Alex Shepherd

[The Constitution, June 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's dissertation that referendums were so valuable in society. Maybe they are, but at what point do we run a referendum or an opinion poll? Do we do it every five or ten years, every year, every two months or every two days?

The member talks about democracy and the respect of democracy and yet we know there was a referendum recently in his province and he continues to talk about the next referendum. There does not seem to be any real appreciation of the votes and the desires of the people of Quebec to stay within the country. How can he claim he is a democrat?

[The Constitution, June 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, denominational schools will continue in the province of Newfoundland.

The framework is where numbers permit. Newfoundland has a population of that of the city of Calgary. It has the great problem it had in the time of Joey Smallwood of how to administer services in rural areas. It is very difficult to administer Cadillac services in areas which do not have the population base to sustain them.

There is a need for rationalization but it does not mean the end of denominational schools. In those urban areas where numbers permit the denominational schools will continue. I believe the Roman Catholic school board will have more powers under this change because it will have a better rationalization of resources and a better ability to deliver those services to its students.

There really has not been a significant change. Many people in Newfoundland are arguing that the changes in the proposals of the province of Newfoundland have not gone far enough to address some of their major concerns. The bottom line is that I respect the member's question. This is a change for the better for Newfoundland. Many people people still argue that it has not gone far enough, but it is our role to endorse those proposals and reform the educational system.

[The Constitution, June 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I sat by and listened to a number of the comments, especially from those of the opposition.

I am very concerned about the sociativity between various referenda that take place in this country. In my riding, we are currently having a referendum about whether parts of my constituency should be part of the GTA.

It has no real legal impact. It is simply an opinion poll. For the members of the opposition to say that the referendum in Newfoundland was not necessary has a kind of major impact on future referendums to do with such a horrendous issue as succession which has no legal framework in our Constitution is ludicrous.

The members opposite talk about democracy. Let us have a focus on what they mean about democracy. They are willing to take the welfare of the children of Newfoundland and use it for their own cause which is separation.

The province of Newfoundland faces the highest illiteracy rate in Canada. The children of Newfoundland have one of the lowest scholastic scores in all of Canada. The province of Newfoundland spends, relative to the amount of money that they have available to them, far more than any other province and yet get one of the worst scholastic scores in this country.

There is something wrong with the school system in Newfoundland. There is no question about that. The members opposite would use those facts to promote their own cause.

Let us talk about democracy. Bloc members are willing to say 50-plus one is some kind of democratic threshold when every other country in the world, when it comes to constitutional amendments to do with the basic framework of their country, require 66 per cent or 75 per cent. The reality is that there is no sociativity between these two things.

Let us talk about some other facts that have occurred in the province of Quebec only recently. We have taken something like the Canada Student Loans Act and allowed it to be administered solely by the province of Quebec. Ninety-eight million dollars a year is allocated from the federal government to the province of Quebec to administer the Canada Student Loans Act. What has the province of Quebec recently done in that area? It has said that those students who want to take educational training outside the province of Quebec are prevented from doing so.

Was there a referendum? No. Was there a consultation process with the people of Quebec? No. Do not tell me about your attitudes toward a consultative and democratic process. Do not tell me about using the children of Newfoundland to support the cause of separation.

Finally, I support this amendment. It is not perfect. Nothing is perfect in our democracy but the feeling and the general attitude of the people of Newfoundland is that they need to get on with their lives, that they need to create a new educational system in the province. They need to create the opportunities for the people of that province.

They have waited much too long to try to resolve this problem. I am willing to believe that the fair minded people of Newfoundland have made a decision both in the legislature and also with a referendum and they basically want to get on with their lives.

The general thrust of the federal government should be to endorse that. I fully endorse it.

[Petitions, May 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from 52 of my constituents who are concerned that the Government of Quebec, the Parti Quebecois, which has the intention of separating the province of Quebec from Canada, threatens the citizenship, livelihoods and properties of all Canadians living in that province by denying their constitutional and basic human rights and by promising to reject any move by those Canadians to remain in Canada after a unilateral declaration of independence by Quebec.

The petitioners request that Parliament take the necessary measures to guarantee that their properties and territories will remain within the Canadian confederation, and make its intention to do so known to the PQ government prior to any unilateral declaration of independence and/or the next referendum on separation.

[Petitions, May 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present two petitions today. The first deals with a concern of 48 of my constituents who wish Parliament to refrain from passing into law any bill extending family status or spousal benefits to same sex partners and specifically prohibiting amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to include the undefined phrase sexual orientation.

[Petitions, May 14th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions signed by people in my riding.

The first petition contains 225 names. It refers to the Canadian Human Rights Act, which of course has already been amended. However, I will refer to the second part which has to do with the charter of rights and freedoms.

The petitioners pray that we do not grant societal approval of same sex relationships and homosexuality, including amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act and the charter of rights and freedoms to include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase of sexual orientation.

The second petition is basically on the same matter. The petitioners pray that we do not amend the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to include or otherwise define the undefined phrase of sexual orientation.

[Bill C-33, May 9th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the public wants individual members of Parliament to have more say in reflecting their opinions.

I note that the British system allows for a degree of independence provided by a tiered disciplinary system. I am most pleased that my leader has provided a free vote on Bill C-33.

With free votes it will be even more important to attempt to understand and represent the views of all constituents. To this end I have had a personal and professional poll prepared in my riding of Durham, asking the people what their attitudes were to the Canadian Human Rights Act.

While there was a clear case of polarization, it was evident that the majority was in favour of the changes which they saw as a matter of human rights. I hope this will herald a new era of relaxing to some degree the discipline in this place in order that members can more effectively represent their constituents.

With this newfound liberty, members will have to be more diligent in ensuring that they fully understand the views of their constituents. I look forward to a more liberalized parliamentary system

[Canadian Human Rights Act, May 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I usually like to begin my speeches with the salutation that I am happy to engage in the debate. Unfortunately, I find that the debate on Bill C-33 has caused confusion and indeed hostility and division even within my own community.

The general public still questions the integrity of members of this place. I note the recent publication of a survey by Ekos Research which discovered that only 15 per cent of the general public places trust in elected officials. I have often taken the time to consider why this should be so. It seems to me it is because many believe that politicians once elected do not represent their views. This of course occurs to some extent because of the diversity of our nation. How do we get Ontario members to vote for harmonized consumption taxes in the maritimes when financially it does not seem to be in their own best interests?

This problem becomes even more exasperating when it comes to the question of moral issues. The public generally has two views of Bill C-33. One is that it is a matter of human rights. The second is that it is about morality; those who believe we are ensuring all

citizens can live free from discrimination and those who believe this is a stepping stone to the redefinition of family and marriage.

I am very uncomfortable about being placed in a position of prejudging the morality of the people of Durham. It is not that I shirk from my responsibilities but rather realize that one person's definition of morality can be quite different from another.

On this point I congratulate my leader for allowing a free vote. We should take the time to put more faith in our elected officials, but at the same time these officials will have to prove they are individually up to the challenge.

The United Kingdom has experienced many government members who had contrary viewpoints and yet their governments have not fallen. I suspect the views of their electorate are more effectively heard. A tiered disciplinary system would do much to restore the faith of the public in the House.

I note in passing that statements by the homosexual community that the vote should be a free vote are inconsistent with their own desires for freedom from discrimination and the social abuse of power.

This brings me to the bill. I have studied the amendments as well as having read the jurisprudence. The bill is quite clear in that it deals with hiring practices at the federal level, both within and outside government, as well as the provision of goods and services.

Most of us would agree we should not discriminate regardless of our attitude toward lifestyles. "Blacks and gays to the back of the store" tells us that not all the prehistoric creatures from Alberta are in the Royal Tyrrell Museum of Palaeontology in Drumheller. I am sure many Albertans feel the same way.

I have conventional values. As a family person I respect the historical role of the family. That means marriage between those of the opposite sex. A study of anthropology can hardly lead one to any other conclusion.

The legal interpretation of one act does not necessarily affect the definitions of another. In any case, most of the problems expressed by those who regard this as an issue of morality should be addresses to the charter of rights and freedoms and the interpretation of section 15 of that act. Marriage and adoption are essentially matters of provincial jurisdiction in any case.

Seven provinces now include a provision in their human rights legislation preventing discrimination based on sexual orientation. Furthermore, the courts have interpreted the CHRA as if the terminology sexual orientation were already included as a prohibited grounds of discrimination. In other words, these amendments simply bring the legislation into conformity with what the courts have already interpreted the act to say.

In spite of my understanding of the issues as well as the desire to truly represent the people of my riding, I undertook a professional poll between May 1-3, 1996. Over 400 calls were made to my riding.

The question was very simple: "As you know, the Minister of Justice has introduced legislation in the House of Commons that would include the addition to the human rights act that people cannot be discriminated against because of their sexual orientation. This would apply to employment in the federal civil service and employment in federally incorporated companies. This act would also apply to the receiving and selling of goods and services. Are you strongly in favour of the legislation, somewhat in favour, somewhat opposed, strongly opposed, or do you have no opinion?"

My riding is both urban and rural. In spite of the fact that my office has been inundated with calls of non-support, the poll reflects an entirely different position: 56 per cent of the people of Durham support this legislation.

A national poll by Angus Reid between April 18-24 called about 561 people in Ontario. The results were identical to my own poll: 56 per cent of the people are in favour of this legislation.

It is clear the majority of those in Durham want me to support this legislation, which I intend to do. A civil society is not measured on how it treats its majority but on how it treats its minorities.

In order to ensure all the elements of our society are treated fairly, it is reasonable to find ways of preventing discrimination of those who, in shear numbers, find themselves to be a minority. This is both fair and reasonable. Even those who take exception to these changes will accept this corollary.

I believe I have fulfilled the obligations given to me by a free vote on this matter. I am pleased to have represented the views of those in Durham. To those who are opposed, this is a great strength of our democratic institutions. People can openly debate issues such as this and arrive at a conclusion.

While this may still be far distant from the concept of consensus, most people in Durham can appreciate that it is not the member of Parliament prejudging their moral conduct but rather the people of Durham who have come to the conclusion that it is fair and reasonable to ensure specific elements in society are free from discrimination.

I am happy to have been an agent for the people of Durham in this matter. I will be voting as they have directed, to support the legislation.

[Petitions, May 6th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition from 49 of my constituents. The petitioners request that Parliament refrain from passing into law any bill extending family status or spousal benefits to same sex partners, and that Parliament not amend the human rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act or the charter of rights and freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or homosexuality, including amending the human rights code or the Canadian Human Rights Act to include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase sexual orientation.

[Taxpayers Bill Of Rights, April 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a wide range of thought processes here. I thank those people who entered into the debate. It is very useful. We should be doing more of that in this country.

This is something that affects almost everyone in the nation. We have over 13 million taxpayers. In some ways it is something that unites us, although it seems like a strange thing to say. A lot of people tonight are struggling with the concept of filing their tax returns. It is something that unites us in the sense that tax filing is consistent across the country.

We talked about all the reasons why we cannot have a taxpayers ombudsman. There are all kinds of reasons. I can show the House this very interesting book. It basically studies taxation and tax administration back through the time of Egypt and up to modern times. Every administration said the same thing, we cannot do this, we cannot tame the hand of Caesar.

The bottom line is that we can do that. It is very important that we do it if we want to command respect for Revenue Canada and for our tax collection agencies. This is a process that people feel comfortable with.

Today that process does not exist. With the great pronouncements of all the things we could have done to make the system better, why have we not done them? As I suggested, there is a tax case where the Supreme Court of Canada had to actually tell two parties to sit down and talk to each other. There is something wrong with the system.

Most people in Revenue Canada carry out their job with diligence and with respect. I have met many of these people throughout my career. I found them generally hard working, concerned about their job and concerned about presenting the department's attitudes fairly and honestly in the community. There are those odd people in the system. We are all human beings and we make mistakes. When one makes a mistake at that level people draw back and say it did not happen.

For those people who are filing their tax returns tonight, we need a process where they feel more comfortable with the system.