Debates of Dec. 2nd, 1996

Petitions

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Okanagan Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my final petition states that the undersigned humbly pray and call on Parliament to ensure that the CRTC recognizes that Canadians do not need to be shocked to be entertained. Foul language, excessive violence and explicit sex are not necessary to provide quality entertainment.

[Jim Gouk, Reform, Kootenay West—Revelstoke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the residents of my riding draw to the attention of the House that legislation was passed in Canada for equal pay for work of equal value, that the Canadian Human Rights Commission concurred with the findings of an independent inquiry, and that federal government workers have waited for 12 years for this legislation to take effect.

Therefore, the petitioners request that Parliament direct the Government of Canada to hear them and to make their views known to the Government of Canada and that this Government of

Canada act to have the legislation take effect immediately and workers be reimbursed at the rate recommended.

[Paul Steckle, Liberal, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring before the House today a number of petitions that have been given to me by my constituents.

The first petition is from concerned citizens who believe there is profound inadequacy in the sentencing practices concerning individuals convicted of impaired driving charges.

They therefore pray and request that Parliament proceed immediately with amendments to the Criminal Code that will ensure that the sentence given to anyone convicted of driving while impaired or causing injury or death while impaired reflects both the severity of the crime and zero tolerance by Canada toward this crime.

[Paul Steckle, Liberal, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from citizens who are concerned about the justice system and how it continues to show leniency toward criminals. They believe that the current justice system has failed to address society's concerns. Current methods of punishment, they believe, are not acting as proper deterrents and are not producing the desired effects of lower crime rates and safer communities.

The petitioners humbly pray and call on Parliament to amend the appropriate laws to include corporal punishment as an alternate method of punishment for those adults who are repeat offenders and choose not to be governed by more conventional methods.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I welcome this opportunity to table petitions signed by 736 petitioners residing in the riding of Verchères, and in ridings in the greater Outaouais region, the greater Montreal region and in Quebec generally.

Your petitioners call upon Parliament to initiate proceedings to abolish the Senate, in spite of the fact that a motion to that effect has already been rejected by this House. Your petitioners argue as follows: they consider that the Senate consists of non-elected individuals who are not accountable for their actions; that the Senate's operating budget is $43 million annually; that the Senate refuses to account for these votes to committees of the House of Commons; that the Senate does not fulfil its mandate for regional representation; that the Senate duplicates the work done by members of the House of Commons; and that there is an urgent need for modern parliamentary institutions.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions, one of which has 1,809 signatures. Apparently it is a result of the Liberals not going with a national victims' bill of rights.

It states that the charter of rights and freedoms protects all Canadians, including those convicted of crimes. Victims of crimes require a specific right in the justice system as it is they, as members of society, for whom our laws are designed to protect. Our justice system must give victims specific rights as it does with the criminal to make our justice system fair for all.

Therefore, the petitioners call on Parliament to support the development of a national victims' bill of rights.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have three more petitions relating to the Nova Scotia gas pipeline.

The petitioners state that in June 1996 the Prime Minister of Canada announced he would work toward diverting the Sable Island gas pipeline to Quebec City, that it is unacceptable for the Prime Minister to decide the destination of Nova Scotia natural gas without consulting Nova Scotians, that Nova Scotians assert their right to control the destination of Sable Island gas and demand that the federal government cease tampering in this issue.

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present two petitions on behalf of my constituents and other Canadians.

The first petition asks Parliament not to proceed with the Liberal GST scheme or any other plan to further reduce the remaining corporate taxes at the expense of the middle class, working individuals and families.

The petition requests the government to undertake a fairer tax reform program so that consumers do not suffer even more financial insecurity and unfair costs at this critical time after receiving 47 tax increases from this Liberal government since it came into power in 1993.

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition, again from many of my constituents and other Canadians from across the country, concerning the unbelievably high cost of gasoline and propane.

The petitioners feel that they are being gouged at the pumps as well as with respect to propane for drying agricultural grain, for use in taxi cabs and in their homes for heating.

They ask the House of Commons and the Government of Canada to set up an energy price review commission to keep the price of gasoline, propane, home heating fuel and other energy products in check.

[Darrel Stinson, Reform, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table a petition from thousands of residents, primarily from the Okanagan Valley, which draws attention to the increasing frequency of spousal abuse and violence.

In the hopes of averting future violence, the petitioners ask that Parliament enact legislation which will prohibit the issuing of a gun permit for 12 months after the initial report of a threat of violence against a spouse regardless of whether that report is investigated or not.

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by residents of Burnaby, B.C., as well as a number of other communities in B.C. and Ontario.

The petitioners note that in Canada corporate contributions to public revenue are already the lowest among all major G-7 economies. It notes that the individual share of federal revenue has risen steadily while the corporation share has declined. It is very critical of the Liberal GST scheme announced in April this year that would add another $6 billion of corporate tax responsibilities to individuals.

Therefore, the petitioners call on Parliament to not proceed with the Liberal GST scheme or any other plan to further reduce the remaining corporate taxes at the expense of middle class working individuals and families.

Finally, they urge the Government of Canada to undertake a fair tax reform instead so that personal consumers do not suffer even more financial insecurity and unfair costs at this critical time.

[Rex Crawford, Liberal, Kent, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured once again to present, pursuant to Standing Order 36, a petition from not only my constituents but the constituents of other members. The petitioners are from Wallaceburg, Chatham, Paincourt, Ridgetown, Tilbury, Charing Cross, Blenheim, North Buxton and Port Alma.

The petitioners state that there are profound inadequacies in the sentencing practices concerning individuals convicted of impaired driving charges. Canada must embrace a philosophy of zero tolerance toward individuals who drive while impaired by alcohol or drugs. Victims of the crime of impaired driving must be given the highest priority as reflected by their statements prior to sentencing of anyone convicted of impaired driving. In the case of impaired driving causing death or injury, sentencing must reflect the severity of the crime.

The petitioners pray and request that Parliament proceed immediately with amendments to the Criminal Code that will ensure the sentence given to anyone convicted of driving while impaired or causing injury or death while impaired reflects both the severity of the crime and zero tolerance toward this crime.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present a petition on behalf of a number of constituents, particularly a woman called Penny Tardi from Kamloops, who points out the increased costs of propane in western Canada, 30, 40, 80 and 100 per cent increases in some communities, all of which have taken place over the last few days.

The petition also points out that to heat a typical mobile home in Kamloops using propane costs about $75 a week as a result of these increased costs. It is a serious situation.

The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to take action, whether it is in the form of an energy price review commission or asking the combines investigation bureau to investigate, but to do something to bring some sense to the marketplace with regard to propane.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have another petition which has to do with tax revenues. The petition is signed by constituents of Kamloops.

The petitioners point out that tax revenues from the corporate sector now account for less than 7 per cent of all national revenues, with the balance being paid by individuals. A few years ago it was on a 50:50 basis. Now it is on a 90 plus basis for individual Canadians.

The petitioners point out that this is wrong, unfair, unjust and needs to be reformed. They ask the Parliament of Canada to undertake a fair tax reform process so that consumers will not continue to suffer even more financial insecurity due to unfair costs at this critical time.

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, St. Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition which concerns term 17.

The petitioners say that it is inappropriate and unacceptable to remove the constitutionally acquired rights of minorities extended to them in 1949 when they joined Canada without their consent.

The petitioners say that removing the rights of minorities without their consent is totally unacceptable. It makes minority rights subject to the provincial legislature and, therefore, they are no longer constitutional rights.

Questions On The Order Paper

[Karen Kraft Sloan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[Yves Rocheleau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that on September 26, I put three questions on family trusts on the Order Paper and I have yet to receive a reply, although the Standing Orders provide for a maximum of 45 days. I am counting on your support to ensure that the parliamentary secretary concerned takes care of this case, because it a matter that is very much in the public's interest.

For instance, I asked how many family trusts have been recognized by the Liberal government since 1972; how much this represents in terms of assets and how much revenue the Canadian tax system had to forego as a result of the introduction of this tax shelter. That was one of the three questions.

I think that is of interest to all parliamentarians and all taxpayers in Canada and Quebec. I hope to receive a reply, especially considering the additional tax burden on all taxpayers, especially the neediest in our society. I think it is time to shed some light on the past and potential contributions of those who are in a better position to make them.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I would like to draw your attention to the fact that on September 17, I had three questions entered on the Order Paper-Questions Q-802, Q-812 and Q-822-and I have yet to receive a reply, in spite of the fact that the 45 days provided for in the Standing Orders have now expired.

I shall reread them briefly, if I may, just to refresh the government's memory. Question Q-802 reads as follows:

Q-802-With regard to the total budget for the Department of Natural Resources, and for each year since the 1987 fiscal year: ( a ) how much (in actual figures) and what proportion (in percentages) of its research and development budgets have been invested in Quebec, ( b ) how much and what percentage have been invested in Ontario (including the Ontario side of the national capital region and excluding the Quebec side of the national capital region), ( c ) what economic spin-off effects have there been from the Candu reactors in Quebec, ( d ) what economic spin-off effects have there been in Ontario, and ( e ) what financial commitment has the department made to the neutrino detection project in Ontario, the Triumph project in British Columbia and to Chalk River, Ontario?

The other two questions were complementary to this one. When can we expect a reply in your opinion?

[Karen Kraft Sloan, Liberal, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the House leader and the parliamentary secretary to the House leader are not in the House today. I will bring these concerns to their attention and they will advise me.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Shall the remaining questions stand?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Constitution Amendment

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Broadview—Greenwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, just before question period I tried to make the point that the speech in the other Chamber of Senator Kirby's was something I thought all of us in this House should take a look at.

For those who have not had the benefit of reading his remarks I would like to take a couple of minutes and read an excerpt of his speech:

Honourable Senators, in 1867 this institution, the Canadian Senate, was set up specifically to safeguard minority and provincial rights. The issue in this debate is about minority rights. It is about the removal of a vested constitutional minority right. Section 93 of our 1867 Constitution, which is the equivalent of Term 17 for Newfoundland, was put in our Constitution specifically to protect minorities. There is no doubt about that fact.

In 1867, the Roman Catholic minority in Ontario was looking at a Protestant majority. Section 93 was put into the Constitution so that Ontario Catholics would be empowered to set up their own separate school system. Ontario Roman Catholics could have got that same power from a provincial statute. But statutes are subject to change by the provincial legislature. So, instead, section 93 was put into the Constitution. It was put there specifically to take the power to change the system away from the hands of the legislature. The exact same can be said of Section 22 of the Manitoba Act, Section 17 of the Saskatchewan and Alberta Acts, and Newfoundland's current Term 17.

To get around these facts, proponents of the proposed Amendment to Term 17 have made the argument that minority rights are not being effected in this case. They argue that a strong constitutional guarantee continues to exist for religious minorities to operate their own schools under the proposed Amendment to Term 17. They point to the language of the proposed amendment that says schools established, maintained and operated with public funds shall be denominational schools.

But the right to have a publicly funded denominational school under the proposed Term 17 comes under the words "subject to provincial legislation that is uniformly applicable to all schools specifying conditions for the establishment or continued operations of schools".

What does this mean? It means that the grant of a constitutional right to establish a denominational school in the new proposed Term 17 is subject to the laws established solely by the provincial legislature.

In other words, it would be possible for the Newfoundland government to pass legislation making it practically impossible to have a denominational school and there would be no recourse to the courts for the minorities currently protected by Term 17. The rights granted them in 1949 would be extinguished. In essence, the constitutional guarantee given to them at the time of the union with Canada would cease to exist.

The courts could only say to the aggrieved minority that yes, they do have the right to establish their own schools but it is subject to provincial legislation. The only inquiry after that is whether or not the provincial legislation in question is "uniformly applicable to all schools". In the case that it is, courts could not help the aggrieved minority.

Are constitutional rights of any permanence or do minorities only possess them at the pleasure of the current provincial legislature? Let me set out my views on these questions.

I believe that a basic purpose of a constitution is to establish and protect rights, not diminish them. That is an axiom that any first year law student learns. I know this because even though I am not a lawyer myself, I frequently lectured law school students on the Constitution.

While it is true that no rights exist in isolation from other rights, we look to the courts to balance them, not to provincial legislatures or indeed even to the Parliament of Canada acting alone. I can only conclude that the intention of the Newfoundland legislature in keeping the power under the proposed Amendment to term 17 to unilaterally change the education system in Newfoundland is at some point in the future the legislature may decide to exercise it.

I want to be careful to say that I do not want to imply any ill will on the part of the Newfoundland legislature. I am only emphasizing the assumption that lies behind all exercises in constitution making. Simply stated, we have constitutions so that no party to a constitution can ever act unilaterally or arbitrarily.

For us to vote in favour of the proposed Amendment to Term 17 then, simply because the legislature of Newfoundland wants it, would be a gross abrogation of our duties as senators. We have an important part to play in this process and I am not willing to rubber-stamp this proposal simply because the Newfoundland legislature wants it.

Therefore, I reject the proponents third argument, that the Parliament of Canada, and we as Senators, have only a rubber-stamp role to play with respect to the rights of minorities in Newfoundland.

Senator Kirby goes on. I believe that his argument has been made in my judgment in such a way that we in this House have a responsibility to really look at this closely. In light of that and in light of the vote in the Senate I would like to table and move an amendment. I move:

That the motion be amended in the schedule entitled "An amendment to the Constitution of Canada"

(a) by adding the words "where numbers warrant" immediately before the word "any" in subparagraph (b)(i) and;

(b) by adding the words "determine and" immediately following the words "observances and to" in paragraph (c)

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member's amendment has already been ruled receivable in the past and is certainly receivable in this debate as well. The debate will proceed on the amendment.

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Broadview—Greenwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I appeal to this House that we consider this amendment because if we pass term 17 as it is currently on the floor of the House, we may eventually have a legislature in the province of Newfoundland that we do not feel as comfortable with as the current government. We might then one day be faced with a situation that could not work in the favour of minorities in that province and not be as reasonable. At the same time I would argue that we would also be setting a precedent that could be used in other provinces across Canada. As we know, these rights, as many have said, are part of what brought this country together, those rights that were enshrined in the Constitution.

I would appeal to members to consider that in our vote later on today.