Tony Ianno

[Housing, March 5th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for housing.

Social housing is important to thousands of Canadians. In Ontario the Harris government plans to pass responsibility for housing down to the municipalities. This has left many families living with fear and insecurity.

What assurance could the minister give residents of social housing in Ontario that the Government of Canada will not abandon them and that they will continue to have the access to affordable homes they deserve? Will the minister put their fears to rest?

[Petitions, February 12th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present three petitions on behalf of many of my constituents in Trinity-Spadina. The petitioners, Voice of Positive Women and AIDS Committee of Toronto, call upon the Government of Canada to ensure dedicated AIDS funding at least at current levels beyond March 1998 and to renew the national AIDS strategy.

On behalf of my constituents I humbly submit these petitions with my full support.

[Canada Elections Act, June 11th, 1996]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-301, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act.

Mr. Speaker, this private member's bill introduces the opportunity for Elections Canada to create a permanent voters list which I think will enhance the opportunities of saving money and also create the opportunity to reduce the potential time period for the general elections.

In today's age of computerization and the different levels of government, municipal, provincial and federal, that have the opportunity of having the information in their systems already, I think it will enhance the accuracy and ability to use it and reduce the cost for all concerned.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

[Portugal Week, June 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, this week across the country Canadians of Portuguese origin have hosted Portugal Week, a festival of celebration and cheer.

The highlight of this week is today, June 10, the Portuguese National Day, a celebration of many accomplishments of the Portuguese-Canadian community. This day has historic significance as well, for it is the anniversary of the death of the great Portuguese poet Luis Vaz de Camoes.

In my riding of Trinity-Spadina this week's festivities are organized by the Alliance of Portuguese Clubs and Associations of Ontario. Among the events scheduled are a soccer tournament, an art exhibit, a parade, as well as numerous concerts featuring internationally recognized Portuguese entertainers.

I salute Canadians of Portuguese origin in my riding for their contribution to the cultural life of Toronto and Canada during this day of celebration.

[The Constitution, June 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I guess we have a framework that was agreed to by the minority, the Roman Catholic Church, the Pentecostal and the Seventh Day Adventists.

As stated on April 24, 1996 by the minister of education, my understanding is that it is the beginning of a framework. Somewhere down the line the Anglican bishop withdrew his support, according to some of the advocates of this amendment.

Nine or ten points have been agreed to, especially the parts concerning money. As I mentioned earlier, we are discussing a savings potential of $25 million which can go back into the educational system in Newfoundland to better educate our children. I agree with that.

People refer to high illiteracy in Newfoundland. When we take into account a budget of $600 million and the reason for the high illiteracy referred to by some advocates, $25 million should have been spent long ago to ensure that illiteracy was not a concern.

Recently the minister of education stated that the difference between Newfoundland and the rest of the country in terms of the educational system was really a myth in the minds of many. He also stated that in terms of the higher levels of education Newfoundland universities and colleges were doing extremely well.

[The Constitution, June 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. I will try to answer it by talking about minority rights. As an individual I supported constitutional changes. I supported the Meech Lake and the Charlottetown accords. More recently in the House I supported distinct society and the veto. Because of minority rights I also supported something that was not in the Constitution, a human rights amendment, Bill C-33.

It is consistent with what I said earlier to the hon. member. Whether a referendum or a legislature, if the majority is speaking, it has to be taken into account, especially when minority rights are enshrined in the Constitution of the land, to ensure that somehow or other minority rights are not left out of the equation.

[The Constitution, June 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I respect the hon. member who is from Newfoundland. I know she has often supplied wise counsel.

When we are talking about minority and majority we have a breakdown in which 51.7 per cent of interdenominational schools are Anglican, Salvation Army and Presbyterian. They are working together and have been for years. The Catholic population is 37 per cent and constitute 41.5 per cent of the student population. The Pentecostal population is 7.1 per cent and constitute 7.3 per cent of the student population, and 0.1 per cent of the population are Seventh Day Adventists.

If the numbers are added up, 44 per cent of Newfoundland's population negotiated in 1949 to ensure that the majority would not in any way change the agreement. After years-some have said since 1700-the same education system has existed. However, the concern, the reason for the negotiated settlement on why Newfoundland would come into Confederation impinged on the agreement and the ability for this right that minorities would not lose their rights within the educational system.

Taking that into account, it is 95 per cent taking in seven educational systems. However, the minority, the three of them are voting against it. What we have here is the opportunity to work with the minority, to get its agreement. We have a framework already. If it agrees to the change, we will send that agreement to the Supreme Court to ensure it cannot be cast aside if the minority agrees to it. At that point we have a very solid foundation to reform the education system to ensure that our children in Newfoundland do much better than anywhere else in the country.

Some $600 million is the budget for the school system in Newfoundland and the savings proposed by this amendment is $25 million. With the framework set forth, the single busing, the construction board and the consolidation from 27 to 10 school boards will easily save $15 million. We are talking about a difference of $10 million.

On that basis it is well worth spending money to ensure minority rights are maintained.

[The Constitution, June 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak about the implications of amending Canada's Constitution at the request of Newfoundland's legislature.

I would like to thank the Prime Minister for allowing a free vote on this vital issue. I respect that most of my colleagues from this side of the House do not see this resolution as I do.

In my view, this initiative has implications for all Canadians. The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has initiated this proposed amendment in order to improve the quality of education in the province by maximizing the effectiveness of the use of taxpayers' dollars. This is a goal we all respect.

This issue also has deep implications regarding the rights of minorities. There is no question that education is a matter of provincial jurisdiction. Education was just as much a matter of provincial jurisdiction in 1949 as it is today. Nonetheless it was included in the Constitution at the time.

Changing the Constitution is very much a part of federal jurisdiction and respect for the rights of minorities is one of the federal government's responsibilities. What we are talking and voting about today is not just education, but changing the Constitution and not just any provision in the Constitution.

The constitutional provision securing the preservation of educational rights for religious minorities was a very specific and important condition with Newfoundland and Labrador joining Confederation. Entrenching educational rights was the underlying basis under which many voted in favour of joining Canada. It is not a provision that should be lightly cast aside.

As elected parliamentarians, we have respect for the people's will. When the people of a province indicate their desire through their provincial legislature or a referendum, what is the responsibility of the Parliament of Canada?

Some would argue that to vote against a change that has been approved in a referendum and by a provincial legislature impedes the will of the majority. Sometimes a constitution requires it. Indeed, the purpose of a constitution is to circumscribe the ability of a majority to impose its will.

Due to the Constitution, my parents who are immigrants to this country, have the same rights as my children who are eighth generation Canadians. Their rights are not determined by the will of a government when it suits them.

The Constitution of Canada clearly states the conscience of our nation. Each individual's rights and freedoms are clearly spelled out. It is not something that is easily constructed and it should not be something that is easily changed.

Some would say that the provision we are discussing tonight affects only Newfoundland and Labrador. Since a majority of that province's legislators and its electors support it, it should be approved. One of the prime purposes of a Constitution is to secure the rights of minorities. The rights of minorities in any part of the country are important to Canadians in all parts of the country.

That is why this is not just a question of law. It is a question of fairness. Legally Parliament has the right, with the legislature of Newfoundland and Labrador, to implement this change. But fairness demands that we seek to maintain the respect for minorities that was the basis for Newfoundland and Labrador joining Confederation and the basis for all Canadians choosing to be part of this country.

When we are dealing with minority rights it is difficult to say we are not diminishing those rights when we change them over their objections. If we were to ask the minorities and they agreed to relinquish their enshrined rights, then that is another consideration.

This is not the case today in Newfoundland. It is easy to see why. The impact on religious minorities can be considerable. In Newfoundland, the Protestant population is more than 51 per cent. Other groups are less likely, based on their numbers, to warrant a school in their community. Busing will not necessarily be provided to the school of the parents' choice. The parents of Roman Catholic or Pentecostal or Seventh Day Adventists children may be left with a stark choice: send their children to an interdenominational school or pay to send them to a unidenominational school out of town. How then do we maintain respect for minority rights when some may be able to afford to do this and others may not?

While making this possible for the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to pursue the educational policies it believes are right for the people that province, the answer I believe can be found in the statement issued April 18, 1996 by the province's minister of education, Roger Grimes. In it he stated that "a framework agreement has been reached after extensive discussions between department officials and denominational educational councils to consolidate 27 boards into 10 and to establish a single provincial construction board".

This statement, issued just six weeks ago, stated that the agreement in principle would allow the new school year to commence with reforms in place. The government had complete authority over all matters, and has, relating to curriculum, sex materials, number of teachers, funding, teacher education, performance standards and so on.

I recommend that the Newfoundland government go back and start with this agreement in principle and build on the progress that has been made.

It is important for all members to consider what will happen when other premiers request that we proceed with amendments. Will the same principle apply? Or will we recognize here and now that a majority must respect the rights of the minority, referenda notwithstanding?

I believe a Constitution is where Canadians, regardless if they are part of a majority or a minority, can feel safe that the rule of law and their constitutional rights will be respected. Regarding reforming or modernizing the school system in Newfoundland, everyone agrees. Could this reform not be achieved without a constitutional amendment? It is ironic that the concerns of those who help complete Canada in 1949 are being ignored.

As the minister stated that the involvement of churches in making administrative and economic decisions in the education system of Newfoundland have been a matter of controversy for generations, I agree. This also was the case before the terms of union were signed in 1949. Precisely for this reason were these rights enshrined in the British North America Act of 1867. It was based on the understanding that Parliament would guarantee that the legislature would not change the terms at its convenience.

Given that it took two referenda to bring Newfoundland and Labrador into Confederation with 51 per cent of the vote, it is obvious how important this guarantee was. Now the discussions between the Newfoundland department of education and all denominational groups have resulted in a solid framework for reform, including the establishment, as I said earlier, of the interim school boards in preparation for the consolidation of school boards from 27 to 10, a single construction board and a single busing system ready to be implemented for September 1, 1996.

If it is a question of someone challenging this agreement, we could send it to the Supreme Court and ask it for an immediate ruling to see what the consequences of this move would be.

These agreements provide the basis for reforming the school system while respecting the rights of minorities. We should demonstrate a decent respect for the resolution passed by the provincial legislature, but Parliament's role is not simply to act as a rubber stamp. It is our responsibility to form an independent judgment.

We are at a crossroads in our history. Last October a premier tried to impugn a group of Canadians who did not agree with him. He blamed them for the loss and repudiation of what he saw as his divine right. That is not what Canada is about. We cannot take lightly our Constitution which dictates our rule of law and we cannot ignore the rights of minorities. That is one of the reasons we have a Constitution.

It is important that we send out a clear and concise message that the Canadian government is consistent in its dealings and that the integrity of the Canadian Constitution is not questioned.

[Supply, April 23rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am also voting with the government on this amendment.

[Supply, April 23rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, one makes a choice as head of government on how to deal with human rights. I believe that the Prime Minister has chosen the right vehicle.

Isolation does not accomplish the shared values that we can bring from our perspective to many peoples. Let us take China as a prime example. I believe that by increasing interaction with the Chinese and with our shared education, business and the other values that we are able to share with one another, we see that they start to get a sense of what Canada is all about and the values we have as Canadians.

I can give an example. On Saturday I met with 40 Chinese visitors that are in the union movement. They had taken a course in Canada and met with many trade unionists. They had learned a great deal in a short period of time. When I sat with them they said basically what they saw in Canada was tolerance and respect for one another. I asked: "How do you see that helping you in China?" The response was: "What we saw was the partnership that occurred within Canada between labour, business and government somehow produced a sharing of goals, ideals and of course, economic value". They realize that if those in China who are working for very low wages could improve their plight, somehow or other by showing it from the perspective of a partnership and how their enterprises would benefit by everyone sharing in the pie, they would accomplish their goal.

When we hear of that kind of example, and we would not have dreamed of the Chinese having union movements considering what we hear, there is hope. As long as we continue to interact and share values, ideas, education, et cetera, there will be improvement, especially when we take into account the new global economy and satellite communication. It is very difficult to consider southern China as being isolated when we take into account the fact that it receives TV signals from Hong Kong and other places. The Chinese are beginning to see how the rest of the world lives.

Sharing is what will accomplish the goal of achieving a freer society. It will also provide an opportunity for us to work toward the end of discrimination against people anywhere in the world. I strongly believe that by communication we will be able to achieve our goal.