Debates of May 31st, 1996

Petitions

[Jim Gouk, Reform, Kootenay West—Revelstoke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions on the same subject, both from citizens of Canada within my riding, one from the employees and their families of A.M. Ford in Trail, one from the employees and their families of Kalawsky GMC in Castlegar.

The petitioners point out the right to lease automobiles would provide unfair competitive advantage to Canada's banks because of their privileged access to consumer credit and loan funding as well as confidential bank-client financial records.

Auto leasing by banks would likely increase unemployment in local communities and effectively decrease, not increase, competitive options for Canadians.

They therefore call on the Government of Canada not to allow the Canada banking sector to get into the automobile leasing industry.

[Ray Speaker, Reform, Lethbridge]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition with 199 signatures from residents of my Lethbridge constituency.

The petitioners pray and request that Parliament enact Bill C-205, introduced by the hon. member for Scarborough West, at the earliest opportunity so as to provide in Canadian law that no criminal profit from the committing of crime.

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions, one being 406 signatures, dealing with sexual orientation.

The people from my riding pray that Parliament oppose any amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act or any other federal legislation that would provide for the inclusion of the phrase sexual orientation.

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my second petition, bearing 226 signatures, deals with abortions. Approximately 100,000 therapeutic abortions are performed each year in Canada at a cost of over $50 million a year.

Residents in my riding request that Parliament support a binding national referendum to be held at the time of the next election to ask Canadians whether they are in favour of federal government funding for abortions on demand.

[Dale Johnston, Reform, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present two petitions.

In the first petition, 53 petitioners pray and request that Parliament oppose any amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act or any other federal legislation that will provide for the inclusion of the phrase sexual orientation.

[Dale Johnston, Reform, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in the second petition, 255 petitioners pray and request that Parliament direct Health Canada to amend its proposal in order to allow the production and sale of unpasturized cheese to continue in Canada.

Questions Passed As Orders For Returns

[Guy Arseneault, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, if question No. 36 could be made an order for return, that return would be tabled immediately.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Question No. 36-

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

What are the municipal addresses of all properties in the federal riding of Kingston and the Islands that are not single family residences in respect of which CMHC is owner or mortgagee and for each property: ( a ) how many living units are at each address; ( b ) what terms with respect to use, disposition or consent to transfer, if any, are contained in the deed or mortgage by virtue of which CMHC holds title; ( c ) is the property or part thereof classed as ``social housing'' for the purpose of the 1996 budget announcement that administration of such housing would be transferred to the provinces; and ( d ) what is the total subsidy paid by CMHC in Kingston and the Islands with respect to all properties?

Return tabled.

[Guy Arseneault, Liberal, Restigouche—Chaleur, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Amendment To The Constitution Of Canada

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before question period, I was saying that the leader of the

Bloc Quebecois and I met with the premier of Newfoundland and with the Leader of the Opposition and a third person, the leader of the third party in the Newfoundland legislature, to discuss the proposed amendment to term 17 in the Canadian Constitution.

This meeting was held May 29. We discussed two issues: first, the recognition of the democratic process and, second, the protection of francophone minorities. I think no one will be surprised that we in the Bloc Quebecois have always been concerned about the rights of francophone minorities across Canada.

We discussed in very broad terms the democratic process and the rights of francophones. We know how they proceeded in that province; we know that, when the referendum question was drafted, even some of the Liberal government members were opposed to its wording because, in their opinion, it was not specific enough, it was too ambiguous, it very much favoured the yes side at the expense of the no side. We also know that, when the referendum question was adopted by the Newfoundland legislature, the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the third party were against it. Furthermore we know that religious authorities in Newfoundland had major concerns about the wording of the question, which they deemed not specific enough. They thought the amendment would reduce their jurisdiction and powers. We are aware of the low rate of participation in the referendum. However we in the Bloc Quebecois simply recognize the democratic process, which was discussed at that meeting.

For us, the question was legitimate since it was chosen by duly elected members of the legislature. This referendum was also held in accordance with good practice, in that both the yes side and the no side agreed to express their views and to work to publicize the approach they favoured in relation to the amendment of Term 17 in the Constitution. This was a legitimate project, a very clear process in that province.

We, as members of the House, must acknowledge that. Whether or not we support denominational schools, whether or not we approve the proposition made by the Government of Newfoundland, the population has rendered a clear verdict: 54 per cent of Newfoundlanders said yes to the constitutional amendment proposed by their provincial government. In other words, the Government of Newfoundland had its political decision confirmed through a referendum, and this is sacred for the Bloc Quebecois.

We must not interfere with the democratic process. This is why we support the proposed amendment to Term 17 of the Terms of Union of Newfoundland with Canada. Following our meeting with the Newfoundland premier and the others I mentioned earlier, the Bloc Quebecois leader immediately sent a letter to the premier, to inform him of our support.

I will take the time to read this very short letter. It is, of course, addressed to the Hon. Brian Tobin, Premier of Newfoundland.

Honourable Premier,

The federal government is about to table in the House of Commons your province's request to amend Term 17 of the Terms of Union of Newfoundland with Canada, so as to restructure Newfoundland's school system.

Your government proceeded by way of a referendum and a majority of voters supported the amendment.

The Bloc Quebecois has decided to support Newfoundland's decision, since it was made in compliance with recognized democratic rules.

However, we are concerned about the inadequate school rights of Newfoundland's French speaking minority. Therefore, we strongly hope that your government will take the opportunity provided by the restructuring of the school legislation to give francophones in your province, through legislative and administrative means, full responsibility for the management of their schools.

This letter accurately reflects the discussions that took place during the meeting with the Premier of Newfoundland.

As you can see, this is a far cry from the issues referred to by Mr. Tobin regarding this meeting, as reported in various newspapers, including Le Devoir , in its issue of Thursday, May 30, 1996. I was stunned when I read the article in that newspaper, since I was present at the meeting.

The title read: "Constitutional amendment for Newfoundland: Tobin pleased by the Bloc's position. According to him, the sovereignist party recognizes the rule of law under any circumstances in Canada". I do not know where the premier got such information. This issue was certainly not discussed during the meeting. As I said, we talked about the democratic process, the referendum and the fact that the population had clearly expressed itself through that referendum.

A bit further on, we also read: "The Bloc Quebecois and, by extension the sovereignist movement as a whole, shows that the rule of law must prevail in Canada, whatever the circumstances, according to Brian Tobin". There is even an allusion to the fact that, since the Bloc Quebecois endorses the approach that the Government of Newfoundland wishes to take, it is even saying that the Canadian federation is working well, that it is far from being a prison, that it is possible to amend the Constitution.

These topics were not discussed, as I said earlier. And, by the way, how do you expect that we in the Bloc Quebecois, we who represent the people of Quebec, can recognize the rule of law of a Constitution that we never signed? Has everyone forgotten that Quebec did not sign the Constitution Act of 1982. Mr. Tobin must be aware of it. If not, I hope he is listening today, but I am sure he knows it full well. I am sure he was just trying to score political points on an issue that is nonetheless very important.

We in the Bloc Quebecois have not stooped to this sort of political trick. We have simply bowed to democracy, which expressed its view of Term 17.

I will conclude as follows. If Mr. Tobin and the Government of Newfoundland's approach works, it is no thanks to the Constitution, but rather to the fact that the people of Newfoundland spoke democratically and that certain responsible members of the House of Commons are acting accordingly.

The person making irresponsible and inflammatory remarks and acting like the warder of the Canadian Constitution is not a member of the Bloc, he is none other than the Prime Minister of Canada. If the supreme Constitutional gaoler, the source of Canadian truth, listens to the democratic expression of the people, this precedent does not mean that the Constitution is flexible and effective, but rather that the democratic choice of a people in a referendum is decisive and irreversible.

The history of Newfoundland is and will be useful to us in Quebec. As I said at the start of my speech, the people of Newfoundland became Canadians in 1948 with only a small majority, with only 52.34 per cent in the second referendum. Today, in 1996, with only 54 per cent, the government of Newfoundland will throw the whole system of education into a state of upheaval, thereby causing fear, anxiety and questions.

The best part of the democratic process is when Newfoundland taxpayers spoke, their decision was heard. Newfoundlanders have changed this fear and anxiety and these questions into a coalition among themselves aimed at meeting challenges.

Elected officials worked, as they did in 1948, as responsible statesmen, independent of party affiliation-I saw it when I met the premier of Newfoundland with the two other party leaders-and will work in the future to advance the people of Newfoundland and to improve their future.

I truly hope that the Bloc Quebecois' action in this matter will inspire the view taken by certain individuals of the democratic choice the people of Quebec will make in the very near future, I hope.

[Stephen Harper, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as the Reform Party's critic for intergovernmental affairs it is my responsibility to respond to the government's request to pass a constitutional resolution on Term 17 of Newfoundland's terms of union in Confederation.

The terms of union were established when Newfoundland entered Confederation in 1949. Generally, the provision of the terms covered a wide range of issues, including education, social rograms and such things as the margarine trade, which were of vital importance to the new province at the time of Confederation.

Specifically, Term 17 guaranteed powers to various religious denominations for the administering of education in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. There was, prior to Confederation, a long tradition of denominational education in the province.

There have been some changes to the system over the years. In 1969, on their own, several Protestant denominations consolidated their efforts by creating what is known as the integrated school board. In 1987 Parliament and the Newfoundland legislature specifically amended Term 17 to grant to another denominational group, the Pentecostal Assemblies, the same rights and privileges that were in the original terms of union that we are debating today.

Nevertheless, in spite of these changes, today there remains a large number of school systems and school boards in the province of Newfoundland. There are no fewer than four school systems and twenty-seven school boards throughout what is one of our smaller provinces.

In 1992 the province of Newfoundland and Labrador appointed a royal commission to look into education issues. It recommended changes to the structure of the current system. For several years deliberations have been ongoing between the denominational school boards and the provincial government to negotiate changes. Unfortunately a final agreement on all matters has not been reached.

The motion before us will allow the Government of Newfoundland to proceed to make some changes without additional lengthy, difficult and possibly fruitless discussions. Nevertheless I want to add that as parliamentarians representing other provinces we regret that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has not been able to resolve this matter and bring it to a satisfactory conclusion among all the parties.

Section 43 is being invoked to pass this amendment. The House will know that section 43 of the Constitution Act, 1982 requires constitutional amendments affecting only a particular province to be passed by the assembly of that province, in this case the Newfoundland Assembly, and also the federal Parliament, both the House of Commons and the Senate, although the Senate's power over this is only of a suspensive nature.

As parliamentarians representing not Newfoundland in this case but other parts of the country, the Reform Party takes the role of Parliament in the section 43 amendment procedure very seriously. It is not in our view our job to merely rubber stamp constitutional change because it comes from one particular province. We are entrusted with a job to examine the impacts of the changes and decide what course of action is best from the federal perspective. In

so doing, the Reform Party caucus has examined the wide range of issues and interests involved in this question.

It is not our intention, nor is it our desire, to see the federal government or federal political parties run the education system in Newfoundland and Labrador or in any other province, particularly when we all know that the administering of these systems are and will require in the future very difficult decisions to be made locally.

Instead, as parliamentarians, we have focused our attention on two issues. First, was sufficient effort made by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to obtain democratic consent for the changes that are being proposed today? Second, are the questions of rights protection and minority rights-we are talking about denominational or faith based education-being done in a way that would be broadly consistent with or acceptable to other parts of the country?

These are difficult questions, all the more so for those of us who believe very strongly in the importance of separate and religious education in Canada and who recognize the central and important role, and I think very beneficial role, that is made up education today by Catholic schools and Catholic education in particular across the country.

As Reformers we have been very serious about the fact that governments, in particular when it involves constitutional change, should make broader efforts to encourage democratic participation and consensus in major government constitutional decisions. We believe this is important to increase the legitimacy and acceptance of our foundation constitutional documents but also that broad participation of the public in such decisions improves the quality of those decisions.

It should be pointed out that under section 43 of the Constitution Act, the Newfoundland government was not required to go beyond a mere vote of the legislature in order to resolve this issue or to present it to this Parliament. All that was required was a resolution of the Newfoundland House of Assembly. In fact, the Newfoundland House of Assembly has held at least two votes. It held a vote on the main resolution we are presented with today, a vote in which the major parties allowed freedom of expression and in which there were dissenters in each of the major political parties. Nevertheless the vote passed in the legislature by a clear majority. As well, there has recently been a unanimous resolution asking the governments of Newfoundland and Canada to proceed with these changes.

Although it was not required by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador by constitutional law, the government did hold a referendum on the issue of constitutional change with respect to term 17. That referendum was held on September 5 of last year. At that time the people of Newfoundland voted in favour of revising term 17 along the lines proposed by the government by a majority of 54.7 per cent, although admittedly the turn out for that referendum was low.

Newfoundlanders are familiar with referendums. A referendum got them into Confederation in the first place. There were two referendums, one on June 3, the other on July 22 of 1948, in which Newfoundlanders were asked to determine their future. This led to an eventual decision to join Canada. The eventual decision was also by a narrow margin.

In our examination of the procedures followed in Newfoundland the majority of our caucus is satisfied that Newfoundland held the referendum in good faith in accordance with normal electoral law and referendum practice that would be acceptable in other parts of the country.

With regard to the use of referendums and the position of the Bloc Quebecois, I have one comment to make. Some separatists believe that the willingness of the Canadian government to accept the result of the Newfoundland referendum means that the same should apply to Quebec after a future referendum on sovereignty. I must point out that the premier of Newfoundland and his government have abided by the legal process and recognized the specific role of the Canadian Parliament in this matter. We expect the same from the Quebec government and its premier. So far, it has been exactly the reverse, they have been acting unilaterally, even illegally.

The Reform Party will not accept this constitutional amendment and the referendum result as a precedent, unless the Quebec government is willing to accept the rule of the law and the constitutional process, the role of the Canadian government and other legislatures and, in so doing, the rights of all Canadians, as did the Newfoundland government.

It is a totally different situation, particularly in the attitudes of two governments, in the attitude of the Government of Newfoundland compared with the Government of Quebec on its own constitutional agenda.

I turn to the second consideration, denominational education, in particular whether what the Government of Newfoundland is proposing is consistent with national standards and the rights of practices across the country.

Section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867 established basic protection for minority religious education, at that time largely Catholic education in the three English speaking provinces and Protestant education in the province of Quebec. As various provinces have been admitted to Confederation there have been, in most cases, equivalent terms established in the Constitution Act for

section 93 in all of the provinces. There are terms established for Alberta under the Alberta Act.

Across the country there are over five million students enrolled in full time elementary and secondary schools. They are served by over 15,000 schools according to figures from 1990-91. The Constitution Act, 1867 placed education exclusively under the control of each provincial legislature. This was later confirmed by the Constitution Act, 1982.

Canada therefore has 10 provincial education systems plus those of the territories. There are considerable differences among them and there are some similarities. In particular, there is the broad rights protection provided under section 93.

Funding required by school boards for provincial or territorial coffers varies widely. For example, as a percentage of total school board revenues the portion provided by a province varies from a low of 40 per cent in Ontario to a high of 100 per cent in Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick.

Several provinces provide tax support to school boards organized on a denominational basis. School acts in Quebec, Ontario, Saskatchewan, Alberta and the Northwest Territories give such support for elementary and secondary education in both public and separate, or in the case of Quebec dissentient, school boards.

A non-sectarian public education system operates in Manitoba, British Columbia, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Price Edward Island. I note the British Columbia government does provide some funding to religious schools and denominational education does exist. In Yukon both public and Roman Catholic schools receive tax support.

In the view of the majority of the Reform caucus the revisions to term 17 do not destroy the rights to religious education in Newfoundland and Labrador. As I just mentioned, in comparison with other provinces and territories, the changes to term 17 will not create a situation out of line with the other provinces. That is very generous considering the practices in some provinces.

From section (a) of the new term 17, let me quote: "That except as provided for in the new administrative structure, schools established, maintained and operated with public funds shall be denominational schools, and any class 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 form when integrated schools system by agreement in 1969 may exercise the same rights under this term as a single class of persons".

Section (b) of the proposed term allows for the establishment of new schools on both a non-denominational and a denominational basis and the provision of these schools to receive public funds.

Section (c) provides for the right to religious education in all aspects of denominational schools, including not only religious education but a say in the religious element of the curriculum in other aspects of the program and control over teaching staff in these areas.

Section (d) provides for non-discriminatory allocation of public funds among denominational groups on a non discriminatory basis.

Section (e) allows that on the new school boards to be established by the government, two-thirds of the representatives will be denominational representatives or representatives elected to represent specific classes of persons, although the overall school board will be organized on a multi-denominational basis or on a uni-confessional basis.

Where does the new term 17 differ enough from the practices that went on before? From all indications Newfoundland and Labrador will continue to have denominational schools; broadly speaking, a denominational school system within the larger framework. The right to religious education is in no way removed.

The doubts about these changes happening to term 17 occur where the wording states "subject to provincial legislation that is uniformly applicable to all schools specifying conditions for establishment or continued operation of schools".

Education in every province and territory is subject to provincial legislation. This clause does not make the issue exceptional but instead makes it rather ordinary in terms of the practices of other provinces.

I reiterate the official position of my party on these two questions, both the democratic consent and the process by which Newfoundland adopted this position and also the general standards of rights and freedoms to denominational education as we know it across the country. In evaluating those two positions the clear majority of the Reform caucus is in support of this amendment and is supported as the official position of the Reform caucus.

As this is a sensitive and controversial issue that involves a wide range of conflicting interests, interpretation of specifics and questions of conscience, the Reform leader has made it clear this will be subject to a free vote when it is voted on in Parliament. On ordinary business of Parliament Reform MPs enjoy substantial and unprecedented latitude in expressing and voting their political views and those of their constituents.

I am glad to see that in both Newfoundland and in the position taken by the Liberal government, the government is finally showing some movement in this direction not only toward free voting in the House but toward accepting the practice of consulting the people and having referendums on constitutional change.

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, the debate concerns chapter 5 of the Constitution Act, 1982, which is addressed to constituent power, the ultimate source of constitutional power in the state.

It is an area in which there is an absence of compelling or binding precedents or practice. It is proper therefore for Parliament to attempt to lay down constitutional ground rules as to what is involved and what is not involved.

The first of these, of course, is that what Parliament says in a constitutional debate, unlike the position Parliament views in ordinary legislation, amounts to travaux préparatoires, authoritative sources regarding what Parliament intended, which are controlling on the courts in their approach to that matter.

Whether this is, as presented, a section 43 matter involving only Parliament and one other province is a matter for Parliament to decide, not the province, and that it is judicially reviewable as such by the courts.

Further, it is a mandate to Parliament in the sense of both chambers under chapter 5 of the Constitution, not to the cabinet, not to the Prime Minister.

I have argued, as members would be aware, for the attrition of the Senate's powers over the House as an unappointed body in other areas, but it is difficult to deny in the case of an act adopted as recently as the Constitution Act, 1982 that the Senate does not have full power equal to that of the House in this matter.

I reiterate that Parliament is not a rubber stamp for a proposal submitted by a provincial legislature. It is no mere ministerial one to follow up the wishes of provincial legislatures. Parliament has full political discretion in exercising its role to accept, to reject or to send back to the province with suggestions of desirable amendments that the province should make to obtain Parliament's approval.

I stress again that Parliament in approaching its role is aware of the principle of economy in the use of power which is applicable as much to constitutional matters as to military matters.

There is an obligation on a province approaching Parliament to exhaust the ordinary political processes within the province before escalating to a constitutional amendment which it would ask Parliament to adopt.

Parliament in this case is limiting itself to the facts presented by the provincial legislature of Newfoundland. It is a Newfoundland situation, and Parliament's decision to approve or not to approve the project of resolution should be understood in that context.

In particular, it should be taken in the context of chapter 5 of whole of the Constitution Act, 1982. It sets out various procedures for amending the Constitution with different degrees of difficulty in the procedures of amendment which are intended to correspond to the seriousness or otherwise of the proposals concerned.

Since section 43-based amendments are limited to the province or provinces actually approaching Parliament, Parliament in responding and carrying forward a proposal for an amendment is limiting itself to those provinces. What we are saying is no precedent in constitutional legal terms is created from this disposition that might apply to other provinces not represented as parties to the action. Section 43-based constitutional amendments have no application to any other than the particular moving parties concerned.

I suggested earlier when the matter first arose in political arenas that there might be merits in obtaining an advisory opinion from the Supreme Court that would address itself to the issues on which I have spoken. However, an advisory opinion can of course be a prior opinion, or a subsequent one if questions of doubt or interpretation arise. After the adoption of the present resolution, they could properly be referred to the Supreme Court for an advisory opinion.

In approaching this matter I am very sensitive to the principles of federal comity, that is to say the particular obligations of good faith and mutual trust and respect that link provinces and the federal government in a federal system such as ours.

I have already spoken of the prior obligation of a province to exhaust the ordinary political processes before approaching us for a constitutional amendment. The federal Parliament, in responding to a provincial request, will bear in mind what the late Mr. Justice Frankfurter of the United States Supreme Court said about the duty of the federal government, in exercise of federal comity, to defer to a province even if on particular facts the federal government might have chosen to act otherwise in the legislation that is involved.

It is in that spirit that we approach this resolution. I have taken note of the fact that representations have been made to many members of the House by individual voters in Newfoundland on this question. We do take in mind the fact that the premier of Newfoundland has met with us and has given assurances that he will, in the application of this resolution of amendment, if it is adopted, negotiate and deal with people within his province.

Federal comity works two ways. It is a reciprocal obligation, and we take very seriously the assurances given by the premier of

Newfoundland who is well known and respected as a distinguished former member of the House.

I am acting on the basis of these assurances, and also my awareness that the application under section 43 cannot, in constitutional law terms, extend beyond the project submitted by the province of Newfoundland that it does not constitute a constitutional legal precedent for other cases and that, in particular, it can have no constitutional application to parties not represented before the Parliament in this proposal. It cannot touch fundamental rights or other matters. It would require other amending procedures with extraordinary majorities and processes not present in the relatively simple section 43 application.

Therefore, it is on that basis and having expressed these views which, as travaux préparatoires, do indicate an intent of Parliament and which we would expect the courts, as a co-ordinate institution, to respect that I am prepared to support the resolution.

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, St. Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is with a certain sadness that I rise on this motion we are discussing and on which we will have to vote very shortly. It seems to me we are dealing with and debating a fundamental issue.

We are changing the constitutional rights acquired by minorities in exchange of their promise to join Canada-so it was an exchange-without their consent.

Changing the rights of minorities without their consent, particularly when they were given to Newfoundlanders in exchange and as part of the package for joining Canada and especially since they were broadened in 1987, is something I take very seriously and needs to be thought about very carefully. That is my principal and major concern in this debate.

There are other aspects that puzzle me and that I must absolutely talk about. There were other alternatives, other options.

What were those other options or alternatives? I guess it would have been a bold stroke of leadership to have come forward with an amendment which would have responded to the rights, hopes, dreams and aspirations of all of the key stakeholders. That is what I would have preferred. Then it would have gone through the House, probably unanimously.

There was another one. Why not proceed with the implementation of the changes that were supposedly required now? Some of them are happening today. Senior administrators have received notices that they will no longer be working as of August 31. Obviously, some movement is occurring. Later on, if it had been necessary to bring forward the amendment, it could have been used then.

I am told from very reliable sources, including both government and others who oppose, that an agreement has been reached, at least in principle-and one could quibble about that-on the number of school boards there would be, on funding of capital expenditures, on the viability of schools, busing and a construction board. Those are major issues that had been discussed and, at least, agreement in principle had been reached.

Why could this agreement not have been turned over to the court of appeal of the province or the Supreme Court of Canada in order to see whether it is consistent with Term 17? That would have been another alternative, besides the other two I have mentioned.

Some people maintain there will be no effects on education elsewhere or on minority rights in other areas. If we look at this issue from the legal viewpoint, they are absolutely right. We do not even need to debate the issue. But will links be made? Of course.

Already, Newfoundland francophones are asking the following question: "Why is there no concern for our rights to manage our own system at this time when we are discussing the rights of other minorities?" This is a question that has been asked before. I am told there will be no impact, legally speaking. There will be no legal impact. It will not change everything overnight, but there will, of course, be an impact.

The Federation of Newfoundland Indians said this: "What about our rights that have not yet been recognized? Why not recognize them now?" Some public school commissioners were quoted in Ontario newspapers as saying that something like this proposed amendment was needed in Ontario.

You are totally right in saying there will be no legal impact. I fully agree with you. However, it is not quite the case when we look at the links that will be established.

There has been some significant discussion with respect to lobbying. The Roman Catholics and the Pentecostal people performed all kinds of lobbying. I commend them. However, there was lobbying on the other side. In fact, I had more lobbying from the government side than I did from the other side which supposedly was doing a lot more than the government. Of course the resource base was not at all equal.

Let us put that aside very quickly. I do not know if I was a fortunate MP who got more attention from government than others, but I have to tell the House that there was lobbying from both sides.

Much has been said about the academic achievement of Newfoundlanders. Some people have suggested that because the system is as it is, the achievement is not what it ought to be. Listen to what the department of education of Newfoundland and Labrador had to say: "The general level of education among all age groups in Newfoundland has risen dramatically since the mid-1970s to where the gap with the rest of Canada has all but closed". Does that suggest a large gap? Hardly.

The former minister of education said: "The gap in higher education between our province and the rest of Canada is becoming a myth-Our university participation rates are higher than the national average. If the present trend continues, Newfoundland and Labrador will soon have educational levels equal to the rest of the country".

I could have found another half dozen to a dozen quotes from the department of education, bureaucrats and elected officials but I chose those two just to make the point. Let us not exaggerate that situation.

The other point that needs to be mentioned is that the government is the one that has complete authority on curriculum, text materials, numbers of teachers, funding, teacher education and performance standards. The government has the responsibility now. If there is poor performance who are we going to blame? Of course I have shown that there is not necessarily poor performance.

Some people have spoken about the referendum as an ideal, a model mechanism. Referendums can be useful but they can also be extremely dysfunctional. This referendum by the way was held on September 5. It was preceded by the summer months which is not a great time for substantive debate on an important question.

I wonder who had more resources at their disposal in order to make the point. Let me share with the House the question. This is what the people of Newfoundland were asked to vote on: "Do you support Term 17 in the manner proposed by the government to enable reform of the denominational educational system?"

With a question like that one could expect to get 50 per cent even with no debate. Ask the question in any province or territory: "Do you support reform of education?" Ask parents whether or not they support reform. Yet the turnout was 52 per cent and 54 per cent in favour of such a question.

Was that an appropriate tool to use to legitimize what the government wanted? Frankly, I would have preferred no referendum. Now in a sense we have a benchmark. Again, it has no legal basis but do we really believe that someone is not going to try to use this to advance a political agenda? It has already been done.

It was done in the House of Commons here in Ottawa not too long ago, and it will happen again.

Let me share just a couple of points very quickly. I contend that schools are at the mercy of provincial legislation. I want to quote a bit of the legislation. It reads: "Subject to provincial legislation that is uniformly applicable to all schools specifying conditions for the establishment or continued operation of schools". This is subject to provincial legislation so the constitutional right has been lost. Someone could be premier today, later another premier and it is subject to that provincial legislation.

Further it states in part: "and to direct the teaching of aspects of curriculum affecting religious beliefs". The idea was to ensure that those groups that were affected would still have something to say. To direct is not to determine. It does not give a policy decision making capability. It limits involvement.

Why could we not at this time bring forward an amendment to the amendment that would respond to those legitimate concerns which would respond to other concerns that have been voiced that are legitimate, that really strike at the heart of the concerns which have been expressed here.

I know that I have but a few seconds left, and I want to finish on this note. It seems to me that we need to hear more about this issue. As I said before there are other alternatives: a reference to the courts, an amendment that would respond to the needs of all people or proceeding with the changes and then coming with the amendment. That would prevent us from having to address this whole issue of a changing of constitutionally acquired rights of minorities given to them as part of a package to join Canada. If we can find a rationale in this situation, why can we not find one in another situation that is convenient to us in the future?

I could have said much more on this whole matter, but I would simply like to say, in closing, that if this amendment is passed, I think Canada will survive. On the other hand, I am convinced reference will be made to how a referendum was used in this situation. I am also convinced that some people will make other attempts to erode the rights of minorities in other areas.

[Eugène Bellemare, Liberal, Carleton—Gloucester, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I must compliment the hon. member for St. Boniface on his excellent speech. I agree with what he said. I share his concerns about this amendment to the Constitution of Canada.

I would like to put a question to the member for St. Boniface, who, like me, has a great deal of experience in education. In fact, I gathered from his speech that the hon. member was once Deputy Minister of Education of his province. This means that whatever he may say on this subject is very important and that he speaks from experience. It is clear from what the hon. member said that some people have real concerns about this and that we should think twice before voting for the motion.

I am concerned about French speaking minorities. I wonder why French-Canadians cannot run their schools in their own language in Newfoundland. The hon. member said other alternatives could be considered. In light of his experience, I would be curious to know what he has in mind.

Instead of taking the major step of asking the Parliament of Canada to approve this amendment, what intermediate step could the Government of Newfoundland have taken before asking us to amend the Constitution?

He raised another point that caused me some concern, and I would like him to clarify this for me. He mentioned that people in Ontario were interested in something similar in order to make changes to the education system in Ontario. As a French speaking catholic, both minority groups in Ontario, I wonder if he could elaborate on this.

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, St. Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his questions. It seems to me I clearly indicated that there were a number of alternatives, such as a reference to the courts to determine whether the agreement already reached meets the conditions of Term 17, or an amendment that would meet the needs of all those involved, or bring in changes, as was done before, and use the amendment later on, if necessary.

These are at least three options. As for francophones in Newfoundland and the fact that they do not manage their own schools, I do not know. It must be recognized that progress can sometimes be very slow in some provinces. However, I do hope that the new premier, who made a commitment and who showed some openness, will be able to remedy the situation. I say this in all sincerity, and I applaud the efforts of Newfoundlanders in this regard. I am prepared, along with my French speaking colleagues, to try to help them.

With regard to the comment made about Ontario, this is what I have been told. That comment was from a public school trustee who thought some savings could be made by somehow merging or restricting the powers or the authority of catholic schools or school boards.

Let us not get carried away. I do not believe that, if the amendment is adopted, minority rights will completely changed, whether in the education sector or in any other one. I suggest that a lot of questions will be raised. Debates will take place and they will not necessarily promote unity, whether at the community, provincial or national level.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak after the hon. member for St. Boniface, whose speech I really appreciated. I know he has always shown great concern about all the French speaking Canadians from sea to sea, whether we agree or not, as is the case with the Bloc Quebecois, with that. I think however that we should point out to those who are listening that what we have before us is not a bill, but rather a constitutional resolution that has to be approved by this House and the other place, according to a very specific process, as described in our own constitutional regulations under section 43.

I will come back to the rights of French speaking Canadians, because it is of course an issue we are all concerned about, but I would like all those who take part in this debate to keep in mind that what we have before us, the starting point of the motion before us, was a democratic referendum held according to rules accepted by all of us. In a democracy like ours, we have the responsibility to recognize that the best choice is the people's choice.

I am not among those who believe that when we do not agree with the option chosen by the majority in a referendum, we can take issue over the complexity of the referendum question, as some people have gotten used to do in Quebec. It is as if a province, whether it is Quebec with the self-determination issue or Newfoundland with the education system and Term 17, can go through a referendum, with all the rallying and the effort it requires, without the citizens getting all the information they need.

There are two premises to my speech. First, that it is possible under our constitutional rules, the rules that we were in some respects critical of in Quebec, since we did not sign the Constitution Act, 1982, but it must be recognized that, in this Parliament, under the existing rules, it is possible under the terms of section 43 for a province to ask the federal government to sign a bilateral agreement to amend certain provisions of specific concern to it. This is certainly the case for the conditions of admission into Confederation of Newfoundland in 1949.

You will recall that, on three occasions in recent years, we have seen, particularly those who have more experience than I do in this House, an amending process under section 43. I want to remind those listening today of this so that there is no confusion.

Under section 43, there was a constitutional amendment putting Newfoundland's Pentecostal schools, one of eight religious denominations now recognized, on an equal footing with the seven others in 1987. This meant that they were recognized as full managers in

the educational system, with all that that implies in the allocation of resources.

There was a second, more recent, constitutional amendment in 1993. In fact, members of the Bloc Quebecois took part in the debate at that time, but not yours truly. The 1993 amendment sought to guarantee the linguistic equality of French and English in the province of New Brunswick, which, as a result, became the second officially bilingual province in Canada, after Quebec.

The third amendment, I remember it well, I took part in the debate, dealt with the erosion of the insular nature of Prince Edward Island which was to be linked to the mainland by an interprovincial bridge. Therefore, in recent history, the possibility of amending the Constitution was given to Parliament on three occasions.

I have not been feeling very well these past few days, but nothing will prevent me from taking part in this debate. We must start from the premise that a referendum was held in Newfoundland. We are not in a situation whereby authority has been usurped. There was a referendum and the issue has been discussed in Newfoundland for some time now. It has been the subject of official talks since 1992.

A referendum was held under the auspices of the province; I am somewhat surprised that, except for the justice minister, none of the speakers taking part in the debate since this morning has taken the time, for the benefit of the viewers, to read the question.

I do not think, on the face of it-and I will read the question-the wording of the question was particularly clear, particularly enlightening.

The question read as follows:

Do you support revising term 17 in the manner proposed by the government to enable reform of the denominational education system?

There was no beating around the bush, the question mentioned solely Term 17 regarding the denominational education system. This is what brings the Bloc Quebecois to support the resolution. We have two good reasons. The first one is the fact that there was a referendum. A referendum is a consultation tool which is called for by the Reform Party, which is recognized by government and which is sought by the Bloc Quebecois.

The referendum-and I think it is important to remember that-allowed the people of Newfoundland to say what they wanted. We note that only 52 per cent of registered voters exercised their right. Of course this is not very much when you compare it to the extraordinary exercise in democracy in Quebec a few months ago, where more than 90 per cent of the people exercised their right to vote.

But again, in a democracy, the best choice is always the one made by the people. And 54 per cent of the people of Newfoundland who were eligible to vote according to the rules said they preferred a review of the education system. That is why the Bloc Quebecois supports the motion. We support it because there was a referendum whose results may not have been spectacular, but did yield a majority opinion. And, once again, every scheme and trick can never make us forget that, in our rule, in international law as well as within Canadian boundaries, when there is a referendum and when there is a general election, the rule that must apply is 50 per cent plus one.

So, as far as legitimacy is concerned, those who do not wish to have this amendment agreed to cannot in any way challenge this.

Second, what we are talking about here is a matter under provincial jurisdiction. It deals with the way the province that was the last to join Confederation wants to organize its school system. Of course, it has connections with minority rights. But it seems to me this is also a distinct issue, because minority rights, particularly the right to public services, is inscribed in section 23 of the Canadian charter.

It is certainly not I who will tell you today that I consider Canada to be a model of services towards francophones outside Quebec. We are well aware that there are some difficulties in the western provinces. I spent the week before last in British Columbia, and I know very well that, in British Columbia as well as in Newfoundland, people are far from being well served in terms of the education rights in the language of the minority. That is what I believe makes Canada, in its present configuration, a most unlikely country. But the fact that certain minorities have difficulty obtaining services, and particularly having their right to education in their own language, cannot be negated by the fact that, as we speak, in 1996-and this should be first and foremost in our thoughts-not one single school in Newfoundland is not a denominational school.

Can you imagine, in our modern world where education must be connected with the labour market and with our plans as a society, not having one single secular or non-denominational school in a province like Newfoundland, one of Canada's gateways? In Newfoundland, school organization is still based on denominations.

Personally, I think it does not make any sense, in a society, to organize the provision of educational services on the basis of religious conviction. I am by no means inferring that I am not a God-fearing man myself or that religion does not have its place in

schools, but I do believe that no school system should be organized on the basis of religious affiliation, whatever the denomination.

What is going on in Newfoundland in particular is an aberration. It is incredible that such a situation still exists. For the benefit of our listeners, I would like to point out that it has not been so since the beginning of time. There was a commission of inquiry on this. It seems to me that when there is a board of inquiry, it means that a public debate takes place, that experts give their opinions and that the public can be heard.

The board, which started its work in 1992, came to the conclusion, understandably so, that Newfoundland could not modernize its structure unless its school system underwent major changes. The proposed review seeks to eliminate a structure with four different school systems managed by seven religious denominations. How could one not be concerned? How could one not have questions about the fact that, in Newfoundland, seven denominations, and I will name them, coexist through four different school systems, with all the confusion and duplication that this situation implies?

Just imagine. A young schoolboy gets up in the morning and gets on a school bus that drives by three schools, but they are not his school. He has to travel further away because the school system is based on denominational and not on secular criteria.

The seven denominations include the Church of England, the Pentecostal Assemblies, the Presbyterian Church, the Roman Catholic Church, the Salvation Army, the Church o the Seventh-day Adventists and the United Church of Canada.

I am convinced that all those denominations have a value system that are quite be beneficial to kids. I am convinced as well that people in the school system are profoundly dedicated and very much involved, but it does not make sense from the point of view of resource duplication, and it is not a modern way of structuring a school system.

Who better to address this issue in the House of Commons than the Bloc members, especially those representing the Montreal region. As you kow, I am a member from Montreal.

[Roger Pomerleau, Bloc, Anjou—Rivière-Des-Prairies, QC]

Me too.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

The hon. member for Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies who sits right behind me is also a member from the Montreal area. We have the same situation in Montreal. We have the Montreal Catholic School Commission which co-exists with another type of school organization, and again, not only do we have a duplication of the structure, but this is not the right way or the modern way to set up a school system, especially with the changes we will need to face the new millennium.

You could say: "Yes, but what does it mean ultimately in terms of management?" This is the most questionable aspect of our school system, the impact of a denominational school system, because it creates links within the management process that have no justification. It means that these denominations and their school commissions have some powers over which teachers are hired and fired. They have some powers over the building and maintenance of the schools. They have some powers over the way the education and school operating budgets are spent and, of course, over the creation of school districts and especially boundary adjustment.

Members, no doubt, have all received a letter from the premier of Newfoundland. I think I can say his name since he is no longer a member of Parliament. We have all received a letter from the premier of Newfoundland, Brian Tobin. His main theme is the need to review the education system in order to integrate it into only one multidenominational structure.

The premier of Newfoundland, based on the findings of the commission of inquiry, has determined that the province of Newfoundland can save as much as $17 million. Of course, $17 million is not the end of the world, but it is a considerable amount, given the population of Newfoundland.

We are extremely supportive of what is going on in Newfoundland. This reminds us of the use of referendums as a means of consultation. We will not be able to forget it, and the hon. member for St. Boniface is right in saying that he is concerned with the precedent that could be set by the interpretation. I believe that he is right in reminding us that in a democracy, on a Canada-wide scale or in a Quebec-only context, it is obvious that there cannot be two interpretations.

If, as parliamentarians, we recognize that 54 per cent of Newfoundlanders voted for a profound reform of their school system, when 52, 51 or 54 per cent of Quebecers decide in a democratic referendum held according to the rules adopted by Quebec's national assembly to become sovereign, we hope that the Canadian Parliament will show the same generous and democratic disposition toward Quebec as it is now showing toward Newfoundland.

Even if there were no debate on Newfoundland and no debate on Quebec's right to self-determination we, as the official opposition, would still say exactly the same thing we are saying today, which is that Newfoundland, following the results of its referendum, has the right to ask this and the other House of Parliament to examine a constitutional resolution allowing the province to proceed with a complete reform of its school system. We would say exactly the same thing and, moreover, we think that this is an important democratic step.

Let me conclude, since I see that my time is running out, by reminding members that, from what we heard from the Newfoundland government, with the proposals put forward by premier Tobin and his education minister, it will still be possible for parents to send their children to a unidenominational school if they make such a request and if there is a sufficient number of students. It is very similar to section 23.

I think that the Newfoundland government obviously believes that this system will be less popular and that the great reform which will be proposed will lead to more and more multidenominational schools. We want to salute such an initiative.

I think we would not have much credibility as parliamentarians if, in a debate such as this one, we started to ignore the validity of the democratic processes put in place by the provinces.

In closing, I urge all members of this House without exception to give their warm, enthusiastic and positive support to this resolution from the Government of Newfoundland.

[Stephen Harper, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve and I thank him and his party for their participation in this debate.

I have observed two positions in the discourse of members of the Bloc Quebecois. The first is support for the results of referendums, particularly in this case, and the second is almost unconditional support for the rights of francophones outside Quebec. I must examine both these positions.

If there is a referendum outside Quebec on the status of French or the rights of francophones, and the result is in favour of change, will the Bloc Quebecois accept the results of this referendum or will it say that referendums affect only the rights of others and not those of francophones?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I forget the member's riding, but I would like to congratulate him on his excellent French. If I understood his question, he wanted to know whether I would accept the results if there were a referendum outside of Quebec on the rights of francophones that was not organized by the National Assembly and concerned the rights of francophones and therefore, necessarily, the rights of francophones outside Quebec.

I would say yes right off, but I would ask him to remember two things. The first is that no member of the Bloc Quebecois would say in this debate that francophones outside Quebec had sufficient rights. We are very aware, from what we read in reports on official languages, that the situation of francophones outside Quebec in all provinces, from British Columbia to the maritimes, is of great concern.

We are well aware of that and have urged this government to expend additional resources and to ensure that the provinces accord francophones the same rights as those enjoyed by the anglophone minority in Quebec. I hope the member is aware that no province in this country treats its minority with as much regard, generosity and resources as Quebec treats its anglophone minority.

Second, I am beginning to know the member, one of the brightest in his party-the member for Outremont is, of course, but I am talking about the Reform member. We must never forget that what is sacred about the future of Quebec is its right to self-determination. The member has his own ideas on the matter. We have had debates and we will have more. A referendum is the right process for the people of Quebec to decide their future. When I speak of the people of Quebec, I mean all the component parts, including the first nations and the anglophone community along with the several hundred other ethnic communities in Quebec.

I say to him, however, that the only legitimate and acceptable way for Quebec to acknowledge the results of some future exercise of the right to self-determination is for Quebec itself to decide under the law of the National Assembly and the conditions set out in the Quebec Referendum Act.