Michelle Dockrill

[Cape Breton Development Corporation, February 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, in reference to the notice of question given to him this morning I ask the prime minister this. Is there a secret plan in existence to privatize the Cape Breton Development Corporation or, failing that, to shut Devco down, putting another 1,700 Cape Bretoners out of work?

[Criminal Code, December 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, on November 5 I asked the Minister of Natural Resources to table the secret report by the auditor general of his examination of the Cape Breton Development Corporation.

This report would shed light on recent disturbing facts regarding Devco's management of billions of dollars of crown assets.

It is unlikely this House will see the report. The minister appears uninterested in making this agency under his responsibility accountable to the public. In the weeks following his decision to keep the murky dealings of the Devco board from public scrutiny, the special Senate committee investigating Devco found it nearly impossible to make heads or tails of the numbers in Devco's five year plan and other fundamental documents of record.

As a Cape Bretoner, it was embarrassing to see senior officers of one of Cape Breton's most visible institutions being given an accounting lesson by senators. Senators were shocked at how the board signed a letter of intent to hand over Donkin Mine, a crown asset worth billions, to a company with no assets. In what surely will be one of the largest transfers of public assets in years, board members seemingly had less than a day to learn of the chairman's quicksilver negotiations to lock up the deal before they rubber stamped the process as part of a routine Wednesday afternoon meeting.

Senators felt that the handling of this matter with little explanation and no accountability was highly inappropriate. Senator MacDonald, and this is directly from the minutes of the November 18 Senate hearing, said the board sealed this deal using “indecent haste”.

Senator Murray said the letter of intent to dispose of the Donkin billions was based on and I quote, “quite incomplete and flimsy information”. Senator Murray said the board's actions were incredible.

The chairman of Devco told senators he did not consult with anyone about the deal. The minister then told senators that Devco's board has no legal right to either develop the Donkin Mine or to sell it as it belongs to the federal government. But they went ahead and signed a deal to sell without even bothering to pick up the phone and let the minister know he would soon be a few billion dollars lighter.

It was the former Minister of Health who announced that $300,000 in federal funds were being released into DRL bank accounts through a subsidiary of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. Until this federal gift arrived, DRL was unable to meet its responsibilities under the terms and conditions of the contract with Devco, namely, to prepare its plans to develop a mine through the study of data.

I implore the minister to table the auditor general's report on Devco to meet its mandate promoting accountability and best practices in government.

What are Devco and the minister afraid of? Senator Murray is afraid that Devco's letter of intent may have crippled the rights of the federal government to reject the deal or even to set terms and conditions. If so, the terms of this deal have been illegally established because, according to the minister, Devco has no such legal right to do so. I wonder if the deal would even stand up in court at this point without federal government approval.

Just this week, Nova Scotia Power announced it needs to import coal from the U.S. because Devco could not meet its requirements. Nova Scotians are appalled by this need to import coal given our expertise and resources.

There is an absolute mess brewing under the minister's nose. Before this all takes on a whiff of scandal or the stench of government rot, I urge the minister to clear the air by tabling in this House the auditor general's report on the Cape Breton Development Corporation in the name of accountability and for the sake of the integrity of his own department.

[Division No. 63, December 9th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, NDP members will be voting no.

[Division No. 62, December 9th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party will be voting no on this motion.

[Division No. 61, December 9th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, New Democratic Party will be voting yes to this amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, in my speech this morning I tried to allow members of the House of Commons to hear what I heard during the deliberations of the committee. I felt very comfortable with the evidence I heard and, therefore, I recommend the change to term 17.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague. One of the things which I hoped came from my speech this morning was that the educational system of Newfoundland is different and unique. Hopefully, as mentioned by the Bloc member, we will have unanimous consent to recommend this resolution today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I stand in support of the recommendation regarding the proposed amendment to term 17 of the Terms of Union of Newfoundland with Canada, a constitutional amendment, a change to the very foundation of the house of Canada, a house we in this Chamber must build stronger and more magnificent every day.

The special joint committee has studied the question with great care on behalf of Parliament. Today we have the result of that study in the form of the recommendation before us. The committee recommends that we make the changes to term 17 requested by the Newfoundland House of Assembly.

Before I discuss the recommendation I want to say that it was a privilege and an honour to have had the opportunity to be part of the special joint committee considering this issue for the people of Newfoundland and indeed Canada. Coming from Cape Breton I can assure the House that the people of my island and the province of Newfoundland have more in common than geography. Our past and present bind us together in ways which have forged a warm understanding between us. This sentiment accompanied me throughout my committee duties and I wish to say it was a pleasure to serve the people of Newfoundland in this manner.

I would also like to make the point of saying that Canadians should realize that churches have played an instrumental role in the development of this country through an education system which without them would have been feeble and non-existent in many parts of Canada at crucial times in our history. This point is irrefutable and the country will always owe the churches of this country a debt of thanks.

At the time of Confederation the Constitution Act, 1867 gave provinces exclusive jurisdiction over education with two exceptions: the protection of denomination rights existing in law at the time of Confederation and a federal remedial role in protecting denominational education rights.

As each of the next five provinces joined Canada its terms of union either adopted or adapted this approach to education. However, different circumstances in various provinces resulted in only four provinces with denominational education by the time Newfoundland joined Confederation in 1949.

The original term 17 guaranteed a system of education based on religious denomination in that province. Publicly funded schools were operated by several denominations. A non-denominational public school system similar to the systems in other provinces did not exist in Newfoundland.

In 1969 the Anglican, Presbyterian, Salvation Army and United Churches joined to establish one integrated system of schools. A constitutional amendment in 1987 added the Pentecostal Assemblies of Newfoundland as a class with denominational education rights under the term. By 1987 there were four separate denominational school systems in Newfoundland, integrated, Pentecostal, Roman Catholic and Seventh-Day Adventist. These denominations made decisions with respect to the appointment of school board members, the location of schools, the certification and selection of teachers and all other decisions required for the administration of education.

In 1990 the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador appointed the Williams royal commission to study the delivery of educational programs. The commission's final report called for fundamental and substantial reforms of the province's education system. It recommended significant changes to the powers exercised by the denominations with respect to the administration of schools.

Chairman Dr. Len Williams has said that a scarcity of resources kept Newfoundland from establishing a non-denominational school system parallel to the denominational system. For three years following the reports released in 1992, the Government of Newfoundland sought unsuccessfully to reach agreement with the denominations to restructure the school system. Finally, it drafted a new education model for the province that would retain the denominational character of the current system but which would provide the provincial legislature with additional powers to organize and administer education in the province.

The new model was approved by referendum and passed by resolution in the house of assembly. The house of assembly requested that Parliament change term 17 to accommodate the new education model. This was done in 1996. The term, as amended in 1996, ensures that all publicly funded schools are denominational and creates two types of schools, interdenominational schools and schools operated for children of a single denomination.

A conflict arose, however. As the government attempted to implement the new model, it felt that the school board should optimize student educational opportunity while recognizing the constitutional rights of certain denominations to have separate denominational schools. Some denominations felt that the right to uni-denominational schools took precedence over educational opportunity.

The catholic and Pentecostal denominations received an injunction from the Newfoundland supreme court, which agreed that implementing the new model was a violation of their constitutionally guaranteed rights. The court ruled that the 1996 amendment gives precedence to uni-denominational rights over maximizing educational opportunities.

Earlier this year the Government of Newfoundland complied with the ruling and proposed a rewording of term 17, which was approved by referendum with 73% of voters in favour. The Newfoundland House of Assembly then voted unanimously to approve a resolution in favour of the rewording of term 17. The house of assembly has asked Parliament to change term 17 to reflect the new wording. The special joint committee has studied the issue and its report and recommendation are before the House today.

It is clear that complex issues arise from our consideration of the request from the Newfoundland House of Assembly. There are many and often conflicting questions surrounding religion, constitutional rights and responsibility and even the quality of democracy in these events which I have just discussed.

It is our responsibility as parliamentarians to answer these questions well. Nothing less than the aspirations of the people of Newfoundland are at stake in this House today.

The people of Newfoundland are entering the 21st century feeling uncertainty and hope. They realize that excellence in education is key to ensuring that Newfoundland stays in step with a world marching out of this century faster than when it marched in.

The duly elected Government of Newfoundland has proposed changes in education designed to propel it into the next century. Although the bilateral amending formula under section 43 of the Constitution Act, 1982 does not require a referendum to be held in order to make constitutional amendments such as the one before us, the people of Newfoundland were given the opportunity and clearly voted in favour of the measure.

The people of Newfoundland have been trying to improve their education system for a long time. Education reform has been one of the key markers of this decade for Newfoundlanders. It is clear there is a passionate desire in that province to improve its system of education.

Negotiations remained difficult for years following the Williams royal commission and aspirations for improvements by all parties in education were halted. The duly elected government has taken steps it believes will ensure that improvement and necessary efficiencies come about in this area, and they have been approved by popular referendum.

Legitimate questions have been raised about the validity of that referendum. The New Democratic Party believes that constitutional change must be carried out in a way that is open and democratic with meaningful involvement and participation of all Canadians. It must be said that a majority of the population took part in this referendum and a large majority of voters who took part voted in favour of the changes to term 17.

An analysis of the vote provided to the special joint committee showed that a majority of the voters in 47 out of 48 districts voted in favour of the question. This includes districts where the majority of the voters were Roman Catholic. Roman Catholics represent the largest denomination in the province at 37% of the population.

It is true that voter turnout in many districts was less than 50%. However, there is nothing to show that people were prevented from voting. It remains the responsibility and a right of citizens to participate in our precious democracy. It remains the best method of consultation we have.

Some denominational interests that appeared before the committee argued that the referendum question left the impression that unidenominational education courses would be allowed, that the actual text of the proposed resolution was released too late in the referendum process to allow for full debate, that religious denominations opposed to the amendment were denied government funding and that scrutineers were not allowed. They also objected to government funding and advertising in favour of the question.

On the other hand, proponents disagreed on these matters. The Newfoundland elections act does not mandate public funding for the various positions. An expert in the international protection of human rights, international law, constitutional law, civil liberties and anti-discrimination law told the committee that she believed that Newfoundlanders were consulted in the ongoing process of educational reform. These consultations included public hearings, two referendums and an election which in part turned on the government's educational agenda.

The New Democratic Party acknowledges that in Newfoundland there exists a broad consensus in support of the proposals of the government to reform the education system in that province. We are satisfied that knowledge of the wishes of the people of Newfoundland on this question was obtained through the best democratic means available.

The amendment before us gives the provincial legislature exclusive authority to make laws in relation to education but shall provide for courses in religion that are not specific to a religious denomination. Religious observances shall be permitted in a school where requested by parents.

Denominational interests felt the current denominational system could not be adequately replaced by a provincially run system which includes courses not specific to religious denomination. The Pentecostal Assemblies of Newfoundland and the provincial Pentecostal education committee were fearful of what this would do to the role of their religion in the proposed school system. Its representative said: “Traditional arguments favouring a single public system centre on perceived problems of fragmentation and intolerance. What is not considered, however, is the negative impact on children of ignoring throughout their school the most powerful influence in many lives, their religious faith”.

The representative went on to say: “One's religious heritage and faith contributes immensely to one's personal and social identity”.

The Newfoundland minister of education told the committee that while not guaranteed under the proposed new term, there is provision for locally developed religious education courses on to the department of education's current local course policy. Where the school board determines that such a local course would be desirable then there will be locally developed religious education courses geared to a specific denomination and offered in the school.

Others noted that exempting children from religious courses and religious observances, which the courts interpret as including opening exercises, may be considered inconsistent with charter provisions and values. Others stated that the provisions could be implemented in a way that would take into account previous court decisions on these matters.

Thoughtful presentations were made to the committee that minority rights were being sacrificed in favour of the wishes of the majority. The protection of minority rights is an important aspect of our democracy and one which must be cared for with vigilance.

The committee heard from several presenters concerned with this issue, such as the Roman Catholic Education Committee of the Denomination Education Commission. Its representative said the amendment completely eliminates Newfoundland parents' constitutional rights to choose publicly funded denomination or separate schools for their children. They also said that the religious education program referred to in the proposed term is limited to a non-denominational, religiously neutral program like those in public schools in Ontario and elsewhere in Canada. They feel strongly that this is a radical shift from what has been the status quo in Newfoundland for many years.

This is clearly a different issue for reasonable people on both sides of the question.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Human Rights Association told the committee that they are concerned about any effort to take away rights, but there are occasions when the rights of others, including the rights of the majority, demand the removal or curtailment of a right. It felt the process in Newfoundland had been well argued, debated and thought out over a number of years. The association supported the amendment saying “with good faith on all sides we can develop a publicly funded, non-denominational system which includes all people and faiths without special privileges for some churches”.

A representative of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association told the committee that this amendment represents real progress. He said “The state of equality and fairness can only benefit by the abolition of special preferences for any denomination group even if those denomination groups happen to comprise a large percentage of the population. This is an advance, as far as we are concerned, for the state of religious equality and fairness”.

Although the proposed term 17 removes constitutional privileges available to particular denominations, these privileges have not been available to all religions. The committee was told that this amendment makes all religions equal, none possessing ownership over the primary means of delivering education in the province, yet all with the same rights to deliver denominational education without public funding. Further, any future government has the ability to extend public funding to denominational schools if it desires to do so.

It has also been argued that the constitution is a living document that must reflect changes in society. Newfoundlanders who make up these denominations have democratically requested constitutional change in their status.

Another aspect of this is that the Roman Catholic community has launched a court challenge to the amendment of the term. The Pentecostal Assemblies have not taken similar action but made it clear to the committee its preference that this amendment be delayed pending the court's decision.

The committee was told by several presenters that international covenants on human rights state that human rights are protected adequately by ensuring freedom of religion and non-interference of religious education and a dissemination of religious views to children from parents. The proposed amendment is consistent with these values.

It is important that the amendment before us not be precedent setting for religious or minority rights in other provinces. To that end, the unique history and political circumstances of Newfoundland will ensure that no such precedent will exist.

Newfoundland's minister of education explained to the committee that many people believe this amendment will affect denominational rights in other provinces because of the language found in section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867. The section specifies that provincial legislation regarding education cannot prejudicially affect a right or privilege with respect to denominational schools held by a class of persons at the time of union.

However, term 17 only addresses the specific circumstances found in Newfoundland at the time of union, so it replaces section 93. The rights protected in Newfoundland and Labrador are different and not comparable to the rights that were guaranteed in other provinces. As a result, rights which apply generally to other provinces cannot be applied to Newfoundland and Labrador.

The New Democratic Party accepts that these rights will not be adversely affected in other parts of Canada as a result of this amendment.

After careful consideration of this issue, the special joint committee supports the passage of this resolution amending term 17. The New Democratic Party believes there is broad consensus for this change and that these changes will not be precedent setting for religious or minority rights in other provinces.

We are being asked to consider something only in the context of the unique history and political circumstances of Newfoundland. However, we recognize that this issue creates strong feelings and passion. Questions surrounding religion and rights often do. The New Democratic Party respects these beliefs and it may be that some members may deviate from the party's position on the amendment if they feel compelled to do so. However, all members have in their hearts the aspirations of the people of Newfoundland.

[Fisheries, December 5th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, that is in direct conflict with what the officials in DFO said. They said that there was not enough time.

This shows the real reason why so many people on TAGS have failed to be retrained. It is because the government has run TAGS incompetently.

Once again, when is the government going to accept that TAGS failed because of Liberal mismanagement and when will it create a real retraining program for the fishers of eastern Canada?

[Fisheries, December 5th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

We are all aware that TAGS was created to train fishers but recently when DFO had the opportunity to offer employment to conduct a survey, not one TAGS recipient was hired. Why were there no TAGS recipients hired to conduct this survey when the type of work required was what TAGS trained them to do?