Lost his last election, in 2000, with 37% of the vote.
Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization Act June 4th, 1996
Madam Speaker, I would reply to the hon. member that my comment is related to the issue under consideration because ADM is a very good example of mismanagement following the decision to put airport management and control back in the hands of private enterprise. ADM has no respect for Quebec's long term interests.
Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization Act June 4th, 1996
Madam Speaker, I will go on in the same vein as my colleague from Blainville-Deux-Montagnes. ADM's decision to transfer flights from Mirabel to Dorval raises not only the issue of increasing pollution and air traffic but also that of public interest. The problem with Mirabel is that ADM decided it was worthwhile to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in order to improve Dorval, forgetting that Mirabel is still there, that a lot of money has been invested in that airport.
As you know, it was the Liberal Party, under Mr. Trudeau's leadership, that saw to it that Mirabel got built. In transferring all flights to Dorval, ADM is forgetting that Mirabel is still a problem as that airport should also be developed. Negotiations about Mirabel must resume within eight to ten years. More money will have to be invested.
The decision to transfer flights from Mirabel to Dorval is a bad decision that does not take into account the interests of the public and of the people of Montreal. In the very short term, it is simply a stopgap solution. The obvious solution would be to build a suspended high-speed train that can cover the distance between Mirabel and Dorval in 10 minutes. The technology already exists in Quebec, and it would be an obvious solution as it would allow us not only to link Mirabel and Dorval-
The Constitution June 3rd, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I have a copy of that letter. I believe it was sent by the minister of education in Newfoundland, Roger Grimes.
Actually it is unfortunate. All the requests made and the work the association of parents in Newfoundland has done to have their rights respected were never even received by Mr. Tobin. They never got to his door. They got a very flat response from the minister of education, which the association says is a lot of hot air.
The Constitution June 3rd, 1996
We have to trust him, of course. My claim is not so much with Mr. Tobin as it is with the Prime Minister. He should have made some formal agreement with Mr. Tobin. We have to trust him too. Even if the Prime Minister had made promises in that respect, his promises are not always kept, as we know.
The Constitution June 3rd, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her comment. The problem is there has not been any formal engagement on the part of Mr. Brian Tobin, the premier of Newfoundland.
Unfortunately when one reads the press releases one has the eerie feeling that what Mr. Tobin is preparing is what other provinces have done in the past. Instead of providing them with control of their school system Mr. Tobin, like other premiers in Canada, will provide the system with a what is called conseil consultatif in French. It would be like a seat on the school board which would provide the francophones the opportunity to listen in but gives them absolutely no power. It looks good.
That is what is being done in B.C, in Ontario, in Nova Scotia: "We will give them all kinds of latitude and consultative power". It comes down to a big zero plus zero in terms of real power.
Furthermore, it is very far from respecting the Constitution. Article XXIII of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is supposed to be the supreme law of the land, clearly specifies they have the right to control their school systems. There have been supreme court judgements reaffirming that fact. That is where Mr. Tobin has not formally engaged himself and we doubt he will do anything.
The Constitution June 3rd, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate, as I was seing before oral question period, that
the Bloc Quebecois does not oppose the motion. We feel that several aspects of the proposed change concerning schools in Newfoundland are acceptable. We view it as reasonable. The majority expressed itself through a referendum and the motion does not interfere with the rights of members of denominations, who can teach religion in schools. There are also practical considerations, in the sense that the province will save money and streamline its school board structure.
However, we feel that the Government of Canada, the Prime Minister of Canada and the premier of Newfoundland, Brian Tobin, are not fulfilling their obligations under section 23 of the 1982 charter.
While the motion on term 17 does not violate section 23, both provisions deal with the right to manage schools. Some members rose to say that they do not support term 17 simply because minority rights will be violated. I remind this House that the rights of French speaking minorities in Newfoundland are currently being violated, because, for 14 years now, the province has not been complying with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 23 is not complied with in Newfoundland.
That is precisely the problem. This charter is forever being dragged in to show how respectful Canada is of minorities, how it has one of the best charters in the world, and how Canada is, in addition, bilingual. The problem is that it is not being implemented in all the provinces. Furthermore, four provinces in Canada do not respect the Canadian Constitution, and we are talking about the supreme law of Canada. Four provinces are not respecting the provisions of section 23 of the charter: British Columbia, Ontario, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland.
This change, the motion to amend term 17, gives Brian Tobin, the premier of Newfoundland, a golden opportunity to bring the province in line with the charter. Section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms gives francophone minorities living outside Quebec, in Canada, the right to manage their own school boards. This is guaranteed in the charter. Furthermore, there have even been two Supreme Court decisions confirming this right, in 1988, and in 1990. There was the Supreme Court decision in the Mahé case, indicating clearly that the francophone minority in every province of Canada had the right to manage its own schools.
In Newfoundland, once again, the charter is not being respected. Francophones still do not have the right to manage their own schools. On the contrary, in Newfoundland, the rights of the francophone minority are being completely disregarded.
I will explain to you what has happened. Mr. Tobin is saying that he will respect the rights of francophones, but we know very well this is so much hot air. His predecessor, Clyde Wells, was no different. When they saw that Newfoundland was not respecting their rights, members of the francophone minority filed a complaint with the Newfoundland Supreme Court to right the situation. Mr. Wells told them: "No, withdraw your complaint to the Newfoundland Supreme Court and I will give you the power to manage your own schools". After the association of francophones withdrew its complaint, no more was heard of the promises made by Mr. Wells.
We are in the same situation today, exactly the same situation. History repeats itself. It looks like Mr. Tobin is indeed telling us that he will protect the rights of francophone minorities in Newfoundland, but is putting nothing in writing, is not making any black and white commitments. These words will disappear into the ether, there is no doubt. All indications are that Mr. Tobin will not honour this promise.
That is the Prime Minister's role in this country, he who is supposedly responsible for making sure the Constitution of Canada is respected. This would have been the ideal opportunity for doing so. He could have said, "Brian, old boy, we will reach a deal. We will pass your little motion, so that you can reorganize the school boards in Newfoundland, but then, in exchange, you will agree to respect section 23 of the charter".
That, precisely, was the responsibility of the Prime Minister of Canada, the man who claims to champion francophone rights in Canada. By the way, he has done nothing. Moreover, in a letter to the premier of Newfoundland, which I could quote to you, he makes no reference to the fact that Newfoundland does not respect section 23 of the charter. I see this as unfortunate and serious. Minority rights in Canada have been ignored for a long time, and here we have one more example, in Newfoundland.
The people of Newfoundland and the francophone association in that province are entitled to administer their own school boards, and Newfoundland has denied them that right. In 1988, they went before the Newfoundland Supreme Court to ensure that their rights were respected. They obtained an agreement, rather a promise, from Mr. Wells that he would respect the charter, but that did not happen.
Now today, Mr. Tobin is holding up the possibility of ensuring the charter is respected. Whether it is or not remains to be seen. After Mr. Wells' promise to the association of Newfoundland and Labrador francophones to see that their right to administer their own schools would be respected, Mr. Wells instead set up the Normand commission. This commission confirmed, not surprisingly, that francophones in Newfoundland were indeed entitled to manage their own schools. That was the finding of the Normand commission.
The Newfoundland government managed to keep the Normand report out of the hands of the association of Newfoundland and Labrador francophones for two and a half years. It took two and a half years for the association to even have access to the Normand report, which said that francophones had the right to manage their own schools.
Newfoundland does not treat its francophones with the greatest respect. This problem is a Canadian problem because, although Canada claims to respect its minorities and to be sensitive to their rights, even today there are still four provinces that do not abide by the terms of the Canadian Constitution.
Newfoundland could have seized this opportunity to protect these rights. Especially since, on the one hand, Captain Canada himself is afraid to make a commitment to protect minority rights and, on the other hand, the champion of francophone rights in Canada, the Prime Minister, cannot make a commitment either. He could have done so easily in this case. It would have been so easy.
Why did he not do so? Why did Brian Tobin not make a commitment to protect the rights of francophones so they can manage their own schools? Because he has no intention of doing so. There is no political will in Newfoundland to do so.
Why did the Prime Minister not make a commitment either? Why did he not force Brian Tobin to clearly promise to protect the rights of francophones in Newfoundland? Because this government does not have the political will either to protect the rights of francophones.
This political will is disappearing over time, not only in Newfoundland but in all the other provinces as we can see. Just last weekend, we learned that this federal government has cut by almost two thirds the funding for Ontario's francophone associations.
I could give you several other examples that clearly show they are no longer trying to defend the rights of francophones. This government is showing once again that it lacks the backbone to enforce the terms of the Canadian Constitution.
Constitution Amendment June 3rd, 1996
Madam Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois supports the motion in regard to the referendum held in Newfoundland because a majority of Newfoundlanders voted in favour of this change. Also because the motion does not violate the rights of minorities, since a majority of Newfoundlanders voted on an issue concerning all religious denominations that have schools in the province. What this means essentially is that a majority of people have given themselves the right to make changes in the education system that will benefit Newfoundland, since the province will save some $7 million by having only one school system instead of four, and by having only four school boards, instead of 27.
As regards religious rights, the hon. member for Central Nova rightly pointed out that the rights of religious denominations will not be violated, on the contrary. Following the change made through term 17, religious denominations will be able to exercise their religious rights in any school, the only difference being that the schools will be multiconfessional, instead of having religious groups controlling them.
I personally feel that the control of schools by the Church is a thing of the past. It is time for schools to be under secular control, thus allowing the various religious communities to fulfil their role and teach religion.
In this regard the proposed change to the motion concerning schools in Newfoundland is a good one. Some members alluded to section 93 of the Canadian constitution, which is supposed to protect denominational rights throughout the country.
Let me do a brief historical outline. Madam Speaker, section 93 was not complied with by your province. In New Brunswick, all French speaking schools were abolished in 1871, because the province had not complied with section 93, a situation which was corrected almost a century later. The same happened in most Canadian provinces, including Manitoba and Ontario. At the turn of the century, not complying with section 93 was the way used to abolish the rights of the French speaking minority.
Today, when we talk about the Canadian Constitution, we are told: "We respect the Constitution, we respect section 93". This was not always the case.
What hurts about this motion is that Newfoundland again is not complying with the Canadian constitution. This time it is not in regard to section 93, but section 23 of the 1982 charter. This is a very recent provision; it dates back only 14 years. Newfoundland is among those Canadian provinces that do not comply with the Constitution, which is supposed to be the supreme law of a bilingual Canada.
Newfoundland is among the four provinces that, to this day, do not comply with this modern charter, along with Ontario, Nova Scotia and British Columbia.
Section 23 of the Canadian charter of rights is of the utmost importance, and even essential. It is essential to the bilingual dimension of Canada, because the whole future of French speaking and Acadian minorities in Canada rests on section 23, which guarantees French speaking minorities in Canada a legal right to control their own schools. I repeat that four provinces in Canada still do not comply with this section of the Canadian Constitution, Newfoundland being one of them.
Obviously, this is not directly linked to term 17 before us today. Section 23 of the charter is quite distinct, but the fact of the matter is they are related. When one considers term 17, one wonders about Mr. Tobin, the premier of Newfoundland, also known as Captain Canada. Is he going to abide by the Canadian Constitution
and grant French speaking citizens of his province the right and the power to control their school boards. This is a matter for concern, because in the past Newfoundland did notre really demonstrate a great deal of good faith in this matter. British Columbia and a few other provinces are no better.
The charter was enacted in 1982. A judgment by the Supreme Court of Alberta has clarified section 23. It said that French speaking minorities in Canada have the right to control their school boards. An appeal was made to the Supreme Court of Canada, the highest court in the land. In 1990, the Supreme Court confirmed that, under section 23, French speaking Canadians have the right to manage their own schools.
But not a word was heard from Newfoundland. This is an opportunity for Brian Tobin, Captain Canada, to grant French speaking citizens in his province the right to control their own schools, which he has not done yet. I will explain later that the past is probably an indication of what the future holds. The same thing happened with his predecessor, Mr. Wells, who made all kinds of promises but never delivered.
The worst of it all is that the Prime Minister, who claims to be the champion of French speaking Canadians' rights, did not say a word about this issue. He did not say to Brian Tobin: "Listen, Brian, let us make a deal. I will enact term 17, but you are going to comply with section 23 of the Constitution". This is the responsibility of the Prime Minister of Canada.
Francophones Outside Quebec May 30th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the Prime Minister himself does not rise to defend his solemn promises, leaving the task to the heritage minister. Her department did not do much to implement section 41. The Prime Minister should read the commissioner's report.
Assimilation of francophones is on the rise. In fact, the number of young francophones living outside Quebec dropped 35 per cent over a 20 year period. Just last week, Statistics Canada confirmed that one third of young francophones had become anglicised.
My question is for the Prime Minister. What will the Prime Minister do? What will it take for the Prime Minister to finally admit that the situation is critical?
Francophones Outside Quebec May 30th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
In August 1994, in Moncton, the Prime Minister solemnly announced that 27 federal agencies would prepare action plans to meet the needs of francophones living outside Quebec. This week, the Commissioner of Official Languages concluded that the government had not delivered. So much for the Prime Minister's solemn promises.
How long will the Prime Minister continue to pretend to be doing something for francophones living outside Quebec? Is he waiting for them all to be assimilated?
Supply May 30th, 1996
Madam Speaker, there is no such thing as a short answer to that comment. Canada is not a bilingual country. The public service in Ottawa is not a bilingual public service. Ottawa is the capital of the country and it is not a bilingual town.
I might have committed an error with respect to the school taxes. What I was trying to say is that in Ontario you can provide your tax dollars to the French school system. I am not saying the contrary. It is just that you have to go out of your way to assure yourself those tax dollars are put into the French language school system, otherwise they go automatically to the English school system. It is discriminatory in Ontario.