Dan McTeague

[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?

[Constitution Amendment, December 2nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to what was said by the hon. member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup. I thought for a minute the hon. member was going to give us some advice on how to deal with minorities, since we are members from Ontario.

I do not know whether the hon. member of the Bloc Quebecois is up on Canadian history, especially the history of the Province of Ontario. There we also saw the abolition of the rights of francophones to be educated in their own language. I wonder whether he realizes that in 1912, Regulation 17-an ironic twist-was introduced by a Conservative government and supported by a Liberal opposition, a regulation that suspended, denied and suppressed the minority rights of francophones as far as education was concerned. It is rather ironic that history is repeating itself.

I also listened to the hon. member's comments on referendums. He thought there should not be another referendum. I would like to put the question to this member, because I think it is rather ironic and even a little hypocritical to say first of all, they are not in favour of a referendum, and then that they respect the first referendum that was held in Newfoundland. Could he explain why, because I think their position is certainly not a very wise one.

[Motor Vehicle Safety Act, November 29th, 1996]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-356, an act to amend the Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

Mr. Speaker, unlike the case in the U.S., the federal government does not have the legal power to order a manufacturer to immediately recall a vehicle which has been found to have a serious safety defect or has actually caused injury or death.

This bill forces manufacturers covered by the Motor Vehicle Safety Act to notify in public in a specifically prescribed manner when they become aware of a design, construction or functioning defect in a vehicle which they sell or import.

It also provides the Minister of Transport with the power to order an immediate recall of defective vehicles and prohibit their sale until the defect has been duly corrected. This bill is the result of the tragic and entirely preventable deaths of Thomas Bonnici, Natalia Bajc and Stuart Herriot. These children died due to failures in the current system.

Whether it was the inability to identify defects or failure to adequately advise the public when defects become known or not recalling the vehicle models concerned, these questions are left best to the courts.

What is relevant from the government's perspective must be the current inability of Transport Canada to quickly identify vehicle defects even after people have been injured or killed and take immediate action with manufacturers to recall vehicles and correct the problems.

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

[Canada Elections Act, November 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to hear the wise and tested comments of the hon. member for Parkdale-High Park. I recall one of his first campaigns when I was barely in high school. Of course he was successful. As he indicated, he has seen many elections in the past.

Could the hon. member provide a few other illustrations of how he believes a permanent voters' list might be able to assist us in not only realizing economies of scale as far as the federal and provincial governments working together but also in confirming at least for the voters that they can make their minds up in 37 days? They do not need 47 days. Perhaps the hon. member would like to provide some greater wisdom to the House of Commons of his own experiences, notwithstanding, of course, yours, Mr. Speaker.

[Program Cost Declaration Act, November 6th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support a good friend, a good colleague and a damn good bill which has been presented to this House, Bill C-214, the program cost declaration act.

The member for Durham probably needs no introduction to parliamentarians, but I think it is of note the work he has done on public accounts and the work he has done hither to his hopefully very long career as a politician, including many years as a chartered accountant and a very fine, upstanding man in terms of the community of Durham.

I speak with some knowledge, although he is not my chartered accountant. I can assure members that many people speak very highly of him. Any member whose dentist goes by the last name McTeague has to know something about his clients.

Mirth aside, the bill deals very specifically with a concern that Canadians have. The concern is that when we decide to move or to allow supply, when legislation is provided, we seem never to be able to provide people with an opportunity of knowing just how much that legislation is going to cost.

I therefore commend the member of Parliament for having the foresight and the experience in terms of his committee work to be able to present a bill which I think a lot of members of Parliament on both sides of the House are expressing they will support.

We realize that the bill is only in second reading and therefore only in its first hour of debate. There will be two more hours of debate. I look forward to listening to other members of Parliament as they provide their views on the bill.

It is important to point out that the committee will hopefully also be able to address the amendments that were suggested, for example, by my hon. colleague from the Reform Party. I cannot help but remark that while the member from the Reform Party rightfully supports the bill, he took the opportunity to talk a bit about the Senate. I was quite amazed to note yesterday that the Reform Party was not willing to join in a motion by other members to remove the section that would deal with abrogating or removing the Senate.

The public has demanded greater transparency from us. It is a slogan for many of us. As we go into campaigns we talk about the need for making sure that people understand how much programs and legislation will cost.

I believe this bill squares with the public expectations, certainly in an era where there is justified or perhaps even unjustified cynicism toward how politicians and governments spend money.

The hon. member for Durham who presented the bill has pointed out that we are currently in a situation of being $600 billion in debt. Some of that, I am sure, is the result of changes in the economic climate, governments not being able to change with the times and the result of great adjustments that have necessitated the government to incur such a debt.

But that does not relinquish us from our responsibility of providing the kinds of instruments that will allow the public and politicians greater scrutiny on the bills that they pass from time to time. Having had 18 votes in this Chamber last evening, it would be good to know the quantum effect of how much those bills will impact on our ability to make ends meet at the end of the day.

The hon. member from Durham who proposed this, whose riding happens to be beside mine, talked about the importance of inclusion, the importance of providing people a real opportunity for participation. That does not mean that people necessarily will take an interest in every single bill. But it allows one dimension of information which allows a democracy to survive in a very trying time. As we approach the 21st century an informed citizenry may avail itself of very important information. That is why I believe the member's bill is not only timely in the context of the deficit and the

debt situation we have, but it is also timely because the public expects us to do this.

Right now there is every indication that there is something lacking when we talk about an underground economy. According to some estimates by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business we are losing somewhere in the order of as much as $100 billion a year because people are looking for alternatives. Some people have low faith in the system and the way their tax money is dealt with that they believe the best way to get around it is to cheat the system.

I think that is a rather sad indictment on the situation we find ourselves in. It makes the job of the revenue minister and in particular the finance minister almost impossible if not elusive. We have to bring Canadians back on side. How we do that is to provide them absolute, open, honest, up front probate information so that they can judge for themselves how the money is spent and ensure their members of Parliament are accountable. In that way it would make my job as a member of Parliament much easier to say to those engaged in the underground economy, given the importance of this bill and that it might someday be enacted, they have absolutely no reason to hurt their fellow Canadians by simply withholding or not paying taxes due.

This is what Parliament can do to bring people back on board and address the cynicism that exists out there.

This may also, as the hon. member has indicated, prevent unnecessary spending. There would certainly be a reluctance by some members to accept a bill that would seem on the surface to be aiming in the right direction. Sure, there are a lot of things we would like to do, but if we do not have the money to make those projects a reality, on whose shoulders or whose generation will the mortgage or the cost of that program be borne? We have many good programs in this country. Some of them have served this country very well and will continue to serve the country in the future. I think of our medicare programs and the transfer payments to the provinces. There are many projects and undertakings that the government has considered in the past and it has enacted valid legislation. However, we must ensure that these projects and undertakings square with public expectations as to how we are able to finance them.

In terms of the debate that surrounds what we are to spend and what we are not to spend, it is important to allow people an opportunity to converse with their representatives, if it is not during an election campaign, in the case of a majority government. There is an opportunity to speak to hundreds of constituents, who I know attend the hon. member's office. It is one of the most accessible offices in the region. It allows them to judge for themselves the importance of the program and to weigh the cost versus the social benefit. That is consistent with my definition and I believe it is consistent with the definition of the Liberal Party.

I want to put this into context in the few minutes which are allowed to me and talk about a project in the town of Ajax, which is in my riding. It has a population of approximately 75,000. In that town there is a program known as Stars. It was featured not too long ago on "W5". The Stars program saves taxpayer money by increasing their awareness of how to reduce spending. No jobs have ever been lost by the town of Ajax. We have given people an opportunity to determine how best to save valuable taxpayer dollars while at the same time making sure that ends meet because municipalities do not have the ability to incur debt.

The architect of this idea was Mr. Barry Malmsten. I am of the opinion that the member for Durham may have talked to Barry about this and applied the wisdom which has been enacted in municipalities such as Ajax to the federal realm. That is very laudable. If that is not the case, then it is certainly an awesome coincidence. Again it leads me to the conclusion that what the member is proposing at the federal level has already proven to bear fruit at the municipal level.

I believe it is up to Parliament to at least consider it. It is an important issue. Obviously it can be tinkered with in committee, but the general thrust of the bill is something which I believe all Canadians would support.

In conclusion, I would like to commend the hon. member. He has put behind him a variety of well known organizations such as the Certified General Accountants of Canada. I note that the organizations include the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and its chairman Jason Kenney. The federation has its provincial organization in my riding. He commented on this as being common sense in the Commons. Such flattery speaks to the importance and the timeliness of this bill.

In concluding, we can say that this bill deserves the attention, respect and even the support of the vast majority of members of this House. I am pleased to have had a chance to speak to my colleague's bill, and I hope it will be passed very shortly.

[Petitions, November 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present today a petition which was signed by 1,825 individuals living in the Durham region of Canada, the fastest growing region of the country.

The petitioners call on Parliament to proceed immediately with amendments to the Criminal Code which will ensure that the sentence given to anyone convicted of impaired driving causing injury or death reflects both the severity of the crime and zero tolerance by Canada toward this crime.

[Petitions, October 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by 969 constituents from the region of Durham.

This petition calls upon Parliament to ensure that the present provisions in the Criminal Code prohibiting assisted suicide be enforced vigorously and that Parliament make no changes in the law which would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide, or active or passive euthanasia.

[Supply, October 24th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the comments made by the hon. member for Bourassa and I perfectly understand his position.

However, I find it somewhat ironic that he and his party should try to find a scapegoat, when the scapegoat himself cannot understand their separatist policies.

I know that from time to time we must take firm positions on policies, but that should not, in the end, prevent anyone from working, from earning a living. That is why I do understand the hon. member's comments.

I know that from one end of our beautiful country to the other, people are struggling. Just a few hours ago, GM workers on strike in Ontario held out their hands to workers on strike at the GM plant in Sainte-Thérèse. We saw two communities working together and finally succeeding in reaching a satisfactory agreement with the company.

Using this example, I could suggest-and I easily get involved in policies-that the situation in Montreal is not that different from the situation elsewhere, except that we do recognize it in our ridings.

The hon. member is fully aware that Montrealers, anglophones and francophones alike, sometimes come to see us to tell us how bad the situation is in Montreal and that it is a result not only of federal and provincial government policies, but also of the changing economy, so we must co-operate and adapt.

Instead of putting a question to the hon. member who, of course, must approve the motion, I hold out my hand to him saying: "Work with us, work with Franco-Ontarians, work with others in this country. We are here to help you". But we must hold out our hands, we must have hope in our future, in our future together. Does he not agree with this sincere offer from our government?