But you can call anybody what you want.
Lost his last election, in 2004, with 41% of the vote.
Prisons And Reformatories Act February 4th, 1997
But you can call anybody what you want.
Constitution Amendment December 2nd, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment my colleague from St. Boniface on his remarks.
The member for St. Boniface brought forth a very important point in his speech. It is the one relating to the question that was done in terms of the referendum, are the people of Newfoundland in favour of reform? It is awful that we only had just a little over 50 per cent.
I think back to the moment when the current premier of Newfoundland was sitting in this House. We all remember the great job he did with the fishnet at the United Nations. He stood in front of the platform and had the big fishnet behind him and he spoke for that little fish, the little turbot, that was being squeezed out of the system. He stood up for Canada. I would dare say that had we had a referendum at that time on the popularity of the then minister of fisheries who is now the premier of Newfoundland, we would be talking about 100 per cent. He did a great thing.
The member for St. Boniface brought this forth so well. They asked a question of all the people of Newfoundland in a referendum: Are you in favour of reforming the educational system in this province? It is strange that only 52 per cent said yes. It should have been upward of 80 to 90 per cent. This whole issue of percentages on the referendum has been glossed over.
I also want to build on the point my friend from Edmonton raised earlier. He quoted Thomas Paine, saying that every generation has a right to decide. I would like to bring to the floor of this House the words of a leader of this country who sat in front of us just a few years ago, a great constitutional leader, Pierre Trudeau. When he was repatriating the Constitution he said that it is the duty of this House, of this Chamber, not just to worry about the advantaged but to speak out for the disadvantaged, and not just to worry about the advantaged regions but to speak out for the disadvantaged regions.
We have a duty in this House to make sure that we who are the custodians of minority rights in this House, have a serious debate on this issue. We should not forget that.
Constitution Amendment December 2nd, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I support the member's view. We hope the executive of the government will decide once again to make sure this is a free vote when it comes forward.
Constitution Amendment December 2nd, 1996
Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I appeal to this House that we consider this amendment because if we pass term 17 as it is currently on the floor of the House, we may eventually have a legislature in the province of Newfoundland that we do not feel as comfortable with as the current government. We might then one day be faced with a situation that could not work in the favour of minorities in that province and not be as reasonable. At the same time I would argue that we would also be setting a precedent that could be used in other provinces across Canada. As we know, these rights, as many have said, are part of what brought this country together, those rights that were enshrined in the Constitution.
I would appeal to members to consider that in our vote later on today.
Constitution Amendment December 2nd, 1996
Mr. Speaker, just before question period I tried to make the point that the speech in the other Chamber of Senator Kirby's was something I thought all of us in this House should take a look at.
For those who have not had the benefit of reading his remarks I would like to take a couple of minutes and read an excerpt of his speech:
Honourable Senators, in 1867 this institution, the Canadian Senate, was set up specifically to safeguard minority and provincial rights. The issue in this debate is about minority rights. It is about the removal of a vested constitutional minority right. Section 93 of our 1867 Constitution, which is the equivalent of Term 17 for Newfoundland, was put in our Constitution specifically to protect minorities. There is no doubt about that fact.
In 1867, the Roman Catholic minority in Ontario was looking at a Protestant majority. Section 93 was put into the Constitution so that Ontario Catholics would be empowered to set up their own separate school system. Ontario Roman Catholics could have got that same power from a provincial statute. But statutes are subject to change by the provincial legislature. So, instead, section 93 was put into the Constitution. It was put there specifically to take the power to change the system away from the hands of the legislature. The exact same can be said of Section 22 of the Manitoba Act, Section 17 of the Saskatchewan and Alberta Acts, and Newfoundland's current Term 17.
To get around these facts, proponents of the proposed Amendment to Term 17 have made the argument that minority rights are not being effected in this case. They argue that a strong constitutional guarantee continues to exist for religious minorities to operate their own schools under the proposed Amendment to Term 17. They point to the language of the proposed amendment that says schools established, maintained and operated with public funds shall be denominational schools.
But the right to have a publicly funded denominational school under the proposed Term 17 comes under the words "subject to provincial legislation that is uniformly applicable to all schools specifying conditions for the establishment or continued operations of schools".
What does this mean? It means that the grant of a constitutional right to establish a denominational school in the new proposed Term 17 is subject to the laws established solely by the provincial legislature.
In other words, it would be possible for the Newfoundland government to pass legislation making it practically impossible to have a denominational school and there would be no recourse to the courts for the minorities currently protected by Term 17. The rights granted them in 1949 would be extinguished. In essence, the constitutional guarantee given to them at the time of the union with Canada would cease to exist.
The courts could only say to the aggrieved minority that yes, they do have the right to establish their own schools but it is subject to provincial legislation. The only inquiry after that is whether or not the provincial legislation in question is "uniformly applicable to all schools". In the case that it is, courts could not help the aggrieved minority.
Are constitutional rights of any permanence or do minorities only possess them at the pleasure of the current provincial legislature? Let me set out my views on these questions.
I believe that a basic purpose of a constitution is to establish and protect rights, not diminish them. That is an axiom that any first year law student learns. I know this because even though I am not a lawyer myself, I frequently lectured law school students on the Constitution.
While it is true that no rights exist in isolation from other rights, we look to the courts to balance them, not to provincial legislatures or indeed even to the Parliament of Canada acting alone. I can only conclude that the intention of the Newfoundland legislature in keeping the power under the proposed Amendment to term 17 to unilaterally change the education system in Newfoundland is at some point in the future the legislature may decide to exercise it.
I want to be careful to say that I do not want to imply any ill will on the part of the Newfoundland legislature. I am only emphasizing the assumption that lies behind all exercises in constitution making. Simply stated, we have constitutions so that no party to a constitution can ever act unilaterally or arbitrarily.
For us to vote in favour of the proposed Amendment to Term 17 then, simply because the legislature of Newfoundland wants it, would be a gross abrogation of our duties as senators. We have an important part to play in this process and I am not willing to rubber-stamp this proposal simply because the Newfoundland legislature wants it.
Therefore, I reject the proponents third argument, that the Parliament of Canada, and we as Senators, have only a rubber-stamp role to play with respect to the rights of minorities in Newfoundland.
Senator Kirby goes on. I believe that his argument has been made in my judgment in such a way that we in this House have a responsibility to really look at this closely. In light of that and in light of the vote in the Senate I would like to table and move an amendment. I move:
That the motion be amended in the schedule entitled "An amendment to the Constitution of Canada"
(a) by adding the words "where numbers warrant" immediately before the word "any" in subparagraph (b)(i) and;
(b) by adding the words "determine and" immediately following the words "observances and to" in paragraph (c)
Constitution Amendment December 2nd, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I realize that I will probably only have three or four minutes before question period after which I will resume my debate.
Before the taking of the votes I said that we had a responsibility to look at the work of Senator Kirby who took part in the debate on the proposed amendment to term 17 in the other House. We on this side of the House should show some respect for the remarks that he made in the other House on term 17.
As I mentioned earlier our Liberal government put almost total trust in him when we were developing the campaign to repatriate the Constitution. It would be abnormal for us to dismiss his remarks just because subsequent to his career as a public servant advising the government we put him in the Senate. To think that just because a person has been appointed to the Senate he loses his ability to judge and be fair does not make sense in my view.
As I mentioned earlier, the Senate with unanimous consent gave Senator Kirby extended time to develop his argument. I am sure many members after they read his speech and go through his remarks will realize that his motivation for proposing this amendment to term 17 is not for partisan reasons. There is no mischief here. He has had great loyalty to the Liberal Party and the government for over 20 years.
Some of the other senators who supported the amendment are highly respected constitutional lawyers.
Constitution Amendment December 2nd, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to once again talk on term 17.
I would like go back to my colleague for Burin-St. George's who spoke in the House earlier today. He made the assertion that any difference of opinion on term 17 was driven by partisan interest. I want to assure my friend that he is someone I continue to hold in high respect and regard. He has been a tremendous supporter of mine over the last nine years. However, I believe that the member is really not accurate when he states that our motives for being involved and having a point of view on this issue are not grounded in the best of intentions.
Back in June when this resolution was debated, certain members of the House opposed the constitutional amendment that was before the House. We were very sensitive to the fact but we recognized that the educational system in Newfoundland needed reform and modernization. No attempt was made to interfere with the management of the educational system.
Having said that, a constitutional amendment cannot be put to the House without some examination, without some discussion and debate. If we feel that there are some genuine concerns, as the member for Lincoln has so eloquently expressed, then it is our duty and responsibility to stand in the House and flag these concerns and put them forward to the House. Ultimately precedents that are set in this Chamber on constitutional amendments will have a profound effect for other provinces in the country.
As the member for Lincoln has just said, he has deep concerns about the fact that the reasons for the Bloc supporting this en masse last June were that they were setting the terrain under a referendum condition where if they were looking for constitutional amendment that the amendment in Newfoundland would be a terrific precedent. How can we rubber stamp something in Newfoundland and have a difference in Quebec?
There is something else that is really important of which members of the House and the people of Canada should be aware and that is what has happened in the Senate over the last four months. Without exception most bills that the House of Commons has put to the Senate have been supported in a timely fashion, in a constructive way. We could count on our hands the number of bills which have come back to the House for amendment over the last three years.
There has to be some concern, some heads up, when we have an amendment to term 17 that is supported by a majority of the Senators. When the speeches that were given on this issue in the Senate are analysed, it is interesting to read some of the remarks that some of the Senators who have great constitutional experience and credibility have tabled in the other chamber.
I would like to refer specifically to Senator Kirby who gave a speech in the other chamber on November 7. It is important when members read Senator Kirby's remarks that they realize the experience and background of this Senator. This Senator was the most senior public servant constitutional adviser for the then minister of justice who campaigned coast to coast, and even in Westminster, for the repatriation of the Constitution.
This is the Senator, who was the most senior adviser, who spent literally thousands and thousands of hours along with expert lawyers from the Department of Justice and other expert lawyers across Canada to make sure that the Constitution was crafted in a way that would ultimately be accepted by this chamber. Having Senator Kirby weigh in on this issue so profoundly is something this Chamber cannot ignore. His experience, respect and sensitivity were brought to bear on this issue such that the entire membership of the other Chamber gave him extended time so that his remarks could be fully recorded.
Criminal Code November 25th, 1996
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-353, an act to amend the Criminal Code (Internet lotteries).
Mr. Speaker, this bill to amend the Criminal Code will allow the Government of Canada to take advantage of the online gaming industry which is emerging as a very exciting form of entertainment around the world. It will provide an opportunity through proper regulation for Canada to take advantage of the opportunity to raise billions of dollars that would otherwise not come into the coffers of Canada.
It will create employment. With all of the new technologies in terms of security and privacy issues, we will have an Internet capability which will allow Canada to lead the world. I hope in the not too distant future we can have this bill before the House.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
Supply November 21st, 1996
It is magic.
Supply November 21st, 1996
Madam Speaker, I agree with many parts of the member's comments. I agree with the statement that consumer spending is what drives a big part of this economy. I think the member mentioned that close to 60 per cent of the economy is made up of consumer spending.
That leads me to ask the member a question about monetary policy. I personally believe that one of the real challenges we have in the House is to review the whole monetary policy, in other words, the management of the distribution of money in this country. As a member pointed out a couple of days ago, the Bank of Canada is totally independent of this Chamber. The relationship with banks is such that they can decide basically on their own what monetary policy is all about in this country.
I would like to ask the member, one of the leaders of the Reform Party, if he would agree that the issue of monetary policy needs serious debate in this Chamber.