Dennis Mills

[The Budget, February 26th, 1998]

On a point of order, Madam Speaker, I find this a strange approach from the separatists or from the Bloc Quebecois. The Speaker of the House of Commons made a ruling.

[The Budget, February 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, 60 seconds. The member for Rimouski—Mitis always manages to make sure that she can generate positive controversy wherever she is in the world.

My question to the hon. friend has to do with the Canadian Unity Information Office. The member mentioned that she thought that the $25 million for the Canadian Unity Information Office was simply propaganda.

I personally feel that the budget for the Canadian Unity Information Office should be 10 times that because I believe that promoting Canada, especially during a time when there is great strain on the fabric of the nation, is a useful and important thing for the minister of heritage to do.

My question to the member is what other instruments do we have in this government to promote national unity? What other instruments would she recommend to promote national unity other than the Canadian Unity Information Office?

[Amendment To The Constitution Of Canada (Newfoundland), December 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Resources. I concur that we have exchanged productively on this issue.

I am not standing here in judgment of any system that is in place right now. What I am concerned about and feel strongly about is a system that was part of the arc of Confederation, to quote Senator Connolly, and that it was a right that was part of putting this whole nation together. I see that right being diminished. I feel there is the possibility that this thought process of secularization could expand and move to different regions of the country.

Having said all of that, in no way, shape or form am I judging the character or the contribution to society and to the country that any other educational system provides. It is just that I happen to be partial to the institution which I had the opportunity to participate in. I know there are many others who have participated in similar institutions across Canada who share this view.

[Amendment To The Constitution Of Canada (Newfoundland), December 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I feel privileged to have the opportunity to participate in this debate.

This is an issue for me where I have probably as many friends on the opposite side as I have on the side I am on.

I have always held the view that being a member of Parliament is a temporal experience. We are only here, even if we are really lucky, for perhaps a couple of terms and then we are back to our communities, back with our families on a more regular basis. We have to sit alone at times and say what did we do when we were here. Did we stick to our core values, our core principles or did we forget about them and sort of go along with the flow?

It is terrific to have an opportunity in a debate like this where it is a free vote. It does take some of the pressure away. Being government members, we have to be extremely sensitive that the consensus the government has built or the trust the government has built to move the agenda of the nation forward is not fractured in any way, shape or form. But on this motion I feel we should be concerned.

I have just been given notice, Mr. Speaker, that I will be sharing my time with the member for Ottawa—Vanier.

My feeling about this issue is I do not want to get hung up on the numbers, whether they were 75% or 25% in terms of the vote. I said earlier in the debate today that I have always taken the view that we are here to speak for those people who do not have a voice.

This is an easy town for those who are advantaged. The lobbying, the hustle, the resources if you are from an advantaged or favoured group or organization are really not much contest. The real challenge for us as members of Parliament is when a big wave is coming at you and it seems that you are out of step with that wave but you must remember that we are sent here primarily to speak for that person who really does not have a voice.

I have a view that there are a number of people, and I am not judging those who take a different path, who share the path that I am on and who would like to preserve the traditional denominational system that was in Newfoundland.

I realize quite frankly that if the economy of Newfoundland were a lot better this would not be a big issue. I can say that because I can remember many months ago discussing the economics of this issue with the premier of Newfoundland. He said to me this is a very expensive system that we have here in Newfoundland. It is a unique expensive decision. If we had lots of money this probably would not be such a big issue.

I agree with my friend from Kelowna that we are sometimes driven here by economics much more than values. We are much more driven by secularization. That is the current wave that is going through our system right now.

I had the privilege, and I consider it a real privilege, to have been associated with a teaching order of priests who started in this country 147 years ago, the Basilian Fathers. They came from France. They were invited by the bishop of Toronto, Bishop De Charbonnel, and they came to teach poor illiterate Irish immigrants. Over the last 147 years the Basilian Fathers have developed teaching institutions in every region of this country.

I was privileged to have the opportunity to attend St. Michael's college school in Toronto and I later attended the Basilian university in Houston, Texas, St. Thomas. I would be walking away from the 10 year experience I had with the Basilian Fathers and all the other lay educators that were associated with the Basilians if I supported this amendment.

I believe that a Catholic education is not just about teaching the intellect, it is about teaching the whole person. We are all human, we all make mistakes, we all fall. But there was a tremendous experience in being in an environment where the whole person was being developed.

A denominational institution is different from a non-denominational institution. I have been associated with both at the university level. I think that we have a responsibility and a duty here when we see a right being diminished to say hold on, do we really need to do this?

If I were to say 75% of the people voted for it and all the members of the legislature voted for it, then I would be walking away from all those educators who were a part of my life. I would be walking away from those educators who are a part of my son's life. I do not think that would be sticking to my core principles or values.

Quite frankly, this movement of secularization that is going through our country right now is all in the name of fiscal expediency. We tend to cut, shave and eliminate because we do not have the resources. My goodness, some of the founders of these traditional educational institutions had more creativity. Some of them actually taught in barns and did not have half as much as some of our school boards have today. However that total experience, the teaching of the whole person was important.

Clause 2 of this term 17 amendment states that the state will take over the management of the religious opportunity. It just missed the whole point. This is not about teaching a religious course. A Catholic education is an experience from the moment students arrive in the morning until the time they hang up their football cleats in the locker room. It is the fact that they can walk down a hall to a chapel. It is the fact that there is a daily mass. It does not mean they have to go every day, but it is part of the total environment.

The thing that really burns me deeply about this amendment is that we are showing a lack of respect for the thousands and thousands of men and women who dedicated their lives to the Catholic institutions, the human capital who really became the backbone of this country, be they Jesuits, Basilians or Sisters of St. Joseph's, and the ongoing litany of people who worked for $5 a week. For that reason I will not be supporting this amendment.

[Amendment To The Constitution Of Canada (Newfoundland), December 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the member's remarks and I would like to put forward a position.

I have always held the view that the Parliament of Canada is a place where we speak for those who need a voice, those who are the most disadvantaged, and in this case we know a group in the province of Newfoundland is having a right diminished by term 17.

Does the member hold the view that we are here to speak for the advantaged primarily, or does he hold the view that there are times, even though it may not be popular, when we should consider speaking for those who do not have a voice?

[Amendment To The Constitution Of Canada (Newfoundland), December 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, a short question to my colleague whom I have always held in high regard. I have deep affection for his service to his community and country.

I come from downtown Toronto and I consider that we are an advantaged community economically. I have been to the member's province many times and know of the deep economic pain that exists in the member's community. Does the member think that the deep economic pain and the lack of economic resources had something to do with so many in the minority not supporting their traditional system?

[Amendment To The Constitution Of Canada (Newfoundland), December 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I had the great fortune of being taught by the Basilian fathers during most of my high school and university education; an order of priests who have set up academic institutions right across the country. They have always believed that education is more than the pure academic, that it is the development of the whole person. In other words, from the moment we arrived in the school during the day there could be a prayer or there could be chapel. There was a prayer before the football game or the hockey game. It was a total immersion into the catholic experience.

Does the hon. member for Burin—St. George's not feel a bit concerned that this responsibility is now being handed over totally to the state?

[Amendment To The Constitution Of Canada (Newfoundland), December 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, as a member on this side of the House, I salute the member for Saint John. I will be taking the same position that she will on this amendment.

The member is a seasoned politician in this country and she knows the campaign skills of the premier of Newfoundland, Brian Tobin. It was my colleague Brian Tobin who organized the 10,000 buses in less than 72 hours that helped to save this country.

Does the member of Parliament who has this experience in campaign organizing not believe that the expertise of Premier Tobin, probably one of the best political organizers in Canada, went a long way in making sure these percentages were such as they were?

[Amendment To The Constitution Of Canada (Newfoundland), December 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member sat on the committee. I want to refer her to clause 2 of the amendment to term 17. It reads:

In and for the Province of Newfoundland, the Legislature shall have exclusive authority to make laws in relation to education, but shall provide for courses in religion that are not specific to a religious denomination.

Does the hon. member feel comfortable that the state has the capacity to deal with religious courses in the total context of her speech where she referred to it as not just a course, but a faith experience as well?

[Income Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 1997, November 28th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I was under the impression that the Reform Party was going to put forward another speaker. However, I appreciate having the opportunity to speak in support of this bill.

First, any attempt which this House makes to simplify the tax acts of Canada is something which I support and celebrate.

Bill C-10 would organize tax treaties for efficiency and fairness where there is a specific benefit to seniors in Canada. However imperfect, I believe it should be supported by all parties.

I would like to pick up from where the hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona left off in his remarks. He talked about the fact that members on the government side of the House should debate and challenge the tax system of this country. The fact of the matter is we do. This party is not made up of lemmings. The government is not asking members to suppress creativity on how to improve or reform the tax acts. Quite frankly, I think the hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona knows that.

This is purely coincidental today. There is a book which a group of us put together called “The Single Tax System” back in 1990. When I look at the acknowledgements of the people who contributed I notice the name “Rahim Jaffer, Ottawa”. I acknowledged the hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona as one of the people who helped me put this effort at tax reform together.

The hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona is here as a newly elected member of Parliament. I celebrate his being here. He is a creative, intelligent and thoughtful individual. However, I think that the challenge for the opposition is not just to criticize the flaws which exist in legislation, it is also the responsibility of the opposition to put forward constructive alternatives.

We listened attentively to the member's remarks during the last 10 minutes and all he did was criticize this piece of legislation. I have never seen a piece of legislation which was flawless, but not once did the member talk about a constructive alternative. I am beginning to wonder if the hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona has gone soft on the notion of comprehensive tax reform. He is in the index of this book as being one of the strong supporters of a single tax system and comprehensive tax reform, but not once during his remarks did he talk about what he would put forward as his alternative or his party's alternative.

The day that the member was elected I was happy and hopeful that when he came to this Parliament he would be a champion of comprehensive tax reform. I thought that the member and the hon. member for Calgary Southeast, the former head of the Canadian Tax Foundation, were passionate supporters of the single tax system before they were elected. We have been here for months and we have heard barely a peep out of those members. All they do is criticize. They do not talk about comprehensive tax reform any more. They do not talk about the single tax system.

I listened attentively to the member's notice that there may be a couple of flaws in Bill C-10. I repeat myself. There could be areas requiring improvement in any piece of legislation, but I think we need to hear from the opposition parties on an issue like this one where they stand on comprehensive tax reform. Are they going to whisper about it from time to time, or are they going to get passionate in the House about real reform?

The time is right. We hear right now that not a day goes by in the United States that Democrat and Republican senators and congressmen are not looking at the notion of comprehensive tax reform. If the United States government has a simplified tax act because it flushed out and cleaned up many of the credits buried in the tax act, we know that we must follow.

We should not avoid taking advantage of this opportunity. We should get right into the debate, put our best creative minds together and see if we can create some momentum and some political will.

In the last 10 years I have watched our government and the previous government cut, cut, cut, offload all direct grants; but the fact of the matter is that the biggest or the largest grants to individuals or corporations are buried in the Tax Act of Canada. There is no accountability or very little accountability in these tax preferences.

I stand here today appealing to the Reform Party to stand up for comprehensive tax reform, the same way they did before they were elected. I also say to the Reform Party that it is fair ball to critique a flaw or two in a piece of legislation, but I appeal to my friend from Edmonton—Strathcona to put forward a constructive alternative.