Pat O'Brien

[The Constitution, June 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I feel compelled this evening to speak on the issue of the educational system in Newfoundland and on minority rights in Canada. We are told by some inside the House and outside that these two matters are separate and distinct, that they are unrelated.

We debate tonight an amendment to term 17 as requested by the legislature of Newfoundland. We are assured this amendment will not negatively impact minority rights in Newfoundland or in any other part of Canada. We are told this is a local issue, a Newfoundland issue, and that it does not involve the rest of Canada. Not so, Mr. Speaker. A threat to minority rights anywhere in Canada is a threat to minority rights everywhere in Canada.

Many Canadians, including members of Parliament from every region, have at least three major concerns about this requested amendment. First, an analysis of the vote in Newfoundland shows that at least two of the minority groups affected voted against this amendment. It is a fundamental principle of fairness in a democracy that the rights of a minority guaranteed in law should not be changed, diminished or abolished without the consent of the citizens who collectively comprise that minority group.

Second, this amendment, if enacted, could represent a dangerous precedent for the erosion of minority rights in Canada. It is obvious, Mr. Speaker, obvious there is disagreement among Canadian legal experts on the possible precedent this amendment could create. Expert legal opinion has stated that this matter should properly have been referred to the Supreme Court of Canada for an expeditious ruling before we make such a very important decision.

Third, the process has been incredibly flawed, in my view. Other citizens of Canada want to be heard, Newfoundlanders and other Canadians as well. Leaders of several denominations wish to be heard on this matter, non-Catholic and Catholic alike. I would submit there should have been hearings on this very important issue before a decision is taken on it.

I cannot think of any member of the House who does not support the people of Newfoundland in their desire to improve and modernize their educational system. Such a modernization and improvement ought properly to be arrived at co-operatively by the efforts of all concerned, the leaders of the Government of Newfoundland, the leaders of the communities and their citizens.

While I support the improvement of the educational system in Newfoundland, I cannot support this amendment, as requested, because I sincerely believe that it could imperil minority rights in other provinces. It could imperil education rights and it could imperil other minority rights. For those reasons I simply cannot support it. I must vote no.

[Lloyd Robertson, May 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, last night in Ottawa Mr. Lloyd Robertson received the 1995-96 Gold Ribbon Award for Broadcast Excellence. This prestigious award was presented at the broadcast excellence dinner which was attended by over 300 people, including Prime Minister Jean Chrétien.

As vice-chair of the Canadian heritage committee and on behalf of all members of Parliament and Canadians everywhere, may I extend to Lloyd Robertson our warmest and sincere congratulations.

Congratulations, Mr. Robertson, on behalf of all of the members here and all of the people of Canada.

In accepting his award, Mr. Robertson, who is chief news anchor for CTV, praised the calibre of Canadian broadcasting. At the same time he also called for a redoubling of efforts by Canadian broadcasters in telling the story of Canada to all Canadians through every means available.

In congratulating Lloyd Robertson we recognize and salute his excellence and dedication to broadcasting in Canada.

[Minority Rights, May 14th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Newfoundland has requested an amendment to the Constitution which would remove the protection of minority religious education rights. In my view such a constitutional amendment would constitute a dangerous political precedent that potentially could be used by other provinces bent on the destruction of denominational education.

Also, if such an amendment to the Constitution is passed other minority rights, including language or aboriginal rights, could be threatened.

A strong argument can be made that public hearings should be held before Parliament deals with the request from Newfoundland. Hearings would ensure a full and fair opportunity for all interested parties to speak to this important matter.

Whatever problems exist within the school system of Newfoundland should be resolved co-operatively by the people of Newfoundland and their leaders.

However, an attack on minority rights anywhere in Canada is an unacceptable threat to minority rights everywhere in Canada.

I call on the government to think very carefully before it acts on this vital issue. Any vote on this matter in the House should be a free vote.

[Canadian Human Rights Act, May 9th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. The simple answer is yes. I feel that very much is the case.

In all honesty I have to say that I think the opinions of Canadians from coast to coast to coast are simply being either misunderstood or misrepresented. I do not believe that if Canadians took a look at the possible ramifications of this bill we would get anywhere near the level of support that the so-called pollsters are saying is there. I simply do not believe that.

[Canadian Human Rights Act, May 9th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Prime Minister for his decision to hold a free vote on this contentious bill. His wisdom and integrity in making this correct decision are recognized and appreciated by most Canadians.

For me Bill C-33 is legislation fraught with uncertainty and unacceptable risk. It is hardly a simple, routine and definitive amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act.

In good conscience I cannot and will not support this bill. I am totally opposed to discrimination against or hatred toward any human being and that is why in all good conscience I supported Bill C-41. That bill extended to individual gay and lesbian Canadians the same protection in law from crimes of hate as that enjoyed by all other Canadians.

If it was absolutely clear and certain that Bill C-33 was only a matter of preventing discrimination I would support it. However, for me, as for many other Canadians, various comments from judges, other experts and the minister himself, do not bring clarity to this debate but rather confusion.

The only certainty is uncertainty. Am I certain that Bill C-33 will lead to same sex benefits, the legalization of so-called same sex marriages and same sex couples adopting wards of the state? No, I am not certain, but more to the point, I am not satisfied that this bill will not lead to these deleterious changes in our society, changes which I as a Canadian and as a member of Parliament can never accept or condone.

What is very clear is that the Canadian gay and lesbian leaders demand that these changes must occur. Well, let them not look to me nor to the majority of Canadians for support of such changes.

This is for me a moral issue and a matter of conscience. I respect the rights of others who see this issue in a different way. I respect their rights. I abhor the fact that respect is not unanimous in this House. However, I disagree with the people who take the other view.

It has been suggested to me that I set aside my own conscience and join the majority of members of Parliament in supporting Bill C-33. To that I say no, Mr. Speaker, emphatically, no.

In his famous play, "A Man For All Seasons", Robert Bolt has Thomas More say words to this effect when faced with a similar dilemma: "I think that when in the performance of his public duties, a man ignores his private conscience, he leads his country on a short route to chaos".

I reject the invitations to ignore my own conscience. No, I will not ignore what I believe in all sincerity to be true. I must and I do oppose Bill C-33. In doing so I firmly believe that I support a higher good, the traditional heterosexual family.

Much has been made of the fact that for many years several conventions of the Liberal Party have endorsed an amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act such as that which we debate today. Allow me to remind the House of three relevant facts.

First, the commitment to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to include sexual orientation was not in the Liberal red book on which our party campaigned and on which we were elected in 1993.

Second, such a commitment was not in the speech from the throne of February 1996 when the government's priorities were enunciated for Canadians.

Third, the Ontario wing of the Liberal Party of Canada at its recent convention in Windsor passed a resolution calling on the Government of Canada to promote and protect the traditional heterosexual family. In my view and that of many Canadians, including Liberals, Bill C-33 is not in the spirit of said resolution.

As my constituents know, I made known publicly my intention to vote against Bill C-33 early on in this important debate. The response from my constituents has been very heavy and overwhelmingly in support of my position. In fact, the ratio of favourable to unfavourable input from my constituents has been ten to one. Any individual or group claiming that Canadians support Bill C-33 could not have consulted with the people of London, Ontario and the surrounding region.

While these people oppose discrimination, as do I, they share my serious concerns that this bill could lead to a series of changes in our society which they find to be completely negative and unacceptable.

[Petitions, May 9th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present five petitions bearing hundreds of names of people in my riding of London-Middlesex and nearby ridings.

The petitioners express their serious concerns about changes to federal legislation which would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships.

These same people call on Parliament not to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act or the charter of rights and freedoms to include the undefined phrase sexual orientation. I am most pleased to support their concerns.

[Petitions, May 8th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present two petitions to the House today from people in my riding of London-Middlesex, every part of London and the surrounding area.

The petitioners express serious concerns about changes to federal legislation which would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships.

They call on Parliament not to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act or the charter of rights and freedoms to include the undefined phrase sexual orientation.

I am very pleased to support the petitioners in their concerns.

[Gasoline Prices, April 23rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, recently I have had several complaints from my constituents in London-Middlesex about gasoline prices.

Many Canadians are very upset at what they perceive to be an orchestrated effort by gasoline companies to charge exorbitant amounts for gasoline at the pumps.

Canadian consumers feel they are being unfairly gouged by gasoline companies which routinely raise prices as weekends begin, especially long weekends. They feel these companies are displaying incredible arrogance and that they are both taking advantage of consumers and ignoring any attempt by governments in Canada to help resolve this concern. It is time for the gasoline companies of Canada to become better corporate citizens and to treat Canadian consumers more fairly.

I call on this government and governments at all levels to deliver this message on behalf of Canadians as forcefully as possible.

[Sir Wilfrid Laurier, March 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, 100 years ago in 1896 Wilfrid Laurier became the first francophone to be elected Prime Minister of Canada.

This great Liberal leader served Canadians as their Prime Minister for 15 consecutive years until 1911. Sir Wilfrid Laurier is well known to history as a man who recognized that Canada would succeed as a nation only if our citizens are willing to be tolerant and respectful of each other and our many differences.

His approach was to find compromise solutions to the problems Canadians faced in his times.

This method proved successful for the most part in keeping Canada united. Today in 1996 Canadians must be just as determined to respect our differences, to compromise when necessary and to work tirelessly, as did Laurier, to always keep Canada one great united nation.

[Privilege, March 14th, 1996]

Go slowly, Don.