House of Commons Hansard #55 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was medical.
Irene Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I would like to say that we are very disappointed in what is going on in the House regarding Bill C-14. It is very serious legislation. Currently, there are sensitive, ongoing negotiations being conducted in regard to it, and those negotiations should be respected.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Madam Speaker, I was actually going to address the point of order raised, but if it is necessary to bring up a separate point of order, I will do it as a separate point of order.
I just want to say that I am very much aware and sensitive to the many negotiations that are taking place surrounding Bill C-14. Having said that, the government's will has always been to try to allow members to address the bill. That is the reason we brought forward the motion earlier today—
The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes
Again, this is more debate than it is a point of order.
Resuming debate. The hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands.
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Madam Speaker, I am splitting my time with the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.
I am a little confused as are some people here with the back and forth. Conservatives take Bill C-14 very seriously and we want to debate it. I was surprised a little earlier when it seemed the Liberals wanted us to go all night, through the night. I assume that means they would like to speak during the day and then leave the opposition to speak at night when supposedly no one is listening. I think a reasonable compromise was suggested a couple of minutes ago, which is that we extend the hours to midnight, during which time we would have serious debate on this issue.
That is why we are here today. It is interesting that the notion of freedom of conscience seems to be coming up more and more in our society. In the last couple of weeks, I have crossed paths with it in discussions separate from discussions around Bill C-14.
Yesterday, at the Subcommittee on International Human Rights, someone spoke about working with persecuted minorities and the question came up about what role freedom of conscience plays.
Last week, there was a forum in town about making the world safer for diversity. Dr. Os Guinness talked about how freedom of conscience has always been properly understood as the very first right. We can talk about life, liberty, and happiness, but without freedom of conscience, none of those other things actually exist in reality.
Everybody has beliefs that are important to them. I guess it is a common misconception we have that others have beliefs and I am the one who is unbiased. Each of us brings valid perceptions to these discussions and in our culture, until recently, it seemed that we were generally of the opinion that no one has the right to force anyone to work against their own beliefs.
It seems as we focus more and more on rights and less and less on responsibilities, we find ourselves pressured and I think we have to admit that we often find ourselves pressuring others on their values of conscience and the core values that people hold. It is beginning to affect every area of our culture. With the Carter decision, this has come to the forefront, because it is no longer just perceived discrimination that it is impacting, but it comes right down to the court's decision that having the right to kill oneself is a charter right.
I will take a bit of time to look at the Carter decision. It was a reversal of a previous decision, the Rodriguez decision. The court ruled that we now have, as Canadian citizens, a charter right to kill ourselves and we have the right to have others help us. There are very few guidelines that the court put on that decision. It talked about how the condition had to be irremediable and a grievous condition, basically beyond the person's decision to suffer through it. I could go into the criteria for that, which perhaps I will do a little later.
While the court decided one decision, it created a whole host of other complications. One of them, of course, is the call to reconcile physicians' and patients' rights. The question we are dealing with today is what role others have to play or do they play in that decision to prematurely end life.
Bill C-14 does not solve that. I was glad to hear the minister acknowledge that earlier. Conscience issues are becoming the biggest issues around Bill C-14. In this case, I would argue that the government has failed Canadians.
There is a legitimate question to be asked and I am surprised that it has not even been discussed—it is not discussed in other countries either—as to why medical personnel are expected to be involved at all. However, they are, and even though they are, most of them do not want to participate. The medical personnel whom I have talked to are not accepting of or enthusiastic about this. I have spoken with a number of doctors who say that if they are forced to participate in this, they are willing to leave the country, that they are not going to participate. For those of us who live in rural areas and have a very small supply of medical care, it is a frightening thing to hear one's doctor say he or she is prepared to leave if this is forced on him or her.
I want to talk about the protection of conscience in Bill C-14. The preamble states:
Whereas everyone has freedom of conscience and religion under section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms;
Whereas nothing in this Act affects the guarantee of freedom of conscience and religion;...
That is the preamble, which has no legal impact. There is no content within Bill C-14 that provides this balance.
The Senate committee heard some great testimony. The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms said:
...the Court discussed and reiterated the conscience and religious rights of medical practitioners, stating that, “nothing in the declaration of invalidity which we propose to issue would compel physicians to provide assistance in dying.”
However, then it went on to say, “the Charter rights of patients and physicians will need to be reconciled. Thus, it is apparent that the Court intended Parliament’s legislative response to address the issue of medical practitioners’ conscience rights. Bill C-14 fails to do so.”
It is interesting to me that Bill C-14 actually provides protection for participants, but it does not provide protection for those who do not want to participate. There is an exemption for medical assistance in dying where it says that no medical practitioner commits homicide if they provide a person with medical assistance. It says that no person is a party to homicide if they do anything for the purpose of aiding in that. Then it says that for greater certainty, if the person has any reasonable, even mistaken, belief about any fact that is an element of the exemption, they have no legal responsibility for that.
I just point out that protection for participants has been included for those people who choose to participate, even if they are mistaken in what they have done. I can find no similar parallel protection for those who conscientiously object.
Some have said to pass it on to the provinces. We just heard that a minute ago from my colleague from the NDP. I would argue this is not a provincial issue. If it is, there will be a dozen different scenarios in this country and then the courts will get even more involved than they have been. It is a Criminal Code issue. Why would we give legislative protection in a bill to those who want to participate and then argue that Parliament has no right to legislate protection for those who do not want to take part?
The executive director of the Christian Medical and Dental Society said at the Senate committee:
...what our members cannot do is perform or participate in what is referred to as medical assistance in dying. To be clear, by participation, I also mean playing a role in causing death by arranging for the procedure to be carried out by someone else through referral.
He went on to say that the current preamble respects the personal conviction of health care providers, but it does not have any legal weight, and that no foreign jurisdiction in the world has legalized assisted suicide and euthanasia and then forced their health care workers in hospitals, nursing homes, and hospices to act against their conscience, their mission, or their values. He said that to force providers to act in this way in Canada would actually be to violate section 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
It is necessary that the federal government legislate protection of conscience rights for health care professionals in order to respect the charter and to protect our existing health care system. Federal legislation would send a clear signal to provinces, organizations, and the courts that the right of conscience must be protected.
I argue that because medical personnel and supervisory groups cannot and will not agree, Parliament should set those guidelines, and they should be set in the Criminal Code.
A minister said a little earlier today that the protection is in the charter, not in the Criminal Code, but I think that is exactly the concern that Canadians have. The charter interpretation has gone 180° on the issue of assisted suicide, and there is nothing keeping that from happening as well on section 2 of the charter.
We need conscience rights. What are they? They are the right not to participate, the right not to be forced to refer. They are a fundamental freedom guaranteed by section 2 of the charter.
We need to protect the health care system. As I mentioned earlier, I have been told by physicians that they are prepared to leave if they are going to be forced into this, and they are not prepared to go against their own conscience. The Ontario college is making a big mistake in thinking that it can force doctors to do this against their conscience. I am not sure why it thinks it needs to control others who are just trying to do the right thing.
There were other suggestions that we heard a little earlier. For example, what is wrong with allowing patients to transfer their medical care to a doctor of choice? How about a directory of doctors so people can identify doctors who provide such services? We live in an electronic age, that should not be difficult. It would give Canadians confidence they could find medical personnel who would not be acting contrary to their care.
We need to protect the charter right of health care professionals. We need to make it a criminal offence to intimidate or coerce the health care professional to take part directly or indirectly in assisted suicide or euthanasia and to make it a criminal offence to dismiss anyone from employment for taking that position.
As I wrap up, I just want to come back to the point that no person should be put in a position where his or her private rights, which are guaranteed by the charter, are removed by force. Nothing is more fundamental than being able to live out that which we believe, especially if that belief is aimed at supporting and preserving life.
René Arseneault Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB
Madam Speaker, I listened closely to our colleague's comments and concerns. I attended public hearings during which the Canadian Medical Association said that freedom of conscience for doctors who would be responsible for providing care related to medical assistance in dying would not be a problem because so many doctors are okay with making that kind of assistance available.
I would like my colleague to tell us more about why he thinks it is important, essential even, for Bill C-14 to include a specific provision on freedom of conscience for doctors and people who will provide care related to medical assistance in dying.
How can we square what he thinks is so important with the Supreme Court's requirement in Carter, which does not mention that issue but says instead that we have to help non-vulnerable people get that assistance?
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Madam Speaker, I do not think that is difficult to reconcile. When the member is saying the majority agree, I do not know that I would agree with that. However, that does not negate the obligation and the requirement to have conscience rights for those who do not. For the majority who are agreeing, obviously that is not an issue for them, but that is not what we are talking about today.
We are talking about that group of people, whether it is a minority or a majority, who have said, “I am involved in the medical profession. I do not want to participate in this. I am not prepared to do that”. I do not know that it is so difficult in this day and age to be able to provide that opportunity for people to say, “I'm backing out of this. There are other people who have made a choice that they will participate and take part in this”, and allow them to do that as well. I do not think it is a difficult decision to make.
We actually have Bill C-268 by one of our members that talks specifically about the provisions that would be acceptable and very useful in that situation.
Kellie Leitch Conservative Simcoe—Grey, ON
Madam Speaker, our country has actually been built on fairness and freedom, and as my colleague has already mentioned, the issue with respect to that freedom empowering each of us as Canadians with regard to our private and individual rights. As a practising physician, I take very seriously my freedom to make choices for my patients in working with them.
My concern with respect to what we are focused on here is this principle that binds us together as Canadians, that unites us together, that freedom of choice is not represented here. I recognize that there have been amendments put forward, particularly to clause 3, to legally protect those who provide, but it actually does not specify those who do not provide. My concern is that is an issue of freedom as a Canadian.
I have serious concerns about the lack of conscience protection for physicians in this bill. Does the hon. member have any suggestions for improving conscience protection for physicians?
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Madam Speaker, we have a motion before us today with a few basic points, and it seems to me that conscience rights for health care professionals are a fundamental freedom, and I argue that they are guarded and protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, the failure to protect those conscience rights within our health care system cannot do anything but damage our health care system.
We have a private member's bill, Bill C-268, that addresses these issues and specifically talks about giving people the opportunity to be able to exercise their freedom. I appreciate the minister's attention to this bill. Earlier today, though, she said that this does not create a duty that was not there before. I would argue that actually it does, because this is new ground. This is completely new ground that we are going into. There has never been an expectation in the medical community before that health care providers need to participate in causing death. There are new duties being created here that are not being addressed by Bill C-14 that need to be. We need to stop, take a look at it, and then try to reapply some of those things that are important in terms of conscience rights.
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in this important debate about conscience rights. It is an honour to follow my friend, the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands. I want to, particularly, salute the great work done on this motion by the member for Peace River—Westlock, someone who is making a great contribution here, not just with his clever S.O. 31 rhymes but also with his substantive contributions at other times.
I think we have had a good debate today, but at the same time, as much as our conventions are to take a liberal view of topicality, there has been a lot of discussion about aspects of Bill C-14 that do not directly relate to conscience. Maybe that underlines the fact that there actually should have been more discussion of Bill C-14 at second reading. I hope there will not be closure on it at third reading.
I want to focus my comments today on this specific opposition day motion on the issues of conscience.
First of all, right off the bat, I want to underline what we are talking about here. The government has talked about an amendment that was brought in at committee to the legislation that discussed conscience rights. I say, “discussed conscience rights”, but it did not protect conscience rights.
I want to read that amendment so members know exactly what we are talking about. It is on page 8 of the reprinted bill, lines 32 to 34:
For greater certainty, nothing in this section compels an individual to provide or assist in providing medical assistance in dying.
Let us be clear about what that section says, “nothing in this section compels an individual”, etc. The concern was never that this section compelled individuals, but rather, that the interaction of this legislation and policies at the provincial level, which are pre-existing, which we know exist, without the protections in this legislation will have the effect of a violation of conscience protection.
It is sleight of hand for the government to say there is nothing in the legislation by itself. It is precisely the interaction of the legislation with existing policies that causes the problem.
The government has quite correctly pointed out that Conservative members supported this amendment, because it was a very small step in the right direction. However, on the many substantive problems to the legislation, which we proposed amendments about, we did not see any support from government members. We proposed robust, serious conscience protection, things that would not just reference conscience but would actually protect conscience. We proposed those amendments. The member for St. Albert—Edmonton and others did an excellent job of presenting and advocating those, but unfortunately, to no avail.
That is what we are talking about, whether or not the legislation should contain robust, meaningful protection of conscience.
For all those members who have, today, paid lip service to the idea of conscience, I ask, “Why, then, did the members in the committee not support things that would take the necessary action to protect conscience?”
We have heard a number of different arguments about this issue. We have heard that conscience rights are already protected in the charter, so we do not have to worry about them because they are already part of our underlying laws. Yes, it is correct to say that conscience rights are in the charter, but it is not at all sufficient to say that we do not need policies and legislation that ensure those charter principles are actually implemented.
Why is this important?
First, courts are going to show some degree of deference to the legislature when they are interpreting the exact application of these rights. It is important for the legislature to be clear about the importance of conscience rights to us and how we would like to see it operationalized in particular situations.
It also provides certainty. Without the certainty of guaranteeing positive conscience protection in the legislation, people will have their conscience rights violated, at least in the interim, and will be forced to go to the court to seek a remedy.
I am of the view that the current College of Physicians and Surgeons' policy in Ontario does violate section 2 provisions around conscience in the charter, but this now requires what is happening now, which is a legal challenge. For the time being, it creates a great deal of problem and uncertainty. It prevents many medical practitioners from participating effectively in serving their patients.
It is not enough to just say we have these guarantees in the charter so we do not need to think about them. No. We need to ensure that the rights of conscience are protected in policies and in legislation. That is why we want to see positive conscience rights protection here.
There has been some discussion, as well, about this jurisdictional question. It is curious that the government says, on the one hand, “We've provided conscience protection in the legislation”, and then it says, on the other hand, “Conscience protection is not something we can provide; it's at the provincial level”.
Which is it? Its arguments against the motion are in fact mutually exclusive.
Let us be very clear. This legislation does not provide positive conscience protection, but given that the legislation, Bill C-14, is describing the contours of an exception to the Criminal Code, it is very much within our rights, as the legislature, to say that the exception we are creating in the Criminal Code has conditions and exceptions within it.
There is no principle problem with doing that. Again, as has been discussed, this is something that has been done before when the federal government is involved in areas describing the contours of those exceptions and ensuring conscience protection.
We often talk here about the importance of pluralism, about the value of Canadian multiculturalism. Protection of conscience is an essential part of our fabric as a multicultural nation. People come here from other places, people who have lived here for a long time. They have different kinds of traditions, different kinds of values. Multiculturalism is not just that we look different and eat different food but that we can have substantive different perspectives on what constitutes the good life, and that we can live out those conceptions in our lives and that we can have respectful discussions with each other about those different conceptions of the good life.
However, it is important to have that meaningful robust concept of multiculturalism, of pluralism existing, and that we do protect rights of conscience and religion. It is not enough to just pay lip service to these concepts, like pluralism, they need to be protected. Conscience rights provide the foundation on which a well-functioning pluralistic and multicultural society is built.
I want to underline as well that conscience rights are a right of non-interference. They are not a demand to interfere in someone else's life. An expectation of the protection of a conscience right is simply the expression of someone saying, “Just leave me alone. Just let me do my own thing with my own medical practice. I am not going to interfere with someone else, but just let me do what I wish to do within my own sphere.” That is all those who are seeking conscience protection are asking for.
Therefore, why will the government not ensure that the doctors who want to provide good service to their patients, who want to provide palliative care and other necessary services, and who may have a different conception of the good life or of some of these moral questions than others do are left alone? They are not asking for anything special. They are asking to be left alone so that they can continue to do the good work that they want to do.
One of the counter-arguments we hear is that health care is public, so given that there is some degree of public involvement the state should somehow be able to dictate the terms of health care up to the point of taking away individual conscience rights. Is it not curious that as soon as the state is partially involved in something there is this automatic assertion that conscience rights and the rights of the individuals involved go out the window?
Given that health care is, in practice, provided as a partnership between state funding and individuals who are acting within that system who are motivated not just by the funding that comes from the state but by values, compassion, and a desire to serve their patients, and given that health care is a partnership between community groups, volunteer donors, those who fundraise for local hospitals, as well as the state, why not protect the conscience rights of individuals and of institutions so that they can continue to provide services that reflect their values?
We have talked a lot here about law, theory, and principles of rights. Let us bring this back to something very concrete and practical.
I have mentioned Dr. Nancy Naylor before, who is a palliative care physician in Strathroy, Ontario. I have not spent a lot of time in Strathroy, but I do not suspect that there are a very large number of palliative care physicians there. She is leaving the practice of palliative care because she is concerned that her conscience rights will be infringed as a palliative care physician.
We can talk back and forth about the theory of the rights that are at play here, but never mind the doctor and her career, what is the cost to this doctor's patients, the many people who do not want to die and who just want access to good quality palliative care? What about them? Every time a doctor is forced to leave a jurisdiction because of an infringement on their conscience rights that affects those patients who lose access to that family doctor or palliative care physician. That affects far more patients than the doctor or the doctor's family.
Whatever members think about this arguably important theory of conscience rights, they should think about the impact on patients and about the impact on our already woefully inadequate system of palliative care.
I ask members to support this important motion.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes
It being 1:15 p.m., pursuant to order made Thursday, May 12, 2016, all questions necessary to dispose of the opposition motion are deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until Tuesday, May 17, 2016, at the expiry of the time provided for oral questions.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Madam Speaker, I suspect that if you were to canvas the House you would find support to see the clock at 1:30 at this time so that we can begin private members' hour.
Opposition Motion—Freedom of ConscienceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
Some hon. members
Agreed.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes
It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.
Kevin Waugh Conservative Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK
moved that Bill C-241, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act (school authorities), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak to the merits of my first private member's bill.
Bill C-241 seeks to reimburse every school board across this country 100% of the goods and services tax, better known as GST.
I will give member's a little background on this.
Canadians pay for their schools either through municipal or provincial taxes. These schools are then charged 100% GST on almost everything they purchase and the services they require. They are subsequently reimbursed 68% of the GST after completing cumbersome and time-consuming paperwork quarterly. Quite simply, the GST is a tax on tax.
Nationally, for the fiscal year 2014-15, the 32% GST that was not refunded amounted to almost $187 million.
I want to give a shout-out today to Jalynn Middleton's grade 5 class at Buena Vista School in Saskatoon. They are following this bill with great interest, like thousands, and I mean thousands, of other students across this great nation. Not only is this an important bill, it is an educational component to the curriculum in this country. I also thank Jaelynne Cherwoniak, the teacher librarian at the school, for organizing a visit that was as educational for me as it was for the grade 5 class.
The Canadian School Boards Association unanimously supports this Bill C-241. Its president, Janet Foord, stated in a letter to the Prime Minister that:
This is not about the federal government spending money to school boards; it is about stopping the claw-back of the support provided through provincial grants and federal transfer payments. It is illogical that school boards, as publicly-funded - taxpayer-funded - institutions should be paying the Goods and Services Tax.
I served for many years on the Saskatoon Board of Education as a trustee, and also became an executive member of the Saskatchewan School Boards Association. I know first-hand what this money would mean to our schools in Saskatchewan. In fact, it would have amounted to over $8 million in 2014-15, shared among the 28 school divisions.
Let us listen then to what a number of school divisions have said about Bill C-241 in my province of Saskatchewan.
The Saskatoon Board of Education has expressed its full support for this bill, because in its fiscal year 2014-15, the division paid $2.2 million in GST. It received the rebate of $1.5 million, but the remaining $723,000 that was not refunded came out of the school division's reserve. I will add that nine full-time teachers could have been hired with this extra GST money.
Not only is the day-to-day learning affected, but so too are the extracurricular activities under pressure in this country. We are talking about band, art, drama, and sports. All of that helps to keep our children engaged in our school divisions.
At one time, the board put together $100,000 for new band instruments. This was well received in our community.
The Greater Saskatoon Catholic Schools said that if the bill passes it would give our school division an additional “$677,000” annually “to increase supports to children in the classroom”. “...we could hire nine more teachers or [we would hire] 21 more educational assistants.”
The funds received through the 100% GST rebate could pay for increasing supports for English as an additional language for the new immigrants. As we all know, the federal government has a healthy immigration policy, but school divisions across this country need federal dollars to support our new Canadians.
I have shared with members the numbers that each province would get with this 32% GST rebate, so let me refresh their memories. The province of Ontario would receive $75 million; Quebec, $47 million; Alberta, $21 million; B.C., $17 million; Manitoba, nearly $9 million; Nova Scotia, $4 million, and I could go on.
Out of the 338 MPs here in the House, I know that many were former teachers, administrators, and trustees. I do not have to share what this extra money, money that is well deserved, could do in our classrooms.
The majority of provincial governments across this country have taken over the funding of school divisions. School boards can no longer raise their mill rate. They depend on the provincial governments for some of their funding.
Let me remind members that it was not that long ago that municipalities were also funded by taxpayers in a very similar situation. Before 2004, municipalities paid the GST in full and they received a 57% rebate. They ended up paying 43%.
In the budget of 2004 of former prime minister Paul Martin, and prepared by the current member for Regina—Wascana as the finance minister, they gave a full 100% GST rebate to the municipalities, an improvement from 57%.
Did I mention that there was a $7 billion in GST relief for municipalities over the last ten years? I do not have to tell the House that this has had a major positive impact on every community in this country.
This is the same property tax base that pays for school taxes. These are the same schools that face the same infrastructure problems and the same social challenges as municipalities, yet they have been paying 32% of the GST on everything they purchase or the services they use. Quite frankly, it is a tax on tax.
Here is another example from the province of British Columbia, which would have received an additional $17.5 million in the fiscal year 2014-15. It, like every other province and territory, struggles to provide an inclusive school system for all students, including those with special needs. This province's website says:
In order to provide an inclusive education system in which students with special needs are fully participating members of a community of learners, additional support may be required by means of additional staff, specialized learning materials, physical accommodations or equipment, and assessments to enable them to meet their educational and social needs.
That $17.5 million would go a long way in providing that much-needed additional support in the province of British Columbia.
When our Conservative government was in power, we reduced the GST from 7% to 6%, and eventually down to 5%, the current level. This was certainly a help to all school divisions in the country but, quite frankly, it was not enough. Our school authorities across the country need desperately to be reimbursed for the entire 100% of their GST.
After preparing this legislation, it was sent to as many school boards and associations as possible. Let me share with the House more of the responses.
From Manitoba, it reads:
I wish to indicate my [total] support for your Private Members' Bill, C-241 which seeks to have the GST paid by school authorities refunded from the Federal Government at 100% instead of the current 68%.
Our Kelsey School Division revenues are severely hampered due to its very low property assessment base, requiring a special needs tax levy that hinders greatly the local tax payers. The improvement of the GST [rebate, which is a tax on tax situation] would result in more direct funding [to] the education program needs of our school division.
It was signed by Vaughn Wadelius, who is the chair of of Kelsey School Division board of trustees, in The Pas, Manitoba.
Then we heard from Ken Cameron, president of the Manitoba School Boards Association, who said:
For many years, the Manitoba School Boards Association, acting both independently and in concert with the Canadian School Boards Association, has advocated for an increase in the GST rebate [to an annual increase in the revenue to be paid out to the school boards].
...the [additional] 32% rebate would equate to the annual increase in revenue of $8.7 million [spread out in the Manitoba school divisions]. That amount, in turn, would translate to salaries for an additional 100 teachers [in Manitoba], increased supports for our students who are at-risk....
This story, unfortunately, is not unique at all in this country.
The Calgary Board of Education also supports my bill. In 2014-15, they paid a total of $11 million in the goods and service tax, and they received the federal rebate, which back then was $7.6 million. The CBE was required to fund the remaining $3.6 million.
The Calgary Board of Education noted that they are constantly attempting to do more with less. Its core values are that the students come first. This continues to be the story in every school division in this country.
Jennifer Maccarone, who is the chairperson of Sir Wilfrid Laurier School Board, totally supports this initiative. The Quebec English School Boards Association has sent its support through the Canadian School Boards Association.
From the Ontario Catholic School Trustees’ Association, its president Patrick Daly says that this GST rebate would fund critically important school programs in areas such as special education, and notes first nations, Métis, and Inuit curriculum development, something that is going on in all 10 provinces of this country and the territories.
Teachers from all over this country are very excited about this bill. Larry Mikulcik, who teaches in a small rural school, said:
...if the GST amount collected were to be fully refunded...the schools would benefit immensely. This would help to reduce the amount of time spent by schools...Student Leadership Councils, and School Community Councils in fundraising to support the extracurricular programs [in our schools].
It is the extracurricular programs that we see have engaged our students in this country. It puts them over the finish line. As a trustee for over 10 years, I saw that directly. If we can entice kids to stay in school with studies and extracurricular activities, we are all better off for it.
Finally, I want to thank my colleagues for their attention to Bill C-241, and the benefits it will bring our children, and even our grandchildren. I look forward to our continued conversation.
François-Philippe Champagne LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance
Madam Speaker, first of all, let me say how much I respect the member's point of view and his private member's bill.
I think everyone in this chamber has enormous respect for the time and effort put forward by every member putting forward a private member's bill.
I am sure that the member will be happy that in our budget 2016 there were a number of measures to help students and education across the country. The first was about making post-secondary education more affordable. We announced the Canada student grant. It makes student debt more manageable, and we introduced a flat rate for student contributions.
My question to the member is, what is the rationale for increasing the rebate for school authorities, if it is not to provide financing or financial assistance to primary and secondary schools, which is, as the member well knows, an area of provincial jurisdiction? In that regard, I would be very happy if the member could explain what consultation he has had with provincial governments and territories to see what exactly the unintended consequences would be of the bill that he is proposing today.
Kevin Waugh Conservative Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK
Madam Speaker, GST is a federal responsibility. It was back in 1991 when it came into effect, and we have not updated it, although I might add and I did say that in 2004 it was updated for municipalities. However, this is a fair private member's bill. We need to update this. The GST is a federal responsibility.
Now, the current government has helped out students on reserves, and I thank the Liberals for that $2.6 billion. However, now we need to do more, and this bill would give school boards in our country, in urban and rural situations, that much-needed funding.
Erin Weir NDP Regina—Lewvan, SK
Madam Speaker, I am somewhat baffled by the preceding question from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance. The suggestion that providing a GST rebate to school boards is somehow an intrusion into provincial jurisdiction seems to miss the fact that the federal government already currently rebates most of the GST paid by school boards.
I wonder if the member for Saskatoon—Grasswood could kind of disentangle this, and perhaps shed some light on how his bill could possibly be an intrusion into provincial jurisdictions, when it would simply augment a rebate that already goes to school boards.
Kevin Waugh Conservative Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK
Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for Regina—Lewvan. He is absolutely correct that we already have the rebate at 68%. I do not know where that number came from in 1991, as I was not here. However—
Kevin Waugh Conservative Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK
Yes, it was talking notes.
However, Madam Speaker, why are we not putting in money to our children? I ask members that. Why are we not giving our children a chance to get a post-secondary education? If we do not do this, if we do not fill this gap of $187 million coast to coast to coast, there will be no post-secondary education, and that is one of the reasons why I brought forward this private member's bill. It is the responsibility of the current government to give all the GST back to school boards, so we can educate our children.
Kellie Leitch Conservative Simcoe—Grey, ON
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saskatoon—Grasswood for his input here. As he said, education is something that we all feel is a part of being Canadian. We pride ourselves on providing that opportunity for freedom and prosperity to young students because they are educated. It is the reason why many people come to this country. As was mentioned by a previous member, this is already a mechanism in place.
Maybe the member for Saskatoon—Grasswood could explain the enormous benefits that students across the country would be receiving because of lowering the rebate that is asked for by the government.
Maybe the government members could at some point in time say why they are voting against students.
Kevin Waugh Conservative Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK
Madam Speaker, the number of special-needs students in this country is growing every day. With special needs, we need special teachers and we need more educational assistants. This bill is very important for every classroom in this country, and we desperately need this bill to proceed.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons is rising on a point of order.
