I see this educational issue as being a precedent, a door
opening for other minority rights?
(1725 )
As I indicated to the member from the Bloc, we must always be
prepared to have a Constitution that is flexible. When we have 30
million Canadians from so many backgrounds, with so many
different interests, but then at the end of the day saying we believe
in this great country it is going to create a bit of a problem for many
of us if we are not prepared to acknowledge that the Constitution is
something that must change with changing times.
I am worried about existing rights that are acknowledged by the
minorities, not simply from a position of vested interest, but given
the history of this amendment. Many have written us saying: ``We
have a problem here. The government seems prepared to
steamroller a particular issue with the help, by and with the consent
of the government, through the House of Commons and through the
Senate. We think that you should stop for a moment and really
think about what you are doing in the context of that which we
agreed to only 50 years ago''.
I respect the fact that in this House there are many members of
Parliament who are a little older than 50 years so it is not really that
long ago. No offence of course to the hon. whip of our party.
However, in all sincerity to the hon. member's question because
it is an excellent one, I do not believe we should be moving toward
rectifying new rights when we have not been able to demonstrate a
guarantee that we are going to be able to defend the rights that we
have already proclaimed. That is exactly the point with which I
think the House must be seized.
The Deputy Speaker: Before resuming debate, a point of order
from the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton.
Mr. Gallaway: Mr. Speaker, earlier today votes were taken.
With respect to votes concerning Bill C-29, I sent a note to the table
officers to point out that I would be absent during those votes.
Unfortunately, the earlier two votes which were taken my name
was applied for the subsequent three votes. I had asked the table
officers that I not be shown as being present. I was in fact absent
and I was marked present and having voted in favour. I request that
I be shown as absent and therefore I would request the consent of
the House to have the record correctly reflect that.
6986
The Deputy Speaker: I am sure the consent of the House is
not necessary to clarify the record in light of what the member
has said. I will ask the table officers to make that clear in Hansard.
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today-
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, but it is not your turn. As a
Liberal has just spoken, it is now the Bloc Quebecois' turn. I
therefore give the floor to the member for Bellechasse.
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
apologies to the hon. member for London-Middlesex, but I
believe the opposition was not among the last few members to
speak, although there was no lack of debate.
My colleague, the hon. member for Mercier, always looks at
things in their historical perspective. Knowing where she has come
from, she knows where she is headed, and this gives me a point of
departure.
I would be much happier today if, instead of taking a position, I
was recognizing the result of a referendum held in Newfoundland
indicating to us that the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador
wanted to leave Canada, like the result in 1948, and we will come
back to this. The Province of Newfoundland-then the Dominion
of Newfoundland-made a decision regarding union with Canada.
In this event, it would be sufficient to recognize the result and sit
down again, because the people of Newfoundland would have
exercised their sacred right to self-determination, to the full
constitutional destiny of their province.
Today, I am not in any way questioning the results of the
September 5, 1995 referendum. A majority voted in favour of
amending term 17 of the Terms of Union with Canada. A little bit
of background is still necessary. What took place? What led to the
establishment of terms of union between Newfoundland and
Canada?
(1730)
For the benefit of those who were not with us at the beginning of
this debate, a reminder that before 1949, Newfoundland was not
part of Canada. Until 1933 it was an independent Dominion, like
Canada, like Ireland previously, like Australia and like New
Zealand, and as such part of the British Empire, which has now
become the Commonwealth.
When economic problems became apparent, the responsible
government of Newfoundland was suspended by an act of the
Imperial Parliament, the Parliament of Great Britain, in 1933, the
Newfoundland Act, 1933, 24-25 George V, chapter 2, United
Kingdom.
As of 1933, the Imperial Parliament suspended responsible
government in Newfoundland and appointed a commission of
government to take charge of what to all intents and purposes again
became a colony.
Apparently, the commission of government operated
satisfactorily, and the war got the economy going again, so that in
the post-war period, the people in London and the people in
Newfoundland wondered whether they should maintain this
commission of government, in other words, a governor without an
elected legislature. The governor received his instructions from
London and carried them out.
An initial referendum was held to put the question to the people
of Newfoundland. Actually, a national convention was called in
Newfoundland to determine the status the people wanted for
Newfoundland.
This convention suggested putting two questions to
Newfoundland voters: Do you wish to maintain the commission of
government-direct rule from London-or do you want to go back
to the status that existed before 1933, in other words, the status of a
Dominion within the empire? With of course, responsible
government based on the institutions that existed before 1933.
As a result of political intrigue and pressure from the Canadian
government at the time and from the government in London as
well, a third option was considered which had not been planned by
the national convention of Newfoundland. The third option was
federation with Canada.
Despite the position taken by the national convention of
Newfoundland, a third option was put on the ballot in 1948, by an
imperial act of Parliament. Let us recall the results of the first
referendum, which was held on June 3, 1948.
There was a very respectable turnout of 88.36 per cent. In favour
of maintaining the commission of government, in other words, an
administration under the orders of the United Kingdom, 14.32 per
cent; in favour of federation with Canada, 41.13 per cent; and in
favour of the return to responsible government, in other words, to
Dominion status as of 1933, 44.55 per cent. There was a majority
but not an absolute majority in favour of one of the three options.
The option which got the least votes was eliminated and as
prescribed by law, a month later, on July 22, a second referendum
was held. The question concerned only two points: Are you in
favour of federation with Canada or of a return to responsible
government?
This time, Newfoundland voters responded as follows: 78,323
voted in favour of federation with Canada and 71,334 voted in
favour of responsible government, which in percentages works out
to 52.34 per cent against 47.66 per cent. The difference is not
6987
considerable, a difference that in other circumstances would not be
worth discussing, because the figures themselves are eloquent.
(1735)
Things become more disquieting when we look at the voting by
riding. In the riding of Ferryland, the turnout was 104.59 per cent;
in Labrador, it was 119.44 per cent; in Grand Falls, it was 109.79
per cent; in St. John's West, it was 101.50 per cent; in St. John's
East, 100.05 per cent and in Humber, it was 107.84 per cent.
This is a turnout that the hon. member for
Humber-Sainte-Barbe-Baie Verte can appreciate now. However,
as my colleague and friend, the member for Louis-Hébert, would
say, something is wrong with democracy somewhere. They went a
little bit too far.
Such that, if we look at voting excesses, a lot of ridings had a
turnout of nearly 100 per cent. Something rarely seen. For example
in the second referendum, it was 95 per cent in the riding of St.
George's-Port-au-Port; 97.16 per cent in White Bay; 96.26 per
cent in Grand Falls. That is not so bad. In the riding of St.
George's- Port-au-Port, in the other referendum, the figure was
99.39 per cent. These figures are rather unbelievable.
Worse yet, however, was the discovery made since that time that
London had decided, regardless of the outcome of the referendum,
that there would be union with Canada. History speaks for itself;
nobody gave two hoots about the people of Newfoundland.
Finally, if only to have it appear in Hansard, as the result of the
figures, ambiguous to say the least, with a turnout in seven or eight
ridings of more than 100 per cent, the Prime Minister of Canada,
Mackenzie King, said at the time the results were released, and I
quote: ``I consider such results clear and beyond possibility of
misunderstanding''. That took some nerve. Fortunately, there was
no live television, because the people of Newfoundland would have
been hopping. In the September 5, 1995 referendum no
irregularities were reported. As the result of this referendum, it was
decided that Newfoundland wanted to join Canada. The terms of
union had to be negotiated. There are 50 of them and they appear in
the appendix to the 1985 Revised Statutes of Canada.
We are concerned here today with term 17 and it is not an easy
matter to understand. I am simply going to read term 17, and even
the most eminent jurists sitting in the House will not be able to give
us an opinion regarding its meaning.
I will begin. I hope that the translators have the English version,
because I am going to read it in French. Term 17, regarding
education, is worded as follows:
17. In lieu of section ninety-three of the Constitution Act, 1867, the following
Term 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 the Legislature will not have
authority to make laws prejudicially affecting any right or privilege with respect to
denominational schools, common (amalgamated) schools, or denominational
colleges, that any class or classes of persons have by law in Newfoundland at the date of
Union, and out of public funds of the Province of Newfoundland, provided for
education,
(a) all such schools shall receive their share of such funds in accordance with
scales determined on a non-discriminatory basis from time to time by the
Legislature for all schools then being conducted under authority of the
Legislature; and
(b) all such colleges shall receive their share of any grant from time to time voted
for all colleges then being conducted under authority of the Legislature, such
grant being distributed on a non-discriminatory basis.
(1740)
I do not know whether anyone can rise and explain the term on
the spot. I would be prepared to take my place and ask for the
unanimous consent of the House to allow such an explanation. It is
obvious that, through this term, the Newfoundland legislature gave
up to the various denominations its control over schools, its power
to legislate with respect to matters of education.
Today, we are hearing two theories. One claims that the repeal of
term 17 of the Terms of Union of Newfoundland with Canada will
not affect minority rights, and the other claims that it will. There is
even a third school of thought, probably the objective one, which
tells us that it would appear that the conclusion of the referendum
indicates that the various religious denominations, or the six main
ones, appear to have given consent. Just now, in quoting the
referendum figures, the hon. member for Delta attempted to
demonstrate that the Roman Catholic Church in Newfoundland did
not have a majority vote in favour.
I am not, myself, in a position to give any answers. I feel that a
thorough examination and careful attention to the speeches made in
this House will make it possible to make a more informed decision.
But some questions do remain. One condition for union is not
clear. Does it affect minority rights? If so, unilateral action, without
knowing whether the minorities agree to having their rights
abrogated, strikes me as a disquieting precedent. If not, then all that
we have to do is take the simple step of merely ratifying the
consent given in Newfoundland. We need some clarification on
this. I personally do not have enough information to form a firm
opinion. You can understand that, when it comes to minority rights,
we in Quebec are a little gun shy.
If, tomorrow morning, the government of Manitoba were to hold
a referendum to do away with section 23 of the Manitoba Act, what
would happen? That is the section which requires the Manitoba
legislature to pass its legislation in both official languages, the one
which states that the language of legislation and the language of the
courts is English and French.
6988
The 1890 Greenway laws had abrogated francophone rights in
Manitoba. Only in 1979 did the Supreme Court, in the Forest
decision if my memory serves me correctly, conclude that the
1890 legislation was invalid because it was unconstitutional.
Almost 100 years later, it was difficult to restore the rights of
francophones who formerly made up 50 per cent of the population
of Manitoba. According to the latest census, scarcely more than
12,000 people in Manitoba stated they were of French Canadian
origin.
If a referendum were held tomorrow morning in Manitoba and
80 or 90 per cent of the voters were in favour of repealing section
23 of the Manitoba Act, should we adopt it with our eyes closed
and again make English the only official language in Manitoba,
while for 100 years, Manitoba's francophones have struggled to
maintain their rights? That is a good question.
If tomorrow morning, the Government of Ontario held a
referendum to repeal section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867,
concerning schools for Catholic minorities which, at the time, were
also francophone minorities, would we, in the event of a positive
outcome, agree to accept such an amendment? Personally, I do not
think so. I think these rights should be maintained, protected and
even expanded.
(1745)
There seems to be a complete lack of understanding between the
people who embrace these two theories. I think it is necessary to
clarify the interpretation of term 17 which, in any event, does not
seem to be clear to anyone, so that we cannot really make up our
minds. Once again, the question that was asked in the referendum
in Newfoundland in 1995 was straightforward, but it referred to an
extremely complex situation.
The hon. member for Ontario said earlier that the Constitution
should reflect the changes that take place in society. I quite agree
with what he said. In the case of a constitutional text like the one
we have here, the Terms of Union of Newfoundland with Canada in
1949, if the present Government of Newfoundland had to
renegotiate these terms and if Canada had to renegotiate them, we
would not end up with the same terms, certainly not term 17 in its
present form, because it does not seem to correspond with a certain
social reality.
It is not up to me to find out whether it does or does not
correspond with the social reality that exists in the province of
Newfoundland and Labrador. It is up to the people of
Newfoundland to decide what suits them. The only thing I have to
check as a parliamentarian is whether minority rights,
constitutional minority rights have been affected, yes or no.
If not, the question is clear. The people of Newfoundland have
decided, and I do not have to check whether they were right to
decide in this way. If, on the other hand, it involves constitutional
rights, the rights enshrined to protect minorities from periodic
changes by governments, to ensure that their rights endure, I am
entitled to ask questions as to why the rights of a minority are to be
changed. To my knowledge, this would be our first time in the
history of Canada to legislate the rights of minorities and to limit
them constitutionally. The effect of constitutional legislation
respecting minorities has always been to extend protection.
I hope we come to a better understanding during this debate. I do
not think this is a partisan debate. It should not become one. It is a
fundamental debate on the role, on the place, of minorities within
the federation and on the interpretation to be given the Canadian
Constitution in general.
Let us recall that the terms of Newfoundland's union with
Canada in 1949 were negotiated by the Government of Canada
alone, without the provinces. The provinces were not involved in
this negotiation.
Which province was most interested? The Province of Quebec,
which has a common border, the border of Labrador, which was
defined in 1927, with the definition being cast in stone in the terms
of Newfoundland's union with Canada in 1949 and reconfirmed in
the Constitution of 1982. If there is one border that is not at issue, it
is the Labrador border at the moment. The Province of Quebec was
not consulted.
Who protested in this House at the time? A member for the
riding of Charlevoix, Frédéric Dorion, who, at the time,
represented a riding along the Labrador, and consequently
Newfoundland, border.
Frédéric Dorion, who later became the chief justice of the
Quebec Superior Court, said in this House it was unacceptable that
Quebec, the neighbouring province, was not consulted on the terms
of Newfoundland's union with Canada. I understand, because had
we been under the effect of the present legislation, the Constitution
of 1982, which was forced on us, this procedure would not have
been possible. The provinces would have to be consulted.
As we can see, the constitutional change mentioned by the
member for Ontario is ubiquitous. Freezing the Constitution in an
interpretation that was valid perhaps in 1949 is probably not very
healthy. However, if the other alternative is to take away minority
rights, I do not consider that healthy either.
I would hope that, in the course of the debate, the information
and especially the understanding the members of this House may
gain from Resolution No. 12 before us, will clarify this debate and
enable everyone to come to an understanding in their soul and in
their conscience.
6989
(1750)
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
a couple of brief comments and then a question for the member.
In the debate a number of issues have been raised, one about
educational reform being necessary in Newfoundland and that it
could be achieved only through constitutional amendment. The
quality of education has not been a question here. In fact,
Newfoundland has done as well or better than Ontario in a recent
national survey on science and math.
The fact that there was a royal commission and that the
framework agreement covered 90 per cent of the recommendations
seems to indicate that there was a possibility that the province
could do this.
On the issue that Parliament alone must accede to the provincial
will, I guess the rhetorical question is why is it in the Constitution
in the first place, if the provinces can just say do it. It really does
beg the question.
There is the issue that there was a referendum. We all know the
turnout was low and the plurality was also very low. When we are
talking about a right that was given as part of the terms of union, it
is clear that it is those who will be reliquishing their right who must
have the primary say in whether that right is going to be
relinquished.
The last point was that minorities had their chance because there
was a process they went through. There is no question that the
process was procedurally fair. But I am wondering, considering the
debate in the House and in the Senate, whether today
Newfoundlanders would say that they really understood the
consequences of what was being dealt with.
My question has to do with the proposed amendment with regard
to ``where numbers warrant''. Many members have already said
that this was a phrase which was incorporated in the debate in this
place, even by the justice minister in his speech on May 31, that the
change to the Constitution would provide uni-denominational
education ``where numbers warrant''. But that phrase was not
specifically included in the legislation and, indeed, the amendment
in the Senate was not passed for that. That was called for even by
Cardinal Carter.
I would ask the member, with regard to the issue of ``where
numbers warrant'', would the member not concede that this would
be a reasonable amendment to the proposal now before the House?
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Mississauga
South for his question.
The question appears straightforward, but the answer is not.
Either the amendment to Term 17 of the union of Newfoundland
with Canada, or the reverse, depending on one's point of view,
gives constitutional protection to the right of religious
denominations or churches in matters of education in
Newfoundland, in which case Term 17 should not be amended, or
the proposed amendment does not infringe the constitutional rights
of religious groups or groups referred to in Term 17 of the terms of
union, in which case we should simply recognize the referendum.
There cannot, in my view, be any middle ground: either these are
constitutional rights, in which case those affected, the minorities,
must be consulted. It is not up to the majority to decide for the
minority that they no longer want these rights. It must be certain
that the minority knowingly gave up its constitutional rights. This
is on the assumption that the constitutional amendment infringes
minority rights.
The other assumption, which is just as plausible, and is
supported by a number of members in the House, says: ``Term 17
of the Terms of Union of Newfoundland with Canada does not
affect the constitutional rights of certain groups in Newfoundland.
We therefore need only recognize the referendum and blindly ratify
it''.
Like the hon. member for Mississauga South, I too will await the
continuation of debate, in order to gain a greater understanding of
the issue.
(1755)
[English]
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased for the second time in this House to speak on this
amendment to term 17. I suppose in a way we might call this an
amendment to term 17 revisited. I am pleased, as other colleagues
of mine have said, that in effect the Senate has given us an
opportunity to correct a mistake that I feel this House made, a very
important and glaring mistake, last spring when it passed the
requested amendment to term 17.
I will first make reference to the member for Bellechasse who
just spoke, a colleague from the Bloc, who mentioned that the
opposition had not had a great number of opportunities to speak
today. I am pleased that he did speak prior to my remarks. I note
that I have heard precious little in the way of reservations from the
official opposition. I have to ask myself why that is.
At least the last member who spoke did raise the possibility that
this is not the way to proceed, that there could be a matter of
minority rights here. The vast majority of the members of the Bloc
have simply accepted the need to pass this amendment on the
slimmest of margins, on a fuzzy question put to the people of
Newfoundland, in my view. I think the Bloc has its own agenda for
supporting such a course.
6990
For the sake of historical accuracy, and a s a history teacher in a
former life, I would like to inform the member for Bellechasse that
in 1867 Catholic minorities in Ontario were not strictly
francophone. Largely they were but at that time there were many
thousands of Irish Catholics who were in the province of Ontario;
some of them my forebears. Just for the sake of historical accuracy
I would like to inform the member of that point.
The starting point of this debate from my point of view is does
the school system of Newfoundland and Labrador need reform. I
will not take long on that point. I had the opportunity in October to
visit Labrador. The member of Parliament was good enough to
invite me to visit his riding. It is clear that the school system in
Newfoundland and Labrador is in need of reform, as several
colleagues have said. Anyone who has informed himself or herself
about the situation knows that is the case.
There were long negotiations held to that end. In my view, just as
they were about to come to fruition those negotiations were cut
short. It is my position that the solution for the school system
problems in Newfoundland and Labrador ought to be found or
arrived at by the Government of Newfoundland, by school
authorities, by the people of Newfoundland themselves with a
made in Newfoundland and Labrador solution. Surely if all parties
involved are parties of goodwill, and I am sure they are, this
amendment requested of the House of Commons for the second
time would not be necessary. I feel it is not the best solution to the
situation that exists in Newfoundland today.
The member for Bellechasse mentioned that some have the view
that we must just close our eyes and pass this amendment as
requested. I disagree with that. Many colleagues do.
I would like to quote the Minister of Justice on May 31 when he
said these words about that point: ``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''.
That raises the question of the public that is being referred to.
Clearly the public in question is the Canadian public from coast to
coast to coast. It is absolutely incorrect and shortsighted in my
view for anyone-and we have heard that argument and we may
again-to say that this is strictly a Newfoundland question and
nothing else, that it is not relevant to other parts of country. That is
absolutely incorrect or why are we speaking on this issue in this
House today, following action taken by the other place last week.
This is clearly a national issue. As soon as Parliament is
involved it is automatically a national issue.
(1800)
I support the amendments made in the other place last week that
have been introduced by my colleague, the member for
Broadview-Greenwood today. I feel that these proposed
amendments would facilitate the necessary educational reform in
Newfoundland and, at the same time, maintain the existing
minority rights which are so vital to the success of this nation.
Either that, or we ought to go back to the negotiating table and let
the people of Newfoundland solve this problem with a made in
Newfoundland solution.
In my view, the question which is very important is this. What
are minority rights worth if they can just simply be removed,
whatever the means, without the expressed consent of the affected
minorities? That point has been made several times by my
colleagues, the member of Ontario and the member for
Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis. I was also very pleased to hear the
comments of the Reform member for Delta earlier.
The Reform member for Edmonton Southwest quoted Thomas
Paine in his remarks and made a very important point which needs
to be a little more fully addressed. His point was: ``Should it not
fall to every generation to govern themselves and should they not
be tied by decisions of previous generations?''
With that logic, the relevant point is that this generation of
minorities in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador do not
support the proposed amendments to their rights. This generation is
objecting. I have heard no one contest the validity of that
statement. Therefore, it falls to this generation of Newfoundlanders
and Labradorians and Canadians to speak on this question. The
issue of minority rights is no less relevant for this generation than it
was for past generations when these rights were enshrined in the
terms of union by which Newfoundland became the 10th province
of Canada in 1949.
It seems that it is a day to quote great Americans so let me quote
a great American leader, Martin Luther King Junior, when he said
that ``injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere''. We can
take that point and expand on it. We can say ``a threat to minority
rights anywhere in Canada is a threat to minority rights everywhere
in Canada''. That is exactly what is at issue for me, having
researched this issue as carefully as I could and having tried to
listen to all points of view on this.
As a Canadian and as a member of Parliament that is exactly
what we are discussing. There is no way that I can support the
removal of minority rights anywhere in Canada without the consent
of that minority first.
Several colleagues have made reference to the fact that
education was very carefully protected by section 93 in the original
British North America Act, 1867 and was again protected in the
Constitution Act, 1982 and in the 1949 terms of union by which
Newfoundland became the 10th province. Anyone who does even a
cursory reading of the political history of this country will know
6991
that there has been no more divisive issue than education, whether
it is in your own province of Manitoba, Mr. Speaker, whether it is
in Ontario or in Quebec. Anyone who has any knowledge of our
political history will know that is the case.
Indeed, my colleague from St. Boniface gave a very eloquent
explanation about the threats to minority rights that this action
represents. Many members feel that is not the case, it is strictly a
Newfoundland issue. I am not reassured by those members and I
certainly do not share that view.
It is fairly straightforward for me. The history of this nation was
founded on a respect for minority rights: linguistic rights, language
rights and racial rights. It is a history of which we can be proud.
The future of this nation will be founded on respect for minority
rights or that future will be greatly imperilled.
(1805 )
The Reform member for Delta gave a very good explanation of
the severity of the Manitoba example where in the 1890s Prime
Minister Laurier faced the Manitoba school crisis. I can tell him
that I drew that very concern to the Liberal caucus privately a long
time ago now when I stated that I did not think we needed another
schools crisis 100 years after the Manitoba school crisis. Would it
not be a pity if this were passed lightly, and we would look back
and rue the day that we had launched another schools crisis, this
time in the province of Newfoundland?
As I said earlier, those who would draw the Senate into this are
exhibiting very specious logic. It is simply irrelevant. Whether the
Senate belongs as a part of our system, whether it should be elected
or abolished, the point is this: in this case the Senate did its job.
The appointed Senate, which is what we have in Canada, did its
job. It said to the House of Commons: ``You have acted
precipitously. You'd better consider that these minority rights are
not being protected by your actions''. It was very important that the
Senate did that. This House should do no less.
I repeat that a threat to minority rights anywhere in Canada is a
threat to minority rights everywhere in Canada, and that is simply
something I cannot countenance. I support the idea of inserting the
phrase ``where numbers warrant''. That would allow the
educational reform which is badly needed in Newfoundland and
Labrador to take place. It will also protect minority rights in a way
in which they are not now protected.
I am from Ontario although perhaps I have a little extra interest
in this issue since my maternal grandfather was a Newfoundlander,
but I certainly do not claim to be a Newfoundlander. However, this
is much more than a Newfoundland issue. It is a national issue, an
issue of justice, an issue of minority rights.
Many colleagues have made reference to Senator Kirby who is a
Newfoundlander. His family is a prominent Newfoundland family.
He has made several very good points, some of which I would like
to quote: ``Therefore I reject the claim that the desired reform of
the Newfoundland school system can only be achieved through a
constitutional amendment. Indeed, the evidence suggests clearly
that almost everything that is needed to reform the school system
can be achieved without a constitutional amendment''. That is also
my feeling.
Either we shelve this issue and send it back to Newfoundland to
solve with a made in Newfoundland solution, or now that it has
come back to this House I will, and I hope I will be joined by a
majority of my colleagues in this House, on careful reflection
support the idea of inserting the words ``where numbers warrant''.
This would allow for the needed educational reform and would still
protect minority rights.
Mr. John Cummins (Delta, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank
the member for London-Middlesex for his speech. As he knows,
no one should be more grateful for the opportunity to correct the
mistake we made when we passed this bill last summer than the
Minister of Justice.
On May 31 in addressing this motion the justice minister said:
``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''.
The justice minister seems to be suggesting that after passing the
amendments to this motion there will still be a constitutional
entitlement where numbers warrant. There seems to be a
contradiction between the position of the government and the
reality as we see it.
Could my friend from London-Middlesex comment on that and
on whether the government has somehow misjudged the effects of
the bill?
(1810 )
Mr. O'Brien (London-Middlesex): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate
the comments and the question from my colleague from Delta.
First, I believe that all hon. members, certainly including my
colleague the Minister of Justice, are weighing the issue very
6992
carefully and that a free vote will be in their best judgment and
following their conscience. I am certainly doing that and I believe
all other members are doing the same.
My colleague from Delta has raised a very good point. Indeed in
the minister's speech the words ``where numbers warrant'' as he
has quoted are in there. I am not sure whether the justice minister
was operating under the belief that was the intent, but it certainly
does go along with the statement distributed by the Government of
Newfoundland before the referendum in a householder sent to all
the people of Newfoundland which had the exact same phrase
``where numbers warrant''.
My hon. colleagues from Delta and for St. Boniface, in citing the
Newfoundland flyer, have raised very good arguments for
supporting this amendment. I believe there should be no fear in
supporting the inclusion of ``where numbers warrant'' in this
motion.
[Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
following on my earlier comments, I have a question for the
member for London-Middlesex.
Can he once again explain his point of view in this House? Why
does he feel that the resolution before us infringes the
constitutional rights of a class of persons in the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador?
I give notice immediately of a supplementary question, but it
will be for the member for Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte when
he speaks. I will ask him why he takes the opposite view, that the
resolution before us does not affect the constitutional rights of a
class of persons in the Province of Newfoundland. That will
perhaps further the debate.
[English]
Mr. O'Brien (London-Middlesex): Mr. Speaker, I am the
person who is answering the questions. I will not respond for my
colleague from Newfoundland who was just mentioned. I think all
hon. members are searching their consciences and doing what they
think is best for Newfoundland and, I emphasize, for all of Canada.
All of Canada is involved in this decision because of the precedent
nature of what is being done.
Why do I feel that the amendment to term 17 threatens minority
rights? For me, Mr. Speaker, it is as plain as the nose on your face.
In 1949 the people of Newfoundland were convinced to join
Canada, in part because of a guarantee of denominational schools
in term 17. That minority down to this very generation has never
willingly accepted the removal of that constitutional guarantee. To
remove it against their will is extremely dangerous, is an injustice,
and is something I cannot countenance. I hope it is something the
House will not countenance.
Mr. Dan McTeague (Ontario, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be very
brief. I want to ask a question of the member for
London-Middlesex. Subject to what the member for Delta has
just said, he did not go on to make the real point that I thought
might have been missing here and might be a linchpin in
supporting the amendment of the member for
Broadview-Greenwood.
The minister's statement of May 31 that: ``denominational
schools may be created where numbers warrant and the parents
choose that for their children''. He then went on to state: ``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''.
I believe the Minister of Justice may have been of the view that
the province of Newfoundland was about to enact something to
protect minority rights and therefore the Minister of Justice gave
his tacit approval. Given that there may be this kind of confusion,
does the hon. member not then believe that there is a possibility
that maybe the House, including the government, will come to the
belief that the protection of minority rights is important?
Mr. O'Brien (London-Middlesex): Mr. Speaker, it is just a
few minutes ago that these words of the Minister of Justice have
come to my attention. I regard them very seriously, as I know all
my colleagues do.
(1815)
I share the views of my colleague from the riding of Ontario. It
may well be that the Minister of Justice and the government were
operating under an understanding which was based on the written
statements of the Government of Newfoundland distributed to the
people of Newfoundland in a householder which included the
words ``where numbers warrant''. It seems logical to me that we
might expect that is the intention of the Government of
Newfoundland. If indeed that is the case, then the House did err last
June in what it passed and we now have an opportunity which we
must not let pass to correct that wrong.
Mr. Gerry Byrne (Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is certainly a lively debate. It is very refreshing and
interesting to have members of the same party debating an issue. It
shows that the House of Commons is alive and vibrant and that the
Liberal government does not take anything verbatim. It debates it
internally and then puts motions on the floor to iron out good
policy which is effective and in the best interests of all Canadians.
We are talking about term 17 which concerns denominational
education in Newfoundland schools. I want to say first and
foremost that I do not take any particular pleasure in standing and
saying that change is necessary. Change means that we have to take
a second look at how we do things.
I want to say to all Canadians that what we are doing here is in
the best interests of all citizens. We are acting in the best interests
6993
of citizens who want to be full partners in Canada and who want to
participate in an education system which is first class, which
promotes excellence and the spiritual values which they want to
keep.
We are debating a particular clause in the term 17 amendment
which has been put forward: ``where numbers warrant''.
I am a member of Parliament from Newfoundland. I would like
to interject a bit of my own personal experience with the
Newfoundland school system and the excellence which it
promotes. Hon. members who have mentioned it this afternoon are
quite right that Newfoundland has an education system and a desire
to educate its young people which is probably above and beyond
any other in the country.
We appreciate the value and the importance of a strong
educational system. We also appreciate the fact that we have to
make the system better. We are not prepared to put any young
Newfoundlanders or Labradorians in harm's way while we go
about that task.
We now find ourselves in a situation which will improve the
educational system for our province. We are debating a particular
section of an amendment which states ``where numbers warrant''.
Let us talk about where numbers warrant.
Newfoundland has approximately 750 communities throughout
the entire province, the majority of which have a population of
approximately 350 to 500. Newfoundland has as part of its terms of
union with Canada a section which says that denominational
education is extremely important and that it will be respected. It is
a value which Newfoundlanders share.
I return to ``where numbers warrant''. Here is a critical
difference in what hon. members would propose versus what I
would inform them. We are going to respect religious education in
Newfoundland and Labrador. However, if we were to establish a
religious school in every community of Newfoundland and
Labrador, in all 750 communities, we would have to take into
account about 15 established religions. There are a lot more
religions with fewer members. I suggest they may be in the
minority. There are no religious denominations which are in the
minority in Newfoundland and Labrador because every educational
institution, every elementary or high school is a religious school, a
denominational school. There are no non-denominational schools
in Newfoundland and Labrador right now. Everybody who goes to
school in Newfoundland and Labrador right now goes to a religious
school.
(1820)
That means there are people in Newfoundland and Labrador who
profess a particular faith but because the school in their community
is not of their faith, they are not receiving any religious instruction
whatsoever in their faith. They are receiving generic religious
instruction.
The hon. members who are presenting this amendment are
prepared to say ``where numbers warrant''. Given the fact that we
are entrenching religious rights in education where numbers
warrant, if there is one person of a particular religious affiliation
who is living in a province where religious schools, not religious
education but religious schools are entrenched for everybody, it
means they are proposing that a community of 350 people with 15
different religions should have 15 different schools. I think
everybody in Canada realizes that there cannot be 15 schools with
15 principals and at least 15 teachers located in one community of
350 people, a community not unlike where I lived. It would create
an absolutely uncontrollable financial burden.
We are talking about minority rights. It must be pointed out that
everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador has to go to a
denominational school whether or not they are part of that
denomination because it is that denomination which established a
school in their community. Whether they are Anglican or
Pentecostal they have to go to that school, otherwise they will not
be educated.
No one in this debate has talked about the students who have
slipped through the cracks, the students who do not receive
religious instruction in the faith of their choice. Nobody in the
House has talked about the 50 per cent of Pentecostal students in
Newfoundland and Labrador who, because they live in a
community where there is no Pentecostal school, do not receive
religious instruction taught by a member of their own faith. They
receive the generic religious instruction.
A very pragmatic compromise has been reached which says that
Newfoundlanders value religious education. We value religious
instruction. A compromise has been reached that unlike today, in
every school in Newfoundland and Labrador the students will be
able to receive religious instruction from a teacher of the faith of
their choice.
That is not the way it is today. If by fate of geography a student
happens to live in a community where there is no majority of
students who are members of a particular faith, as a minority in that
community no religious instruction is received in the faith of the
student's choice. The student would have to go to the religious
school where another faith is being taught, sit there and take it in.
(1825 )
However the Newfoundland government has decided through
consultation with the people that religious education is a value and
a right worth preserving. That is exactly what it has done.
We have heard from some hon. members that it is a time tested
philosophy that where numbers warrant we will be able to
6994
establish denominational schools. And I separate denominational
schools from religious education. Under the current motion which
is before this House, religious education is preserved. What we say
we do not need is religious schools per se where we establish seven
or eight different institutions in one community to accomplish the
same goal, educating our young people.
Not one member in this House has absorbed the fact that it
comes with a significant financial burden. How does a province
like Newfoundland deal with that financial burden? How does a
province like Newfoundland which through the deliberations of
hon. members in this House has to deal with the fact that cash
transfers to the provinces are being reduced? It would probably
cost about $300 million to establish schools in every community. It
will be the Newfoundland government which pays that price.
A better solution is before us. It is a solution which takes into
consideration the rights and the opportunities of all students in
Newfoundland and Labrador to be instructed by instructors in the
same religious faith as they profess, unlike today.
This issue has been held up in the other place for quite some
time. It has been held up while a proposal has been put forward to
make sure that French education is established in the new school
system. However, as long as we debate this, we will not be able to
enact the rights of French students to have instruction in the
language of their choice because we are still hung up on and
debating the fact that minorities are being hard done by. There are
no minorities in Newfoundland. Everybody in Newfoundland and
Labrador currently attends a denominational school, whether or not
they are a member of that denomination.
No member in this House has spoken up and asked: What about
the people who are not members of this particular denomination?
How will they receive religious instruction in the future? Will they
have to sit there and not participate in religious instruction of their
choice as is currently going on? They are not talking about how
much it is going to cost to establish a school in every community of
the province. They are saying that they do not think the
Newfoundland people have really thought this out, so they are
going to think for them. I have not seen such an insulting point of
view expressed in a long time in responsible government.
We have decided this issue. Look at the balance on how we
decided this issue. We have looked at it from the point of view of
the individual. We have looked at it from the point of view of all
students. In the original terms of agreement when Newfoundland
and Labrador joined Canada, we said that as a value our province
respected religious education, not necessarily religious schools, but
religious education. We do not really subscribe to the fact that we
establish an institution. The denomination is what is important.
The religious faith is what is important.
Under the current system every student in Newfoundland and
Labrador will receive instruction in the denomination of their
choice. That is sound public policy. That is respecting the rights of
the individual. That is good government.
Unfortunately my time is up. In deciding on this issue, members
should bear in mind that we have had a very good discussion. Good
ideas have come forward and we are prepared to move on to be
proud, dignified members of the Canadian Confederation. We will
do so respecting the rights of individuals and respecting fiscal
responsibility.
(1830)
The Deputy Speaker: There are actually 10 minutes left for
questions or comments. Perhaps if the member is here next time
when the matter resumes we can have questions or comments then.
_____________________________________________
6994
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed
to have been moved.
Mr. Derek Wells (South Shore, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
questions are for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food
concerning the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.
As I have explained to this House on many occasions, there are
more seafood processors in my South Shore riding than in any
other riding in Canada. I am advised by organizations representing
these companies as well as the organization representing members
from the federal constituency of South West Nova that there has
been no consultation on Bill C-60 in my constituency, and this
concerns me greatly.
Whereas I understand that discussions have been held with the
Fisheries Council of Canada, please be assured that this
organization is only one of several industry organizations
representing Nova Scotia seafood processors.
Consequently, I am asking the minister to give assurances that
the small and medium size processing companies be given an
opportunity to provide input before the legislation becomes law.
Seafood producers have brought three other important issues to
my attention in recent weeks: increased distancing between
industry and government, uncertainties associated with fee setting
and service delivery, and privatization of services.
6995
The seafood industry in my riding perceives that the new
agency, as proposed in legislation, will add more distance between
the policy makers, regulators and industry itself. For the record,
it is important to understand why industry is raising the issue now.
Let me explain.
The decision to move DFO inspection headquarters from Halifax
to Moncton for the maritimes region was seen by Nova Scotia
processors as counterproductive with respect to servicing industry.
It is difficult to understand why a division as vital to industry as the
inspection directorate was moved out of the province and further
distanced from the focal point of processing activity in Atlantic
Canada.
Processors now fear that the new legislation which creates an
advisory board to advise and report to the minister responsible for
the Canadian Food Inspection Agency will result in further
distancing between the seafood industry and government. It is
believed that the advisory board will be a blue ribbon panel
comprised of executives from the largest corporations from each of
the sectors reporting to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. I
must advise the minister that it is imperative to broaden
representation.
With respect to fees, the seafood industry is concerned that fee
setting for inspection services remains the exclusive domain of
government. It foresee that fees could be increased and new fees
added without any procedure to control or audit this process.
Industry is asking to incorporate into the legislation a mechanism
which ensures fees are discussed with industry in advance of
implementation. It would also like to see a procedure which
provides for independent review and audit of the inspection agency
activities.
A suggestion which merits consideration is to look at Iceland as
a model. I understand that many inspection services are delivered
by the private sector but the national government observes the
system through routine auditing and reporting. I believe Canada,
like Iceland, has a vested interest in ensuring that business is not
restricted or held hostage by single service providers.
I would recommend therefore that the legislation be amended
with provisions to give the seafood industry a reasonable level of
assurance that partnership agreements will be considered only if
businesses will not be disadvantaged on the basis of size or ability
to pay.
Hon. Fernand Robichaud (Secretary of State (Agriculture
and Agri-Food, Fisheries and Oceans), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to respond to the concerns raised by some members of
the seafood industry about the possible loss of expertise and
advocacy for seafood at the federal level once the Canadian Food
Inspection Agency is created.
Clearly it is very much this expertise that underscores the safety
and trade ability of Canadian fish and fish products. We export
over 80 per cent of our fish products today. Our exports are worth
about $3 billion a year and are in large part directly supported by
the system and expertise in the fish inspection area.
[Translation]
Expertise, professional experience and advocacy for sea food
must continue and will continue to be an integral part of the agency.
Our departmental staff is trying to determine the best way to have
access to these skills during the transition period prior to
establishing the Food Inspection Agency and also in the longer
term.
[English]
I expect the agency will work over the first year to develop the
optimal organization for the future which will best serve industry
and the public. Service to and interests of the seafood industry will
be paramount in this process.
I would also like to confirm the minister of agriculture's
intention to have strong representation of the fisheries sector on the
ministerial advisory board of the agency.
[Translation]
We have been consulting industry groups on a permanent basis
during this past year. We will continue to do so when the agency is
ready to become operational.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: A motion to adjourn the House is now
deemed to have been adopted. The House stands adjourned until10 a.m. tomorrow.
(The House adjourned at 6.36 p.m.)