Gerry Byrne

[Violence Against Women, December 6th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister assisting the important work of the Secretary of State for the Status of Women.

Today is the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women. I would like to know how the government has responded to the calls to end violence against women and how the government is marking this important day.

[Constitution Amendment, December 2nd, 1996]

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

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.

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.

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

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.

[Constitution Amendment, December 2nd, 1996]

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.

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.

[Mrs. Doreen Janes, November 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge the dedication of one special volunteer from my riding, Mrs. Doreen Janes of Corner Brook, Newfoundland.

Recently Mrs. Janes was selected to receive a Canada Volunteer Award Certificate of Merit. This award recognizes her involvement with the Huntington's Society of Canada since 1980.

Mrs. Janes lost her loving husband to this terrible neurological disease. Since that time she has been involved in numerous community events, leading the fight against Huntington's disease. Her unselfish work and dedication have helped rebuild the local chapter of the Huntington's Society. Doreen has enlisted family, friends and anyone who shared her genuine interest to donate their time to this deserving cause.

The local chapter is now able to provide a network of educational resources to persons affected by the disease and to their families. She continues to make herself available to sit down and talk to all those affected. Doreen shows us why Canada is one of the greatest countries in the world.

I would like to congratulate Doreen Janes.

[Industry Canada, November 21st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about the community access program of Industry Canada.

It is a program that is being offered which a lot of communities in my riding are adapting well to. It provides Internet access to schools and community groups so that they can receive all the power of the Internet and what it has to offer.

Community access is a very important program because it provides all communities throughout Canada with an equal opportunity to information. It provides all communities, whether you live in Quirpon, Cambridge, Victoria or Fogo Island, with equal access to the resources and to the knowledge of science, technology, culture and language.

This is an incredibly important program and I would like to congratulate Industry Canada on a job well done.

[Small Business Week, October 24th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, this is Small Business Week, a very important week when we celebrate the contributions the small business sector is making to the economic well-being of Canada.

The small business advisory committee, which was created by Revenue Canada, is working to assist the very same businesses and business people we now celebrate.

The committee, made up of private sector members, advises Revenue Canada and provides feedback to the department on policies and procedures to help the sector prosper, grow and to be competitive. This committee has been an important part of Revenue Canada becoming a positive force in the development of small business in this country.

As we celebrate Small Business Week, let me also say to Revenue Canada: Bravo.

[1999 Canada Winter Games, October 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud that the city of Corner Brook and all of western Newfoundland will play host to the 1999 Canada Winter Games. We are very excited about the opportunity.

The Canada games are for all Canadians. Shortly after the 1997 games in Brandon, the people of my riding will be opening up their hearts and their homes for two weeks of great sport and great hospitality. That same year, Newfoundland and Labrador will be celebrating its 50th anniversary within Confederation. As everyone knows, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians will be making this quite a celebration.

Let me take the opportunity to thank TSN and RDS for investing in the Canada games and for investing in Canada. Let me also thank the volunteers who so early on in the process are making these games a success.

[Fisheries, September 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, this weekend will mark the return of a very special tradition for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and for the people of the lower north shore of Quebec.

Both the food fishery and the commercial fishery for cod has been closed for several years now to allow for rebuilding after a catastrophic decline. Conservation has been our first priority. Would the hon. minister explain to his colleagues why he has allowed the resumption of the food fishery?

[Newfoundland, June 12th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, at the Reform's national assembly this past weekend, Michael Walker, executive director of the Fraser Institute, said to an audience of Reform delegates: "Newfoundland is a morally bankrupt society. They do not even think to ask what I can do to solve my problems. They ask: What can the federal government do to solve my problems for me?".

Not one person challenged Mr. Walker's statement. Instead they applauded.

Let me tell the House that Newfoundland has an enterprising society. Let me further tell the House that since 1990, Newfoundlanders have made the highest contributions per capita to charities in this country.

Reform has the audacity to accuse us of being morally bankrupt. It is Newfoundland that understands what this country is all about. Reformers do not.

[The Constitution, June 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member discussed the issue of inclusion in the debate. I would like to point out very briefly that since 1990 a royal commission has been studying the issue of educational reform in the province and had reached specific conclusions in 1992.

The specific conclusions of the royal commission were based on the input of thousands of briefs that were received, the inclusions of hundreds of individuals who presented those briefs.

Does the hon. member have any thoughts on those members who represent particular religious affiliations, particular religious beliefs and faiths, the 5 per cent we have not discussed here tonight, who at this current time do not receive any religious instruction in the faith of their choice? Would the hon. member like to comment on or discuss the 50 per cent of the Pentecostal faith which currently does not receive instruction in their faith, and whether or not the current amendments to term 17 would include those individuals in Newfoundland society?