Ed Harper

[Petitions, December 11th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition concerns the age of consent laws. The petitioners ask that Parliament set the age of consent at 18 years to protect children from sexual exploitation and abuse.

[Petitions, December 11th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to present two petitions today on behalf of the constituents of Simcoe Centre.

The first group of petitioners requests that the Government of Canada not amend federal legislation to include the phrase sexual orientation.

[Distinct Society, December 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, what is vicious around here is catering to the separatists, the distinct society.

The Prime Minister was against distinct society in the Meech Lake accord. Then he was for it in Charlottetown. He was against raising it in last year's referendum and now he is for it.

Could the Deputy Prime Minister explain to this House why Canadians should support the idea that the Prime Minister himself waffles on and for which does not have the support of the public or of the premiers of Canada's three largest provinces, including Quebec?

[Distinct Society, December 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the premise of the Deputy Prime Minister's response is false. The member for Simcoe Centre referred to Prime Ministers from Quebec's having led this country to ruin. That was the quote, Mr. Prime Minister.

The throne speech referred to all Canadians having a say in the future of their country. The premier of Ontario is a supporter of referenda but he also has his priorities right. He wants to talk about jobs and the economy, not the Constitution.

The premiers of the three most populated provinces, including Quebec, are against distinct society, yet the Prime Minister ignores them.

In order to ensure that the will of the Canadian public, not this government, is reflected in any constitutional change, will the Deputy Prime Minister assure this House that the question on distinct society will be put to a national referendum?

[National Unity, December 9th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious from the response of the Prime Minister that there is no plan because in there somewhere he talked about airports. I do not know what that has to do with the unity of this country.

The old vision has not worked. Its defenders continue to create divisions on cultural and linguistic lines, pitting one region against another and preserving the status quo. Will the Prime Minister assure the House that all voters and not just governments will have a say on this issue through a national referendum?

[National Unity, December 9th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the status quo will not cut it. The time has come for the government to realize that its do nothing, do not worry, be happy approach to national unity is the very reason why Canada almost broke apart last year.

Canadians from coast to coast are looking for a revitalized federation. They want to see positive, constructive change. Rather than dividing the country with a distinct society, when will the government present new concrete proposals to revitalize the federation? Where is your plan?

[Pearson International Airport, December 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I never did find out about the $662 million.

Since the new corporation was introduced, the new Pearson airport authority has indicated that it will cost $2.5 billion to redo Pearson. It has ruled out user fees to pay for that. It claims that the $2.5 billion can be raised solely from bonds, increased volume, and-wait for it-restaurant fees.

Has the government studied the Pearson authority financial plan? Will it assure this House that the taxpayers will not pay one cent for the renovations at Pearson airport?

[Pearson International Airport, December 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, Liberals and airports are like drinking and driving: they should not be mixed and if they are, the consequences can be horrendous.

First Mirabel, now Pearson. Mirabel cost taxpayers billions. Unbelievably we are heading in the same direction with Pearson. Taxpayers may have to pay $662 million in compensation to the former developers of Pearson. The government has been found at fault but has been stalling settlement since February.

Will the government commit to settling with the Pearson Development Corporation before the next election so the voters will have a clear picture of this whole sorry mess?

[Householder Survey, December 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my fall householder survey is generating hundreds of responses, with 787 so far. I will share the results with the House.

The first question dealt with the Liberal plan for harmonizing the GST with provincial sales taxes. When asked if they would support this in Ontario, 64 per cent said no while only 24 per cent said yes.

When asked if tobacco products should be placed under the Hazardous Products Act to give the government increased power over advertising and chemical contents, 72 per cent of Simcoe Centre voters said yes while 21 per cent said no. When asked if the federal government is justified in spending $20 million a year on the Canada Information Office, a whopping 90 per cent said no and only 8 per cent said yes.

The message is clear. The government needs to deal seriously with the tobacco issue, forget about a GST harmonization tax grab and stop wasting money on propaganda. When are the Liberals going to get the message? They just don't get it.

[Constitution Amendment, December 2nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today in support of resolution 17. I do so as the intergovernmental affairs critic for my party.

I enjoyed hearing from the member for Burin-St. George's. I have always had a great deal of respect and admiration for him. I must say that after listening to his presentation that has grown when I heard him talking about the status quo and that it is not always the best way to go and he certainly supports referendums, something this party feels very strongly about.

I think I even heard his support for an elected Senate. Indeed, the comments that came from the other side I wholeheartedly endorse. We may want him to come over to our side.

I am pleased to speak in support of this. I regret that we are debating this again. I do regret that those in the other place, the unelected, have ignored the true democratic judgment of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. It seems as though the common

sense of the common people has been ignored. That is something the Reform Party very much believes in.

Before I get into our position on that, I think it would be appropriate to review the process that has brought us to this point. This is not some knee-jerk reaction that is taking place. It actually goes back to 1992 when there was a royal commission that looked at the problem of education in Newfoundland and Labrador. The recommendation was that it needed to be changed and the change was the subject of three years of negotiations in that province. Unfortunately, the negotiations with the government and the churches failed to bring about an agreement on the changes, but basically everyone agreed there had to be changes made.

The resolution we are talking about today and which we talked about in June was voted on a passed in the Newfoundland House of Assembly in a free vote of a clear majority. Then the referendum was held. I should mention that the referendum was not required by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, but it is to its credit that a referendum was held on a major change such as this to the Constitution. We applaud the fact that the referendum was held.

The referendum passed by a clear majority of 55 per cent, which clearly indicated agreement to the changes proposed by the government to term 17.

After the referendum passed in October 1995 the Newfoundland House of Assembly adopted the resolution and all parties supported it.

There was a provincial election in Newfoundland and Labrador in February 1996, and of course reform was an issue in the election because the referendum had been held and of the 52 seats contested, 36 of those seeking election supported the referendum. Once again in a provincial election there was overwhelming support for reform. Then, of course, back in June of this year we in this House overwhelmingly endorsed the change by 170 to 46 on what was a free vote.

That is the background leading up to what I would certainly argue has been a very fair and open democratic process where the will of the people has been heard and accepted.

Certainly in coming to this place we have a role to play. In my view, we had three things we had to address. The first was the consideration of the democratic consent. The second consideration was that it conform to the national standards of the rights and freedoms of our citizens. The third was the consideration of the minority rights in other provinces, that they were not going to be impacted.

Dealing first with the consideration of the democratic consent, I think I have just outlined the process that was followed, starting with the royal commission in 1992 which brought us to the point where we are at today, clearly indicating that the democratic consent was solicited and indeed achieved.

The second point is on national standards of rights and freedoms. In my interpretation in review of this bill, the rights and freedoms of the churches and citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador are not impacted in any way. Their rights and freedoms are actually more enhanced than they were under the bill because of the new changes.

On the third point, considering the impact of minority rights in other provinces, term 17 refers only to the people of the one province and in fact does on impact on any of the other provinces.

As I mentioned, minority rights have been actually enhanced because prior to this resolution 5 per cent of the people in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador had no rights under term 17. When we talk about minority rights, this bill actually enhances the rights of all the citizens. That is really what this bill is about, equality. There is no longer going to be special status based on religion. Everyone will be treated equally. I find it difficult that anyone could argue against that concept.

The province of Newfoundland and Labrador is the only province that has exclusive denominational schools. Therefore Newfoundland will join all the other provinces by being free in that area.

This bill is not about minority rights. It is about bettering and improving the quality of education in that province. It is about streamlining the system and putting more money into the classrooms and taking it out of the bureaucracy. It is projected to be a savings of some $25 million, which is significant. In a province that needs to improve its education and do a better job, that is absolutely a move in the right direction.

There has been some comment about the fact that the question was perhaps not as clear as it might have been. I have read the question and I do not know how it could be made any clearer. In attempting to make it as some might describe as too clear, one could be accused of oversimplifying it. It is important that the question be understood and in my view it was a very clear question.

We do a disservice to the common sense of the common people when we suggest they could not understand what was in the text. People do understand and to a far greater degree than some members of this House and certainly many members from the other place.

We understand as Reformers that this is a sensitive and controversial issue. My leader made it clear on the first vote that it would be a free vote by my party and we continue to feel that way. However, the majority of the Reform caucus supports the government on this term 17 amendment. We believe it is a move in the right direction and a move away from the status quo. It is

respecting the democratic wishes as expressed by referendum of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. We will be supporting it.