Maurice Vellacott

[Criminal Code, February 17th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to address this bill this evening. I thank my colleague for bringing the bill forward. It is my privilege to serve with her on the health committee. As with other members opposite, we have a particularly keen interest in the subject before us.

Some individuals would downplay the dangers of human cloning, but some pretty valid concerns have already been expressed. I am generally in agreement with this bill, but I would also make some suggestions that I believe would strengthen the bill. Again, I do commend the hon. member for Drummond for bringing the bill forward this evening.

Some play down the dangers of human cloning. They say that human beings already manipulate the natural order, so what is different about this whole thing of human cloning. Some also say that a human clone would simply be a delayed identical twin, delayed in time and that one of the twins would be younger than the other, so what it is the big deal, what is the difference here.

Some say that a clone would differ from the original subject due to environment. Identical twins are not in fact identical in all respects. Other factors such as environment and life experiences and some of the choices they make all make for a different individual over the course of the years.

Having said all that, the dangers are real. I want to highlight and quickly mention some of what we understand to be health risks to the would be clone.

The would be clone may be weaker, since cloning involves asexual reproduction. Clones would not benefit from the new gene combinations that result from sexual reproduction, those new gene combinations that come along. As there is marriage, as there is sexual liaison, that confers new strengths, a particularly important one being resistance to disease. It is necessary for the carrying on of human society. Therefore cloning could be deliberately creating someone whose immune system is thereby weaker and is inadequate. That I believe is wrong.

First then is that the clone would be weaker because of the lack of these new gene combinations coming along conferring strength, particularly that of being resistant to new diseases. That of quicker aging also is a definite risk involved here. While cloning might produce a “newborn”, the chromosomes in the original cell taken from that adult, those cells would be as old as the adult. That is why some who are involved in this area suggest that persons produced in this way might age faster than normal and may fall victim prematurely to the debilitating diseases of old age.

As well, along the lines of health again, there would be this need in this ongoing grotesque trial and error that might bring us some fairly bizarre creations through trial and error to perfect this technology on humans. The technology that produced Dolly is far from perfect. It took hundreds of unsuccessful attempts for that British team of scientists to produce Dolly. Even if it could be perfected on non-human mammals, there are differences in human cells that would require scientists to go back again and again and work on a trial and error basis. Even if it could be perfected in non-human mammals, there are differences when it comes to reproducing a human clone.

Also there are some very considerable psychological and emotional risks in the matter of human cloning. I believe cloning would create a real perverse sense of ownership in both parties.

First, in the person who decided to have a clone made, whether or not that person is the donor, there would be unusually specific reasons behind the decision to clone a child. From the very start that child would probably be viewed as existing for a purpose. Usually the purpose is that of following in the footsteps of the cloned adult.

Second, the clone might feel an obligation to fulfil some purpose for which he or she was cloned. That would be a very perverse kind of psychological and emotional risk to the individual clone as well. There would be those kinds of expectations. For example, a parent might want a child to turn out a certain way, to be a super athlete, a movie star or whatever. It is not healthy for the child. We have read about some of the devastating consequences of such expectations and how much more so when that is the very reason for bringing the cloned individual into existence.

Suppose someone who was a great athlete was cloned in order to create another great athlete, a Wayne Gretzky or someone of that sort. Should every human being not be free to pursue intellectual challenges or a career in music or other possibilities instead of being driven down a certain route by parents who had that one clone made for such a purpose in life?

Suppose parents would like to clone one of their children who is terminally ill. The child would be passing off this earthly scene and they would clone another child to make up for it. That cloned child would feel some very heavy obligation to act, behave and speak just like his predecessor as a replacement for that deceased child. It is a cruel and destructive environment in which to grow up.

Those are some of the emotional and psychological risks we have touched on briefly this evening.

If cloning were legal, then eugenics which we all disavow, and discrimination would be unavoidable. That is another problem with the issue of human cloning. There is no way to police people's motives or to detect insincerity in their stated motives.

I support the intention of this bill to ban human cloning. It is a good piece of legislation to get us on the way in our discussion of a total ban on human cloning. To date, 19 European countries have signed an anti-cloning treaty. U.S. politicians are proposing permanent bans on cloning.

I would offer for the record that this bill does not address the extent to which human DNA can be used in producing animals with human traits. There must be more discussion in greater detail with expansion on this or some other bill. It is insufficient to make human cloning illegal. There must be some detailed regulations in this growing field, this edge field, that would apply.

I have a constructive and helpful suggestion for the hon. member for Drummond and other members who will be voting on this bill. We should go further in penalizing those who would ignore the law. It is not good enough to give a simple light slap on the wrist or some fine. To me and others in the House the fine might be significant but not to some.

PPL Therapeutics, the company that produced Dolly, estimates a $1 billion market for itself early in the next decade. For companies making that kind of money, fines in the order of several hundreds of thousands of dollars will simply be a nuisance. They would be like parking tickets instead of something of real consequence or significance. We believe a fine is inadequate. If companies start generating the kinds of revenues in the billions that are indicated by that company, I believe financial penalties will not provide a sufficient deterrent.

The threat of significant and serious prison time would be an adequate deterrent for people who would attempt to break the ban on cloning. If this bill passes, the justice committee should be instructed to study what would be an appropriate prison term. There should be a significant prison term for those who would attempt to break the ban on human cloning if this bill were to pass.

With those constructive suggestions I indicate my general support for the bill. I will be trying to influence colleagues and others to that end. Again, I offer my thanks for getting this item on the agenda.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, February 12th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I find it rather hypocritical and want to read for the sake of the record some of the comments which Liberals made with respect to the matter of closure while they were in opposition.

I cite for the record today the now Liberal Minister of Foreign Affairs who was reported in the Toronto Star as saying on April 1, 1993 “It displays the utter disdain with which this government treats the Canadian people”.

I quote from Hansard of November 16, 1992 when the now Liberal government House leader said “I am shocked. This is just terrible. This time we are talking about a major piece of legislation. Shame on those Tories across the way”.

That is what was said by Liberals and today we have closure on this bill.

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, who is now the Deputy Speaker, said “What we have here is an absolute scandal in terms of the government's unwillingness to listen to the representatives of the people in this House. Never before have we had governments so reluctant to engage in public discussion on the bills brought before this House”. How appropriate that is for this occasion today.

As well, the same individual who is now the Deputy Speaker said “I suggest that the government's approach to legislating is frankly a disgrace. It cuts back the time the House is available to sit and then applies closure to cut off the debate”.

Lastly, that same member from Kingston and the Islands said “This is not the way to run Parliament. This is an abuse of the process of the House”. That is exactly what is now being done by the Liberal government this afternoon.

I was hoping that as a result of an amended Bill C-4 we would have a viable, modern, democratized Canadian Wheat Board which would allow some market choice, some voices of moderation and a reasonable position.

Instead in cynical fashion the Liberal government has, by its bill, not respected the farmers as mature adults able to make wise choices. They can make choices for themselves. It is not like they are little kids and we need to do it for them because they are not wise enough to do it for themselves.

This legislation will not bring about that voluntary participation in the Canadian Wheat Board. Farmers will not have that freedom to choose, to exercise their mature adult will. This bill, as the minister knows, gives farmers no options of that sort.

Thousands of grain farmers have told the government what they are asking for and what they want. They want that choice. They want the choice of marketing for themselves. It is not that others would have to, but it is only if they wished to do this they could do so. Bill C-4 simply ignores those farmers. It is a feeble attempt by this Liberal government to appear as though it is responding to farmers' demands for change. It is a kind of charade, but it has dodged the real issue of marketing options for farmers.

The minister attempts to placate producers with this legislation but they are not fooled. It will backfire. The Canadian Wheat Board's tight grip on the sale of wheat and barley has an extremely divisive effect back in the constituencies in the west among Canadian farmers. A much better approach could have been taken by the minister responsible for the wheat board.

It is not a controversy that will simply go away. All farmers are getting more and more frustrated because the minister will not deal with the situation. The minister has taken an all or nothing attitude instead of paving the way for farmers to choose how to sell their grain.

The inclusion clauses in the bill leave no room for compromise. It is unbending and a cruel joke. This means that a grain is either in or out. Far from preserving the Canadian Wheat Board, it ultimately will destroy it as one producer group after another chooses to get out from under its thumb.

The government has ignored recommendations from its own Western Grain Marketing Panel. We heard some selective quotes from the member opposite about some of the things the government did follow in some fashion but not citing those where it did not.

In July 1996 after a year long study the panel told the government that the board's monopoly on the sale of wheat should be reduced and that its monopoly on the export of feed barley should end. That was one of the recommendations of the panel which was not cited by the hon. member opposite.

With that all or nothing kind of display, the plebiscite that the minister then fixed or rigged earlier this year permitting barley growers gave them little choice. The question was did they want to go or stay with the wheat board and nothing in between. What kind of choice is that when there could have been other options and a fairer way to word the question?

Farmers are more frustrated than ever. That barley vote was not unlike the referendum in Quebec where they determined the outcome by the wording of the question. Farmers were fully aware at the very outset, from the wording of the question, what the determination would be.

The election of 10 members to the board has been referred to often here. That is not enough. A fully elected board of directors is mandatory if the voice of farmers is truly to be heard. This hybrid kind of board will be, as we have said before in a speech in the Hansard record, like the offspring of a donkey and a horse, a mule. It will be unproductive.

For example as has been cited, if just three directors shift their vote to align with the five government appointed members, the majority of farmer elected directors would find themselves outvoted. That my friends is not a wise choice. It is not a choice for farmers across our country.

The ability of those elected directors to represent the farmers who elected them is also in doubt. Just like CSIS, Canada's secretive spy agency, the Canadian Wheat Board does not have to answer to the Access to Information Act.

I found it interesting to hear the member for Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar citing these studies in terms of all the benefits and all the extra dollars accrued to farmers by way of the Canadian Wheat Board operations. I am not sure where these studies all come from in that we do not have access to information. Even 30 years afterward, why would anyone need to withhold that information from us if there is nothing to hide? We do not presently have a need to have the wheat board audited by the auditor general. How can those directors act freely if they are bound by some oath of secrecy?

I agree with the Bloc member's motion. It is a good one. Motion No. 46 under this Group No. 7 would bring the wheat board under the jurisdiction of the Access to Information Act which is good for farmers.

I am also concerned that the directors could be denied liability protection if they were to speak and act freely on behalf of farmers, which is what one would think the wheat board is all about and what it should be doing.

Directors would only be covered it would seem for liability if they act in the best interest of the corporation. Any instructions given to the Canadian Wheat Board by the federal government are defined as the best interest of the corporation. If a director does not follow government directives, then they may well be liable because they are not looking out for the interest of the corporation. The mandate of the wheat board should be to look out for the best interests of farmers.

The government as we know has also neglected to tackle the Canadian Wheat Board's role in grain transportation in this bill. There is an impending crisis in the system of grain transportation and the Liberals are either unwilling or unprepared to do anything about it. This is the very best as it stands before us now unamended that the Liberals could come up with.

There are approximately 110,000 grain farmers in the prairie provinces and part of British Columbia and the Canadian Wheat Board controls $5 billion in sales. Given the significance of those numbers it is hard to believe that the government has simply introduced this recycled legislation. I am for recycling but not in this regard. We need some reformed legislation.

Almost 100 witnesses stood before that agriculture committee to comment on the predecessor, Bill C-72. Virtually all of the farm groups appearing told the committee that it was a fundamentally flawed piece of legislation. We need reformed legislation.

In the report stage of this bill the Liberals rammed it through committee in less than two weeks despite overwhelming objections by producer groups. Witnesses were forced to present views in a confusing round table format, providing MPs with little opportunity to analyse thoroughly the legislation.

The presence of Reform MPs through the course of this debate has really been quite tremendous. The Liberals were for the most part conspicuous by their absence, at times not even present in the House.

The wheat board minister obviously found little support in that Regina meeting and was booed off the stage.

Grain producer groups opposed to Bill C-4, the coalition against Bill C-4, have continued to press the minister to take the opposition amendments seriously. Numbers of coalitions listed on numerous occasions over these last days oppose this bill.

On January 21, and this is the case which was referred to before, the minister discussed in a fairly contemptuous fashion the matter of directors when in fact this has not yet been passed. This shows a disregard for Parliament and really in my view a contempt of Parliament. A number of those groups invited to that Regina meeting walked out protesting the meeting. Again that is a very graphic testimony to the fact that this Bill C-4 is a fundamentally flawed piece of legislation.

In closing, I would say the farmers I have talked to, although not all agree, do want reformed legislation of the sort that includes the amendments that the Reform Party has put forward. Regrettably this bill instead of being known as the act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board may tragically in history go down as the act to end the Canadian Wheat Board. That will be a sad day.

[Division No. 72, February 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member has this problem with staying on course and relevancy. He got beaten in Yorkton—Melville badly for not listening to his people. As a result, he does not stay on the subject.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, February 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the reminder. On that occasion the minister held a meeting to discuss the rules for the election of directors to the Canadian Wheat Board as proposed in Bill C-4.

I offer to the members today that had the minister been there, as presumptuous as that would have been, to discuss the rules for the election of all directors of the Canadian Wheat Board, that would have gone down a lot better with Reformers.

I think there would have been less consternation, less outrage and anger at discussing elections for all directors of the wheat board. By that, they would be in a better position hereafter to change it to amend things as best for the farmers.

I am very much of the view that we need to have an entire 15 member elected Canadian Wheat Board. A 10 member board of directors elected as in Bill C-4 at present is not enough. A fully elected board of directors is mandatory if the voice of farmers is to be truly heard.

I want to refer to some of my experience in serving on a hybrid board, as I would call it, partly elected and partly appointed in the province of Saskatchewan. We had the historic, first in the country, health board elections there.

In my district, the Saskatoon district of health, the largest in the province, we have eight elected members on the board and six appointed members. We have this hybrid kind of board. I have been on the record before as calling it that. It is nothing new today as my position has been known for some time.

I do not believe that a hybrid board comprised of elected and appointed members will best serve the interests of producers. It will be a sterile hybrid, like a mule, the sterile offspring of a horse and a donkey. It will be non-productive.

I understand the obstinacy and the stubbornness of the minister responsible for the wheat board. It is akin to the stubbornness of a mule. It makes some sense in view of what I believe will be sterility in terms of this hybrid board which will be created as a result of Bill C-4.

With respect to the Saskatoon district health board, the intent was for board members to be accountable to the constituents of their wards. Appointed board members from time to time came up for reappointment. They were put in their positions by the provincial government. By nature of that dynamic, there simply could not be the same freedom for appointed board members to objectively critique the government.

In that case it was the provincial government. In this case it is the federal government. Appointed members cannot be as open and fully critique wheat board policy and budget decisions which pertain to the effective marketing of wheat and other grains.

In the Saskatoon district health board as well, appointed members could jeopardize their reappointment if they publicly voiced concern about inadequate funding and those types of things. These appointed members will also have those concerns. They dare not embarrass the federal government by taking a contrary position on the direction in wheat board policy.

Even if a certain course of action is deemed to be in the best interest of farmers and is endorsed by the general farm community, an appointed board member would feel reluctant to support the initiative if it made the appointing federal government look bad. Appointees most naturally feel accountable to the person or persons who put them in that position. As we say, he who pays the piper calls the tune.

I can recall prior to the 1993 federal election when the Liberals were in the habit, as they have been over the course of a number of years, of appointing candidates. One individual in the Saskatoon area was appointed and served in the House. That individual was elected to the House, but was defeated in the last election by the Reform member for Saskatoon—Humboldt.

It was well known that the backlash that individual experienced was in part because the voters felt that the individual would kowtow to the government and to the prime minister who had appointed him.

I have grave concerns and great difficulty with an appointed board, the same as I did with the Saskatoon district health board. I believe that an individual who is a capable and potential wheat board member would have an interest in obtaining a mandate in a democratic way.

Many board members on the Saskatoon district health board are certainly capable of making considerable contributions to the board. In my view, they should step into the public arena and be chosen by the democratic process, which would give them a public mandate.

I do not believe that hybrid boards comprised of elected and appointed members will serve the public interest.

I am also concerned that directors could be denied liability protection if they were to speak and act freely on behalf of farmers. Of course, I am pushing. Reformers want a fully elected wheat board.

As well, we have a concern with the wheat board having to act in the best interests of the corporation, which is not necessarily synonymous with the best interests of the farmers.

If directors are only covered for liability, if they act in the best interests of the corporation, any instructions given to the CWB by the federal government will be defined as the best interests of the corporation. We know well that may not necessarily be synonymous with the best interests of the wheat board.

In conclusion, it is my belief from personal experience and as I look at Bill C-4, that the entire wheat board should be elected. They should have as their mandate to act in the best interest of the farmers, producers, the hardworking men and women, teenagers, the individuals who grow the grain. We need a fully elected wheat board.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, February 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to stand in the House today to speak on behalf of numerous farmers I have talked to in the constituency of Wanuskewin. I learn a lot from them.

I am not a farmer per se, although I have had the opportunity in younger years as a teenager to work on several farms in the Quill Lake, Saskatchewan area during seeding, harvest time and throughout the summer picking rocks and roots and all that kind of stuff.

It is a privilege to speak on behalf of numerous farmers who I have had conversations with in the last number of weeks. I also have the privilege of having a number of colleagues who, for their livelihood, have depended directly on growing grain and harvesting their wheat, contrary to the greater percentage of those who have spoken on the opposite side of the House who do not know directly and who have not been involved directly in this very thing that we discussed before us today.

Off the top I want to mention or make public on the record the Reform Party position, economic reform, agriculture policy, where Reform is on the record in our materials as allowing producers to make their own marketing decisions and to direct, structure and to voluntarily participate in producer organizations, including marketing boards, commissions and co-operatives in a manner they believe best serves their interests.

I think that last part is very important. It has been emphasized several times already today, serving their interests, the interests of farmers, those who grow this stuff, who work hard by the sweat of their brow. They raise this, the producers of grain through western Canada particularly.

Also I note that Reform is supportive of their making their own marketing decisions, also directing, structuring and voluntarily participating, which is rather different from the government side of the House where those members think they know best.

The previous speaker, my fellow member, pointed out that almost arrogant attitude that the government knows best. It is an insult to farmers. It is an offence to them that we should think we know better than they, the ones who produce this, the ones who have so much at stake in terms of how this ought to be marketed.

I note as well in other Reform Party literature that we support a modern, democratized market oriented Canadian Wheat Board in which participation is voluntary.

The things I want to be emphasizing here today are modern and democratized, in particular this whole issue of a democratic Canadian Wheat Board.

It has been in the media in numbers of places where our minister responsible for the wheat board, Ralph Goodale, on January 21 held a meeting in Regina to discuss—

[The Economy, December 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government has made it clear that 50% of any future surplus will go into spending. There is compelling reason to make debt reduction and tax relief a higher priority.

I appeal to the government's supposed social conscience. The negative impacts of exploding debt and excessive taxation are felt directly by the old, the young, the sick, the poor, the unemployed and families.

These are the people the Liberal government is turning its back on when it says new spending is its number one priority. The interest on the federal debt is eating the heart out of social programs. Health care, education, employment insurance and old age pensions combined receive less than what we spend on interest payments each year.

Reformers believe social responsibility and social conscience demand that the Liberal government reduce the debt and cut taxes in the name of the old, the young, the sick, the poor, the unemployed and families across the country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my hon. colleague with respect to the analogy he fleshed out for us. In Newfoundland and elsewhere parents do have the right to send their children to another school, as he so rightly said. I have found that low income people are not able to do that. They simply do not have the means to pay the taxes and send their children to a private school. What has been the member's experience with respect to that?

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my hon. colleague. It is in the nature of going back in a time capsule, one might say.

With this matter of a referendum, important as it is to each one of us, are there not some limitations? Are there not some bottom lines? We can go back in time to our neighbours to the south during the time when there was slavery in their country. Had there been a vote at the time about whether to allow the slaves rights or to keep them in that subjugated, suppressed state, and if the vote had left them without rights and kept them subjugated, would the member have been in agreement with that kind of referendum?

As a preface I would say that I stand opposed to that. It does not matter that there may have been a democratic “referenda” issue there, I would stand opposed. There are bottom lines. I am personally interested in how the member would have voted on such an issue.

Second, is this extended to all areas or are there some bottom lines with respect to this?

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

Mr. Speaker, Reform has proposed three tests. There has been much discussion over the course of this day in regard to them. I note that members on the opposite side of the House and the other parties adjacent to us have either inferred or explicitly referred to them. I use them as a bit of a guide for my remarks this evening. I also suggest, as I first make remarks on the democratic consent, that with this first criteria I differ with some of my colleagues. It does not trump the other two.

First, on remarks of democratic consent. On September 2, 1997 it appears the Brian Tobin Liberal government of Newfoundland and Labrador took a very knee jerk, malicious approach. It was a very spiteful response to the provincial government ruling that it was not appropriately implementing term 17. As well, we have learned from the Quebec situation that a referendum may be democratic in theory, but demagogic in reality when the form of the question is abused.

Here was a government that was slapped on the wrist, then like a spoiled boy decided it did not want to play. It wanted to walk away instead of working it out. It sprung this referendum on July 31, 1997. The Newfoundland government could have amended the legislation to provide a more workable process for implementing term 17.

The court decision handed down brought into effect the second referendum call at the end of the month. There was no debate in the house of assembly prior to this announcement, no hearings on the proposed amendment. I would suggest that that would have been helpful in getting the issues out, getting them into the public debate arena.

The Tobin government only unveiled, and it has been mentioned often, the proposed new term 17 two days before the advance poll and one week before the vote. As other colleagues have referred, it was substantially different from the form of the question which was put on term 17 on the polling day.

I am not of the view that the technical and legal language needs to be on the ballot. I am of the belief that the technical and legal language needs to concur with the form of the question. This is not the case. This is bordering on fraudulent. It is deceptive. It is trickery. It leaves open to question whether there was an informed consent of the electorate in general and the affected minorities in particular.

I quickly note, as others have, that the government used hundreds of thousands of dollars to promote the yes side and granted not a penny to the no side. I have looked at some of the government advertising. Who is not for children and opportunity and advancement and all of these wonderful things? That is the nature of the government paid advertising, its issues of motherhood and apple pie, but no dollars granted to the no side. Also being referred to is the fact that there were no scrutineers.

It is my belief, as commented by others, that if we are taking this thing of referendum seriously, as the Reform Party does and we are out in the forefront on this one, then we need to be putting a fair question. We need proper electoral safeguards, scrutineers, et cetera, and equal funding for both the yes and no sides or no funding at all. It is an old saying that justice must not only be done, but it must also be seen to be done.

Second, it has not yet been demonstrated that the revised term 17 meets the test of the rule of law. The rule of law requires that the Newfoundland government demonstrate that its proposed reforms do not prejudicially affect the previously granted rights of those who desire a religious orientation in the education of their children.

The Newfoundland government could have addressed this. It had every opportunity by obtaining a ruling, a reference from the Supreme Court of Canada clearly establishing that its proposed amendment does not prejudicially affect previous rights granted. Why get into this? The government had this opportunity. It is not an issue of whether these rights are discriminatory or not. The fact is these rights were granted.

I want to talk from an historical precedent point of view how there could no longer or necessarily be discrimination in regard to these matters. The first education act in Newfoundland was passed in 1836 and granted public funding to the Newfoundland School Society, Roman Catholics and nine school boards.

It was amended in 1874 to permit proportional funding to all religious groups which at that time included Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Methodists, Presbyterians and Congregationalists. In 1892 and 1913 respectively other groups were brought in. Then the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada were granted full partnership in funding in 1954 and added into the constitution in 1987.

My point is that there is no doubt an increasing number of families in the province who would not be members of traditional Roman Catholic or protestant faith groups but the right of such parents to educate their children according to their own faith and convictions ought to be upheld, as should be the right of Roman Catholic and protestant parents.

There is nothing that precludes there being more groups brought in. The solution proposed by this term 17 will not accommodate greater diversity but rather imposes an approach which marginalizes religion and excludes it from the general curriculum.

We should be expanding, as my hon. colleague said just moments ago, the educational rights instead of extinguishing rights. If there are disenfranchised groups that wish to be accommodated, that can be accomplished without eroding the constitutional protection which other minority religious groups enjoy.

There are also ways of addressing current inefficiencies in the educational system which would not require a constitutional amendment.

By press release dated April 24, 1996, the minister of education and training announced that a framework agreement had been negotiated between the province and denominations. That agreement indicates that the government's concerns can be addressed without the constitutional amendment requested. In fact, the churches had co-operated with educational reform.

Premier Tobin made the comment that they were trying to frustrate the process of education reform. Not so, Premier Tobin. In fact, these churches had willingly embraced reform. They had entered into dozens of joint school arrangements. They had closed and consolidated other schools, 30-some for the Roman Catholics and 7 Pentecostal in the past year.

They co-operated with the government in a reduction of school boards from the original 267 to the present 10. They participated in the government operated provincial school construction board which controls all school construction except that school bus reform is necessary. On and on we go.

They in fact endorsed 90% of the commission's recommendations and urged the government to get on with implementing them.

It is clear that the Pentecostals and Roman Catholics will be negatively affected, detrimentally affected by the new religion program in term 17 before us.

This offer of a religion program developed by the Department of Education is a cruel joke. It will be a neutered, generic, no-name brand sociology religion class. At its worst, it will be hostile to theistic religions.

The present Newfoundland government has displayed such disdain for religious education that there is no reason to hope that it will suddenly become conscientious for the rights of parents in matters of religion.

The provincial Department of Education writing the content for the religion course is like putting the fox in charge of the chicken coop. It is a cruel joke. I am of the view that this amendment is not in the best interests of Canadians.

Premier Brian Peckford in the Hansard record of April 10, 1987 speaks warmly and extols the Pentecostal Assemblies of Newfoundland, the way they operated their schools, their uniqueness in terms of their putting forth values, instilling manners and courtesy and respect for others and family values and so on. He in fact warns them not to let go of that, not to let that be deluded over time.

Premier Brian Peckford mentions the fact of that danger and makes very clear that they should be regarded as a shining light for others to adopt and to ensure that that was also part of their overall educational system and philosophy. In righting the wrong, he says of the past that he has great pleasure in recommending the inclusion of the Pentecostal Assemblies of Newfoundland.

That being said, who should run the schools? Who should decide on the nature of a child's schooling? I do not recognize the province's exclusive authority to decide the education of my child for Newfoundland or any other province.

It is parents who have the primary responsibility for the education of their children. It is therefore a right to be able to choose a type of education that they desire for their children.

More to the point, they should be entitled to take the funds to pay for that child's education with them, whether directly as in a voucher system or indirectly by funding schools based on the number of pupils they enroll, a system known as capitation.

That approach is finding favour around the world, not only in free market Britain or New Zealand as expected, but also in socialist countries Sweden and Denmark.

The Canadian public would be better served by acknowledging parental choice of a school where their children can be educated in keeping with their world view and values for the good of Canadian society. The Newfoundland referendum is suspect all around. Rather than extinguishing minority rights in this respect, I believe we should be enhancing them and expanding them.

After serious and careful deliberation, much consultation and conservation with others, I stand opposed to term 17 as it is before us today.

[Tobacco Act, December 5th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the supposed Minister of Health, a former lawyer, has become pretty good at dragging his government into the law courts and paying out lots of money to lawyers for the Airbus boondoggle, for the obstruction of Krever, in the future for stonewalling hepatitis C victims.

If the government exempts auto racing in the Tobacco Act, other groups will be sprinting to the courts. He knows that. What possible defence will this government offer at that time in court for exempting one event but not others?