Mr. Speaker, last June this House held a two day debate on the amendment to term 17 proposed by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and referred to the Parliament of Canada for sanction according to the Canadian Constitution.
The amendment to term 17 was approved by a significant majority of this House in a free vote and submitted to the Senate for adoption. The Senate has now returned the proposed term 17 amendment to us, modified by a Senate amendment providing two measures to which I will refer later. The Senate amendment was adopted by a significant majority of senators in a free vote.
Last summer when I spoke on this issue I was one of 36 Liberal members who voted against the adoption of the proposed amendment to term 17. The reasons I gave then are, in my considered view, still valid today. These are my reasons.
There is a broad consensus for the need for reform of the educational system in Newfoundland and Labrador and, to my knowledge, no parliamentarian opposes this worthy objective.
However, many parliamentarians have strong reservations that, worthy as the objective may be, the amendment should not interfere with the rights of certain minority groups and certain groups now protected by the Constitution under the terms of union of Newfoundland with Canada.
Those of us who hold these reservations believe that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador had two alternative options available to reach the objective it seeks while protecting the existing rights of defined educational groups under the Constitution.
First, it could have persevered with a framework agreement that it was negotiating with the various stakeholders and which was close to a consensus last spring, according to the words on April 24, 1996 of no less than Newfoundland's minister of education, Mr. Grimes.
The second option, if it preferred, as it eventually chose to do, to move on the constitutional front would have been to propose an amendment to term 17 which would have at the same time made clear and watertight the protection of existing rights under the projected reform.
However, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador chose to go forward with an amendment which would give complete power to itself to modify the present educational system regardless of the protected rights of religious groups under the Constitution.
Those who believe that the House should simply accede to the amendment proposed by the Government of Newfoundland hold that the decision of the Government of Newfoundland was a democratic choice, sanctioned by a majority vote in a public referendum.
Many of my colleagues who support the amendment proposed by Newfoundland feel that it is presumptuous and arrogant of us in this House to interfere with a democratic decision of a legitimate government seeking its own reforms.
I respectfully submit that this argument is not justified. If the modern fathers of confederation presiding over the terms of union of Newfoundland with Canada had viewed educational reform as strictly a matter for the provincial Government of Newfoundland to decide, they would not have enshrined clear and unequivocal protections for certain religious groups related to education in the terms of union.
Having done this, those who crafted the terms of union obviously agreed and decided that term 17 went beyond the power and authority of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, and that is why we in this House have become involved. Being involved, according to the clear designs of the authors of the terms of union and of term 17, we have the duty as members of Parliament, indeed an onerous duty, to examine any changes with special care. If in doing so our conclusion is that the amendment proposed by the Government of Newfoundland eliminates the constitutional protections that the authors of the terms of union deliberately intended to enshrine, then it behoves us to either reject the proposed amendment or modify it so as to continue the protections intended for certain educational groups by the Constitution.
In a recent free vote the Senate adopted an amendment that provides for two modifications to Newfoundland's proposed amendment to term 17. It would affirm both the spirit and intended protection of the original term 17. The first part of this amendment is the insertion of the words "where numbers warrant" and the present paragraph (b) which starts with the words "subject to provincial legislation".
This is an important change. If the authority for changing the protection of certain educational groups under the Constitution is left to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, why should the same not be done in the cases of the provinces of Ontario, Manitoba, Quebec or any other province where certain educational rights are now protected by the Canadian Constitution?
Today we have a certain type of government in Newfoundland. Colleagues here may feel very comfortable leaving this authority with the present Government of Newfoundland. But what government will it be tomorrow? What will be the design of the future government 25 years hence? This is why the fathers of the Constitution, when dealing with matters as sensitive as education,
educational rights, protection of minority rights, protection of religious groups, made it so that these rights were deliberately enshrined in the Constitution to make it much more difficult for any provincial government to change at will the educational system. Maybe a government more daring than others, more autocratic than others could eliminate these very protections, these minority rights like religious rights for certain educational groups just by its own will with perhaps a tiny majority in the House.
The second amendment intends to substitute the words "to direct" with the words "to determine and direct". This puts a far greater onus on the Government of Newfoundland to determine before directing any changes involving substantial reform that they are warranted.
I suggest that in both cases these amendments make eminent sense. They do not detract from the thrust of the term 17 amendment. In other words, the worthy objective or reform the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is seeking is continuing in a reasonable manner the protection of the educational groups enshrined under the terms of union.
I am particularly interested in the question of constitutional protection. As a matter of fact, this same question of the constitutional provisions on education is undergoing a thorough and ongoing scrutiny at this very moment in Quebec.
The recent general assembly on education recommended that all religious education in Quebec, which is essentially linked to the protection of minority rights in Quebec, be abolished. A consensus is gradually developing in Quebec around dividing school boards by language. What will the present government of Quebec decide eventually, since we all know that it is opposed to any interference by the Canadian Parliament in its affairs?
It is not mere coincidence that the Bloc Quebecois voted unanimously in favour of the amendment proposed by Newfoundland. The Bloc's argument is that, since the Government of Newfoundland has made a democratic choice, it is not the business of us here in the Canadian Parliament to interfere. The Bloc is already paving the way for the possibility of the Quebec government's referring to us some proposal for an amendment to the protection of education in Quebec, at which time it would suit both the Bloc and the PQ government if we were to accept it without a murmur.
Certainly, if ever there were an amendment to the constitutional provisions on education, and if this included sufficient protection for minorities, I would be the first to accept it. But if it did not, I consider that it is the duty of all parliamentarians to oppose it vigorously.
Some of my colleagues have stated that the amendment to term 17 has nothing to do with minority rights. Many colleagues have expressed the fact that it is going beyond our duty to interfere with the rights of the people of Newfoundland, the Government of Newfoundland, to decide its own thrust, its own objective of reform. I do not think this is what we are doing. I certainly do not think this is what I have in mind.
I really believe that this question is essentially linked to minority rights. I truly believe that if we were to accept, to rubber stamp any constitutional change proposed by any provincial government without expressing our opinion, without expressing dissent if this is what we feel should be the case, then what is the point of constitutional enshrinement in the first place?
After all, the Constitution today, whether we like it or not, provides that the Parliament of Canada, this House and the Senate, should examine any constitutional change. The reason for it is patently obvious.
I suggest that this question is far bigger than that of the authority of any provincial legislature to decide by itself. This is why we are involved. This is why I continue to believe that in assenting unchanged to the amendment to term 17 as proposed by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador we would be doing a disservice to all those who believe that constitutional enshrinement in Quebec, in Ontario, in Manitoba and elsewhere are really the finest guarantees we have for minority rights.
These minority rights express themselves in different ways. Sometimes, as happens in Quebec, they are tied up through the Constitution through religious enshrinement. There has been an evolution in mores, an evolution in our societal realities which makes it so today that religion is not the key issue any more in our schools. But the fact of religious enshrinement in Quebec is tied up closely to minority rights in Quebec. Were we to accept this amendment today without any argument, by rubber stamping it, no doubt that our friends of the Bloc will rejoice once again when they prepare their own proposition for us one day to put before this House, hoping that again we would rubber stamp it.
I continue to hold that we should look at the amendment to term 17 very carefully, that we should back the amendments made in the Senate and that we should move in that direction which is a fair compromise to the Government in Newfoundland and Labrador and all those who hold, as we all do, for educational reform in that province. We should keep the thrust of the amendment to term 17
while keeping the protection of religious groups enshrined in the terms of the union.