Norman E. Doyle

[Immigration, March 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of immigration.

The minister's advisory group did indeed make a recommendation that all future immigrants coming to Canada speak either English or French. That recommendation has come about because of the costs incurred by the provinces in providing language training to immigrant families.

Will the minister agree today to advance the necessary funds to the provinces to provide that language training and eliminate the recommendation that immigrants speak either English or French before coming to Canada?

[Fisheries, February 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. The minister is undoubtedly aware of the comment he made which was carried in the Ottawa Sun on February 15. I will quote it for him “My primary responsibility is not to fishermen to catch fish. My primary responsibility is to fish itself”.

Has this become the attitude and the official policy of the federal government with regard to our fishermen, that the federal government is no longer responsible or concerned about how fishermen earn a living?

[Canada Shipping Act, February 19th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I think the record will show that I was here for the vote. My vote has been recorded. I just left to go out into the hallway afterward.

[Employment, February 18th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated many times in the House, unemployment is Newfoundland's biggest problem. Therefore I believe government should not be shocked if I say I was outraged when I learned that Newfoundland has taken the biggest percentage hit in federal job losses.

On March 31, 1995 Newfoundland had 6,440 federal employees. As of June past we have 4,836 federal employees, for a loss of 24.9%. That compares with the 18.4% loss in Atlantic Canada and the 14.6% loss nationwide. I am told that Newfoundland will have lost nearly 30% of its federal employees by the end of March 1998. By the end of the fiscal year the province with double the national unemployment rate will have taken double the national rate of federal job losses.

The government came to power on a promise of jobs, jobs, jobs. What has that cost Newfoundland? Jobs, jobs, jobs.

[Newfoundland School System, February 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, latest statistics show that the Newfoundland school system is facing a sharply declining enrolment. Total enrolment this year is down by 4,597 students or 4.3%. This enrolment drop is largely related to out migration of families with children, families in which parents have left home to find work elsewhere in Canada.

After nearly 50 years in Confederation my province still has an unemployment rate more than double the national average. That out migration is currently at 9,200 people per year and is continually going up. As a result, whole communities have been decimated leaving only seniors in many areas.

A very distinct society in Newfoundland is in danger of dying. The ability to work elsewhere in the nation is very much appreciated but most Newfoundlanders would like to see the federal government take the lead in solving the problem a little bit closer to home.

[Supply, February 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, let me pursue for a moment the issue of reduced spending. We all support debt reduction as long as there is a balance in the sharing of responsibility with the rest of Canada.

As I said a few moments ago, we badly need a better recognition of the disparity that exists between Atlantic Canadians and the rest of Canada. I feel strongly that have not provinces need a better deal on equalization. I can support as can a lot of Atlantic Canadians an increase in spending as long as it is directed to the right areas. One area would be a better deal on the equalization formula.

I wish I had more time to pursue the issue. What is the member's position on correcting that disparity by renegotiating the equalization formula for have not provinces?

[Supply, February 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, when I spoke on the unemployment rate in Newfoundland and Labrador, Reform immediately told me that the smallest violin plays for Atlantic Canada. In other words Atlantic Canada should be cut loose financially from the rest of Canada.

My home province of Newfoundland staggers under an unemployment rate of more than twice the national average. Our net out migration rate is about 9,000 people in Newfoundland and Labrador and we have a population of approximately half a million. Whole communities along the coast of Newfoundland have been decimated with nobody left in some of these communities but pensioners and families on social assistance. There are areas where I would support an increase in spending.

The have not provinces are in the position of where every dollar that is raised in resource revenues is clawed back practically dollar for dollar from our equalization payments. Therefore, I could support a renegotiation of the equalization entitlements for the have not provinces.

I would point out to the Reform Party that in balancing the national budget Canada eliminated about 15% of its federal public service. In Newfoundland before that process is finished we will have eliminated roughly about 30%. I agree that we should have balance in spending but—

[The Late Senator Gerald Ottenheimer, February 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the late Senator Gerald Ottenheimer, a proud Newfoundlander and a great Canadian.

In 1966 a Cambridge educated young lawyer named Gerald Ottenheimer was one of three PCs elected to the Newfoundland House of Assembly during the Joey Smallwood electoral sweep. He went on to become party leader. He later served with distinction in the cabinets of Premiers Frank Moores and Brian Peckford. He served as Speaker of the Newfoundland House of Assembly. He was elected Chairman of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and was a member of the Francophone Parliamentary Association.

Appointed to the Senate of Canada in January of 1988, Gerry went on to become Deputy Speaker of the Senate. Unfortunately he succumbed to cancer in January of this year.

My colleagues, the hon. members for Burin—St. George's and St. John's West, and I who served with him in cabinet salute the late Gerry Ottenheimer, scholar, lawyer, linguistic and, above all, a parliamentarian who will be sadly missed.

[Amendment To The Constitution Of Canada (Newfoundland), December 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am not absolutely sure if I understand what the hon. member is getting at, nor do I think anyone else understands it.

It was made perfectly clear to all of us at that committee meeting that these two very distinguished gentlemen, Professor Malcolmson I believe and Professor Fleming, that the provisions of the new term 17 were subject to the scrutiny of the charter of rights and freedoms. It would have been very appropriate on some of these questions that the member and other members are asking if this court case had been settled and allowed to go ahead and a decision brought down before we proceeded with what we are doing here today.

The Pentecostal Assemblies he makes reference to were given constitutional protection back in 1987. There is no dispute regarding the fact that their rights are protected under the Constitution of Canada. Once this amendment goes ahead, they certainly will not protected. All members are fully aware that what we have now is not subject to the scrutiny of the charter. Any new amendment, such as the one today, will be subject to the charter of rights and freedoms.

I do not have any great legal background. I am only speaking after what people such as Malcolmson and Fleming had to say on this particular subject. They made it perfectly clear that it will be subject to the charter.

[Amendment To The Constitution Of Canada (Newfoundland), December 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, today I will be sharing my time with the very distinguished member from the great and historic riding of Saint John, New Brunswick.

I am standing here for the final time to state my opposition to what the House is doing before we take the vote tomorrow evening on the proposed amendment to term 17, which is going to wipe out forever our province's denominational schools. The right to those schools is held by the various faith groups, as we are all aware, and there has been absolutely no attempt to get the permission of these groups before we forge ahead with what we are doing.

Instead, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador held a general referendum wherein the rights of the minority were subject to the will of the majority. Ultimately the courts will decide on the legitimacy of taking away a minority right without the demonstrated consent of the minority. Such a case is currently before the courts.

I should remind the House that the supreme court did rule on the consensus required to amend the constitution back in Prime Minister Trudeau's day. However, it remains to be seen if the court will rule on the scope and nature of the consensus required to wipe out a minority right. Yet we are plunging ahead today anyway.

As we are all aware, the school system in Newfoundland, the Christian based schooling of Newfoundlanders, will be a thing of the past when this amendment passes. Religious instruction will be replaced with courses about religion and I, as one citizen, do not regard that as progress or reform.

A week or so ago I had the opportunity to serve on the joint Senate-House of Commons committee that was holding hearings on the proposed amendment to term 17. The MP for Burin—St. George's was our regular representative on that committee, but he was travelling in Atlantic Canada with the federal fisheries committee and I had the opportunity to take his place for a while. I would like to share some of the impressions arising from my service on that committee.

There were passionate presentations before the committee from Newfoundlanders who were for and against this amendment. I was around for about 15 or 20 presentations. The Newfoundland-Labrador Teachers Association, the Integrated Education Committee, the Education First group, which I did not hear, all spoke strongly in support of the elimination of the denominational system of education. We heard representatives of the Seventh-Day Adventists, the Pentecostal Assemblies and the catholics who vigorously defended the maintenance of these denominational rights.

At the end of the week the committee received a second visit from Newfoundland's minister of education, Roger Grimes, but I do not feel the minister's second visit was in response to the presentations made by Newfoundlanders. I feel the minister's visit was prompted by testimony from a couple of professors from New Brunswick. I want to elaborate a bit on that.

Professor Donald J. Fleming of the University of New Brunswick, faculty of law, and Dr. Patrick Malcolmson, associate professor of political science from St. Thomas University in Fredericton, had earlier given presentations on the legal implications of the new proposed term 17.

I have no legal background and I have no great legal knowledge. I am repeating what I heard from these gentlemen. The bottom line on those presentations was that our new term 17 will be subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that the term's clauses will be interpreted by the courts in accordance with the provisions of the charter. The original term 17 and the most recent term we had, the Clyde Wells amendment as I like to call it, were exempt from the scrutiny of the charter because of the original Confederation compromise.

In 1867 the Confederation compromise meant a guarantee of catholic minority rights in Ontario and protestant minority rights in Quebec. In Newfoundland that meant a guarantee of denominational rights for a number of Christian denominations at the time of Confederation back in 1949. Because these Confederation rights were established before the charter came into being, the provisions of the charter do not apply to these particular rights. Confederation rights are not subject to the charter of rights and freedoms, and of course we all agree that is why catholic education today survives in an Ontario education system that is otherwise completely secular.

The new term 17 before us today rejects the denominationalism of the original Confederation compromise and is exempt from scrutiny of the charter. Therefore in any future court case provisions in the new term 17 for religious education and observances will be subject to the charter.

Again, I do not have any legal background. I am simply repeating what I have heard these very learned and distinguished gentlemen say.

I repeat that the new term 17 rejects the denominational wisdom of the original Confederation compromise and is not exempt from scrutiny of the charter of rights and freedoms. Therefore in any future court case provisions in the new term 17 for religious education and observances will be subject to the charter of rights and freedoms. In other words, no matter what the intention of the Newfoundland government or the intention of the Newfoundland people, it is the Supreme Court of Canada which will eventually decide the scope and nature of religious education and observances in our new Newfoundland school system. That is why so many people in Newfoundland object to what is going on here.

In his second presentation to the committee the minister of education spoke with passion to the effect that he believed the Newfoundland people did not want a totally secular, godless school system. That is the way he put it. He was back to defend their position. As evidence of that he pointed to the relevant sections of term 17 which provide for courses in religion and religious observances.

The thing we have to remember is that the minister of education spoke as a politician. He did not speak as a lawyer, he did not speak as a supreme court judge, he spoke as a politician. I expected him, on his return visit to the committee, to come backed up with a battery of legal arguments about the relevant sections of term 17 and how these relevant sections could withstand a charter challenge in the courts. However, that was not the case. It was not the case because the Minister of Education could not make these legal arguments to say that the new terms would not be subject to the charter of rights and freedoms.

I have made no secret of the fact that I support denominational rights for the people who want to maintain and exercise those rights. However, assuming that the new term 17 is approved in its present form, as it appears before the House, I am not going to take any great satisfaction from the courts eventually ruling that our new system of education in Newfoundland has to be totally secular. I will not take any great satisfaction from that at all.

I sincerely hope the minister is right and that the courts will allow for some expression of religion in our schools. However, I know what we do have and I am not willing to pin the future spiritual education of our children on a hope. In other words, my short service on the term 17 committee has only strengthened my intention to vote no when this matter finally comes to a vote.

Constitutional law drawn up in the heat of the moment might be good politics for Brian Tobin and—