House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 1993, with 71% of the vote.
The Constitution June 3rd, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I have supported time allocation too. I believe that when the debate is being abused by the opposition it should be used. I would agree that sometimes we use time allocation too quickly, but in this case time allocation has not been applied.
The Constitution June 3rd, 1996
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should apologize. He should look at the record. I voted against time allocation on several occasions. I spoke against it on several occasions. If he wants the references I will send them to him.
I agree with him that we use time allocation and closure too much and I have said that before. I voted against it before when it was a serious matter and I will do so again.
The Constitution June 3rd, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I start by making absolutely clear that I am not opposed to educational reform in Newfoundland. I also want to make it absolutely clear this is not a debate between those who support educational reform in Newfoundland and those who oppose it.
To me this is a debate on how the federal government should respond to a request for an amendment from a province under article 43 of the Constitution, especially when that request deals with removing entrenched rights from the Constitution. That is the issue.
I fully support measures to modernize Newfoundland's school system to make it more efficient and financially cost effective. There is no way I would support the status quo in Newfoundland, nor do I carry any brief for religious schools.
I have very serious concerns with the substance of the motion and I have very serious concern with the process by which we are dealing with the motion.
This is a serious constitutional amendment which removes certain entrenched rights. Yet we are dealing with it in two days. This motion was tabled in the House last Thursday, only four days ago. The debate started on a Friday, a short day when most members are on their way home to their constituencies. It has resumed today and we are to vote tonight; only two days on an important constitutional amendment which could have implications for other provinces.
Let us compare this with our ordinary legislative procedure. On an ordinary bill dealing with mundane matters we have two debates, one on second reading and one on third reading, and we have committee hearings. The reason there is a committee hearing is to give an opportunity to those who oppose and to those who support the bill to put their views before parliamentarians where they can be asked hard, tough questions and cross-examined. By doing that through those hearings we sift out the truth with respect to certain questions. My colleague who just spoke posed several questions which need clarification.
After all these years why do we have to proceed with this important motion in just two days without public hearings? I approached the table with the attempt to amend this motion to have public hearings on it for two weeks and then report back to the House on June 17, which would still give us a chance to pass it before the House adjourned. However, I was told that such an amendment would not be in order.
We have been asked to vote on this tonight with many questions unanswered. The government might say there are no hearings on this because this is a motion, not bill. However, we have seen in the House occasions when there have been committee hearings on motions, including constitutional motions. I was on the committee that dealt with the motions dealing with the Meech and Charlottetown accords. Those were more comprehensive but nevertheless they were motions dealing with constitutional matters.
I will now deal with the argument made by some that since the Newfoundland government has decided to request this amendment we should simply grant it and not interfere. In other words, we should act as a rubber stamp.
That article 43 of the amendment formula requires the consent of both the federal and provincial Parliaments indicates we are not simply to act as a rubber stamp. Of course we must give weight to the debate and decision in Newfoundland, but we have an obligation to inquire whether all is in order, whether the entrenched rights are being given up by consent and to what extent there was agreement. Precedents are set in these matters and we have to ensure no oppressive precedents are being set or initiated in this decision.
I raise some of my concerns with respect to this motion. If we had committee hearings on this matter it is possible these concerns could have been dealt with there. My first concern is with respect to the referendum. I know it was not necessary in accordance with article 43 that there be a referendum. All that was required was a resolution of the Newfoundland House of Assembly. However, the Government of Newfoundland decided to have a referendum and is now using the results of that referendum to support this amendment.
However, we have to recognize that only 52 per cent of the electorate showed up for that referendum. It was held during the summertime. The proposal received only a 54 per cent approval. That means less than 30 per cent of the electorate in Newfoundland supports the proposal.
It is also stated the referendum question was not clear, to which I think there is some truth. Some Newfoundlanders have told me they did not know whether they were voting simply on the reform of the system or for a constitutional amendment. Many who agreed to a reform of the system did not agree to give up their rights constitutionally.
Unlike in Quebec, there was no referendum act, no provision for yes and no committees, no organization of the no and no funding of the no in an organized way.
All these questions lead me to believe there is a need for concern. Maybe there are answers to those concerns. That is why we should have public hearings through a parliamentary committee.
The next point that raises concern is the framework agreement. Opponents to this provision have told us a framework agreement has been negotiated which deals with all the major faults in the Newfoundland school system and it has been agreed to by all the churches, including the Catholic and Pentecostal. That agreement reduces the number of boards from 27 to 10 and deals with other matters. They say these changes can be implemented by ordinary legislation and that a constitutional amendment is not necessary.
There are different opinions on this. The Newfoundland government says it cannot do it without a constitutional amendment. Others, including eminent constitutional lawyers, say it can. Again, this is the sort of issue I would have been pleased to deal with in a parliamentary committee with committee hearings.
My third concern is the Newfoundland government says that even if it were to legislate this framework agreement and even though the churches have officially agreed to it by resolution, it still could be challenged in the courts by individual church people and so on. That is correct. Anybody with money can go to court and challenge something. However, at a meeting I attended the other day where there was a very prominent constitutional lawyer present, he said that while one can challenge it, there is very little chance the courts would overturn such a piece of legislation to change, improve and modernize the Newfoundland school system. There is very little chance of success in challenging that in the courts. Again it is an issue that could be clarified by hearings in committee.
My fourth concern is with respect to the proposed amended term 17. The Government of Newfoundland said in statements that the proposed amended term 17 protects rights to minority religious schools and that religious schools will remain where numbers warrant. I should point out that nowhere in the proposed new term 17, which is part of the resolution of this motion, are the words "when numbers warrant" present.
My colleague has introduced an amendment to put those words in the resolution but they are not in the resolution tabled by the Newfoundland government.
The words that are of concern to people opposing this are in subsection (b) which say that religious schools will continue: "subject to provincial legislation that is uniformly applicable to all schools". In other words, it is not a guarantee. It is subject to legislation in the assembly of Newfoundland. It does not seem to guarantee anything. Again that is an issue which could be clarified in committee.
We are also told by eminent legal counsel that the Government of Newfoundland could have established real public schools before now had it wanted to do so. It does not need an amendment to the Constitution.
A very important court decision in 1926 said that any province, because they control education, can establish parallel systems of public education in their provinces if they want to. It is the same with respect to French language schools. Under the present Constitution the province of Newfoundland could establish French language schools if it wanted to. It does not need this amendment.
In conclusion, I want to repeat that my objection to this motion is the process, and the implications for similar motions from other provinces. I am not opposed to the modernization and reform of the Newfoundland school system. I am fully supportive but why could we not have a limited period of public hearings? Why could we not have at least two weeks of public hearings until June 17 where both sides could have been heard?
I ask the government to respect Parliament, and to adjourn this debate for two weeks, hold public hearings and return this motion to the House on June 17.
Criminal Code May 16th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, on April 22 I asked the Minister of Labour when he intended to proclaim Bill C-64, the new Employment Equity Act.
Although this bill was passed by Parliament on December 15, 1995, it is still not in force. Worse still, according to the bill, it will only come into force one year after proclamation.
I want to remind the House that in 1983, the Trudeau government appointed the Royal Commission on Equality in Employment under Judge Rosalie Abella. This royal commission reported in 1984 to the new Mulroney government.
The Abella commission recommended mandatory employment equity legislation for both the federally regulated private sector and the federal public service sector. In response, the Conservative government brought in the existing Employment Equity Act but it did not accept all of Abella's recommendations. That law did not cover the federal public service, and applied only to firms with more than 100 employees. Worse still, the employment equity requirements in the act were not enforceable.
The Liberal opposition at that time strongly criticized the government on those grounds. As a result, once back in government in 1994, the new Liberal administration, to complete the work started 10 years before, introduced Bill C-64 to include the public sector and to set up a practical enforcement mechanism.
After lengthy committee hearings and parliamentary debate, the bill was finally passed December 15, 1995. Almost six months later it is still not proclaimed.
At a recent meeting of the human rights committee on April 18, the commissioner for human rights made a strong case for proclaiming this bill as soon as possible. He pointed out that there was still too much systemic discrimination and that, according to the provisions of the bill, it would only come into application one year after proclamation which would be at the earliest in 1997.
Once again I urge the government to proclaim this bill, these important improvements to employment equity, as soon as possible.
Publishing Industry May 13th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to mention the opening, today, of the Institut des communications graphiques du Québec, in Montreal.
Through its $3 million financial contribution, the Government of Canada concretely shows its interest in technological development and innovation, particularly in Quebec's publishing industry.
This initiative will allow the industry to be at the forefront of new technologies, thanks to the possibilities provided by multimedia and the information highway, which have become indispensable tools for the development of a modern society.
Employment Insurance Act May 13th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to be recorded as voting in favour of this motion. Also, in listening to the different votes I must have missed something because I wanted to vote in favour of Motions Nos. 12, 15, 27, 68 and 94.
Employment Insurance Act May 13th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I want to record my vote in favour of Motions Nos. 9 and 17.
Employment Insurance Act May 13th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I wish to be recorded as voting in favour of this motion.
(The House divided on Motion No. 6, which was agreed to on the following division:)
Prison Reform May 9th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, in recent weeks Canada lost two great champions of prison reform and criminal rehabilitation. Senator Earl Hastings of Alberta, who died last Sunday, was a great Liberal and social reformer. Until the end, he kept in close touch with the prisons and the many prisoners whom he was helping to get a new start on life. He received many awards for his outstanding work in corrections and criminal justice.
Claire Culhane was also a strong activist for a humane corrections system. She campaigned and wrote against the abuses of the prison system for many years. We should understand that effective rehabilitation means less crime and safer streets.
Senator Hastings and Claire Culhane should serve as examples for all of us.
Canadian Human Rights Act May 9th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order on exactly that point and the balance of the wording in the amendment. It is my understanding that only a reasoned amendment can be moved at this time. I question whether the amendment as worded meets the requirements of a reasoned amendment.
We are on third reading. We cannot, at this time, amend the clauses of the bill. The traditional type of reasoned amendment can be made but-the House leader is not here and the whip is not here-the wording of that amendment does not meet the requirements of a reasoned amendment.