Dennis Mills

[The Constitution, June 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the member made comments about his experience with Catholic education at St. Jean de Brebeuf high school in Toronto, a great institution. The football teams were not that good but the academics were pretty good.

The member talked about the inadequate education system in Newfoundland. I cannot understand where the member is getting his information. This is one factor which is leading him to the decision to support this amendment.

I raised specific information from Premier Tobin's red book in the House earlier today. And we all know that those red books are only guidelines. I quote a statement from Premier Tobin's red book, the platform of the Liberal Party in the recent provincial election: "Since Confederation we have made tremendous progress in education. Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have built an educational system in which we can all have pride".

Then there is this from Chris Decker, former minister of education: "The percentage of the population attaining less than eight years of schooling has decreased from 24 per cent in 1976 compared to the then Canadian average of 9.5, to 5.6 per cent, slightly more than the Canadian average of 3.8 in 1991. That is an improvement of 18.4 per cent for Newfoundland compared to an improvement of 1.8 per cent for Canada as a whole. Students in Newfoundland perform just as well as students in most other provinces in the Canadian average".

[The Constitution, June 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member and I took him at his word when he said he was going to make sure that the letter from his leader to Mr. Tobin demanded that French minority rights be respected in the province of Newfoundland. That essentially is what my amendment is all about. It is asking that where the numbers warrant that those minority rights be respected.

Does the Bloc member support the amendment to the constitutional amendment? It would ensure that the very words his leader put in his letter to the premier of Newfoundland are put into the constitutional amendment so that those minority rights not just in terms of the French language but also other minority rights are protected.

[The Constitution, June 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the member was the one who referred to a double standard. Why will he not support an amendment that, when put into the body of this constitutional amendment, will give not only denominational schools but also the French minority in Newfoundland an enshrined position?

Why does the Bloc run away from something being enshrined in a constitutional amendment when it is right before the members?

[The Constitution, June 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the member's remarks and his concern concern about double standards. I would like to address that point.

Earlier this evening I put forth an amendment in the House which was accepted and will be voted on later this evening. Essentially the amendment puts into the (b) amendment we are debating the exact words from the mouth of the Minister of Justice on Friday and the premier of Newfoundland in his press conference last week.

Where numbers warrant we would be providing the same test for the establishment of denominated schools in conformity with section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which also reflects the express intention of the Government of Newfoundland. In other words, these matters can be settled by an objective test either by agreement or by the courts.

Will the member and all members of the Bloc, for that matter, support the amendment where numbers warrant? It establishes the same condition or the same opportunity that would be afforded to minority rights related to French schools in Newfoundland which the premier of Newfoundland verbalized when he had his private meeting with members of the Bloc. Will they support the amendment before the House this evening?

[The Constitution, June 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his generous remarks. I am not a constitutional expert so I do not want in any way to lead anyone to believe that my remarks are based on some deep constitutional study or thought.

My concern has to do with the preoccupation in this Chamber and in other chambers across the land that the fiscal framework is the guideline for anything and everything. I have always believed that Canada's value system is something which is central to this Chamber. We are the legislative Chamber that is supposed to ensure that national standards are maintained, not just in education but also in health. National standards should be our driving force. I am concerned that as we compartmentalize and decentralize this country we are going to lose a lot of the thrust that has bound us together.

When our forefathers started putting this country together, very little of it made any economic sense. We defied economic logic, brought this country together and made it work. My concern is that if all of a sudden, in the name of our preoccupation with the deficit and debt, we end up squeezing some of the more disadvantaged regions, which by the way exist in every province, and we lose sense of what pulled us together and the assets which have helped to make this country great, then before we know it there is going to be very little holding us together.

[The Constitution, June 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, we are following the exact resolution that has been tabled here today. It specifically enshrines the words the Minister of Justice used in his speech on Friday. It gives further definition to (b)(i). That further definition is exactly what the Minister of Justice stated in his speech.

[The Constitution, June 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this debate.

I would like to begin by going back to the very first piece of campaign literature that I put out in my riding, even before I was elected. At that time the constitutional debate that was evolving in the country was centred around the Meech Lake accord.

The then leader of our party, Mr. John Turner, and I had a meeting about the riding of Broadview-Greenwood which had been NDP for some 25 years. I asked his permission to seek the Liberal nomination in that riding. I said: "Mr. Turner, there is one issue that I would really like to make central in my campaign". It had to do with the Meech Lake accord. I said that I would like his permission to campaign on the fact that the Meech Lake accord was flawed and needed amending and I wanted that to be a central part of the reason why I would knock on doors and seek that riding.

Mr. Turner was very generous in his response. There was a nomination meeting which I won and I then began my campaign in Broadview-Greenwood. Just the other day I was handed that very first piece of literature which I put into the riding. The masthead of it states: "Why I want to be your member of Parliament" and underneath, which the person brought to my attention, I said: "I believe in a strong national government, one that protects minority rights and is sensitive to regional concerns. I am opposed to the Meech Lake accord because I believe that in its current form

Meech Lake weakens the national government's ability to manage these concerns".

When this issue was put before us in January and we learned that we were going to be asked to debate this issue in the House of Commons, I immediately started seeking the advice and counsel of people far more learned than I in this whole area of constitutional law. I found out that there were some concerns with this amendment. Not only was there the question of minority rights but there was the question of the precedent that was going to be established through this process which could or might have an adverse effect in the future in other provinces of our country.

Over the last few years the train of decentralization has been going very fast through this House of Commons. We have been dismantling, offloading, passing on responsibilities to provincial governments at a rate that I do not think many of us would have imagined possible.

I speak as someone who has always believed that the national government should have the capacity to act in the national interest and should have the instruments to maintain that capacity. Many of these instruments are being changed dramatically and slowly but surely, in my judgment, we are becoming nothing more than a glorified think tank. We are giving away instruments which I certainly do not believe is going to serve us well in the long run as we try to hold the country together.

No one in the House would argue that the status quo should be maintained when it comes to modernizing and reforming the educational system in Newfoundland. Nobody is talking about dictating or interfering with how that provincial jurisdiction manages education.

A framework agreement was put in place to which the province had agreed in principal. When progress is being made and a framework agreement is in place, I wonder why the need for a constitutional amendment.

I think of the progress that was made on the framework agreement. In spite of that there is this drive to put this through Parliament in almost one day. I wonder if members are studying and looking at the detail enough. I cannot for the life of me understand why, in the interests of giving everybody a comfort level, not just in the province of Newfoundland but other provinces, we do not take the time in committee to do that, especially when we know that we are setting a very dangerous precedent here.

One of the things the Minister of Justice said in his speech on Friday was:

The government of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador has also tabled draft legislation by which it would be provided that unidenominational schools may be created where numbers warrant and where the parents choose that for their children.

I have heard the same statement today from many members supporting this resolution. I have asked in the debate if members would support an amendment to the resolution that is now before the House that would reflect in specific terms those very words. It is with that in mind that I would like to move:

That the motion be amended in the schedule entitled "Amendment to the Constitution of Canada":

(a) by adding the words "where numbers warrant" immediately before the word "any" in paragraph (b)(i);

(b) by adding the words "determine and" immediately following the words "observances and to" in paragraph (c).

I would like to put that amendment forward.

In summary, I believe in the spirit of compromise. Many members in the House today have stated that there is a spirit of compromise. I am hoping that the government would see that and if it chose to support the amendment then it would go a long way in alleviating those minority rights that so many of us are concerned about.

[The Constitution, June 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it was refreshing for us to hear a member from Newfoundland who talked so positively about the quality of education in the province. That is the information we have been receiving as well. When we hear from other members of the House about the disastrous state of the educational system in Newfoundland, we wonder where they are coming from.

As a Toronto member of Parliament, none of my constituents are urging me to pass this amendment to save $10 million or $12 million in the province of Newfoundland. In fact, many of my constituents in the city of Toronto feel that the precedent which is being set here could one day create a debate in our province which would make it very difficult for us to protect the educational system in Ontario.

The people of Newfoundland should not think we are so fiscally obsessed that for the sake of $10 million or $12 million we want the current system changed to the point where it requires a radical constitutional amendment. We are much more concerned about minority rights which has always been the heart and soul of the Liberal Party. One of the reasons the Prime Minister became the leader of the Liberal Party was that he was a champion of defending minority rights. The member from Newfoundland should know there are many constituents in Ontario who feel that for the sake of $10 million or $12 million we should not pass this amendment.

To the member from Halifax, there is absolutely no comparison between Bill C-33 and a constitutional amendment such as this. There is absolutely no comparison and the member knows that.

[Constitution Amendment, June 3rd, 1996]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to listen to my friend from Burin-St. George's. I want to seek clarification of a remark he made, that the person who pays the piper calls the tune. In other words, if I understood the member correctly, it was to let the legislators call the shots on how the schools will be run.

If the member was speaking in terms of efficiency, school construction so that there is no duplication, creating a central construction authority for maximizing economic efficiencies, I do not have any problem with that. I was not sure if he was suggesting that the values in a Catholic or Christian education would be something he would relegate to the person who signs the cheques. I have always held the view that there is a different ambience between a Catholic education and a public education.

Perhaps the member could elaborate on that. I was beginning to think he was suggesting that legislators basically call the program for all forms of education in the province of Newfoundland. I was not sure if that is exactly what he meant.

[Constitution Amendment, June 3rd, 1996]

Madam Speaker, if I understood the member correctly, he is saying that the current protection which exists in the Constitution for denominational schools is part of the ark of Confederation. Is he now saying that it is time for the national Chamber, the Government of Canada, the protector of enshrined rights such as these to walk away? Is that what the member is saying?