House of Commons Hansard #113 of the 35th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was firefighters.

Topics

Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Is that agreed?

Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Motions For PapersRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Fundy Royal New Brunswick

Liberal

Paul Zed LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.

Motions For PapersRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Is that agreed?

Motions For PapersRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

The House resumed, from December 2, 1996, consideration of the motion:

WHEREAS section 43 of the Constitution Act, 1982 provides that an amendment to the Constitution of Canada may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada where so authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province to which the amendment applies;

NOW THEREFORE the House of Commons resolves that an amendment to the Constitution of Canada be authorized to be made by proclamation issued by His Excellency the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada in accordance with the schedule hereto.

SCHEDULE

AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF CANADA

  1. Term 17 of the Terms of Union of Newfoundland with Canada set out in the Schedule to the Newfoundland Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:

"17. In lieu of section ninety-three of the Constitution Act 1867, the following shall apply in respect of the Province of Newfoundland:

In and for the Province of Newfoundland, the Legislature shall have exclusive authority to make laws in relation to education but a ) except as provided in paragraphs ( b ) and ( c ), schools established, maintained and operated with public funds shall be denominational schools, and any class of persons having rights under this Term as it read on January 1, 1995 shall continue to have the right to provide for religious education, activities and observances for the children of that class in those schools, and the group of classes that formed one integrated school system by agreement in 1969 may exercise the same rights under this Term as a single class of persons; b ) subject to provincial legislation that is uniformly applicable to all schools specifying conditions for the establishment or continued operation of schools,

(i) any class of persons referred to in paragraph ( a ) shall have the right to have a publicly funded denominational school established, maintained and operated especially for that class, and

(ii) the Legislature may approve the establishment, maintenance and operation of a publicly funded school, whether denominational or non-denominational; c ) where a school is established, maintained and operated pursuant to subparagraph ( b ) (i), the class of persons referred to in that subparagraph shall continue to have the right to provide for religious education, activities and observances and to direct the teaching of aspects of curriculum affecting religious beliefs, student admission policy and the assignment and dismissal of teachers in that school; d ) all schools referred to in paragraphs ( a ) and ( b ) shall receive their share of public funds in accordance with scales determined on a non-discriminatory basis from time to time by the Legislature; and e ) if the classes of persons having rights under this Term so desire, they shall have the right to elect in total not less than two thirds of the members of a school board, and any class so desiring shall have the right to elect the portion of that total that is proportionate to the population of that class in the area under the board's jurisdiction.''

Citation

  1. This Amendment may be cited as the Constitution Amendment, year of proclamation (Newfoundland Act).

and of the amendment.

Constitution AmendmentGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

Bloc

Francine Lalonde Bloc Mercier, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this complex and difficult issue.

It is an issue that is complex and difficult for Newfoundlanders and for Canadians, but less so for Quebecers. That having been said, I can understand that members across the way, who are particularly concerned by the effect that a vote in the House of Commons could have on the recognition of the rights of minorities, of native peoples, in the Constitution, may be thrown into disarray by the House's approval of the amendment proposed by the Province of Newfoundland.

This needs to be acknowledged, and the Senate has given us an opportunity to take another look at this issue. I would note in passing that it is unacceptable for an unelected Chamber to be permitted to do what it has done, and the Bloc has made this point on a number of occasions.

But, back to the main item. The opportunity we have been given to take another look at this issue allows us to bring out a number of facts: the fact that the Newfoundland referendum was not won by a large majority, quite the contrary, allowing us to say that the groups affected-and I am not calling them minorities-in this case, the various denominations, gave their approval. It is clearly a decision by Newfoundlanders regarding the organization of their schools, irrespective of the original provisions of the Constitution.

Some people may have language concerns, but we know that for most the primary issue is denomination. You know that this is an extremely sensitive issue in Quebec, and that the Constitution of 1867 provided guarantees, which at the time were supposed to be guarantees for anglophones in Quebec and francophones in Ontario, and later in other provinces. But back then, as denomination and language were largely, not exclusively, but largely linked, the guarantees given denominations were largely language guarantees.

Today, urged on by a large percentage of the public, by extremely urgent constraints, the Government of Quebec wants to reorga-

nize the entire school system on the basis of language, rather than denomination. But it is prevented from doing so by section 93.

Obviously, Quebecers who would like to change their school system and thus change the guarantees given in the Constitution to religious denominations are extremely interested in this vote, this referendum that was held in Newfoundland and in the amendment requested by the Government of Newfoundland.

It is important to realize that the rights affected here are not those of an internationally recognized minority. These are guarantees given to religious denominations for which the province is, in the end, responsible.

When this measure became before the House, the Bloc Quebecois voted in favour of the motion because it recognizes the right of the people of Newfoundland to organize their schools as they see fit, and also the fact that the people of Newfoundland would give religious denominations the guarantees they felt were required by law.

In Quebec-and I say this quite frankly-using section 93 is more complicated because to do so we would have to accept the Constitution of 1982 which was imposed on us, and when I say us, I mean the people of Quebec and the National Assembly. This Constitution of 1982 is considered internationally as a denial of the fundamental right of the people of Quebec.

Although the Constitution of 1982 that was imposed on us by force does not apply with any legitimacy, we nevertheless refer to the possibility of using section 93 as a way to deal with this urgent matter of reorganizing our school system.

I would like to explain how urgent the problem is. You probably know that about 90 per cent of immigrants who settle in Montreal and become Canadian citizens in Quebec still remain largely in Montreal and the surrounding area. This means that the proportion of francophones has gone down steadily and that, since the guarantees provided under the Constitution prohibited us from organizing school boards along language lines, we have this absurd situation where the children of immigrants are required under Bill 101-which became Bill 86-to study in French. That is the only thing left of the bill.

However, many children do so in Protestant and therefore anglophone school boards, although they have French classes. However, in these French classes-and I have heard many comments from teachers and parents who send their children there-it is clear they are not part of a francophone whole but of an English-language organization that provides classroom teaching in French.

It is public knowledge that when these young people graduate from high school and are no longer under the obligation to study in

French, most of them end up in one of the anglophone CEGEPs. So this is a problem for all of Quebec, but it is mainly concentrated in the Montreal region.

The Montreal region has to live with the problem of the permanency of these guarantees which actually no longer guarantee anything at all as far as the Protestant religion is concerned. Since there are so many denominations, there is a tendency to teach religion outside of school, while the schools will teach ethics, but they will still have a so-called religious, anglophone organization.

On the French side, there are parents in Montreal who want their children to go to Catholic schools, although as we saw recently in a survey, the majority is not in favour, so certain distinctions must be made.

The important question is to find out whether the Montreal component of Quebec society will be able to integrate the children of immigrants and of new citizens of Quebec, which is vital to maintaining, if not improving, the position of the French language in Quebec.

Accordingly, and I would like to come back to the nuances I mentioned, parents clearly want their children to continue to be educated in religious history and in religion in school. They do not want their children to remain ignorant about the existence of religion, authority, the Bible and the Gospel. On the other hand, they are very aware that, if schools are to teach religion, there will have to be schools for all the denominations that make up the religious mosaic of Montreal.

This issue is therefore both complex and delicate. For Quebecers, and especially those in Montreal, it means that, if the Constitution as it stands is not changed, it will be impossible, for all intents and purposes, to reorganize the schools so as to promote integration.

There was an attempt by the previous government to have the Supreme Court interpret a bill that did not pass, through a change to section 93. The result was ludicrous, because it split up school systems by maintaining the religious elements and tacking on French or English elements to them. The resulting fragmentation would be extremely expensive, but would not serve the fundamental needs I mentioned earlier.

As a Quebecer, I can easily understand what the people of Newfoundland want, especially since they worked so hard for something that was imposed on Quebec, namely the patriation of the Constitution.

For the rest of Canada, for francophones outside Quebec, whose assimilation, which is on the rise and alarmingly so in some cases, seems a tragedy, the fact that the House of Commons can, by a majority vote, change what was guaranteed by the Constitution--

not to the minority but to certain groups-seems to pose a serious danger.

Would this House vote for the elimination of the constitutional provisions that protect francophones in one western province or another?

I know that, whether they speak French or English, my colleagues opposite who are concerned about this strongly oppose this measure and I can understand why.

The result of this alarming assimilation rate in some parts of the country is that the rights of the francophone minority in Canada are being and will continue to be trampled. In this respect, the vote on this motion has set a precedent, not because it concerns religious guarantees but because it concerns guarantees entrenched in the Constitution. I can understand my hon. colleagues when they say that a line may have been crossed.

We fought with all our energy for francophones outside Quebec. Our history-and there is no doubt about this in my mind-is the reason why the Official Languages Act exists. As a historian by training, I have no hesitation in saying that the Official Languages Act would never have seen the light of day, had it not been for the tumultuous language debates that took place in Quebec during the sixties.

Had these debates not taken place, Prime Minister Trudeau would never have had any reason to impose on the whole country an act which a large number of Canadians did not want. This act was passed because people believed it would settle the Quebec issue. They were bitterly disappointed when they realized that this was not what Quebec wanted. What Quebec wants is to eventually have all the powers. It does not want an official languages act imposed from coast to coast.

So this is an important vote. It was an important vote the first time and it is an important vote today.

I believe that the existence in a mostly French speaking, sovereign Quebec of an English speaking minority would also help protect the French speaking minority in Canada.

Again, for the time being, I understand the hesitations of the members opposite. I understand them because, in spite of the very disappointing and shallow comments made by the heritage minister, life for francophones outside Quebec is not easy. These people have to perform daily heroics, as I have frequently seen during trips to the western provinces, Ontario and, occasionally, Acadia.

Daily heroism is not conducive, among other things, to maintaining the enthusiasm of young people. We know that assimilation is rampant and almost a normal phenomenon when these young people marry English speaking persons. It must be noted that the assimilation rate in Ontario is 38 per cent, and rises to 76 per cent the further west you go. The situation is getting worse, not better, and is a cause for serious concern.

It will not be by refusing to pass the amendment sought by Newfoundland, which is facing an educational and denominational organization that is very difficult and complex for a small province, or by preventing Newfoundland from resolving this problem that the growing assimilation in western Canada will be halted. I think this issue will be, not resolved, for it is too late for that, but at least affected by energetic measures that we have yet to see, which will focus attention on the problem and slow down the rate of assimilation.

One thing I would like to point out, and this still falls within the area we are talking about, is how many functionally or totally illiterate francophones there are outside Quebec, and how rare and inaccessible the measures are to help them learn to read in their own language. My point is that, in order to protect the future, we need to take active, energetic steps, rather than stand in Newfoundland's way.

Constitution AmendmentGovernment Orders

December 4th, 1996 / 3:40 p.m.

Bloc

François Langlois Bloc Bellechasse, QC

Mr. Speaker, the debate triggered by Resolution No. 12 in this House on term 17 of the Terms of Union of Newfoundland with Canada has, as the hon. member for Mercier said in her speech, brought to light all the misgivings we may have concerning constitutional change, particularly when it appears that a category of persons protected under the Constitution will find its rights diminished, if not done away with altogether, without its consent.

The question before us is not a partisan one, but a matter of analyzing the protection of categories of persons.

I do not wish to interfere in the matter of the administration of Newfoundland's schools, but I can still analyze the situation. Obviously, their school system is a complicated one. To all intents and purposes, term 17 gives the legislator of the province of Newfoundland, what is, after all, a limited power over education in that it cannot legislate unless the various religious denominations are respected. Strange situations occur, like having six different school buses picking up children of six different religious denominations in one small locality, because these denominations must be given equal treatment. Perhaps, in 1996, this needs reviewing.

A position definitely needs to be taken, when all is said and done. The more the debate progressed-and I have listened attentively, either in my office or in this House, to my hon. colleagues who have spoken on this-the more it struck me that it was not all that obvious that, in the September 5, 1995 referendum, each and every religious denomination constitutionally protected by term 17

of the Terms of Union of Newfoundland with Canada had given consent.

I cannot state the contrary, either, that every religious denomination refused to consent. In some parts of Newfoundland, people voted massively against the Newfoundland government's proposal, while in others they voted massively in favour. The vote was very divided, and the final vote was also very divided. So much so that basically, it is up to those who are primarily concerned to pass a final judgement on this issue. The Newfoundland government, rightly or wrongly, thought that on the basis of a referendum held on September 5, 1995, it had a mandate to pass a constitutional resolution to amend term 17 and ask the governor in council to refer the same question to this House, which is what happened.

History will have to realize we did not initiate these proceedings, that the Newfoundland legislature acted first, and that the Government of Newfoundland drew its conclusions from the outcome of the referendum. I respect its decision although I have quite a few questions.

It will be up to the voters of Newfoundland, if the government or the legislature did not act wisely, to pass judgment on their elected representatives who adopted the constitutional resolution before the House today.

The situation that will be created by the vote in this House is not irreversible, in that a new legislature in Newfoundland, with different concerns, may request a constitutional amendment to revert to the previous legal position.

In that respect, we are not doing anything irreparable. It would not be like amending the Canadian Constitution to say that from now, bills and court rulings will be in English only. That would be irreversible. So there is still a certain amount of flexibility here.

In the end, although we are extremely reticent, because this is a mine field and we might be accused of having created a precedent today, in the end perhaps we can, by stretching our tolerance to the limit, accept the resolution before the House.

However, this precedent should not be used to attack the rights of Franco-Ontarians or the rights of francophones in Manitoba or anywhere else, but especially in those two provinces where they enjoy constitutional protection, as in the province of New Brunswick, which subsequently protected its francophone minorities.

The question is of course a sensitive one where Quebec is concerned, as the hon. member for Mercier said earlier.

We know that in Quebec we have provisions governing schools and minority rights, which are now out of date. The only way to get around this would be perhaps to have section 93 of the Constitution amended, while ensuring that those protected under this section are in agreement. There are ways to do so and these ways have already been used in other circumstances.

I also understand the reticence of the Government of Quebec to apply under the amending formula of 1982, which it and all political parties in Quebec never recognized. I can understand its reticence in not joyously rushing, with honour and enthusiasm, to pass a resolution to call on this House to pass one as well to amend section 93, which would make things so much simpler in Quebec, as the hon. member for Mercier pointed out earlier, by enabling us to update our system of education.

However, the Government of Quebec has not acted in order to show how touchy constitutional change is with respect to minorities, because a fairly strong consensus is emerging in Quebec. There is of course the 1982 padlock, which is more of a yoke than a padlock, obliging us to live with this situation.

Those like me who were raised in a rural municipality of Quebec, where, two or three times a year, a collection was taken up in school for the survival of French-the hon. member for Mercier must remember that-get a little nervous when there is talk of taking rights away from classes of persons protected by the Constitution.

That is why, as this debate draws to a close, I am telling you that, because of this uncertainty and in spite of all the misgivings I have, in the end, I could probably vote in favour of the proposal before us, while at the same time expressing the wish that the provisions contained in the Constitution that protect minority rights not be changed without first obtaining the consent of the minorities concerned.

Constitution AmendmentGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

Bloc

Francine Lalonde Bloc Mercier, QC

Mr. Speaker, I simply want to say that the hon. member's speech reflects how sensitive this issue, which appeals to people's principles, really is.

The whole debate, at least on our side, has led us to the conclusion that, in spite of some reservations, there are enough guarantees for the French speaking minority which, again, is not the one affected, and we can understand and accept why Government of Newfoundland made this request, to which the federal government has acceded.

Constitution AmendmentGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Is the House ready for the question?

Constitution AmendmentGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Question.

Constitution AmendmentGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

Constitution AmendmentGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Constitution AmendmentGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Constitution AmendmentGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

All those in favour will please say yea.

Constitution AmendmentGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Constitution AmendmentGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

All those opposed will please say nay.

Constitution AmendmentGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Constitution AmendmentGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more that five members having risen:

Constitution AmendmentGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

Constitution AmendmentGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)

I declare the amendment lost.

The next question is on the main motion.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on division:)

Constitution AmendmentGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)

I declare the motion carried.

(Motion agreed to.)

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Elgin-Norfolk-Endangered species.

The House resumed from December 3 consideration of the motion that Bill C-70, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, the Income Tax Act, the Debt Servicing and Reduction Account Act and related acts, be

read the second time and referred to a committee; and of the amendment.