Ronald J. Duhamel

[Violence Against Women, December 6th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, December 6 marks the national day of remembrance and action on violence against women.

Today we honour the memory of the 14 young women who were slain at Montreal's École Polytechnique.

We continue to observe this day because violence against women is still a fact of life in communities across Canada. We know that over half the women in our country have been the object of violence, be it physical, sexual, psychological, financial or spiritual.

Last year there were over 85,000 admissions of abused women and their dependant children to transition houses across the country. Women who are subjected to and suffer long periods of violence often end up with long term health problems. Their physical and mental injuries affect them, their families and their communities.

The cost of violence relating to health and well-being is over $1.5 billion per year.

The next generation of Canadians needs us to build the foundation for a violence free Canada. Violence is totally unacceptable.

Let us all work together to eliminate violence, not only against women, but all violence, wherever present.

[Invisible Ribbon Campaign, December 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I received a letter recently from two Manitobans who are concerned that Canadians no longer value the military. Like myself, they think that this must not be allowed to continue. As a result of this they have begun the invisible ribbon campaign.

The ribbons, one of which members see me wear, are made out of plastic wrap. This is symbolic of the invisible uniform warn by the partners, spouses and children of military personnel. They are as committed to the military way of life as the personnel who wear the uniform. So too their morale is affected by negative media attention and public opinion.

I urge all members to join me in wearing an invisible ribbon to demonstrate that Canadians do appreciate military personnel and their families.

This campaign will help reaffirm pride in the military and let military personnel and their families know that Canadians recognize and support their vital contribution to Canada.

Please join with me in urging people across Canada to wear the invisible ribbon. Let's have a visual thumbs up for the military.

Please join me in wearing this ribbon.

[Excise Tax Act, December 3rd, 1996]

Indeed, Madam Speaker. My colleague has no doubt seen an accounting by the Prime Minister of Canada with respect to the promises made on the electoral platform. The majority of those promises have been honoured.

My hon. colleague who asked the question knows full well that setting aside the GST was one of a number of options. Harmonization was in the electoral platform. My colleague knows that. My colleague is intentionally trying to make it an issue when it is not. Why would my colleague not read the relevant sections into the record? Harmonization was clearly an option. Harmonization was mentioned on a number of occasions. My colleague knows that.

The other thing that I find extremely strange is, as I understand it, every party in the House of Commons is in favour of harmonization. Every single party. If I am wrong, let them stand up and say so. As I understand it, businesses are in favour of harmonization. Yes, there is additional work that needs to be done. Yes, the systems need to be fine tuned. However, let them stand up and be counted. Let us have no more rhetoric. Let us look at this initiative as it is intended to be, to make the system fairer, simpler and less costly. Let us look at it from that perspective.

[Excise Tax Act, December 3rd, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I know that he takes these questions seriously.

I thought I had shown quite clearly in my address that this was as fair an approach as could be found. I have not heard one political party, not one politician, come forward with something that is more sensitive or sensible which responds to the needs that have been articulated. I am befuddled.

I suspect he probably has another question. Surely he listened to what I said. I said let there be no doubt that all systems are imperfect. Let there be no doubt that this has imperfections, but let me see something that is better, let me see something that will respond more significantly to the needs of Atlantic and other Canadians.

The major point here is that it treats Canadians fairly. The opportunities that were given to the Atlantic provinces are also available to Manitoba and Saskatchewan. There is a formula. It is not discrimination. It is not biased.

Of course, when one talks about taxes in general we are not going to find a whole lot of people who are going to agree with any level of taxation or any adjustments to the taxation system. Clearly what we have now is not efficient. Clearly what is being proposed here is much better. It is much more sensitive. It is much more workable.

Surely if my colleague has another option, he or his party will put it forward and then we will let people look at it and decide which of the two options is better.

[Excise Tax Act, December 3rd, 1996]

Madam Speaker, the purpose of our debate today is to take a serious look at this bill, to stay away from the political partisanship that arises from time to time when discussing these issues and to make a thorough analysis based on the following: does this bill provide more benefits for business, yes or no?

I think our comments should aim to improve instead of simply to attack, criticize, denigrate and crush this bill.

I do not want to take up valuable time with further justification of a restructured harmonized federal-provincial sales tax. The facts have been clearly and convincingly addressed by my colleagues.

The facts are there. What we have to do now is improve this bill if we can.

As we all know, the harmonized sales tax will eliminate hidden taxes that inflate prices and hurt exports. It is simpler, more transparent for consumers and for business, and an integrated approach makes possible a lower overall sales tax rate. We know that, those are realities. If people do not agree with the facts they should attack them and show us why.

We know perfectly well this is a better, more straightforward and less costly approach that will help meet the needs of people in a far more flexible way.

Today I want to focus on an aspect of this legislation that has too often been attacked by those who place partisan politics and narrow regionalism ahead of clear objective thought.

The issue of course is a decision by the government to provide a formula for short term adjustment assistance to provinces when they face significant structural cost to participate in the new integrated system. That is the prime issue I want to address today.

There will be assistance when assistance is necessary. There will be a formula that will indicate clearly, fairly and objectively the type and amount of assistance the government will provide.

Under this legislation adjustment assistance becomes available to provinces which experience a revenue shortfall in excess of 5 per cent of their current retail sales tax receipts because they moved to a single harmonized sales tax system.

For qualifying provinces, in this case Newfoundland, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, the formula means that the federal government will provide, and this is very important, first of all, full compensation for the revenue shortfall, that is the shortfall over 5 per cent of the current retail sales tax in year one; that same full compensation for the shortfalls in year two; half the amount of the shortfall in year three; 25 per cent of the provincial revenue shortfall in year four.

Now we have measures that are concrete, specific and fair.

This assistance is a necessary investment in making Canada stronger through helping disadvantaged regions move to a modern tax to meet modern challenges. It is a 21st century type of investment reflecting the fact that government must change how it involves itself in economic development.

We see profound changes taking place aross the country.

Businesses have made it clear that the best role for government is to give firms and workers the environment to compete and that is what it is doing with sales tax harmonization, and that is what responsible government and leadership means.

The assistance formula developed applies equally to all. There is no discrimination, no favouritism, no bribery. It is clear, concrete and objective. It applies equally to all. Any province that faces a transitional revenue loss exceeding 5 per cent because of harmonization qualifies for assistance over that amount on a 50-50 basis. After four years those provinces are on their own.

That means that B.C., Alberta and Ontario would not meet the threshold. They will not lose money on harmonization, just as Quebec did not when it harmonized. In fact, I am told that Quebec

made money through its staged harmonization approach, that it was clever in doing so and it should be commended for that.

Not every province has the economic size and scale to become instant winners under harmonization. For the three Atlantic provinces, with their less developed economies and such problems as the fish stocks, harmonization does carry a painful near term cost. That is why this government has developed a compensation formula and why those governments will receive about $960 million in assistance.

Under the same formula Saskatchewan and Manitoba will also deserve assistance. They would be entitled to over $550 million for the four year period when they decide to harmonize, a fact that is not propagated loudly or widely by either of those governments. I want to mention that under the same formula Saskatchewan and Manitoba would also deserve assistance. They would be entitled to over $550 million for the four year period when they decide to harmonize.

It is surprising and to some frustrating that this government's approach has been turned into a political football. There is a tragic cynicism at work, the type of cynicism that knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. "Let's do what we can in order to enhance our popularity which is plummeting, and let's do whatever in order to noticed".

Who can argue the value of helping provinces provide the environment to industry that would help them fly? It is not just one or two sectors but all businesses in a region. This is particularly true for the Atlantic region which is why it has moved to accept the harmonized approach.

By what illogical leap can it be suggested that because the Atlantic provinces or Manitoba or Saskatchewan qualify for assistance, equal financial benefits should be provided by provinces that do not suffer major losses?

How can anyone rationalize such an approach? What kind of approach do they want when they say we should not distribute wealth according to the needs of a province or a region?

That is not a prescription for fairness. If we do not share in a way that responds to needs and loss it is a premise for selfishness. Statistical uniformity in no way builds economic futures or preserves a vibrant Canadian society. One size does not fit all in a nation as diverse as Canada. It never has and I do not think any provincial politician in their heart of hearts believes any different.

For example, Quebec and Ontario are the major beneficiaries of our federal tax regime for research and development, the most beneficial in the G-7. Do those governments want these credits to be proportioned on the basis of geography rather than economic reality? I think not.

No, certainly not. So why, when we are looking at another program, do they want the same? Is this not a contradiction? Is it not unfair and insensitive? I think so.

That is the heart of the issue and the key to fairness. Government assistance should be determined by the principles of need and performance. That is the way to be effective. That is the way to be cost efficient and that is the way to build a 21st century economy.

Let me repeat this is not a political issue, or it need not be. It is not an accounting debate. Rather, it is a question of Canada's economy today and into the next century. Sales tax harmonization is a solution that gives Canada's affected provinces an effective, more fair and competitive tax.

Our challenges are too pressing, our opportunities too real to squander on petty partisan politics. Let us get on with looking at the issues clearly rather than applying emotional blinkers or dog in the manger logic or simply saying something in order to help the party's flagging popularity.

Yes, our approach and assistance will make the maritimes more competitive. Any province can seize a clear and concrete solution to the problem by getting onboard themselves. The solution does not involve a dramatic fiscal cost. They will benefit quickly and surely through greater competitiveness and real cost savings to their businesses. That should be carrot enough and reward in full.

There are provinces like those in the Atlantic region. They want to make the transformation but face a tough short term downside. That is a barrier they cannot overcome by themselves so we have developed a cost shared short term solution to help them over the hump. That is the essence of partnership and of real national leadership.

Different players bring to the table different problems and different resources. By working together, drawing on our strengths and compensating for our weaknesses we all emerge stronger. The strength of a value added sales tax regime is that it is a better tax for today's economy.

For Canada's place in that economy we face the problem that its advantages have not been fully harmonized with provincial-federal taxes. If we work together through the format and approach our government has set up, the result will be a tax system that makes us stronger, that helps deliver more jobs and that is fairer to us all.

This is the end of my remarks, but I could have gone on for hours, because at last we have an approach that makes sense.

[Constitution Amendment, December 2nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to Mr. Paine's statement that every generation has a right to decide, we cannot take that too far. I chair the committee on aging and we are looking at how the population is changing. One of the things that was noted was the potential for intergenerational conflicts, that current generations might want to do things dramatically differently which would have an impact on others. While we have to be sensitive to that, we cannot let it run our lives totally.

I want to go back to the point I made, which is that with the amendments that have been proposed we could respond to the rights of those minorities in a very sensible way. That is what I would ask my colleagues to look at. If members look deep down in their hearts and souls they do not want to remove the constitutionally acquired rights of minorities without their consent. Members have an opportunity to do it with their consent. I would ask all members to please concentrate on that.

[Constitution Amendment, December 2nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and his willingness to look at the questions that have been raised today. I hope that is contagious and others will do likewise.

I understand the key point. If we make a decision today we do not necessarily have to insist that the decision is forever. I understand the possibilities of that.

However, here is what happened in 1949. Promises were made in order to attract people and to get them to join Canada. Less than 50 years later we are saying: We got you in, now it does not matter anymore if we change the rules or the promises that were made.

Second, and perhaps even more important, this is the wonderful opportunity we have been given. We passed it, it went to the other House and they said: "Whoa, we are not happy about this. Here are some things that could be done, where numbers warrant". That was in the official government documentation. The parents were told: "You will be able to have your kind of denominational school where numbers warrant".

My colleague from Broadview-Greenwood has introduced with another colleague these same amendments: where numbers warrant; and in order to be able to determine and direct. That is the beauty of the wonderful opportunity we could seize, because we have changed from 1949. We can change from 1949 and remove those rights. We can say forget it, that it is over. Some people will argue that we have not but let them look me straight in the face when they say that. Here is an opportunity with these amendments: where numbers warrant and to determine and direct, where it would change them but would not eliminate them, would not remove them.

Surely no one is going to argue that a right that is subject to provincial legislation is no longer a constitutional right. Or at least let them stand and say to remove that constitutional right. I could live more easily with that kind of debate but the challenge that is thrown to us by quoting a well known American personality is one that is available to us today. We can move from where we were but in a sensible way and still respond fairly to everyone's needs.

[Constitution Amendment, December 2nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, what I would like to raise this afternoon is the key issue which, as you know, is not the Senate. We must not let ourselves get sidetracked by what the elected representatives or the appointed representatives have done. The key issue, the only one, is: What will happen if this amendment initiated by the government of Newfoundland and Labrador is adopted? What will happen to minority rights there? What is the possible impact on minority rights elsewhere?

Let us take the time to discuss this. Let us drop the questions of Senate, House of Commons, this power struggle, let us look instead seriously and carefully at what we are in the process of doing at this time. Are you, as a group, ready to suppress the rights of Newfoundland and Labrador minorities?

Before voting on the Newfoundland schools question, I urge members to consider the following carefully, extremely carefully. I know we have busy agendas and sometimes we tend to listen to people who would have us do certain things without having the time to reflect but let us reflect on this one. It has come back to us for a second look, for more study.

What is the effect of the current term 17? What is the effect of what is now in the Constitution? The current term 17 of the terms of union extends to various religious minorities in Newfoundland and Labrador the constitutional rights to establish and operate schools that reflect their particular religious beliefs and practices and the right to receive a fair share of public funds for the operation of those schools. That is what the current constitutional arrangements do.

This right is now immune from any legislative enactment which might prejudicially affect it. For Newfoundland, term 17 is the equivalent of section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867, a section that provides a constitutional underpinning for denominational school systems in a number of other provinces. That is what we are talking about. Let us forget about the games and the power and who is going to decide what. Are we prepared to remove those rights? That is what we have got to answer.

If the proposed term 17 passes without amendment, what effect will that have on minority rights in Newfoundland? If the proposed term 17 passes without amendment, the constitutional right to establish and continue to operate minority religious schools in Newfoundland and Labrador will become, and this is so important

to remember, wholly subordinate to provincial legislation, wholly, totally, completely, unequivocally subordinate to provincial legislation. There is no example in the Constitution of Canada, none whatsoever, where a guaranteed constitutional right would be subject to provincial law. There is not one single example because when it passes through that door it is no longer a constitutional right.

A constitutional right subject to a provincial legislature is no constitutional right at all and could never be subject to the ruling of a court of law. That is what we are doing if we pass this amendment without the other amendments that have been proposed by my colleagues; "where numbers warrant"; and the right to not only direct but to determine and direct.

If the proposed term 17 is amended in accordance with what was proposed in the Senate, what will be the effect of those particular amendments? This is so terribly important to understand as well.

The first amendment proposed in the Senate is to replace the clause "subject to provincial legislation" because if it is subject to provincial legislation it is no longer a constitutionally acquired protected right. The term "subject to provincial legislation" would be changed to "where numbers warrant". Surely this is fair. This term will not provide for the continued existence of separate denominational school boards. However, it will provide for schools for the separate denominations where numbers warrant.

The minorities that have been affected have accepted less than they now have. Surely the federal government and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador are prepared to look at this with some common sense and sensitivity. Surely they are prepared to reach out and seize the opportunity.

The amendment will ensure that parents may choose schools of their own denomination where numbers warrant. It still gives the provincial legislature a whole lot of power. The amendment would preserve the constitutional right of minority religious groups in Newfoundland and Labrador to establish and continue to operate religious minority schools subject to having adequate numbers of students.

The expression "where numbers warrant" is well known in Canadian constitutional law. It is the language in the education section of the charter of rights and it has already been ruled on by the courts. Such an amendment can and should be supported. The Senate amendment merely asks the government to be true to the commitment it made during the referendum, that is, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The second amendment proposed by the Senate provides the guarantee that when minority religious schools are established, the

denomination for whom the school exists will have the constitutional authority not only to direct but also to determine and direct all those matters that affect the denominational integrity of that school.

This amendment should also be supported because "merely to direct" could be interpreted to mean only having the power to carry out policies determined by someone else. Surely we do not want to take it all away from these groups.

The current constitutional protection for Newfoundland and Labrador schools cannot now be changed unless both levels of government, the Government of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, in partnership decide to do so. That is what the deal is now.

If the proposal of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador passes, the constitutional right that I have just described becomes subject to the decision of the provincial legislature. It could be changed unilaterally by this or some other provincial government. Therefore it is no longer a constitutional right.

That is what we are in the process of doing here. We are in the process of removing constitutional rights and placing them at the whim and fancy of those who draft provincial legislation and subject to provincial legislation. Is that what members want to do? Well I do not and I will not. This is a question of the rights of minorities. The amendments proposed by the Senate have the support of the minorities but that was a challenge initiative.

The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador came forward with an amendment that was not acceptable to the minorities affected. But the minorities affected have stepped back and said: "Let us put in the term where numbers warrant. Let us put in another clause so that we are more involved and can participate more fully. We will buy in".

It has changed considerably. Whereas the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador was proceeding without the support of minorities, now it has the support of those minorities. It also has my support and I hope the support of my colleagues.

This is a question of the rights of minorities. Let us not fool ourselves. It is nothing more or nothing less. I oppose the changing of the constitutional rights of minorities without their consent. I would hope my colleagues would also oppose those changes without the consent of those minorities.

Surely we are not going to impose the will of majorities on minorities unless what the minority is doing is dysfunctional for the whole, and that is not the case. That is why I propose passing the original amendment with the additional amendments proposed in the Senate which are now proposed by my colleagues in the House and which are accepted by the affected minorities.

I want to share with the House some information of which my colleagues may not be aware. Prior to the referendum of September 1995 the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador distributed a householder across the province. I have that householder here. It is called "The Education Referendum: A Decision on the Future of Education in Newfoundland and Labrador". The householder discussed the main changes proposed in the amendment which was being initiated by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. Page 2 of the householder reads:

The new Term will not provide for the continued existence of separate denominational school boards. However, it will provide for schools for the separate denomination where numbers warrant-

That is what this official government publication says.

Under the question of which school students will attend under the new system, the householder reiterated: "However, parents may choose schools of their own denomination where numbers warrant". That is in the official documentation sent out by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The other House suggests that the amendment include the phrase "where numbers warrant". I hope, because that same amendment has been proposed here, we will consider it seriously. We should not simply slough it off because it came from the other House. That is not the issue. It is not whether we have been elected or appointed, it is not making fun of other people, it is looking at what we are doing. By this amendment, "where numbers warrant", we are asking the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to be true to the commitment it made during the referendum. That is what we are trying to do. We are trying to ensure that it remains true to that commitment.

People will ask why the member for St. Boniface is so concerned about this issue affecting the education system in Newfoundland and Labrador. It does not only concern the education system in Newfoundland and Labrador. Changing or reducing the constitutional rights of minorities without their consent is wrong. It is contrary to what we as a party have traditionally supported and what most parliamentarians have normally supported.

One of the promises Canada made to Newfoundland when it joined Confederation in 1949 was to protect denominational schools. That became term 17 of the terms of union. That promise was used to get Newfoundlanders to join Canada. Less than 50 years later it is being proposed that the promise be changed without the consent of the minorities. We have given them an opportunity, by presenting motions in this House, to do it honourably in order to respond to the needs, the aspirations, the hopes and dreams of those minorities and yet be able to go on with reform that is, no doubt, very much needed.

Surely as a government it is our role and our duty to protect these constitutionally acquired rights. Canadians are counting on the House of Commons to do exactly that.

Some will argue that there was a referendum and the people decided. This is a major issue and 52.2 per cent of the people voted. There was a 54.9 per cent response in favour. In favour of what? Here is the question: "Do you support revising term 17 in the manner proposed by the government to enable reform of the denominational education system?"

I bet that we could go out and ask that question of Canadians today and a majority would be in favour of it. "Do you want to improve education?" Of course Newfoundlanders and Labradorians said yes. Why not?

Let me read that important question again. Fifty-two per cent of the people said yes to this question: "Do you support revising term 17 in the manner proposed by the government to enable reform of the denominational education system?" We are trying to use the results of that referendum on a fuzzy question to pretend that it was decisive and there is now a mandate to go forward.

The people of Newfoundland and Labrador accept that changes are needed in the education system. The denominational schools understand and accept that changes are needed in the education system. A constitutional amendment is not the only way to achieve a modern and effective school system.

Church representatives and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador have already agreed on many points: the number of school boards, the funding of capital expenditures, the viability of schools and busing. These have been discussed and agreed on already without any constitutional amendment. In four days the government and the church officials were able to agree on points that had been discussed for years with the previous government.

The framework for school board consolidation is a perfect indication of the possibility of a made in Newfoundland solution. This framework has been established for the setting up of 10 interim school boards in the provincial construction board. These changes could be validly implemented by the legislature of the province without the necessity of an amendment.

Let me talk to that more specifically, quoting an authority. In the legal opinion of Mr. Colin Irving, constitutional adviser to the Catholic Education Council: "The Newfoundland legislation adopting the proposals just outlined would not be found by the courts to be in violation of term 17 of the present terms of union".

We must guarantee the protection of these rights of minorities. All minorities note it is not easy to have. They need the protection of the majority for the kind of country we are going to have.

I personally believe that a referendum which takes away certain minority rights and allows the majority to decide is unhealthy, except if the minorities are involved in something that imbalances society and harms the majority. This, I feel, sets a dangerous precedent. What message are we sending by supporting such an action?

Why not see the implementation of provincially negotiated changes to the educational system and if subsequent to this the amendment is still deemed necessary, it could be brought forward at a later date.

Why not an amendment that would be agreed on by all parties? We have two choices here. We could postpone this and do it if it was necessary, or we could take the amendments, which is what I prefer because it has the support of those minorities, that is, "where numbers warrant' and "determine and direct" and put those amendments through because they have the support of the minorities. We can now have an amendment that has the support of all parties if we stop playing games, if we stop worrying about power, if we stop worrying about whether it was the elected or les gens qui sont nommés qui vont décider.

Some people have been using the argument that the academic results of students in Newfoundland and Labrador when compared with those of other students are among the lowest in the country.

It is absolutely false, unhealthy, and dishonest to use such information. According to the Department of Education for Newfoundland and Labrador, and I quote:

The general level of education among all age groups in Newfoundland and Labrador has risen dramatically since the mid-1970s to where the gap with the rest of Canada has all but closed.

According to Chris Decker, former minister of education: "The gap in higher education between our province and the rest of Canada is becoming a myth. Our university participation rates are higher than the national average. If the present trend continues, Newfoundland and Labrador will soon have education levels equal to the rest of the country". Why is this being done?

However, if some people are still not satisfied with the performance in Newfoundland schools, the government is the one that has complete authority on curriculum, test materials, numbers of teachers, funding, teacher education and performance standards. Does it really think that this change is going to bring about a dramatic change in performance? Let's get serious.

To blame the level of education in Newfoundland and Labrador on the denominational school system is absurd and is not a valid argument.

I propose that we look seriously at the main amendment but only pass that main amendment with the other amendments that have been proposed so that the people of Newfoundland can still determine and direct what is going to happen in their schools. Surely such an amendment should have the support of the Government of Canada, the support of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. It has the support of the people affected.

In a sense we would be changing the Constitution but with the consent of the minorities as opposed to going forward without those other amendments that have been introduced, we will be changing constitutionally acquired rights promised to Newfoundlanders so that they would join Canada without their consent. I for one do not want to be part of that, particularly when in an official Government of Newfoundland and Labrador document it states, and I have quoted it twice today, that it will be possible for parents to choose the types of denominational schools they wish for their children where numbers warrant.

I am asking my colleagues to look at this question again, to set aside what the Senate, the House of Commons, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador have said, and to look carefully at what we are in the process of doing.

Unless we are extremely prudent, we will be taking away the constitutionally acquired rights that were promised to minorities when they joined Canada. We have an opportunity to change that. We have some amendments that would permit us to change it with the consent of minorities.

I ask my colleagues to support that common sense approach.

[Petitions, December 2nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition which concerns term 17.

The petitioners say that it is inappropriate and unacceptable to remove the constitutionally acquired rights of minorities extended to them in 1949 when they joined Canada without their consent.

The petitioners say that removing the rights of minorities without their consent is totally unacceptable. It makes minority rights subject to the provincial legislature and, therefore, they are no longer constitutional rights.

[Petitions, November 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to present this petition from a group of Manitobans who object to the constitutional amendment to term 17 of the terms of union between Canada and Newfoundland and Labrador which removes the rights to denominational classes of persons to operate their own schools.

They oppose the removal of constitutionally acquired rights given to minorities so that Newfoundlanders would join Confederation, that is Canada.