Rey D. Pagtakhan

[Criminal Code, October 4th, 1996]

I wonder if the member for Fraser Valley East and the other member would be polite enough to allow reasonable debate, which may be also part of civility in our society.

The member for Fraser Valley East said there was nothing in the bill. I wonder if the member has read clause 9(1) of the bill, dealing with potential serious personal injury offences. It is a special amendment to the Criminal Code. For the member to say there is nothing in the bill is entirely false. Where the attorney general feels there are reasonable grounds to fear that another person will commit a serious personal injury offence, as the expression is defined elsewhere in the bill, in respect of one or more persons, the attorney general may lay information before a provincial court judge whether or not the person or persons in respect of whom there is fear that the offence will be committed are named.

Within that section are enumerated the many grounds that could be included in that order by a court, including the non-possession of firearms.

I think the member for Fraser Valley East has to be forthright in the Chamber, forthright with the Canadian public that this bill is an advance in ensuring the safety of Canadians. I can see the member is finally agreeing with me.

[Criminal Code, October 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, as I listened to the member for Fraser Valley East, I could not help but remember a truism that to give no information is bad but to give misinformation is worse. The member for Fraser Valley East just said there was nothing in the bill. He emphasized those words.

I would like to say to this member that all my colleagues on the government side are definitely committed to the safety of the entire Canadian citizenry. That member, of course, is again not telling the truth.

[The Senate, June 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe you will find consent to proceed immediately to the adjournment proceedings and, once concluded, the motion to adjourn be deemed withdrawn. I suggest the sitting be suspended to the call of the Chair, which shall come for the sole purpose of a royal assent ceremony.

[The Senate, June 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief in my intervention.

I think the motion presupposes that the government, by a stroke of a pen, would be able to abolish the other place. That speaks to the ignorance of the Canadian Constitution.

There is no system of law making in any country that is perfect, but before we belittle the other place let us remember that in the history of our Confederation, with the two Houses in place, we are still the number one nation in the world in which to live.

With respect to the work that is done by the Senate, we have to recognize the thoroughness with which some special projects have been undertaken, the excellent research, the excellent reasoning and policy formulations which have made a great impact on the country. As well, we have seen some of its legislative work and even involvement in some of the diplomatic activities.

It is very important to remember that today the Senate is still the forum for regional concerns. On that basis it has a lot of merit. It is indeed a Chamber of second thought and second mind. I believe there will be a time when we will have an effective, equal and elected Senate.

The process of election of members to the other place is not the ultimate criterion for legitimacy. Let us recall that members of the Supreme Court of Canada are appointed to that body, yet nobody has questioned the legitimacy of the Supreme Court of Canada and the justices who sit in that highest court. It is fallacious to conclude that because the process is by appointment it is not legitimate. In other words, it does not make the process necessarily negative.

I believe the challenge to all of us is to have quality in appointments. I am proud that the Prime Minister of Canada has seen to it that the quality of candidates is truly excellent. That they happen to be Liberal does not detract from that quality. The Canadian people in 1993 entrusted their confidence in the Liberal Party of Canada.

And so we have to respect the other place. We have a sample of Canadian ingenuity and Canadian genius when one body is elected and the other body of Parliament is appointed. On that note, I would like to have an improved other place. However, we have to show continuing respect for that other place.

[Klondike Gold Rush, June 13th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House that the Prime Minister today signed a proclamation declaring the celebration of the centennial of the Klondike gold rush, an event of national significance.

One hundred years ago the Klondike gold rush attracted fortune seekers from all over the planet in search of adventures that captured the imagination of the world.

The discovery of gold shaped the future of Yukon and indeed the future of Canada. This anniversary is part of a decade of centennial celebrations in Yukon. Today is also the 98th anniversary of Yukon as a territory.

These events are being further commemorated today by the unveiling of a series of commemorative Klondike stamps by Canada Post. Earlier this year, the Royal Canadian Mint launched its 1996, 14 carat gold coin "Centennial of the Discovery of Gold in the Klondike".

I am pleased, therefore, to call on all Canadians to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the momentous discovery which launched the Klondike gold rush, a colourful saga of the Canadian north.

[Public Service Awards, June 11th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it was exciting to witness yesterday's presentation by the President of the Treasury Board of 12 awards of excellence to federal employees for their ingenuity, courage and service beyond the call of duty.

Lives were saved and missing children were reunited with their parents. Financial savings were achieved, as well as international renown and market access, forensic application of DNA analysis, merging of human resource and business plans, and partnership to preserve aboriginal heritage.

Ms. Flora Beardy from the Department of Canadian Heritage, a Manitoban, is one of the awardees. Her diligent documentation of the aboriginal history at York Factory, Manitoba gives an aboriginal perspective to the largely European accounts of northern Manitoba history.

Ms. Beardy and the other awardees richly deserve the appreciation of the Canadian citizenry and the gratitude of the House.

[Questions On The Order Paper, June 10th, 1996]

Under the provisions of the Emergency Preparedness Act (1988), all ministers of the crown are assigned responsibility for emergency preparedness within their functional areas. All departments of the federal government have an emergency preparedness capability as required by the Emergencies Act, also passed in 1988. Overall co-ordination is vested in the minister responsible for emergency preparedness (MREP), the Minister of National Defence. Emergency Preparedness Canada (EPC) is that element of the public service charged with implementing the minister's responsibilities in this regard.

EPC has been in existence in one form or another since 1939. Most recently, and prior to 1992, EPC was identified by the Emergency Preparedness Act as a separate branch of government with its head, the executive director, reporting directly to the MREP. Following the 1992 budget, the Emergency Preparedness Act was amended to make EPC part of the Department of National Defence and it is now a division within the deputy chief of defence staff (DCDS) group in national defence headquarters.

EPC administers the Emergencies Act. That legislation sets out the types of emergency for which the agency has co-ordinating responsibility within the federal government as well as the roles of cabinet and Parliament. The emergencies defined in the act are: public emergency; public order emergency; international emergency; and, war emergency. The legislation therefore covers a range of situations from, for example, flood relief to war and it is the responsibility of EPC to ensure that planning for the range of possible emergencies has been undertaken. Consequently, it works closely with federal departments and agencies as well as with provincial authorities.

EPC executes its co-ordination role in a number of ways including direct liaison with other government departments and through a number of interdepartmental committees. The senior committee is the Emergency Preparedness Advisory Committee (EPAC), chaired by the DCDS, with membership at the assistant deputy minister level. The EPAC oversees the annual program of work of the federal emergency preparedness community; provides guidance; and advises the MREP as necessary.

EPC is a small organization of 89 full time employees (FTEs) and an annual budget of approximately $15.5M (96/97). In addition to its headquarters in Ottawa, EPC administers the Canadian Emergency Preparedness College in Arnprior, Ontario and maintains small regional offices in each provincial capital to provide liaison with counterpart provincial emergency measures organizations.

In amplification of Emergency Preparedness Act, "a federal policy emergencies", revised in 1995, provides detailed taskings to the legislated ministerial responsibilities for emergency preparedness and, where appropriate, designates individual federal ministers as the "lead" for planning for specific types of emergency. Examples of such lead roles include, the Solicitor General for the national counterterrorism plan (NCTP); Health Canada for the federal nuclear emergency response plan (FNERP); and Emergency Preparedness Canada for the national earthquake support plan (NESP). There is a broad spectrum of federal emergency plans;

some narrow and sectoral in scope; and others such as those exemplified above, of a broad, multi-sectoral nature. EPC maintains a co-ordinated listing of all such plans and, in the case of the latter, co-ordinates the development of periodic exercises to test and evaluate their effectiveness.

To elaborate on the NCTP, the Solicitor General is the lead minister for dealing with the management of terrorist incidents in Canada. As the minister responsible for the RCMP and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, his secretariat maintains the NCTP. That plan sets out how the government will respond to an incident with respect to, for instance, operational management of the incident, communications, and the role of local and provincial governments. Those who administer the plan are responsible for ensuring that the government response to a terrorist incident is co-ordinated and coherent.

In addition to co-ordination units with a national focus, the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade maintains a capacity to respond to incidents abroad involving Canadians or Canadian interests.

[Constitution Amendment, June 3rd, 1996]

Madam Speaker, far from it. The Government of Canada has made it very clear that when minority rights are in danger it is ready to stand up and protect those rights.

The resolution that is before us is to make it clear and respond positively to the request of one provincial government. It is a part of our fabric and a part of our Confederation. Of course certain rights will be limited in one way. Of course there will be no denominational school for one school child. However, we cannot use that specific example because what is at stake here is reasonableness and understanding. I believe that the people of Newfoundland have spoken by saying that they would like to reform the educational system for the greater good of their school children for today and tomorrow.

[Constitution Amendment, June 3rd, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his kind words. The will of the Newfoundland government to establish denominational schools for school children where the numbers warrant is within the legislative authority of the province. The federal government should not intrude on that legislative authority.

The issue before us is a process where we will give the Government of Newfoundland the authority to proceed, consulting with her people from time to time. It is known that the numbers that will warrant today may not be the same numbers that will warrant tomorrow. Communities change.

I was on a school board. I know at one time the number 36 would warrant and later on the number 17 would warrant. If we fix the number today we will imprison the possibility of change in the future and the possibility of the Newfoundland government to see the present, whatever the present is, and adjust to the particular moment for the greater benefit of her citizens.

[Constitution Amendment, June 3rd, 1996]

Madam Speaker, amending the Constitution of Canada is always very serious business and is to be approached by the House with the diligence and careful study it deserves, whether the amendment affects the entire country or only one province.

The resolution before the House relates only to one province. More specifically, the proposed amendment repeals term 17 of the terms of union of Newfoundland with Canada and substitutes for it certain changes as defined in the schedule called "Amendment to the Constitution of Canada" tabled by the Minister of Justice. It first appeared in the Order Paper and Notice Paper on Thursday, May 30.

At this juncture it is useful to remind us that Canada's Constitution since 1867 has made it clear that education lies within the legislative authority of the provinces, whether they were the original founding provinces of our Confederation or joined later.

When Newfoundland joined Canada in 1949 the clause in the terms of union dealing with education stated that the Newfoundland legislature will not have authority to make laws prejudicially affecting any right or privilege of denominational schools as they existed at the time of the province's entry into Confederation.

Today the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has a publicly funded school system, the governance and operation of which is in the hands of seven denominations, Anglican, Pentecostal, Presbyterian, Roman Catholic, Salvation Army, Seven Day Adventists and the United Church.

In other words, there must be denominational involvement in decisions affecting the composition of the school boards, the establishment and closure of schools, the hiring of teachers, the establishment of school district boundaries and the distribution of public funds. The current education system has therefore produced a large number of small schools offering close proximity to each other. School children are bused to their own denominational schools elsewhere even though there are schools in their own neighbourhoods or communities.

The need for administrative changes in the school system for efficiency in transportation of students and for consolidation of schools has been evident for quite some time. In March 1992 the government established royal commission released its report entitled "Our Children: Our Future" which recommended fundamental changes to Newfoundland's education system. Term 17 requires denominational consent for changes in the province's education system unless amendment to Canada's Constitution as envisioned in the motion before us is passed.

The Government of Canada has a duty to study and respond to the resolution on this issue as passed unanimously by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. Members of the Canadian Parliament have the obligation to diligently study all sides of the issue. On a free vote I support the government resolution as tabled by the Minister of Justice.

The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has documented that it first tried to achieve consensus with the religious denominations in the province to attain the necessary educational reform without constitutional amendment. The first meeting of the provincial government and church leaders happened in November 1992. Attempts to reach a consensus were pursued by way of exchange of letters and joint meetings on many occasions, as recently as April of this year. At one time private mediation was tried. Although a framework agreement was reached recently, and this is welcomed, it is the most recent position of the provincial government that such an agreement is tenuous and could be withdrawn by any party to the agreement or challenged in court by any citizen.

On the other hand, opponents to the proposed amendment to term 17 feel the framework agreement should be allowed and given a chance to work. They argue substantial reform of the province's educational system can be achieved without amending the Constitution. They further argue that repeal of term 17 would endanger denominational rights to education in Newfoundland and could set a precedent that threatens the same and other minority rights across Canada.

This is the nub of the issue as seen by the opposition. I believe the opposition is honest and sincere. It has received opinions from its legal advisers that Newfoundland legislation adopting the proposals outlined in the document "Framework for School Board Consolidation" would not be found by the courts to be in violation of term 17 of the present terms of union, that amendment to term 17 would create a risk to denominational school guarantees in other provinces.

These are the fears of those who oppose the resolution. They are sincere in their beliefs. I would like to assure them if I could that they have nothing to fear.

While the Government of Newfoundland will have greater administrative control, the denominational feature of the province's educational system is protected. In fact, uni-denominational schools will be established for individual denominations where requested by parents and where student numbers warrant.

The denominations will retain control over the religious aspects of schooling but a reduced number of interdenominational school boards will be established for greater efficiency in the system. To this latter recommendation, there is no dispute. There is no debate. Both sides on the issue agree.

The Newfoundland referendum on the issue, although not required for the process of constitutional amendment, was conducted by the Newfoundland government to gauge the sentiments of her citizens. Fifty per cent voted in favour of change. True, only 52 per cent of eligible voters cast their ballots but this I submit is a statement in itself.

Although the Newfoundland government used a referendum, the proposed constitutional amendment will not give support to Quebec separatists. Their agenda is to weaken and break Canadian Confederation. Quite the contrary, the amendment before us now is to strengthen the educational system in Newfoundland and to ensure co-operative federalism works at its best.

I should also emphasize that religious rights are not being fundamentally changed, only administrative rights. I agree with the Minister of Justice that minority language rights, aboriginal rights and other minority rights in and beyond Newfoundland, throughout Canada, are not in jeopardy.

The amendment to Term 17 does not create a precedent in the future for the situation in Newfoundland is unique. Future requests for constitutional amendments from any province will be judged as the present one is, solely on the merits of the facts.

I honestly believe that minority rights of any kind are not in danger. I am proud to tell the House that even long before I entered this hallowed Chamber, I participated actively in defence of French language rights in Manitoba when they were threatened in the early 1980s.

I have continued to advocate equity for all, for equal opportunities for people with disabilities, visible minorities, First Nations people and for women, for equity in our society. I will not stand idly by if minority rights are ever in peril.

We shall not fear to be proud of our national shared values, heritage and traditions. We shall not fail to be proud of our Confederation's eminent standing in the world community. We shall not fear of our trust in each other as citizens of Canada. We shall not fear change when change promises a bright future for our children, our youth and our country. We shall not fear to face the coming 21st century with confidence, secure in our history, generosity and integrity as a people.

Amending Term 17 is an appeal to our confidence and understanding as Canadians. It is a message that Confederation works. It is a message that our democracy is vibrant. It is a message that when we secure a bright future for one of our provinces, Newfoundland, its educational system, we secure a bright future for across Canada.

The people of Newfoundland determined their future when their province entered Confederation in 1949. The people of Newfoundland today would like to determine their future in Canada as Canada enters the 21st century. Let us pass this resolution now before us, for greater certainty of the future of all of us.