Fred Mifflin

[Amendment To The Constitution Of Canada (Newfoundland), December 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I have worked with the hon. member for Broadview—Greenwood over the years on many difficult issues and on many difficult subjects. I want to thank him for the passion that he feels for the subject.

While we agree on most things, there are certain things we do not agree on. I am not sure how he is going to vote, so I will not presuppose this, but I do know the hon. member has concerns with this issue. As I have always done, I respect his concern for this issue as passionate as his concern is about most issues, but this one in particular.

When people decide to vote yes or no on any particular issue, there are many reasons for it. I believe the main reason for the resounding vote of 73%—and you cannot question the majority of that—stems mainly from the torment that people had with respect to putting in place once and for all a system that was more in line with the rest of the country and in fact in line with the rest of North America. The system in Newfoundland and Labrador was unique in all of North America. I know the hon. member knows that.

There was a torment of those people who had to vote on this issue to once and for all put in place an educational system which their children would benefit from. The system would operate in a clear cut and decisive manner and would avoid this great discussion for 10 years where we have had yes and no and referendums and votes in the house of assembly—

[Amendment To The Constitution Of Canada (Newfoundland), December 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. Yes, I do know most of the members of the Newfoundland legislature. I know some of them very well. Some voted one way in the referendum, but upon reflection when they returned to look at the system and what the system was trying to achieve, I think they saw it in a different light. I know one member who had second thoughts.

Those of us who serve the highest courts in the land whether they be in the provinces or in this House sometimes have to decide whether they want to represent the views of their constituents or the views which they believe they must exercise on the part of their constituents. If they are lucky, they will be one and the same. With some difficulty sometimes they can be different.

I will not prolong the answer, but if I may, the case of capital punishment I think was an issue where sometimes members of this House voted with their constituents and other times they voted with their conscience.

[Amendment To The Constitution Of Canada (Newfoundland), December 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that there is such a good diverse debate on this subject. It is a subject that has been debated in Newfoundland and Labrador for many years. It has been debated at length during the last month or so here.

I congratulate my hon. colleague from Mississauga West for giving such an excellent presentation. I also congratulate my colleague, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, for the leadership role he played in co-chairing the joint committee of the House and the other place.

Those who know me will know that I have given this topic considerable thought. I made my wishes known in the last round. I will speak in support of this amendment before the House because I believe it will be beneficial to the children of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Members will recall that there are no public schools in Newfoundland and Labrador. As is the case in all provinces, our education system is a part of our history. Our first schools were sponsored, fostered and indeed promoted by the churches and the clergy. Governments did not assume responsibility for education until much later in our history. Even when public funding became available, the Newfoundland system was still directly and exclusively run by the churches.

I want to use the example of my home town in Bonavista which is an historic fishing town. I think this year at the Cabot 500 celebrations it became known as the landfall of John Cabot. Bonavista is famous for that but it is also famous for something that is not quite as well known.

In 1722, Reverend Henry Jones came to Bonavista where he supervised the building of the first church in Newfoundland. Four years later, he organized the first school in Newfoundland, in my home town. There is the connection.

By the time of Confederation, six individual denominations had been granted the right to operate schools. They still possess that right. It was pointed out in the previous debate that one denomination was added in 1987.

Today in Newfoundland and Labrador, there are four separate, distinct and individual school systems with overlapping boards in a province with 575,000 people and 110,000 students, roughly the size of Calgary.

The people of Newfoundland and Labrador have now asked Parliament to give the provincial legislature the authority to make changes in the denominational education system. That will be the effect of our amended term 17.

Simply put, the legislature would have the authority to decide and to direct educational issues and the individual denominations would not. While the denominational school system was incorporated in the constitution in 1949 for reasons that certainly those from Newfoundland and Labrador would be aware of, the people of the province through their government now wish to make a different arrangement.

They believe that changes must be made to the schools for the sake of their children and for their children's future. The decision to make change was not hasty, not arbitrary and came as a consequence of a long process of public discussion and negotiation.

Just to quickly summarize for the record, six years ago the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador appointed a royal commission on education. More than 30 years have passed since such a study was made.

The commission was chaired by Dr. Len Williams, a very experienced and respected educator. The commission recommended far-reaching changes designed to give the children of Newfoundland and Labrador greater opportunity to prepare themselves to lead full, satisfying and productive lives.

The provincial government decided to negotiate arrangements very quickly and then Premier Wells and several of his senior colleagues had a series of discussions with representatives of the denominations.

They could not reach agreement and eventually the provincial government was essentially faced with three options: to abandon the project to make changes believed necessary, to agree to the much less far-reaching changes which the leaders of the churches were prepared to accept, or the third option, to seek a constitutional amendment to give the legislature powers with respect to education similar to those already vested in every other provincial legislature. They chose the amendment.

Changes were so important to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that a referendum was held. There was a majority of 54.8% of those who voted and endorsed the government's reform proposal.

The government then asked the House of Assembly to decide on the issue and every member of the House, except the Speaker, voted on the proposal. All three parties voted in favour.

In June 1996, for those of us who were here at the time, this House debated and passed a resolution amending term 17 as per the request of the Newfoundland House of Assembly. The resolution then went to the Senate which held public hearings as a single Senate committee and passed the resolution with amendment.

When the resolution returned to the Chamber, the members decided not to accept the Senate amendments and passed the term 17 resolution for the second time in December 1996.

On January 3, 1997 the Newfoundland legislature passed the new schools act to implement the new education regime in light of the new amendments of term 17.

The 1996 amendment represented the compromise arising out of three years of discussion with the denominational education committees. The attempt to implement this new compromise failed. It failed after catholic and protestant committees sought and received a court injunction in July 1997.

The provincial government complied with the terms of the injunction which led to a complete disruption of plans for the 1997-98 school year. Those members from Newfoundland and Labrador would certainly recall that with great disappointment.

At this point the province had to decide to go back to the people to hold a referendum on December 2. It asked the following question: Do you support a single school system where all children regardless of their religious affiliation attend the same schools where opportunities for religious education and observances are provided? As we have heard in the House, 73% of those responding said yes. On September 5 the Newfoundland legislature moved unanimously to approve the resolution to amend term 17 and to seek the resolution which the House is debating tonight.

During the last couple of months this issue has been the subject of much discussion. In the last three weeks the joint committee of both Houses once again held public hearings. As a result of these hearings the joint committee has recommended that both Houses of Parliament adopt the resolution to amend term 17 of the terms of union of Newfoundland and Labrador with Canada in the form tabled in these Houses in November of this year.

There has been a lot of debate. Quite frankly, as a product of that system, I am more than fully persuaded that the amendment is an appropriate and proper change. I have no hesitation in recommending it, as I did the previous one, to Parliament. Although it is different, it is really asking members on both sides of the House and those in the other place to support it for the reasons I have given.

I believe, as do most of my colleagues, that the result will be a better education system for the children of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The case for this amendment requested by the Newfoundland legislature is compelling in my judgment. Anything which is unanimous in that House is compelling. I speak also as a Newfoundlander, as a Canadian and as a member of the Government of Canada. I am convinced that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador will be able to provide the children of my province with a better education if we adopt this amendment.

I have family in Newfoundland who will go through that system. It is a very personal decision which I have had to come to. Each time I have examined the pros and cons, and I am pleased to have heard them again in the House tonight.

I am persuaded on the merits of the amendment. I am persuaded also that it would not threaten or harm the rights of any other Canadian. I am persuaded that its adoption would not require a future Parliament to adopt an amendment which would unacceptably change the rights of any Canadian.

I am going to vote for it for these reasons and on that basis. I am going to vote for it because I believe it to be in the best interests of the children of my riding of Bonavista—Trinity—Conception and in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I believe they deserve the best that the education system of Newfoundland and Labrador can provide. I believe that this amendment if adopted will help to make this so.

[The Late Jack Pickersgill, December 2nd, 1997]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate your intervention. I thought it was most appropriate.

I would go on to say in respect of the Hon. Jack Pickersgill that while his influence was in virtually all aspects of policies and politics, I think it is important that success to him would appear to have been measured in large part by those accomplishments he could achieve on behalf of all Canadians.

It is a mark of the man and a solid indication of his values that, despite the power and influence he possessed, there were two accomplishments of which he was exceptionally proud. One was the provision of unemployment insurance for fishermen. The other was the provision of a place in Canada for 35,000 Hungarian refugees who became exemplary citizens.

On that note, as we take this opportunity to pay tribute today to Jack Pickersgill, it is imperative that we acknowledge his unfailing commitment to Canada. During this period in our history when we are being asked to reflect on the question of unity, let us learn from Jack's devotion and his strong belief in a better future to rededicate ourselves to ensuring a nation strong and indivisible.

Having worked steadfastly to help build many of the institutions that Canadians enjoy today, let us also take a moment to give thanks and recognize these contributions.

On a personal note, I am extremely proud to have known him as you have, Mr. Speaker, and am honoured to have considered him a dear friend. We did not spend a lot of time together but the moments we did spend were precious. His larger than life counsel and his advice were always beneficial; his wit and his wisdom always inspirational.

Given the privilege that we both have had to serve the people of Newfoundland in Parliament, he in Bonavista—Twillingate and I in almost a mirror image of that riding, Bonavista—Trinity—Conception, I know that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in particular will always have for him a special place in their hearts. The public contributions he made during his lifetime were remarkable. His personal impact on those whose lives he touched was equally as significant.

I recall the first time I saw him as a young boy, observing him through the picket fence on the grounds of the Orange Lodge in Bonavista as he campaigned in the early days with Joey Smallwood. Even then I was struck by his commanding presence and his lasting and reassuring smile.

While Canada mourns the loss of an exceptional leader whose indelible mark has been left on the national stage, let us give thanks for Jack Pickersgill and for his tremendous legacy. Dedicated to his constituency and committed to his country, the personal and public achievements of Jack Pickersgill are the pillars upon which this nation has been built.

By way of conclusion, in his book Seeing Canada Whole , he describes his family values this way “The friendship of our children for their parents and for each other has been a great reward for Margaret and me. Despite two great wars and some personal sorrows, mine has been a happy life. The half century of living with Margaret has been the supreme experience of this happy life”.

Jack will always be remembered as a rare Canadian treasure. To his widow, Margaret Pickersgill, and to their family, I am sure that all our colleagues join me here, in the Parliament that he so loved, in expressing our heartfelt condolences.

[The Late Jack Pickersgill, December 2nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, today it is both an honour and a privilege, though a sad one, for me to pay tribute to a good friend, a truly remarkable Canadian, the Hon. John Whitney Pickersgill, or Jack as he was known to many of his colleagues.

His passing last month marked the departure of an extraordinary individual. Jack Pickersgill was an exceptional politician, a devoted public servant and an avid author and historian. His outstanding talents and notable achievements all constitute part of the rich legacy he leaves for Canada. Admired for his integrity, his intelligence and his impeccable sense of social justice, he served four prime ministers with great distinction.

His unwavering commitment to Canada was reflected in every challenge he rose to accept. Whether serving in government as an honourable minister or as a member of the official opposition in his colourful role as a member of the four horsemen, Jack Pickersgill was highly respected by his colleagues within the Liberal Party of Canada and outside of it.

As an author and historian, his written works are insightful pieces which will long remain valuable reference materials for all Canadians. His exemplary sense of social responsibility in hand with his keen intellect has proven instrumental in developing many of—

[Auditor General's Report, December 2nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, ACOA is very pleased to note that in his latest report the auditor general explicitly acknowledges the progress that has been made by the agency. I am delighted to be able to stand behind that.

Notwithstanding the auditor general has made some observations. I am delighted to be able to take these observations under advisement and to implement new procedures in ACOA to make sure that we will be more effective than ever.

[Canadian Armed Forces, December 1st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, this House and I am sure the government and the opposition share the tragedy of the event when any member of the Canadian forces has a casualty, whether on duty or not.

I have to say and I think the hon. member knows that this matter is before the courts. It would be most inappropriate for me to comment any further.

[Veterans Affairs, November 19th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member in the sense of the sacrifice the Hong Kong veterans made. Efforts have been made for extra contribution but up to now they have not been successful.

Hong Kong veterans are compensated by the Department of Veterans Affairs in a fair manner. Depending on the circumstances of their involvement in some cases they can get up to almost $60,000.

[Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, November 19th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure where the hon. member is getting his figures from. What the prime minister said in the Atlantic visions conference was basically that the government supports Atlantic Canada in every way and will do the best it can for its recovery.

With respect to ACOA, I can spout a lot of statistics here but I want to inform the House that in its relatively short existence, ACOA has provided just short of 100,000 jobs, and I think that speaks for itself.

[Remembrance Day, November 6th, 1997]

Most of us are familiar with the now famous names of countries and campaigns in which our Canadians fought and died.

In our history books, we read of Vimy and Passchendaele, Beaumont-Hamel and the Somme. From our fathers and grandfathers we have heard about the disasters of Hong Kong and Dieppe, the victories in Italy, France, and Belgium, and the liberation of the Netherlands.

And the images of the Korean war would be among the first to flicker across our television screens.

What we can never really understand is the terrible, terrible suffering that our veterans must have endured. And whatever the war, whatever the campaign, endure they did.

For the ground forces in the mud, muck and mire of the trenches, if bullet or bayonet did not get you, disease would. Whether in the freezing cold of the blood soaked European battlefields or in the hell holes of prison camps in Hong Kong and Japan, or in the rice paddies of Korea, death was never far away. Death by dogfight or enemy flak met our airmen. Treacherous seas and death by wolfpack awaited our seamen.

We have also read the impersonal statistics of war: over 60,000 slain in World War I, over 42,000 in World War II, 516 lost in Korea. Nor have our peacekeepers been immune from death and terrible wounds. But they are just numbers on a page. They do not tell the human tragedy behind each and every loss.

I have a letter that I think does put a personal face on the tragedy, the suffering and the loss. It is a letter written to his mother by a young army lieutenant serving in France on the eve of the battle of Amiens on August 7, 1918, very close to the end of the war. He was one of five brothers who served in the great war and in the extract from this powerful letter he makes reference to three of his brothers. The words speak for themselves.

Dearest Mother,

This is the evening before the attack and my thoughts are with you all at home, but my backward glance is wistful, only because of the memories and because of the sorrow that would befall and darken your lives should anything happen to me in tomorrow's fray. Otherwise my eye is fixed on tomorrow with hope for mankind and with visions of a new world. A blow will be struck tomorrow which will definitely mark the turn of the tide—

I have no misgivings for myself in tomorrow's encounter. It does not matter whether I survive or fall. A great triumph is certain, and I shall take part in it. I shall strike a blow for freedom, along with thousands of others who count personal safety as nothing when freedom is as stake—

We shall strive only to achieve victory. We shall not hold our lives dear. The hour is all the more dramatic for me because, for the first time since I came to France, I am close to the spot consecrated by the blood of our gallant dead.

It was here that noble Raymond fell and Joe and Kenneth shed their blood in freedom's cause. I trust to be as faithful as they.

I shall be my mother and father's son tomorrow. Again God bless you all.

Your son Hedley.

The next day 110 men would fall in this battle and among the numbered dead was young Hedley Goodyear, in his early 20s.

War, freedom and peace are not just the business of government and the military. It is a personal concern, it is a personal issue, as this testimony of Remembrance Day holds fast.

Let us not forget. N'oublions jamais.