Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was friend.

Last in Parliament April 1997, as Liberal MP for Burin—St. George's (Newfoundland & Labrador)

Lost his last election, in 1997, with 39% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Constitution Amendment December 2nd, 1996

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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".

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.

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

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.

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.

Constitution Amendment December 2nd, 1996

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.

Perhaps I may mention something of my own personal educational background to show how I come at this particular issue.

Committees Of The House November 19th, 1996

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Health.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), your committee has agreed to adopt the report on Bill C-202, an act respecting a National Organ Donor Day in Canada without amendment.

Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act September 20th, 1996

Mr. Speaker, I was about to make an aside that my friends in the Reform Party are in good form as usual. It is always good to have their support for something like this, the Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act, which I am pleased to support. I congratulate both the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister for International Trade on this particular initiative. It is an important one and one I can gladly give my support to.

I think all of us were-chagrined is the nice word-disgusted by the Helms-Burton initiative of some months ago. Apart from the fact that it flies in the face of everything we understand about the rule of law, about the territorial integrity of sovereign nations, it also says volumes about the arrogance of the people who would advance that kind of legislation.

I had the occasion fairly recently to be outside the country in Asia. There they cannot often tell the difference between an American and a Canadian, until they are told. They are anxious to know the difference. It is amazing and heart warming the reception one gets once they learn one is a Canadian and not an American.

I am not on an American bashing initiative today. I just wanted to make that observation because I could make a long speech on how much I admire the aspects of the American system. I did my graduate work at Boston University many years ago and I have many good friends in the United States.

At the same time I think all of us who have travelled internationally first of all are amused but second are puzzled that certain Americans so readily cultivate or lend credence to this aura of arrogance and that they know best. There are two sets of rules, one for the Americans and one for everybody else.

The bill before us is intended to strengthen the act to allow Canada to respond to attempts by the United States to infringe on our sovereignty. It is an objective which I believe will find support on all sides of the House. The amended bill will allow Canadian companies to oppose the financial claims aspect of Helms-Burton. It will allow Canadians to recover in Canadian courts any amounts awarded in Helms-Burton actions in United States courts plus any costs associated with both the Canadian and U.S. court actions.

As my friend the Minister for International Trade was saying earlier today in his speech in this Chamber, we as Canadians share the objectives of the American government in so far as Cuba is concerned. Yes, we want to see democracy there. Yes, we want to see more respect for human rights there. So do the Americans. What we disagree on is the way to get there. The Americans have been trying the old isolation policy for at least 170 years, going back to the early 1820s, without much of a track record. It has not worked very well. It certainly has not worked in Cuba. One only has to look at the parade of American leaders who have come and gone since this policy was implemented. Mr. Castro still remains.

One only has to look at the hypocrisy of the Americans in dealing with Cuba versus how they deal with other countries. Surely the Americans have a few axes to grind with other countries in the world. The U.S. has certainly made it known that it has a very big human rights axe to grind with China. However, we do not see the Helms-Burton initiative being taken, being advanced or being suggested in relation to that country.

I have often felt that the American stance toward Cuba was more motivated by spite and by pride than by common sense. If it had been motivated by common sense I submit the policy would have been different. It would have been more effective in its results than it has been to date. The results show no promise of change. There is no indication that the American approach to Cuba is going to bring any more results than it has over the last 30 years.

Even that comment is beside the point. It is not our role as Canadian parliamentarians, as Canadian citizens or as the Canadian government to tell the Americans what to do. We have not spent much time doing that. My comment a minute ago was not intended in that direction. I have no allusions they would listen anyway, but the fact is we should not be telling them what to do. That is the point. While we do not attempt to tell them, they think it is quite all right for them to tell us. They think it is all right for them to implement legislation which would seek to have impact beyond their borders. They can make whatever laws they see fit to regulate activities in their country and their citizens. That is what government is all about, what a good part of it is all about.

The moment they step over the line, the moment they say "Canada, we respect your sovereignty only as long as you do things we like", that is the day we have to stand up and be counted. I applaud the ministers responsible and the administration for this amendment to the act which would give some teeth to our efforts to

respond to the Helms-Burton initiative and other initiatives should they come along.

Let us have a quick look at what the minister and especially the attorney general will be able to do once this amendment becomes law, as I certainly hope it will. The attorney general will be able to issue so-called blocking orders declaring that judgments handed down under certain foreign laws will not be enforced or recognized in Canada if the attorney general believes the legislation violates international law.

Second, once the amendment to the act is implemented, the attorney general will be able to allow Canadians to recover in Canadian courts amounts awarded under these foreign rulings, plus any costs associated with these court cases in Canada and the foreign country; a so-called clawback.

Third, the attorney general will be able to issue and amend in the future with the agreement of the Minister of Foreign Affairs a schedule listing items of objectionable foreign legislation that in the opinion of the attorney general violate international law.

It is a good piece of legislation and I am delighted to support it.

Fisheries September 18th, 1996

Mr. Speaker, my good friend and colleague the fisheries minister has announced in St. John's a limited food fishery for Newfoundland and Labrador and for the lower north shore of Quebec.

I welcome that announcement. A food fishery has long been an integral part of the Newfoundland way of life and a staple of our diet, which explains why we are so much smarter than you mere mortals.

At the same time I applaud the minister's caution. He says it is going to be a limited fishery, closely monitored and that abuses will not be tolerated, which is exactly as it should be.

We cannot lose sight of the overall objective here, which is the reopening of a commercial fishery, the economic mainstay of the people of coastal communities.

Questions On The Order Paper September 16th, 1996

In reference to the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, what action is the federal government taking in response to the claims made by the Auditor General in his November 1995 Report to Parliament, that, (a) with respect to the Action Program and Fisheries Alternatives Program, there were "weaknesses in assessing key economic development criteria-and weaknesses in monitoring project progress and results"; and ( b ) with respect to the COOPERATION Program, the agreements-have broad eligibility criteria and objectives that are not clearly linked to program objectives'' andinformation on project activity and results is not maintained in a consistent manner?''

Questions On The Order Paper September 16th, 1996

With respect to Canada's Drug Strategy: ( a ) has this Strategy achieved its objective of reducing the demand for substances and the associated social, medical and economic costs; ( b ) will this initiative be renewed; and ( c ) what federal actions will continue to be taken for youth, women, seniors, and off-reserve Aboriginal people?

Questions On The Order Paper September 16th, 1996

With respect to the plain and generic packaging component of the Tobacco Demand Reduction Strategy: ( a ) is Health Canada continuing to study the effectiveness of plain packaging in reducing the uptake and consumption of tobacco products; ( b ) does Health Canada currently have evidence of the impact, either positive or negative, that plain packaging of tobacco products would have on tobacco uptake and consumption; and ( c ) when the federal government puts forward legislative measures to ban advertising of tobacco products as outlined in the Blueprint document of December, 1995, will the packaging of tobacco products be subject to control?

Petitions June 17th, 1996

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present several petitions with signatures totalling approximately 150 from residents in my riding from Port au Port east and Port au Port west, Aguathuna, Stephenville, Kippens and St. George's.

The petitioners pray and request that Parliament not amend the Constitution as requested by the Government of Newfoundland and refer the problem of educational reform back to the Government of Newfoundland for resolution by non-constitutional means.

Committees Of The House June 17th, 1996

Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on Health has the honour to present its first report in accordance with its order of reference of Thursday, March 7, 1996.

Your committee has considered votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30 under health in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1997 and reports the same.