Dan McTeague

[Petitions, December 11th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to present a petition signed by scores of constituents from the Ontario riding.

If the hon. members in the Bloc Quebecois would give me a moment they might actually learn something.

The petitioners call on Parliament to amend the Divorce Act to include a provision preventing a father or mother from placing, without legal cause, obstacles between the children of the marriage and their grandparents.

The petitioners also ask that the Divorce Act be further amended to allow grandparents the right to access, make inquiries and be given information as to the health, education and welfare of their grandchildren.

[Corrections And Conditional Release Act, December 11th, 1996]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-362, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (cumulative sentences).

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to introduce this bill providing that a person serving a sentence of imprisonment for life who has been convicted of first degree murder or for more than one count of second degree murder is not eligible for parole until he or she has served, in addition to the portion of the sentence that must be served for murder, one third-up to a maximum of seven years-of the sentence imposed in respect of another offence arising out of the same event.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

[Excise Tax Act, December 10th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, a point of order. I find it rather hypocritical of the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia to call quorum when several members on this side of the House have been sitting here attentively and nothing on the Reform side, including the opposition.

[Criminal Code, December 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I want to share my frustration with the hon. member that several members, including the member from Erie, did not see fit to make this a unanimous issue.

Politics aside, at the end of the day we must begin to try to assess the impact that the judicial system and the parliamentary system seems to be working toward. It is one of forgetting those who have suffered at the hands of those who do harm to many others. The process only allows me some four and a half minutes to speak is one that I would reserve for a later time to comment on.

I begin by saying how important it is that the House hear this message of not giving volume discounts to serial murderers. I can assure the House that as long as I am a member I will continue to work with the hon. member for Mississauga East to make sure that whether this is a votable item or not, the House will have to consider this matter sooner or later.

Many of us on the government side do not believe in capital punishment. I am one that certainly believes in that. I do not believe in capital punishment for a number of reasons and I campaigned on such. Everything else must be considered in the name and the sake of the victim if we are to give any consideration to the pain which he or she has suffered. The pain which their relatives, friends and loved ones will continue to have to endure for the rest of their lives is everything compared to the punishment of putting these people in a correctional facility where they belong, where the punishment for the crimes they have committed are actually served in a way that is consonant with the seriousness and the gravity of those crimes.

In the short time that is given to me and to those Canadians who are tonight watching this debate, I say to them very solemnly that this Parliament will not end this evening mistreating this issue. As members of Parliament from right across the country we believe that the victim is important in the system. What the hon. member for Mississauga East has said before and said again this evening, notwithstanding the fact that the committee has not made this a votable item, is something that I think squares with even the most decent of Canadians who does not believe in capital punishment.

Let us not categorize this as a right or left issue. Let us categorize this as a matter of fundamental justice, of justice that deals with the equity, the weight of someone's crime, and the need to ensure that crime is met with sufficient retribution.

When I say retribution, it is not meant in a sense of saying forever and ever and that the person who is in jail should not count. But it is laughable when 10 people can be murdered and that individual only serves one life sentence. If I were to go to a grocery store to purchase 12 items I would have to pay for 12 items, not one item. What the hon. member has spoken to very eloquently is the need to honour the victims of violence, not those who have hate in their heart and would manifest that by the outward destruction of another life. We must ensure that there is effective punishment.

Yes, we can talk about theories of deterrence. We can talk about theories of recidivism or retribution, but I do not want to get confounded in some ideological argument. I want to deal with the crisis that exists in the country today. It is a crisis based on the recognition that those who commit serious crimes in far too many instances get away with proverbial murder.

I want to acknowledge the presence today in our gallery of Debbie Mahaffy, only one example. This House has an obligation to respect those who carry the burden of their loved ones.

The hon. member's attempt to have Bill C-321 passed today may not have succeeded. However, as a young member of Parliament and one who believes he has a good chance of coming back after the next election, God willing, although I see some members shaking their heads over there, let me assure the House that the issue will come back again and again. Why? Because Canadians want it and because we should honour the memory of the victims of senseless crimes.

Bravo to the member for Mississauga East.

[Constitution Amendment, December 2nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. I want to ask a question of the member for London-Middlesex. Subject to what the member for Delta has just said, he did not go on to make the real point that I thought might have been missing here and might be a linchpin in supporting the amendment of the member for Broadview-Greenwood.

The minister's statement of May 31 that: "denominational schools may be created where numbers warrant and the parents choose that for their children". He then went on to state: "In light of all of that we concluded that this is not an instance in which minority rights are being adversely affected by majority rule".

I believe the Minister of Justice may have been of the view that the province of Newfoundland was about to enact something to protect minority rights and therefore the Minister of Justice gave his tacit approval. Given that there may be this kind of confusion, does the hon. member not then believe that there is a possibility that maybe the House, including the government, will come to the belief that the protection of minority rights is important?

[Constitution Amendment, December 2nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the member. I did not have an opportunity to refer to his speech a little earlier. It took me as a bit of a surprise that he stated the position he had. It shows there is quite a bit of diversity in that caucus on this issue as well.

Do I see this educational issue as being a precedent, a door opening for other minority rights?

As I indicated to the member from the Bloc, we must always be prepared to have a Constitution that is flexible. When we have 30 million Canadians from so many backgrounds, with so many different interests, but then at the end of the day saying we believe in this great country it is going to create a bit of a problem for many of us if we are not prepared to acknowledge that the Constitution is something that must change with changing times.

I am worried about existing rights that are acknowledged by the minorities, not simply from a position of vested interest, but given the history of this amendment. Many have written us saying: "We have a problem here. The government seems prepared to steamroller a particular issue with the help, by and with the consent of the government, through the House of Commons and through the Senate. We think that you should stop for a moment and really think about what you are doing in the context of that which we agreed to only 50 years ago".

I respect the fact that in this House there are many members of Parliament who are a little older than 50 years so it is not really that long ago. No offence of course to the hon. whip of our party.

However, in all sincerity to the hon. member's question because it is an excellent one, I do not believe we should be moving toward rectifying new rights when we have not been able to demonstrate a guarantee that we are going to be able to defend the rights that we have already proclaimed. That is exactly the point with which I think the House must be seized.

[Constitution Amendment, December 2nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member on this good question. He addresses the dilemma that exists at the present time surrounding that question.

As I just said, I find that our Constitution is a document that evolves from day to day. It is not a document that is intended as a bottleneck, or a straight jacket. It is a document that is intended to offer limited and minimal protection to the interests and the proposals made at the time the document was signed.

The courts have played a very strong role in balancing competing rights and interests. We know that the history of this argument, of this whole episode, is one that is fraught with what appears to be governments hell bent on imposing their will, notwithstanding the fact that within the province of Newfoundland there is ample room if not ample evidence of an agreement.

We also acknowledge that perhaps a 52 per cent vote in favour of a question may not be enough for questions where people's rights are involved.

Fifty-two per cent voting on the rights of minorities who are themselves minorities without their consent is certainly a recipe for tyranny of the majority. The dilemma of a constitutional requirement of protection versus the democratic will of a certain number of people are two competing theories within the terms of our federalism. Yet at the end of the day the rule of law must prevail. The rights of minorities must prevail. The right to free speech must prevail. We know these as sacred values within our system.

While the question is an excellent one, the resolution cannot be found by simply adopting one side and saying: "To heck with the Constitution. It means nothing. What we are interested in doing here is achieving 1996 fiscal expediency".

[Constitution Amendment, December 2nd, 1996]

As my hon. colleague from London-Middlesex has said very eloquently, it is a deal that it simply too risky. It is for this reason that I think we have a golden opportunity here to review some of the wisdom that is coming from that House which has had a little longer to think about this issue.

I know, having 235,000 constituents, that one, we should not be making any changes to the Constitution that are binding. Second, we have a lot of issues that go from this House and a lot require expertise in many areas, but this is one that I do not believe this House can afford the luxury of overlooking or simply saying "I voted for it that time and now that it is coming before us again I am going to maintain my position". I think our ability to think these things out compels members of Parliament to reflect very carefully on the door that they are opening. This is, in my belief, the very thin edge of the wedge. I am not talking from the perspective of Chicken Little.

Instead, I believe that what we have to consider this amendment to be is something that would revoke something of a constitutional guarantee. The speed with which this amendment is about to go through must be worrisome in the context of the time it takes to prepare for admission for provinces like Newfoundland.

The parties that consented in 1949 to join Confederation had some very compelling and valid reasons. As the member for St. Boniface indicated earlier, 50 years ago is not that long ago and although I am the ripe age of 34, I know many changes have taken place. Change is a good thing in and of itself but it must be measured against the consequences that it has on all.

It is not good enough when we talk about the indefeasibility of the rights of minorities, which is a hallmark of the Liberal Party of Canada, to simply turn around and say "we are going to apply some kind of utilitarian principle here, we are going to say that the happiness of the greatest number is the real reason we are here and if it goes well for the majority, so be it". I think that is illiberal as a view.

Although we want to help the province of Newfoundland, it must look to its own people, to its own denominational churches to find a solution. It must not be allowed to open up the Pandora's box of constitutionality, the kind of constitutionality that says 250,000 people can decide by fiat or by the wave of the hand. Perhaps it is through a question they did not understand or by a question that was articulated in such a way that it left a lot of confusion at the end of the day with only 55 per cent participating. This leaves one with the impression that perhaps they did not know at the end of the day what they were voting on. Irrespective of that the reality is that number is too small to bring about the kind of disruption this amendment threatens to bring.

I expressed my fears earlier about minority rights. As a francophone from Ontario, I am very familiar with the situation of people who have found themselves in a position where governments, with the wisdom of the time, have deprived communities of their rights and interests. The effect of doing so is harmful and creates tensions within the country.

For many years certain religions were guaranteed certain rights. For instance, the Catholic religion in the province of Ontario was guaranteed certain rights under section 93 of our original British North America Act. Up until 1984 those rights those rights were disrespected. Catholics were treated as second class citizens. They

did not have control over their entire educational system. We righted a wrong. Is it fair for this Parliament to wrong a right?

In my opinion, the eloquent words of Senator Michael Kirby deserve the attention of this House. Members of all parties here must give careful consideration to the force of his argument.

In essence the argument that has been made by those who have proposed this amendment goes something like this. Newfoundland needs a new school system. The minorities affected had a chance to be heard. In the end nobody is losing much and if we go on they will still have more than their fair share, certainly as far as their counterparts are concerned. Therefore given all this, change can take place.

That kind of argument says that as long as the process is fair, the end justifies the means. I am not one who subscribes to machiavellian philosophy, but I do not believe that the end justifies the means. I believe that in a country as diverse as Canada where we have expressed time and time again the intrinsic value of minority rights, we must be careful to continue to nurture our Constitution, a living document capable of changing with changing times.

We must nurture and protect that Constitution so that it protects those who cannot protect themselves and who are concerned that as minorities they may suffer the tyranny of the majority. We know the difficulties that are encountered by so many groups in this country when we look at parliaments or governments or bodies that say might is right. If you are not on the side of hegemony, if you are not on the side of power then forget it. You have no voice. You have no future.

On the economic plane we are even talking today about the small voices that usually get drowned out. Big business, big labour and big government get to be heard when it comes to resolving a problem, but the new micro industries and young people coming out of our universities with new ideas are simply getting squeezed out. They do not have the traditional levers by which they can express themselves.

The same applies to the wisdom of the Constitution. Our Constitution protects people. It protects them because it believes that at one point or another, no matter who we are as Canadians, whether we live in Newfoundland, Ontario, in Ajax, Pickering or Whitby, or whether we live in British Columbia, we are all, in one way or another, a minority. The Constitution is there to protect not only our status as minorities, it is there to protect our status as individuals who are deserving of rights, rights against being prosecuted unnecessarily by the government, rights against having the rules changed midstream.

I implore the House to consider very carefully what this motion really means. In my view, and I believe in the view of many people in the House and across the country, it is a motion which opens the door, is the thin edge of the wedge, which will allow other governments with certain missions, based on rather important arguments in 1996, in 1999 or a little farther down the road, to remove delicately, softly, quietly, certain constitutional rights, certain inherent rights which we have developed over the years, rights for which many people of this country have fought and died.

I am pleased to say that the amendment which has been proposed by the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood adopts the wisdom not of senators or politicians but of people who have actually taken the time to think, to consider and weigh that which is Canada. These are people who have said that, yes, the interests of Newfoundland in getting its financial house in order are important. However, we cannot do that by laying waste to their rights.

This amendment, "where numbers warrant", means that we are using a tried, tested and true method by which we are going to be able to protect individuals down the road. I believe, if the House sees fit, it will find that the wisdom of "where numbers warrant" allows it an excellent compromise to achieve the wishes of the people of Newfoundland and their government while at the same time letting the rest of the country breathe easily and know that their rights and the rights that we share as Canadians will not be suppressed.

I would ask this House to give due consideration to the remarks by the member for Broadview-Greenwood, because this is an amendment, a proposal that, in the end, gives us a way to protect ourselves properly, effectively and in keeping with our identity as Canadians.

[Constitution Amendment, December 2nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to speak in this debate, which is taking place in principle because of certain events. The issue was raised almost ten years ago when the Government of Newfoundland wanted to change the denominational school system for reasons of efficiency. This debate led to a referendum in which 29 per cent of Newfoundlanders voted in favour of a change.

While I accept the many debates that took place in the province of Newfoundland with respect to the concerns about the direction and the need for efficiency in its system, there is in that argument a sense of need as far as the fiscal element is concerned. The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is certainly to be commended for taking this approach.

In the few days that this House has been given, many members did not have the opportunity for debate because of the speed with which this bill was passed. We had an opportunity to have the bill reviewed by members of the other place and many senators took the time to reflect and review it.

As the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood indicated a little earlier, we should not simply dismiss their views. I think of Senator Doody, Senator Carstairs and Senator Michael Kirby who took the time to really reflect on the issue and its long term implications. These individuals had a lot to do with creating the Constitution in 1981-82.

These individuals took the time to consider the issue, because it is one that does not just stop with the interests of the province of Newfoundland. It goes well beyond that to every other province because it will no doubt have an impact on minority legislation and the question as so eloquently described by the member for Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis, when he talked about what this is really doing in terms of the definition of enshrinement.

I believe it is important for the House to also give sober second thought, if I can use that term, to this proposal before us today.

Newfoundland has a population of some 650,000 people. I should point out that the riding of Ontario has 235,000 constituents, and there is not a single member in the House who would believe that riding should be able to imperil or subvert or overcome a question of enshrined or entrenched rights. I feel compelled to say that certain rights are indefeasible. Certain rights cannot be traded off like poker chips at a game when a poor hand is dealt.

What Newfoundland seeks and hopes to achieve with the 52 per cent of the favourable vote has far more implications than simply the concerns of Newfoundland. It has implications for the minority rights of every individual across the country. I want to talk about the historical.

In 1912, the Whitney government in Ontario, took away the minority educational rights of francophones. In 1890, the Manitoba government did away with the laws and constitutional rights protecting minority rights.

I believe the architects of our Constitution of 1982 had the idea of possibly protecting rights, here in the House of Commons, in case a province, for one reason or another, had a different interest.

Therefore the architects of the 1982 Constitution respected not only the House of Commons but the other House.

I need no lesson about whether or not there is legitimacy in that House because it happened to come back with a few proposals. I will discuss that in a moment. It is fair to say that whether we agree or disagree with what was done by the Senate, the reality is it is nevertheless a part of our Constitution, a part of this House.

We must respect that Parliament has been constructed that way until this Parliament decides to do otherwise. I need no lesson from any members on this side.

I recall what the member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup said a little earlier with respect to the fact that so many members on this side of the House had not supported the amendment to abolish the Senate. I happen to be one of those few dissenting members who did. However, that does not take away the indefeasibility and strength of the argument that has brought forth the amendment that we see here today. This proposed amendment, which is a carbon

copy of what the Senate had proposed, is a question of describing where numbers warrant.

I am a francophone Ontarian. I know a little about the dilemma of trying to protect certain rights and to provide services where those numbers are warranted. There are certainly many places in my province and in my community of Durham where the French community has been able to receive certain services in the language of its choice simply because the numbers warrant it.

I believe that what the Senate has done is provided us with a second chance at a good compromise which should not be simply eliminated because of some political sense of expediency that exists now in 1996 but opens the door to possible constitutional chaos down the road.

I do not believe that is the intention of the Government of Newfoundland. It is certainly not the intention of the good senators. It ought not to be the intention of this House to commit that kind of error.

This solemn like decision has taken the opportunity to weigh both sides of the coin, the first side being of course recognizing the fiscal constraints that exist in Newfoundland and then the flip side, the reality of recognizing at least certain denominational educational rights.

The history of this whole question I find troubling. In 1990 the Government of Newfoundland appointed the Williams commission. In 1992 that commission found that of the denominational educational groups in the province of Newfoundland almost 90 per cent of what was recommended was adopted and acceptable by all players. What are we trying to achieve in getting that extra 10 per cent that presses us to bring our country possibly to the brink of constitutional chaos?

[Constitution Amendment, December 2nd, 1996]

What about signs?