House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2004, with 38% of the vote.
Housing February 13th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works and Government Services. The government is involved in important negotiations with all the provinces concerning housing.
Will the minister assure my constituents in London-Middlesex and all Canadians that the government will insist on the protection of all existing rights of people living in co-operative housing before it agrees to transfer administrative responsibility to the provinces?
Petitions February 6th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present in the House today some seven petitions from my constituents of London-Middlesex and the surrounding area calling on Parliament to work closely with the provinces of Canada, in this case particularly Ontario, to upgrade the highway system of this province and of this country.
They note very much the need for such upgrading. They speak to the job creation potential of these programs. I am very pleased to support these petitions, noting that our infrastructure programs should address their concerns.
Constitution Amendment December 2nd, 1996
Mr. Speaker, it is just a few minutes ago that these words of the Minister of Justice have come to my attention. I regard them very seriously, as I know all my colleagues do.
I share the views of my colleague from the riding of Ontario. It may well be that the Minister of Justice and the government were operating under an understanding which was based on the written statements of the Government of Newfoundland distributed to the people of Newfoundland in a householder which included the words "where numbers warrant". It seems logical to me that we might expect that is the intention of the Government of Newfoundland. If indeed that is the case, then the House did err last June in what it passed and we now have an opportunity which we must not let pass to correct that wrong.
Constitution Amendment December 2nd, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I am the person who is answering the questions. I will not respond for my colleague from Newfoundland who was just mentioned. I think all hon. members are searching their consciences and doing what they think is best for Newfoundland and, I emphasize, for all of Canada. All of Canada is involved in this decision because of the precedent nature of what is being done.
Why do I feel that the amendment to term 17 threatens minority rights? For me, Mr. Speaker, it is as plain as the nose on your face. In 1949 the people of Newfoundland were convinced to join Canada, in part because of a guarantee of denominational schools in term 17. That minority down to this very generation has never willingly accepted the removal of that constitutional guarantee. To remove it against their will is extremely dangerous, is an injustice, and is something I cannot countenance. I hope it is something the House will not countenance.
Constitution Amendment December 2nd, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments and the question from my colleague from Delta.
First, I believe that all hon. members, certainly including my colleague the Minister of Justice, are weighing the issue very
carefully and that a free vote will be in their best judgment and following their conscience. I am certainly doing that and I believe all other members are doing the same.
My colleague from Delta has raised a very good point. Indeed in the minister's speech the words "where numbers warrant" as he has quoted are in there. I am not sure whether the justice minister was operating under the belief that was the intent, but it certainly does go along with the statement distributed by the Government of Newfoundland before the referendum in a householder sent to all the people of Newfoundland which had the exact same phrase "where numbers warrant".
My hon. colleagues from Delta and for St. Boniface, in citing the Newfoundland flyer, have raised very good arguments for supporting this amendment. I believe there should be no fear in supporting the inclusion of "where numbers warrant" in this motion.
Constitution Amendment December 2nd, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased for the second time in this House to speak on this amendment to term 17. I suppose in a way we might call this an amendment to term 17 revisited. I am pleased, as other colleagues of mine have said, that in effect the Senate has given us an opportunity to correct a mistake that I feel this House made, a very important and glaring mistake, last spring when it passed the requested amendment to term 17.
I will first make reference to the member for Bellechasse who just spoke, a colleague from the Bloc, who mentioned that the opposition had not had a great number of opportunities to speak today. I am pleased that he did speak prior to my remarks. I note that I have heard precious little in the way of reservations from the official opposition. I have to ask myself why that is.
At least the last member who spoke did raise the possibility that this is not the way to proceed, that there could be a matter of minority rights here. The vast majority of the members of the Bloc have simply accepted the need to pass this amendment on the slimmest of margins, on a fuzzy question put to the people of Newfoundland, in my view. I think the Bloc has its own agenda for supporting such a course.
For the sake of historical accuracy, and a s a history teacher in a former life, I would like to inform the member for Bellechasse that in 1867 Catholic minorities in Ontario were not strictly francophone. Largely they were but at that time there were many thousands of Irish Catholics who were in the province of Ontario; some of them my forebears. Just for the sake of historical accuracy I would like to inform the member of that point.
The starting point of this debate from my point of view is does the school system of Newfoundland and Labrador need reform. I will not take long on that point. I had the opportunity in October to visit Labrador. The member of Parliament was good enough to invite me to visit his riding. It is clear that the school system in Newfoundland and Labrador is in need of reform, as several colleagues have said. Anyone who has informed himself or herself about the situation knows that is the case.
There were long negotiations held to that end. In my view, just as they were about to come to fruition those negotiations were cut short. It is my position that the solution for the school system problems in Newfoundland and Labrador ought to be found or arrived at by the Government of Newfoundland, by school authorities, by the people of Newfoundland themselves with a made in Newfoundland and Labrador solution. Surely if all parties involved are parties of goodwill, and I am sure they are, this amendment requested of the House of Commons for the second time would not be necessary. I feel it is not the best solution to the situation that exists in Newfoundland today.
The member for Bellechasse mentioned that some have the view that we must just close our eyes and pass this amendment as requested. I disagree with that. Many colleagues do.
I would like to quote the Minister of Justice on May 31 when he said these words about that point: "We ought to give great weight to the action taken by the province in question but we must not automatically pass a resolution at its request. We must form our own judgment and be satisfied that it is in the public interest to do so".
That raises the question of the public that is being referred to. Clearly the public in question is the Canadian public from coast to coast to coast. It is absolutely incorrect and shortsighted in my view for anyone-and we have heard that argument and we may again-to say that this is strictly a Newfoundland question and nothing else, that it is not relevant to other parts of country. That is absolutely incorrect or why are we speaking on this issue in this House today, following action taken by the other place last week.
This is clearly a national issue. As soon as Parliament is involved it is automatically a national issue.
I support the amendments made in the other place last week that have been introduced by my colleague, the member for Broadview-Greenwood today. I feel that these proposed amendments would facilitate the necessary educational reform in Newfoundland and, at the same time, maintain the existing minority rights which are so vital to the success of this nation. Either that, or we ought to go back to the negotiating table and let the people of Newfoundland solve this problem with a made in Newfoundland solution.
In my view, the question which is very important is this. What are minority rights worth if they can just simply be removed, whatever the means, without the expressed consent of the affected minorities? That point has been made several times by my colleagues, the member of Ontario and the member for Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis. I was also very pleased to hear the comments of the Reform member for Delta earlier.
The Reform member for Edmonton Southwest quoted Thomas Paine in his remarks and made a very important point which needs to be a little more fully addressed. His point was: "Should it not fall to every generation to govern themselves and should they not be tied by decisions of previous generations?"
With that logic, the relevant point is that this generation of minorities in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador do not support the proposed amendments to their rights. This generation is objecting. I have heard no one contest the validity of that statement. Therefore, it falls to this generation of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and Canadians to speak on this question. The issue of minority rights is no less relevant for this generation than it was for past generations when these rights were enshrined in the terms of union by which Newfoundland became the 10th province of Canada in 1949.
It seems that it is a day to quote great Americans so let me quote a great American leader, Martin Luther King Junior, when he said that "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere". We can take that point and expand on it. We can say "a threat to minority rights anywhere in Canada is a threat to minority rights everywhere in Canada". That is exactly what is at issue for me, having researched this issue as carefully as I could and having tried to listen to all points of view on this.
As a Canadian and as a member of Parliament that is exactly what we are discussing. There is no way that I can support the removal of minority rights anywhere in Canada without the consent of that minority first.
Several colleagues have made reference to the fact that education was very carefully protected by section 93 in the original British North America Act, 1867 and was again protected in the Constitution Act, 1982 and in the 1949 terms of union by which Newfoundland became the 10th province. Anyone who does even a cursory reading of the political history of this country will know
that there has been no more divisive issue than education, whether it is in your own province of Manitoba, Mr. Speaker, whether it is in Ontario or in Quebec. Anyone who has any knowledge of our political history will know that is the case.
Indeed, my colleague from St. Boniface gave a very eloquent explanation about the threats to minority rights that this action represents. Many members feel that is not the case, it is strictly a Newfoundland issue. I am not reassured by those members and I certainly do not share that view.
It is fairly straightforward for me. The history of this nation was founded on a respect for minority rights: linguistic rights, language rights and racial rights. It is a history of which we can be proud. The future of this nation will be founded on respect for minority rights or that future will be greatly imperilled.
The Reform member for Delta gave a very good explanation of the severity of the Manitoba example where in the 1890s Prime Minister Laurier faced the Manitoba school crisis. I can tell him that I drew that very concern to the Liberal caucus privately a long time ago now when I stated that I did not think we needed another schools crisis 100 years after the Manitoba school crisis. Would it not be a pity if this were passed lightly, and we would look back and rue the day that we had launched another schools crisis, this time in the province of Newfoundland?
As I said earlier, those who would draw the Senate into this are exhibiting very specious logic. It is simply irrelevant. Whether the Senate belongs as a part of our system, whether it should be elected or abolished, the point is this: in this case the Senate did its job.
The appointed Senate, which is what we have in Canada, did its job. It said to the House of Commons: "You have acted precipitously. You'd better consider that these minority rights are not being protected by your actions". It was very important that the Senate did that. This House should do no less.
I repeat that a threat to minority rights anywhere in Canada is a threat to minority rights everywhere in Canada, and that is simply something I cannot countenance. I support the idea of inserting the phrase "where numbers warrant". That would allow the educational reform which is badly needed in Newfoundland and Labrador to take place. It will also protect minority rights in a way in which they are not now protected.
I am from Ontario although perhaps I have a little extra interest in this issue since my maternal grandfather was a Newfoundlander, but I certainly do not claim to be a Newfoundlander. However, this is much more than a Newfoundland issue. It is a national issue, an issue of justice, an issue of minority rights.
Many colleagues have made reference to Senator Kirby who is a Newfoundlander. His family is a prominent Newfoundland family. He has made several very good points, some of which I would like to quote: "Therefore I reject the claim that the desired reform of the Newfoundland school system can only be achieved through a constitutional amendment. Indeed, the evidence suggests clearly that almost everything that is needed to reform the school system can be achieved without a constitutional amendment". That is also my feeling.
Either we shelve this issue and send it back to Newfoundland to solve with a made in Newfoundland solution, or now that it has come back to this House I will, and I hope I will be joined by a majority of my colleagues in this House, on careful reflection support the idea of inserting the words "where numbers warrant". This would allow for the needed educational reform and would still protect minority rights.
Constitution Amendment December 2nd, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I rise today-
Constitution Amendment December 2nd, 1996
Two attempts is enough.
Constitution Amendment December 2nd, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I am amazed the member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup can tell us with a straight face that he is for respecting the results of a referendum.
I well remember, as do other Canadians, the night of the first Quebec referendum in 1980 when René Lévesque simply uttered "à la prochaine fois". In other words, he said that they did not accept the results that night, that they were going to have another referendum and another referendum. We have a term for it now in English: neverendum.
The people of Canada are fed up with the kind of approach where the separatists of Quebec, of whom the member is one, simply refuse to accept the democratic will which has been expressed twice now by the people of Quebec. They will continue to come back again and again with whatever question they need to form in
order to get the answer they want. I wonder if the member can address himself to that.
Also, the member made the point that the Senate should just simply pass this amended term 17 which the House passed recently. I was not supportive of it. To believe that is fundamentally to misunderstand the role of the Senate. We can debate here whether we should even have a Senate, whether it should be appointed or elected. I have very clear views on that. However, if anyone takes the trouble to understand the role of the Senate, it is precisely to review legislation and to refer legislation back that it feels is deficient, particularly vis-à-vis minority rights. Can the member understand that point of view?
Health Care December 2nd, 1996
Mr. Speaker, Canadians regard our health care system as a fundamental part of our national identity. In all regions of Canada, whenever they are consulted, the people of Canada express very clearly that they expect governments at all levels to preserve and protect our national system of health care.
Canadians insist that we maintain a single tier system equally accessible to all Canadians based on need and not on one's ability to pay. This government agrees with this fundamental principle of fairness. Provincial premiers who think they can ignore the national health care act and the wishes of the Canadian people had better think again.
It is pathetic to see irresponsible right wing premiers slashing health services only to restore funding later because they admit they got carried away.
Canadians treasure our health care system but they are worried about its future. This Liberal government can and will ensure that the system is improved and maintained for the good health of all Canadians; one national system accessible to all Canadians on the basis of need and not on their ability to pay.