Val Meredith

[Criminal Code, October 31st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I only have a few minutes to debate the issue. I want to make a few comments and will debate it more fully at third reading if I am given the opportunity.

I want to address a couple of the issues that have been brought before us on the amendment to the Criminal Code with respect to powers of arrest, to arrest and enter dwelling houses. I also want to comment on some of the statements made by members opposite.

One thing that has to be clear is that we are not talking about legalese and how it should be, we are talking about a law that affects the rights and protection of the citizens of Canada.

When we in the House start putting laws in place which will not withstand an interpretation by the courts, then we have a problem. The responsibility is not the courts. It is the responsibility of members of Parliament to make sure that we are very clear in how we put words into legislation, to make sure that we word legislation so it is not open to misinterpretation of our intent by the courts. Therefore, the onus is on this House to make sure that Bill C-16 is very clear in its intent to protect the Canadian public and not to allow the accused criminal to escape justice.

I heard the hon. member opposite say it is in committee that we should make sure that these changes, these rural versus urban concerns, are addressed. It is in committee that we have to address these other issues.

My experience is that committees are not always open to suggestions. They are not always open to suggestions saying we have to be clear, we have to precise, we have to make sure that what we are saying is what the people of Canada are expecting to have written into the legislation. The onus is on us to go into these committees with an open mind, not based on party politics, to make sure that the end product is very clear.

We have seen it in other legislation that has come from this House in the previous Parliament. I use as an example alternative sentencing. Because we were not specific, although some wanted to be, for who these alternative sentences could be used, we see dangerous and serious offenders being released into society without any incarceration because we were not definite and clear in our intent.

I have great expectations that the 36th Parliament will be different, that it will allow real changes to legislation in committee to make sure that the end product is the best product. We have to make sure that the end product is not going to be questioned and challenged in the Supreme Court of Canada and sent back to us to correct matters that should have been changed first time around.

I am hopeful that the evidence which was decided was illegally gained can be used in the next court case. I am hopeful that the committee will ensure that the protection is there for the Canadian public. I am hopeful that the hon. members concerned about rural people not having the same ability to have telephone warrants issued will be addressed in a meaningful and real way so that no Canadian citizen is denied the opportunity of the good that can come from this change in Bill C-16.

I want to impress on all members from all parties that Parliament should show a willingness in committee to have open and honest debate and be receptive to things which will improve legislation.

[Newfoundland School System, October 27th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I address the debate today on term 17 and the Newfoundland educational system.

It is extremely important for all of us to look at what a Canadian constitution is and to decide whether it is an historical document with no relevance to today's society. Should it be a document that evolves with the changes in our society, stays up to date with the times and changes with the needs expressed in different communities?

The motion before the House refers to term 17 and the Newfoundland agreement of coming into Confederation. It deals with denominational schools and whether or not they should be run by the churches as opposed to the state.

This situation has occurred over the years and was brought into question in 1992 by the Williams Royal Commission on Education that reported to the government with recommendations for change.

Discussions were entered between the government and the churches to try to come up with some kind of consensus. They were unable to do so.

Because of this situation then Premier Clyde Wells of Newfoundland attempted to reach a compromise position in 1995 with the churches and the government by introducing a constitutional amendment to term 17 which altered but did not eliminate denominational rights. On September 5, 1995 the people of Newfoundland voted in a referendum on the following question:

Do you support revising term 17 in the manner proposed by the government to enable reform of the denominational education system? Yes or No.

Of the 384,734 voters on the list 52% of them cast ballots. The result was that 54.8% said yes. They felt that there should be some changes to term 17.

On October 31, 1995 the Newfoundland House of Assembly passed the resolution to amend term 17. In June 1996 the House of Commons passed the motion. In July 1996, after holding committee meetings from June 18 to July 10, the Senate committee issued its report recommending amendments to the resolution. In August 1996 amendments to the school act and the education act were proclaimed replacing the 37 denominational school boards with 10 interdenominational boards.

When I looked at that and at the population of Newfoundland with 37 denominational school boards it seemed like an onerous system. In Vancouver, Surrey and Richmond, each city has a school board. In essence, we are talking about 1.5 million people in the greater Vancouver area with less than 10 school boards. I would think that perhaps it makes some sense for that to have happened.

In 1996 the Senate voted to amend the resolution. In December 1996 the House of Commons passed the original resolution for a second time. A new Schools Act and Education Act came into force in January 1997.

One thing we have to acknowledge is that Newfoundland has done something that Quebec has yet to do. When Newfoundland decided that it was going to bring these kinds of changes to the school system, whether or not it had the support of the people, it had a referendum. It knew that if it was going to be supported by the people, by the citizens of Newfoundland, that it would have to go out and sell the idea. As I said a little earlier in my comments, 54% of the people of Newfoundland said yes.

What happens is that people challenge and this was no different. After the Schools Act and Education Act came into force there was a challenge to the way the province of Newfoundland was going to administer it. In May 1997 the Catholic and Pentecostal churches issued a statement of claim and application for interlocutory relief in the Newfoundland supreme court. In July 1997 Mr. Justice Leo Barry granted an injunction.

I think it is necessary for us to understand that the injunction was not against amending term 17 but it was against the changes to the Schools Act as a result of the changes to term 17. I would hate to see in Canada that we would feel that a constitution cannot be changed. It is important for me to make the clarification that the courts were not saying we could not change the Constitution. They were merely addressing how the changes to the Constitution were being processed through the Education Act.

Newfoundland, in realizing that there was a problem in its constituency, did another honourable thing. It went back to the people and said that it wanted the people to tell it whether they agreed with what it was trying to do.

In September 1997 Newfoundland put another question to its people which was very clear: Do you support a single school system where all children, regardless of their religious affiliation, attend the same schools where opportunities for religious education and observances are provided, yes or no? The result of that referendum was 73%.

It is very important to use three tests as to whether or not the Constitution should be amended. It is very important if we accept the fact that they are changing a living document which can be amended, to understand or accept whether the people are behind the changes, the people who will be affected by them.

Does the change have the consensus of the population? I think Newfoundland has gone to great lengths to find that consensus and it has met that test.

The second test is whether they are legally able to do that. Something we will see over the next few years is whether there is a consensus that Newfoundland has the right under the law to make those kinds of changes to term 17.

One of the final tests has to be as to whether it is in the national interest. Is the change that is taking place going to be in the best interests of the citizenry? Is it going to protect the minority populations that will be affected by it? Is it going to recognize that sometimes when we do things for one province it has an effect on other provinces in Confederation?

As a country, we must always look at whether this amendment to part of the Constitution which may only affect one province will have any effect on other provinces in a way that would not have the support of the people in the other provinces. Is it going to be a precedent when dealing with constitutional issues down the road? We have to look at the three different areas that might be affected through constitutional change.

I suggest to individuals who are concerned as to whether or not there was a proper consensus of the population, I would like to think that with two resolutions that clearly indicated what the province was intending to do with the support of the majority of the population that they could feel comforted that it did have a consensus. Within the rule of law if there is a problem concerning whether or not there is a legal right, it will be challenged in the courts and it will be decided very clearly.

The third question on national interests is perhaps a little harder to deal with. That is a question we will have to set our minds to. The committee that will be formed by the House of Commons will have to set its mind to the question of whether this is in the national interest.

The amendment that was introduced earlier today by the Leader of the Opposition deals with whether it should be a joint committee and whether the hearings should take place in Newfoundland. It is time the Senate be relegated to the position it is in, a house that has no support because it is unelected. How is it possible for an unelected body to be making these serious recommendations on changing a constitution when it is not accountable to anybody? It is a system that may be outdated and should be looked at being changed, as is term 17 of the Newfoundland school act.

The other issue is whether we can justify dealing with term 17 in Ottawa. How is it possible for the people of Newfoundland to feel they have been taken seriously, that they are being given every opportunity and an equal opportunity to meet with committee members to have their positions heard if they are expected to travel to Ottawa? In this situation the committee should be holding its hearings in Newfoundland where the parents live. The committee should make sure Newfoundlanders have the full opportunity to present their position before the committee.

Once again the government is dealing with a very serious issue, amending the Canadian Constitution, and it has set a deadline. The committee must report back by December 5. When we talk about constitutional matters that have great importance to our country, although I believe it should be a living breathing document, we cannot make decisions in haste without fully reviewing all the aspects of legality, consensus and national interest. I would hope the government would allow ample opportunity for that process to take place before it forces a report back in this House.

[Newfoundland School System, October 27th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra if there is no constitutional separation of church and state in Canada where the protection for denominational schools is. Is it under section 93?

[Income Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 1997, October 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I have found the conversation to be quite interesting. The member is quite right. We do know the rules of the House. However perhaps Canadians do not know that this extension of hours is a procedural manipulation of debate to make sure that this debate ceases to exist after this evening's sitting however long that may be, instead of giving Canadians the opportunity to understand what this government is trying to do to them by deferring the debate a couple of days hence. That is the issue here. The government is closing the debate much sooner than it would have gone on if this procedural motion had not taken place.

The concern that I have is for the many seniors in my constituency who are just finding out about the changes that this government is proposing to seniors benefits, to CPP and now they are being thrown another change. They are worried and concerned because they are the most vulnerable people in our society. They are older people who no longer have the opportunity to go out and work in order to supplement an income that they see diminishing. These seniors are very concerned that their government is not giving them the opportunity to understand what it is that it is doing to them.

My concern as a member of Parliament is that the government does not seem to want to allow time so that the people in our constituencies can understand what the government is proposing and understand the arguments against the proposals. What is the rush? Why is the government so reluctant to allow Canadians to fully understand what is happening to them?

The fear and concern of our seniors are real. That fear and concern are often based on lack of knowledge and understanding. The government seems to continually do procedural things to prevent seniors from having that understanding, so that they can accept change and understand why the changes are taking place.

It is that fear we have to live with on a daily basis as they come to our offices asking us “What is happening to our incomes? Why does the government continually change the system after we have ceased to work? Why is the government always changing the rules on us? When we go into retirement we have planned it with careful preparations to look after ourselves, then the government changes the rules. Why?” I cannot tell them why.

Is the government trying to fix a mistake that was made in the last Parliament? One would ask why that mistake was made in the first place. Did the government not allow ample opportunity for consultation with Canadians who are caught in the bind of income from another country? Why did the government not consult with the people who are affected before coming up with the legislation to deal with it? Why did the government not allow for open consultation with the public, with the people who are affected, with tax consultants and others who would be brought into this? Why did it make that mistake in the first place in the last Parliament?

I would hasten to suggest that perhaps it is the same reason we are faced with today, that the government is reluctant to allow for timely discussion to allow citizens to understand what their government is doing. I would suggest that it is my responsibility as a member of the opposition to constantly ask the government these questions. Who has it consulted? In what way has it consulted? How does it know that what it is doing is the right thing if it does not allow the process for people to question what it is doing and to suggest change?

We owe it to Canadians, to our seniors who are the most vulnerable in our society an opportunity to understand that these changes may be to their benefit, but that they may have a disastrous effect on them and they may lose some of their income. They need to understand so that they may have the opportunity to prepare, not so that they can live a wealthy lifestyle travelling and whatnot, but so that they can put food on their tables, pay their rent, look after their health needs and the care of their loved ones who may be in a care situation and where they pay their own expenses and those of their loved ones in a care facility. They need the opportunity to understand what the effect will be on them.

In essence the government has closed the debate. It will continue this evening before running out of time. It will not be resumed two days hence. It is unfortunate that we will not have that opportunity to continue it in two day's time so that we can get the information out to more concerned Canadians.

I move:

That this debate do now adjourn.

[Income Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 1997, October 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member from across the way whether he feels that it is fair to Canadians on important issues such as seniors pensions that this House debate the issue for five hours. Do you honestly feel that five hours of debate is adequate?

[Appointment Of A Special Joint Committee, October 1st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to say that yes he was the father of the present leader of the official opposition.

[Appointment Of A Special Joint Committee, October 1st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, many of us are concerned that any constitutional amendment passed under section 43 or any of the other provisions might set a precedent. We want to make sure that the Constitution is amended under the rule of law. It has yet to be determined whether this is the right amending formula to be used in this case.

[Appointment Of A Special Joint Committee, October 1st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, today as we debate Motion No. 3 we are embarking on a debate that has a number of interesting aspects to it.

On the surface the motion is relatively straightforward. The motion calls for the creation of a special joint committee of the House of Commons and the Senate to study matters relating to the proposed resolution respecting a proposed amendment to section 93 of the Constitution Act of 1867 concerning the Quebec school system.

At this time I will not go into any great detail about the proposed amendment as the government will be introducing the amendment as Motion No. 4 which will be debated after the special joint committee reports.

Toward the conclusion of my speech I will briefly touch on a couple of areas of concern. I would first like to concentrate on the special joint committee itself. Reformers involve themselves with the Senate with some trepidation. One of the basic tenets of Reform Party's principles is to reform the Senate. We believe in a triple-E Senate where the Senate is equal, elected and effective. We believe that such a reformed Senate would go a long way in legitimizing the upper Chamber.

It is the fact that all the members of the Senate have been appointed by the prime minister of the day that causes Reformers such grief in dealing with the upper Chamber. The appointment of any political representative is an archaic practice that should have been forever consigned to the history of the 19th century. Yet here we are, almost on the eve of the 21st century, and the prime minister is still indulging in this patronage riddled practice.

It is not that there are not good people in the Senate. There are. I have met with a number of talented individuals from the upper Chamber, many of whom perform admirable service to the people of Canada. But since they are unelected and therefore unaccountable to no one but the prime minister who appointed them, they have no legitimacy.

Reformers are reluctant to convey any legitimacy to that unelected upper Chamber by working with them on a special joint committee. But Reformers are also pragmatists. While we will constantly strive to reform the Senate, we recognize that the reality of today is that Canadians have a Senate that is unelected, unequally distributed by any measure and whose effectiveness and legitimacy are questionable.

But the Senate does have some constitutional powers. One of those powers is that it must ratify any constitutional amendment. Since the ratification of the Senate is required under section 43 of the Constitution Act of 1982, it must play a role in this exercise. The question is: Should it play a joint role with the House of Commons?

If there was not a special joint committee with members from both the House of Commons and the Senate, then the alternative would likely be that both chambers would hold committee meetings on their own. This redundancy would undoubtedly lengthen the time that it would take for the two chambers to deal with the amendment.

The other concern the Reform Party has with this motion is the amount of time that the government is providing to the committee to complete its work.

The motion states:

That the Committee be directed to consult broadly and review such information as it deems appropriate with respect to this issue;

The motion goes on to state that the committee is to make its final report no later than November 7, 1997. That is only 38 days from now.

Is it possible for the committee to consult broadly, as the motion calls for, and meet the November 7 deadline? That of course will depend on the number of people who want to address the committee.

If there is near unanimous support for the amendment in Quebec and few individuals or organizations are interested in appearing before the committee, then the deadline will not be a problem. If, on the other hand, the committee is deluged by people who wish to appear before it and the committee can only hear a small portion of them, then the short timeframe becomes a major problem, as many Quebeckers would be denied their right to express their views on a constitutional amendment.

Under different circumstances I would be horrified that the government would even suggest putting such a short timeframe on the committee. However, in this instance I acknowledge the government's desire to have a short timeframe. If the committee were to undertake a prolonged and detailed review of the amendment, then the separatist government in Quebec and the separatists here in the House would probably use this as an example of the federation being dysfunctional.

However, I would caution the members of the proposed committee to ensure that what they are doing is in the best interests of all Canadians and not just worry how their actions will be perceived in Quebec.

It is for that reason that we put forward the amendment to lengthen the timeframe for the committee until December 31, 1997, to ensure that all Quebeckers who have a desire to make a representation before the committee have the opportunity to do so.

If it becomes apparent to the committee that it can hear all the interested parties in a shorter period of time, there is nothing preventing that committee from reporting earlier.

Another reason for the extended time period is to ensure that the committee has sufficient time to consider the three tests for such a proposed constitutional amendment, as delineated earlier by the leader of the opposition.

Before I conclude my remarks I would like to repeat those tests which the committee must address.

The first obligation of the special joint committee must be to ensure that the amendments meet the test of democratic consent. Does the amendment have the consensus of the Quebec people?

When Newfoundland amended term 17, which affected its educational obligations under the Terms of Union, it held a province-wide referendum on two separate occasions. There has been no such universal consultation with the people of Quebec on this occasion. Thus, the committee must feel satisfied that there is substantive evidence to ensure that the people of Quebec are behind this amendment.

A second concern for the committee is to ensure that the amendment meets the test of the rule of law. While there are various legal aspects of this process that must be considered, I would like the committee to consider this one. Section 93(1) of the Constitution Act, 1867, states:

Nothing in any such Law shall prejudicially affect any Right or Privilege with respect to Denominational Schools which any Class of Persons have by Law in the Province at the Union.

While I am not a constitutional expert, I take that to mean that although the provinces were given exclusive jurisdiction over education, they could not make laws after Confederation which would prejudicially affect any right with respect to denominational schools that a person had by law in the province at the time of union.

We must remember that at the time of union there were not four provinces, but rather only three: New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and the united province of Canada.

Therefore, the committee must be satisfied that Quebec can use section 43 of the Constitution Act, 1982, without the consent of Ontario. This could set a significant precedent because if this amendment is passed without Ontario's consent now, will Quebec separatists use this to further their argument that they can unilaterally alter the Canadian Constitution without the consent of their partners in Confederation? This is just one of the questions of law that the committee must address.

The third and final issue that the committee must address is: Does this amendment meet the test of Canadian national interest? Does this amendment give Quebec unique powers in amending the Constitution? Would it lead to Quebec gaining the power to opt out of the Canadian Constitution one clause at a time? Is there sufficient protection for minority groups not only in Quebec but across Canada if this amendment should pass? Again, these questions must be addressed by the committee.

The official opposition is endeavouring to ensure that this process is done correctly. I call on the government and all members of the House to heed our concerns.

[Breast Cancer, October 1st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, today marks the beginning of a month of mourning for over 5,000 women who died of breast cancer in 1997. Every woman who died this year was someone's wife, mother, daughter, sister, grandmother, aunt or cousin. Whenever I hear of another death from breast cancer I cannot help but think there might be some young child who is growing up without a mother.

Breast cancer takes one life every two hours in this country. These statistics are alarming and discouraging for the 18,600 women who are diagnosed each year.

In its throne speech the government announced that it will expand the Canadian breast cancer initiative. However there are no details about how and when the Liberals plan to do this.

The numbers speak for themselves. The time has come for action by this government to prioritize research dollars.

To the families who have suffered the loss of their loved ones to breast cancer, I extend—

[British Columbia, September 29th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, neither British Columbians nor I are calling for secession. What we are calling for is a little respect from the government.

The government responds to foreign overfishing off the west coast by taking the B.C. government to court. It closes the only military base on mainland British Columbia. It withholds millions of dollars in transfer payments because it claims the B.C. NDP government is too hard on welfare recipients.

Would the minister agree it is because of the government's mishandling of west coast issues that so many British Columbians do not feel at home in Confederation?