Derek Wells

[Questions On The Order Paper, September 16th, 1996]

Have any tenders been awarded in the last twelve months by Public Works Canada, that were not accompanied by a deposit cheque, where the terms of the tender stated "a certified cheque payable to the Receiver General for Canada in an amount equal to 10% of the price offered must be submitted as a deposit with the offer to purchase" and, if so, why?

[Fisheries, June 14th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

As the minister knows, the fishing industry has been very concerned about the new inspection fees imposed on processing plants. The matter has been reviewed by the standing committee and by the minister's staff.

Will the minister advise the House of the result of that review and what changes he has agreed to make to plant inspection fees?

[The Constitution, June 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, by way of clarification on the amendment, the member would add the words "where numbers warrant". Which body would decide if the numbers were sufficient? Would it be a school board, a church or the provincial legislature?

[The Constitution, June 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, with that preamble I dare not say I find the question fuzzy.

I raised this question with myself. I raised it with the people in Newfoundland whom I called to discuss this issue. I read the question. I read the debate that took place in the House of Assembly in Newfoundland. I read the speeches of the premier at the time. I read the speech of the leader of the opposition at the time, Lynn Verge. It is an issue I took very seriously.

If I thought for a moment the people of Newfoundland did not understand for what they were voting I would have some concerns in supporting this motion. There is no doubt in my mind, having reviewed the question, having reviewed the debates, having discussed the issue with residents. I am not saying we will not find an individual who may have been confused. I am not saying we will not find individuals who will say they did not realize this or that was part of the issue. On balance, I am happy with the question and I am happy with the result.

[The Constitution, June 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address the motion today. In doing so I want to address what the motion is and is not.

Let me explain why I rise to address the issue, an issue which in my opinion for the most part is a Newfoundland issue. It is an issue that the Parliament of Canada should take seriously. Parliament however should not override the will of the province unless there are some compelling reasons to do so. It must keep in mind that the matter was referred to Parliament after being the subject of a referendum in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador as well

as the subject of a unanimous vote of the Newfoundland House of Assembly. The referendum was not a legal requirement, but was conducted to gauge the wishes of the people. Also it was a major issue in the recent Newfoundland provincial election.

I represent a Nova Scotia riding but my roots are in Newfoundland. I was born there and completed my high school education there. I returned after university to teach in a small rural community before returning to Nova Scotia to complete my law degree. I attended both the integrated system of four denominations and I attended the Catholic system. I taught in the integrated system in the community of St. David's in rural Newfoundland. Just a few minutes away, in another small community, there was another all-grade school run by another denominational school board.

I am aware circumstances have changed since I attended school in Newfoundland and since I taught there some 26 years ago. However, many of the same inefficiencies created by term 17 still exist. The same divisiveness created by term 17 still exists. The same power struggle that has been ongoing in Newfoundland and Labrador for generations still exists.

I have heard it said by those who oppose the changes to term 17 that we are moving too fast, that we should slow down the process, that we should send this matter back to be reconsidered by the province. To those people I say no. With respect, this debate has gone on far too long. It is not a debate which commenced in 1995 with the provincial referendum; it is a debate which has been going on for years, in fact for generations.

For many of us who took part in this debate over the years, our concern is the amendments have not gone far enough. However, I am convinced that perhaps all that could be achieved has been achieved at this time and that we should move forward to pass this amendment.

The answer is not further delay. The answer is action now to begin the process of reforming the Newfoundland and Labrador school system. It is time we put this matter behind us.

Let me address what this legislation does not do. As other members have pointed out, lobbying on both sides has been intense and, like so many issues in the House, much of the information that has been circulated on both sides of the issue does not contain all of the relevant facts. In particular, the information about the quality of education in Newfoundland is unfortunate. Much of what we have heard is not true. In my view it is not the issue.

The hon. member for Gander-Grand Falls expressed this point much better than I could, but I agree with him on the point of the quality of education in Newfoundland. However, the debate should not be focused on that issue. We are talking about efficiencies, we are talking about the cost and we are talking about other issues. I go on the record as agreeing with the hon. member for Gander-Grand Falls with respect to that issue.

This amendment does not mean the end of denominational schools in Newfoundland and Labrador. This amendment does not abolish or extinguish denominational education in Newfoundland and Labrador. The new term 17 clearly states that subject to certain provisions all schools established, maintained and operated with public funds shall be denominational schools, and any class of persons having rights under term 17, as it read on January 1, 1995, shall continue to have the right to provide religious education, activities and observations for the children of that class in those schools. The bottom line is the amendment provides for the right to maintain religious education activities and observations in the schools.

The qualification contained in section 17(b) states that any provincial legislation dealing with the establishment or continued operation of schools must be uniformly applicable to all schools, both interdenominational and unidenominational schools. In other words, the power to the legislature is qualified.

The revised term 17 gives the Newfoundland legislature much greater control over such matters as school board boundaries, capital funding, school consolidation, student transportation and other administrative matters. The amendment removes some of the power from the churches and gives it to the duly elected representatives of the people. This debate is about power. More than that, it is about efficiencies, it is about reform and it is about better serving the interests of the students of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I will speak about some of the things the amendment does not do. The amendment is not about adversely affecting or extinguishing minority rights in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is fair say this is an issue we all take very seriously. If there were, in the drafting of the new term 17, an indication that minority rights were being extinguished, I am sure the amendment would not have the level of support it presently has. It is my considered opinion this amendment is not a situation in which minority rights are being adversely affected or taken away by a majority.

As previously stated in the House, there is no single denomination that dominates numerically. In this instance each of the seven main denominations is affected equally by the proposed changes. After the amendment has passed, if that is the final result, there

will still be denominational schools in Newfoundland and Labrador and they will be entrenched in the new term 17.

It has been suggested by some that by adopting this motion the House may be setting a dangerous precedent for future use. For that reason we must clearly state this amendment and this process is clearly set out in section 43 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

It is one of a number of procedures set out for amending the Constitution, each with differing degrees of difficulty. Under section 43 it is an issue between the national government and the provincial government and is limited to the case where a province approaches the federal Parliament for a bilateral change affecting that province only.

By Parliament's agreeing to the request of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, we will not be binding future Parliaments to automatically agree to future requests under the same section. We certainly would not be binding future Parliaments to agree to any requests made under other amending sections of the Constitution.

It warrants re-emphasizing at this time that any amendment made under section 43 will in no way threaten minority language or aboriginal rights, which cannot be changed bilaterally and which are entrenched and protected by other sections of the Constitution.

We know there have been strong opinions expressed on both sides of this issue, from inside the province of Newfoundland and Labrador and from without. These views have been expressed within our own caucus and this matter will be proceeding on the basis of a free vote.

I acknowledge the views of both sides of the issue are genuine and deeply felt opinions. I do not want to suggest those who have opinion contrary to mine are wrong, but I wish to say to them we must put this matter behind us because it is in no one's best interest to see our communities and our families and our friends divided on the question of religion.

We must put this public debate behind us and move to pass what is at best a reasonable compromise between those with differing views. The changes are needed, the process has been fair and the cause is right. I will therefore be supporting the motion.

[Fisheries, May 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

I have been hearing many concerns from the processors and importers of fish in my riding of South Shore with respect to inspection fees. Now that the 30 day prepublication period is over, will the minister indicate to the House what kind of reaction was expressed by the industry and whether he is prepared to consider making changes based on those expressions of concern to make this cost recovery program equitable for all sectors?

[Criminal Code, May 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-201, introduced by the hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley. This bill would increase the minimum sentence for impaired driving causing death to seven years.

I share the member's concern about the serious problem of impaired driving. Indeed, all Canadians share this concern. I would readily lend my support to any measures which would be truly effective in deterring impaired driving. The challenge is finding measures which are effective.

A seven-year sentence can be a reasonable sentence in some circumstances. In some circumstances it may not be enough and in other circumstances it may be too much. I cannot support the bill because I do not believe we should limit a trial judge's discretion in sentencing in this way. The sentence must be proportional to the

gravity of the crime. This longstanding principle of the criminal law is a fundamental principle of sentencing. The proposed amendment would be inconsistent with that principle and for that reason I cannot support it.

The current law provides that the maximum punishment for impaired driving causing death is 14 years imprisonment. In some cases this may not be enough. Bill C-201 proposes a minimum sentence of seven years imprisonment be added to the section.

I am aware that the public is often outraged by the sentences imposed in individual cases, sentences that often do not appear to reflect the severity of the crime, or do not come close to the maximum set out in the code. This is one of the primary reasons for including the principles and purposes of sentencing in the Criminal Code. I am confident that these measures will ensure greater consistency in sentencing for similar offences. The fundamental principle as expressed in section 718.1 of the Criminal Code is: "A sentence must be proportional to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender".

Imposing a minimum sentence for one particular offence in response to public outrage over particular cases where the sentence was considered inadequate is not a long term solution to any of the problems caused by impaired driving. It is not how our criminal justice system should be changed and is not in keeping with the fundamental principles of sentencing.

The issue of minimum sentences was fully canvassed by the government in the mid-1980s before the Criminal Code amendments to the impaired driving provisions were passed in 1985. The 1985 amendments added two new offences, impaired driving causing bodily harm and impaired driving causing death, with maximum penalties of 10 and 14 years respectively. No minimum sentences were provided because a conviction for such offences is based on fault.

To prove the offence it must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the impaired driving resulted in the death or bodily harm. Similarly the sentence imposed must also take into account the degree of fault of the offender. For example, if a pedestrian runs between parked cars into the path of an impaired driver and is killed, should the impaired driver receive the most severe punishment permitted under the code? While his impaired driving may have contributed to the accident because a sober driver could perhaps have avoided the pedestrian, it may well be that even a sober driver would not have been able to avoid the accident.

The impaired driver must of course be punished for driving while impaired. However, I would not agree with a minimum sentence approach that ignores the many other factors considered by a judge when drafting a sentence, including the offender's record which may not have included previous impaired driving charges.

We must ask ourselves whether a minimum sentence would deter impaired driving behaviour. I do not believe it would. Our efforts to reduce and ideally to eliminate impaired driving have to focus on early prevention and perhaps even a zero tolerance for drinking and driving. Perhaps we should be considering a reduction of the .08 standard that is now part of the Criminal Code.

In addition to the law, there must be strict enforcement and greater public awareness and education. This is the approach we have been taking in Canada and throughout North America for the past 15 years. This approach has been successful. It has not reduced impaired driving to zero, but significant reduction in the number of charges of impaired driving and impaired driving behaviour have been experienced. We have to a large extent changed the public perception of drinking and driving. It is no longer socially acceptable as it once was. Through the combined efforts of federal and provincial governments and municipalities across Canada, this trend should continue.

Impaired driving is a unique example of where both federal and provincial laws operate. The Criminal Code sets out a range of offences including impaired driving; driving with a blood alcohol content over .08; refusing to provide a breath sample; driving while disqualified; impaired driving causing bodily harm; and impaired driving causing death. Penalties vary with the seriousness of the offence.

In addition to the federal criminal provisions, the highway safety legislation of all provinces imposes sanctions on impaired drivers in accordance with the provinces' responsibilities for driver and vehicle licensing and highway safety. Even before a driver is convicted of impaired driving, some provincial laws impose licence suspensions for up to three months. Upon conviction for impaired driving, a driver's licence will be suspended for a period of six months to five years, depending on the province and the driver's previous record.

Some provinces have legislation to impound the vehicle driven by drivers while their licence is under suspension. The combined effect of these provincial and federal laws has had an impact on reducing the occurrence of impaired driving.

As my colleague has pointed out, when tragedy occurs the inadequacy of the law is often singled out as the cause. Some members seem to believe that so long as a law is transgressed it is not efficient and the penalties are not high enough. I do not share this view and I believe it is a rather naive way of seeing things.

It does not necessarily mean that our laws are to blame because they are infringed. However if our criminal law is in need of reform, I would fully support a comprehensive reform based on adequate research and consultation rather than on a speedy amendment. I know we would all readily support initiatives that could be shown to bring about further reductions in impaired driving.

I should point out that Bill C-17, an omnibus piece of legislation which is awaiting second reading, proposes a range of amendments to improve the criminal law. Included in that package are a number of amendments to improve the impaired driving provisions, including clarification of the provisions regarding mandatory prohibition orders and the use of evidence in blood samples. Bill C-17 demonstrates that this government is prepared to make changes and effective amendments, amendments which follow from adequate research and consultation and which are consistent with the underlying principles of the criminal law.

I do not wish to suggest that our laws are perfect. Indeed there is always room for improvement. The incident the member referred to in his speech during the first hour of the debate on this bill where an individual killed three members of the same family while driving impaired and was sentenced to three and one-half years is a sad one. The judge had the discretion in that case to impose a sentence of 14 years but he chose not to.

All members of this House should work together to develop solutions that will lead to reducing impaired driving. This does not necessarily mean changing the law. It means speaking out against impaired driving at every opportunity, supporting community programs, supporting groups like MADD and PRIDE, spreading the message that Canada does not tolerate impaired drivers.

However the solution is not to take away judicial discretion. If changes to the criminal law are needed, let us do it right and look at the advantages and disadvantages of various options and their effectiveness. I do not believe that Bill C-201 is the solution and I cannot support it.

[The Bluenose, March 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, this week marks the 75th anniversary of the launching of the Bluenose which has come to be recognized as Nova Scotia's sailing ambassador.

The Bluenose , launched in Lunenburg in my riding of South Shore 75 years ago, is a continuing portrait of the heritage and industry in my riding. The lumber mills, blacksmiths, shipwrights, sailors, fishermen and all those who either helped to build her decks or worked upon them are the very roots of our heritage and our communities.

The Bluenose is not only a legend on the South Shore, she is known the world over as one of the greatest sailing ships of all time. The historic importance of the Bluenose as a fishing and cargo carrying schooner as well as her prowess as a racing vessel have marked her place. She continues to be celebrated on something each of us carries with us every day, the dime.

It is important that we recognize Canada's seafaring history and make it a part of our national identity. Nova Scotians will salute this vital part of our heritage this year by celebrating the Year of the Wooden Boat. We must hold on to the memory of this great national icon for generations of Canadians to come.

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1996-97, March 21st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to give the member specifics but my timeframe will not allow me to do that.

I did address the question of unemployment. I did address the question of the unacceptable level of youth unemployment which is at 16 per cent. As I mentioned in my speech I also recognize, as I believe the hon. member opposite should recognize, the direct link between deficit reduction which will lead to interest rate reduction and will lead to job creation. That is a sound economic principle. I am sure the member opposite realizes that until we get our fiscal

house in order, businesses will not have the climate in which to create the jobs we need in this country.

We have had a good record of job creation but it has to get better. The unemployment rate of 9.4 per cent is still unacceptable. The youth unemployment rate of 16 per cent is unacceptable. I am convinced the measures we started two budgets ago and that we are continuing with this budget will over time reduce that rate. I am very confident of that.

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1996-97, March 21st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about a vision or lack of vision with respect to the deficit; it depends on how one looks at it. I would be the first to acknowledge there are two plans, two visions for the future, two budgets: the budget presented by the Reform Party and the government's budget.

I said in my speech and I have said over and over that the deficit is something we must get under control. We are not only committed to reducing the deficit on a planned basis but to eventually eliminating it, then being able to use that money for programs and to pay off the debt.

There is a difference between the position of the party opposite and my position. I recognize there are two deficits while the member opposite only recognizes one deficit. He recognizes the fiscal deficit as I do but I also recognize the human deficit. We cannot put the people of this country at risk and make the human deficit worse by taking the approach advocated by the member opposite.

I appreciate what the member is saying. To a great extent we agree on many issues as they relate to the eventual elimination of the deficit, but there is a difference in approach. As I have stated, the main difference is the recognition by this side of the House that we must also consider the human deficit.