Debates of June 3rd, 1996

The Constitution

[Gar Knutson, Liberal, Elgin—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first on a personal note, I want to publicly say how much I have missed my hon. friend. I am enjoying this debate with him very much.

Why do I believe that the educational system in Newfoundland is inferior? It is simply because I called a couple of my law school colleagues who are from Newfoundland. I asked them about their experiences. They explained that when they went to high school they did not have a qualified science teacher, except for geography. We talked about their experiences in literature. In the end they made it very clear that their educational experiences in grade school and high school were not as good as mine. They also explained the problems the island was having in terms of people moving out of the smaller towns and villages because of the lack of jobs and the pressure it was putting on the schools.

I do not know what Premier Tobin is talking about when he said they have a poor system. It is not from anything Premier Tobin has said that I concluded it is an inferior system.

Let me also say that being from Ontario, I think have a responsibility to take the counsel of the six members from Newfoundland and Labrador very, very seriously on this issue. They tell me they have an inferior system. I know them well enough to know that they are acting in good faith and they told me that with integrity. That is why I concluded that the system is inferior and needs to be reformed. That is why I am supporting the amendment.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood will take two or three more weeks of holidays so that we might have the time to ask questions.

The member uttered a touching sentence in his speech, the tone of his voice changed and he had such a tremor in his voice that I felt like going to give him a kleenex when he said: "I think that we should accept the fact that Quebec is a distinct society." We felt his heart was bleeding.

I would suggest that he consult with his colleague, the member for Churchill, a Liberal member, one of those who buried the Meech Lake accord. I would also suggest that he go and consult with the former premier of Newfoundland, Clyde Wells, another one who buried the Meech Lake accord; perhaps his heart would bleed less if it had been recognized that Quebec is a distinct society.

By way of question, I will quote the third paragraph of the letter the Leader of the Opposition, the leader of the Bloc Quebecois, sent to the Hon. Brian Tobin, the premier of Newfoundland, on May 29:

However, we are concerned about the insufficiency of the school rights of the francophone minority in Newfoundland. Therefore, we strongly wish that your government seize the opportunity of the reform of its school legislation to provide, legislatively and administratively, the francophones in your province with the full management of their schools.

I would like to hear the hon. member's comments on that.

[Gar Knutson, Liberal, Elgin—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member does not know me, so I am a bit surprised by the personal attack. He seems to doubt my sincerity when I say that I accept Quebec as a distinct society. It is different. It has a different history, a different language and a different culture.

There is a bit of a double standard. On one level the Bloc Quebecois says how awful Confederation is, how poorly we have done and how we do not get along. Bloc members attack our integrity. My integrity is being attacked if he doubts my sincerity. On another level, after the referendum, if they win, they are going to sit down to negotiate with us and we are going to have Nirvana. Everything is going to be wonderful. It just does not add up.

I would ask the hon. member to accept my word. I do not know Clyde Wells. I have never met him. It is not my concern what are his views on this issue. Quebec is a distinct society and, as such, I support it. I am surprised that he has difficulty with that. I support it, so deal with it.

[Maurice Godin, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in the debate on the referendum held in 1995 on the denominational school system in Newfoundland. On September 5, 1995, the Newfoundland government held a referendum on denominational education in the province, which is protected under term 17 of the union conditions signed by the Canadian government and the Government of Newfoundland in 1949.

Part V of the Constitution Act, 1982, deals with the amending process to the Canadian Constitution. Section 43 allows the federal government to amend the Constitution in relation to any provision that applies to one or more provinces. Such an amendment requires the passing of a resolution by the House of Commons, the Senate and the legislature of the concerned province or provinces.

Three times already since 1982, the Canadian government made constitutional amendments under section 43: first, in 1987, to put the Pentecostal schools of Newfoundland on an equal footing with the seven denominations recognized in the 1949 terms of union; second, in 1993, to guarantee the equal status of French and English in New Brunswick; and third, again in 1993, to facilitate the building of a fixed link between Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick.

However, this case is an exception. Indeed, this would be the first time a referendum preceded the adoption of a constitutional amendment by the concerned legislature. It must be said that this referendum was not a prerequisite to the proposed constitutional amendment.

Let us recall the objectives of the Newfoundland government. This project is part of an effort to streamline the provincial education system in order to save $17 million.

Newfoundland wants only one education system instead of four, only one school for all denominations. The number of school boards will be reduced from 27 to 10. From now on, the schools will be multiconfessional. By the way, this reform project is in line with the recommendations of the Newfoundland Royal Commission on Education, which where made public in 1992.

In the 1995 referendum, the following question was asked, and I quote: "Do you support revising term 17 in the manner proposed by the government to enable reform of the denominational educational system?" Certain commentators said that the question was not clear, that is was complex and that it favoured the yes side. Such comments remind me of others made about the question of the last referendum in Quebec. Yet, at no time did we hear the federal government condemn the situation.

I know the results of the Newfoundland referendum do not compare with those of the Quebec referendum. First of all, the participation rate reached only 52 per cent of eligible voters when it reached almost 94 per cent in Quebec. That low participation rate in Newfoundland means that 28.75 per cent of the voters were in favour of the change. The 19,941 voter majority in favour of the government plan may seem very thin.

Nevertheless, all these considerations did not prevent the federal government from recognizing the result of this referendum. After the Newfoundland legislature approved, by resolution, the referendum result, Canada's prime minister expressed his intention to go ahead with the requested constitutional amendment.

I acknowledge the recognition of a referendum result by the federal government. Even though the government is very careful not to give that interpretation to its decision, we can give this moment in history all its meaning because it is undoubtedly a precedent that we will be able to use to our advantage in the future.

That precedent is indeed established through the recognition of the result of a referendum in which 52 per cent of eligible voters went to the polls and only 54 per cent of them voted in favour of the proposed constitutional amendment.

The Bloc Quebecois has chosen to support Newfoundland's decision since it was made in accordance with recognized democratic rules, through a referendum in which the majority of voters who took part voted in favour of an amendment.

However, we are concerned about the inadequacy of the education rights of the francophone minority in Newfoundland. The Roman Catholic Church, through the Roman Catholic Bishops of Canada, has also expressed its concern, as well as the Fédération des parents francophones de Terre-Neuve et du Labrador. Therefore, we sincerely hope that the Newfoundland government will seize the opportunity to revise its legislation with regard to education in order to allow francophones in that province to assume total responsibility for the management of their schools.

However, I deplore the fact that premier of Newfoundland, Brian Tobin, is saying high and low that, by supporting this motion, the Bloc Quebecois proved that the rule of law would prevail at all times and that it recognizes the Constitution's legitimacy. Yes, we support the rule of law if it is for the emancipation of peoples, but we reject the rule of law in cases where it would force peoples into subordination.

Besides, Mr. Tobin, our ex-colleague, should be reminded that this matter is about the enforcement of clause 43 in the Constitutional amending formulas according to the specific needs of a province or group of provinces.

Quebec's sovereignty cannot go through that process which is far too restrictive. To recognize the right enshrined in section 43 of the Constitution does not lead to recognizing the political legitimacy of the whole. Let us not forget that the Constitution Act of 1982 has not yet been signed by the Government of Quebec.

But above all, we, in the Bloc Quebecois, claim that it is the political, not the legal, legitimacy of the referendum results that matters. In this case, as in a future referendum in Quebec, politics take precedence over the legal niceties. This is why this House is complying with the result expressed by the people of Newfoundland. Mr. Tobin must understand that our support for this motion is based on the principle that democracy takes precedence over law. What government would dare to go against the freely expressed will of the people?

Summing up, we are faced with a participation rate of 52 per cent, considered sufficient enough by the federal government to recognize the referendum results. We are faced with a federal government which has recognized a referendum question written solely by the Government of Newfoundland. We take note of it and we will draw from it the appropriate conclusions for Quebec.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, since the Bloc members have spent most of their time talking about aspects of the referendum, I wonder if the member would care to comment on this referendum, which unlike the Quebec referendum, had a very low turnout.

There was a 52 per cent turnout for the referendum and only 54.9 per cent voted in favour of the question. This means that 28 per cent of the population were in favour of the question. Does the member feel that is a significant indication of the wishes of the people of Newfoundland? Or does the member believe some larger representation of the eligible voters should be required?

[Maurice Godin, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's question. I believe that in a referendum, the important thing is to make sure that all citizens can express their opinion and exercise their right to vote. If, in a referendum, the majority has spoken in favour of the process, in my mind, the referendum is legitimate.

I would like to point out to my colleague that when Newfoundland joined the Canadian Confederation, it took two referendums, and the results of the second one were only 54 per cent in favour of it. I cannot see why this was good enough to let Newfoundland in and 52 per cent might not be enough when a province within

Canada expresses its opinion by way of a referendum. I believe that 50 per cent plus one vote is good enough when people are called on to express their opinion and do so.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my turn to participate in this debate on the motion requesting that the Newfoundland government be authorized to modify its education system through a constitutional amendment, as provided in section 43 of the Constitution.

Members of the Bloc Quebecois support that motion, for two main reasons for this. The first one is very important; it is the fact that we are in a democracy. We believe in democracy and the Newfoundland government presented us with the results of a referendum held democratically and in accordance with recognized rules.

We think that we do not have to agree with the reservations expressed concerning the question. The Newfoundland government, the elected members of the legislature discussed that question. There was a debate, there was a yes side and a no side. Everyone had the opportunity to vote. There was then a result and we, of the Bloc Quebecois, because we are democratic, recognize the result of that vote. The issue is not the final result. When a referendum is recognized, it is the 50 per cent plus one formula, as in the case of the Maastricht treaty, and many referendums held around the world. The democratic rule is 50 per cent plus one.

That is why we, of the Bloc Quebecois, support wholeheartedly the Government of Newfoundland on this issue. Moreover, in the speech he made earlier, the member for Trois-Rivières was reminding us, rightly so, that the Government of Newfoundland is one that can be used as a model with regards to referendums.

First of all, it is the only province that entered the Canadian Confederation after holding a referendum on the issue; I should say two, because there were two. The result was narrow in the first one, so the debate continued the following year, in 1949, and there was another referendum. The people of Newfoundland voted and asked the rest of Canada to accept them in the Confederation. That was done democratically. We have nothing to say on that. That is fine, it was in response to the wishes of the people.

So, this time, the people of Newfoundland decide also democratically to hold a referendum on an issue they consider important, an issue that was causing division within the province; they decide to hold this referendum to change their education system. We support that, of course.

The second reason is that-we sovereignists read the Constitution, we know what it is all about, because we have had to put up with it long enough, we know it by heart-section 93 of the Constitution says: "In and for each province the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to education". To Quebecers, exclusively means that this is none of our business, it concerns the people of Newfoundland, the men and women of Newfoundland. It is neither for Quebecers nor for the residents of other provinces to tell Newfoundlanders how to manage their school system.

The objectives put forward seem logical to us, Bloc members, and we agree. But it is not because expenditures are being reduced or because a structure is being amended in such and such a way, but because this is exclusively under provincial jurisdiction.

We would not appreciate people from Newfoundland or other provinces telling Quebecers and the Government of Quebec what to do in matters of education. Each time the federal government tries to interfere-and it has no compunction about doing so in this area-we remind it that it does not have jurisdiction, we do. We have a consistent approach to the principle included in the Constitution, which says clearly that it is up to Newfoundlanders to define what they wish to see in their school system. However, we do have some reservations concerning the protection of the French speaking minority's rights.

I want to make it clear right away that, according to statistics, there are 2,680 francophones in Newfoundland, which constitutes 0.5 of the population, spread here and there across the island and also in Labrador. When I hear people say that we must oppose every change, every amendment, it sounds as if all of a sudden we had to protect the major progress the province of Newfoundland has made with regard to protecting the French speaking minority.

I remind hon. members that there is no French school board in Newfoundland. None. Besides, there is only one entirely unilingual French school, only one. Other francophones are distributed among four other bilingual schools. What is it exactly we want to protect? I was about to say next to nothing, but that is the situation such as it is. There is only one school where all the students are French speaking.

When the Leader of the Opposition met with Premier Tobin, he voiced his concerns about the situation and hoped for some improvement. Mr. Tobin said: "Yes, but things are better than they used to be, since we will now have a committee made up of three individuals with a specific mandate to try to improve the situation of French speaking Newfoundlanders in terms of education".

Since the measure respects the Constitution and is to our liking, although we would like it to be more explicit, and since the final legislation to modernize the system has yet to be passed, we are confident that Premier Tobin will protect the rights of the French

speaking minority, just like Quebec did with its English speaking minority. We would like him to go even further and to recognize more than one school. I will not start giving names, but there are 2,680 francophones. So, we would like more schools to be recognized and greater participation of francophones in the school boards. This is what we want.

But there is something else. I have been following the debate for a while and, in fact, the phenomenon goes back to the debate on Bill C-33. All of a sudden, two members were excluded from the Liberal Party, or left of their own will, and became independent. More and more often, the Liberal government lets its members vote freely. This, in my opinion, is the symptom of a routed government, a government that does not know where it is headed and that tries to please all its members. It lets its members speak freely. If we push it a little further-because apparently some 50 Liberal members do not agree with this motion-the government would need the support of members in the two opposition parties to have its motions passed. It does not make sense any more.

The way things are going, one wonders if we still have a government and a prime minister. This Prime Minister says that all referendums are not equal, and his intergovernmental affairs minister agrees and says it depends. This is a double standard. In Newfoundland, any question goes, any result and any level of participation are acceptable. In Quebec, it is a different story. The Prime Minister has to agree with the question. He wants to determine the majority needed to win a referendum. Sometimes he compares our province to a rod and gun club. He noticed that the bylaws of such clubs in Quebec-so he saw back home in Shawinigan, where he goes only in the summertime-provide for a 66.66 per cent majority. He kind of likes that, and he would want to force that on Quebec, but not on Newfoundland.

In Newfoundland, 50 p. 100 is good enough. That is unbelievable. The inconsistency of this government is just unbelievable. But in Quebec, it wants to be tough and object to everything. It goes as far as supporting Guy Bertrand, who wants to take away from Quebecers the right to self-determination. That will never be tolerated.

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am not supporting this legislation because I am not convinced the rights of minorities as entrenched in the Constitution are being safeguarded.

To make the proposed changes to the school system in Newfoundland a constitutional amendment is not necessary. It already has the authority to make such a change under section 93. There should have been better consultation with the groups whose minority rights will be affected. I say this because some parents were here on the Hill last week. Those parents stated they had not had the consultation they required.

I ask the hon. member if he is aware that this consultation with the parents of these children who attend religious schools did not take place. They also stated that prior to the referendum people were not aware of any consultation. Does he not agree that in today's society with the peer pressure out there it is better to have religious schools for our young people than the other system?

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have two points to make with respect to the hon. member's question. First, she talked about the consultation of the groups affected by the measures. Is there a better consultation than the one in which people old enough to vote are first called upon to take part in the debate and then to vote?

This is not a neighbourhood consultation about a school. It is a consultation about an education systen for the whole province. And it has been done. As for us, we are fully satisfied with the consultation aspect because the province of Newfoundland used, in my opinion, the best consultation tool of all: a referendum.

Newfoundland is concerned with the rights or the claims with regard to the denominational aspect. I believe that this is none of our business and that we should stay out of Newfoundland's affairs. Similarly, Quebecers would not like that Newfoundlanders get involved in the discussions about such arrangements in Quebec.

But since the hon. member is asking me, I will say that I saw in Newfoundland's proposal measures to let the different denominations express themselves. Therefore, any group of people can have access to its religion in its school board or school if it is large enough.

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, in my riding of Saint John, New Brunswick last week I spoke at St. Vincent's girl's high school. The system has changed to the type of system in Newfoundland. Right now that high school is not allowed to continue as a religious high school without going before the board of education every year. That will happen all across Canada before we are through and all religious schools will be gone.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am saying that what my colleague is talking about concerns the people of Newfoundland. It was their decision to make, and that is what they did. Once the referendum results were known, their elected government, supported by the leader of the opposition and the leader of the third party, came to Ottawa to ask the Parliament of Canada to recognize the decision legitimitely made in their province. That is the only possible answer to such a question.

[Pat O'Brien, Liberal, London—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I feel compelled this evening to speak on the issue of the educational system in Newfoundland and on minority rights in Canada. We are told by some inside the House and outside that these two matters are separate and distinct, that they are unrelated.

We debate tonight an amendment to term 17 as requested by the legislature of Newfoundland. We are assured this amendment will not negatively impact minority rights in Newfoundland or in any other part of Canada. We are told this is a local issue, a Newfoundland issue, and that it does not involve the rest of Canada. Not so, Mr. Speaker. A threat to minority rights anywhere in Canada is a threat to minority rights everywhere in Canada.

Many Canadians, including members of Parliament from every region, have at least three major concerns about this requested amendment. First, an analysis of the vote in Newfoundland shows that at least two of the minority groups affected voted against this amendment. It is a fundamental principle of fairness in a democracy that the rights of a minority guaranteed in law should not be changed, diminished or abolished without the consent of the citizens who collectively comprise that minority group.

Second, this amendment, if enacted, could represent a dangerous precedent for the erosion of minority rights in Canada. It is obvious, Mr. Speaker, obvious there is disagreement among Canadian legal experts on the possible precedent this amendment could create. Expert legal opinion has stated that this matter should properly have been referred to the Supreme Court of Canada for an expeditious ruling before we make such a very important decision.

Third, the process has been incredibly flawed, in my view. Other citizens of Canada want to be heard, Newfoundlanders and other Canadians as well. Leaders of several denominations wish to be heard on this matter, non-Catholic and Catholic alike. I would submit there should have been hearings on this very important issue before a decision is taken on it.

I cannot think of any member of the House who does not support the people of Newfoundland in their desire to improve and modernize their educational system. Such a modernization and improvement ought properly to be arrived at co-operatively by the efforts of all concerned, the leaders of the Government of Newfoundland, the leaders of the communities and their citizens.

While I support the improvement of the educational system in Newfoundland, I cannot support this amendment, as requested, because I sincerely believe that it could imperil minority rights in other provinces. It could imperil education rights and it could imperil other minority rights. For those reasons I simply cannot support it. I must vote no.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member discussed the issue of inclusion in the debate. I would like to point out very briefly that since 1990 a royal commission has been studying the issue of educational reform in the province and had reached specific conclusions in 1992.

The specific conclusions of the royal commission were based on the input of thousands of briefs that were received, the inclusions of hundreds of individuals who presented those briefs.

Does the hon. member have any thoughts on those members who represent particular religious affiliations, particular religious beliefs and faiths, the 5 per cent we have not discussed here tonight, who at this current time do not receive any religious instruction in the faith of their choice? Would the hon. member like to comment on or discuss the 50 per cent of the Pentecostal faith which currently does not receive instruction in their faith, and whether or not the current amendments to term 17 would include those individuals in Newfoundland society?

[Pat O'Brien, Liberal, London—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the province of Newfoundland for his questions and for his comments.

One of the feelings that I hold very strongly is that we ought to have held public hearings, however brief. The need for such hearings has been well addressed by my colleague from the province of Newfoundland.

If there are people from the Pentecostal faith who wish to be heard, let us bring them to Ottawa and hear them. If there are those of no particular religious belief who wish to be heard on this issue, let us bring them to Ottawa and let them be heard.

In my view, in a democracy, it is fundamentally unfair to change and imperil minority rights without the opportunity of all who wish to be heard to have that opportunity.

[Alex Shepherd, Liberal, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I sat by and listened to a number of the comments, especially from those of the opposition.

I am very concerned about the sociativity between various referenda that take place in this country. In my riding, we are currently having a referendum about whether parts of my constituency should be part of the GTA.

It has no real legal impact. It is simply an opinion poll. For the members of the opposition to say that the referendum in Newfoundland was not necessary has a kind of major impact on future referendums to do with such a horrendous issue as succession which has no legal framework in our Constitution is ludicrous.

The members opposite talk about democracy. Let us have a focus on what they mean about democracy. They are willing to take the welfare of the children of Newfoundland and use it for their own cause which is separation.

The province of Newfoundland faces the highest illiteracy rate in Canada. The children of Newfoundland have one of the lowest scholastic scores in all of Canada. The province of Newfoundland spends, relative to the amount of money that they have available to them, far more than any other province and yet get one of the worst scholastic scores in this country.

There is something wrong with the school system in Newfoundland. There is no question about that. The members opposite would use those facts to promote their own cause.

Let us talk about democracy. Bloc members are willing to say 50-plus one is some kind of democratic threshold when every other country in the world, when it comes to constitutional amendments to do with the basic framework of their country, require 66 per cent or 75 per cent. The reality is that there is no sociativity between these two things.

Let us talk about some other facts that have occurred in the province of Quebec only recently. We have taken something like the Canada Student Loans Act and allowed it to be administered solely by the province of Quebec. Ninety-eight million dollars a year is allocated from the federal government to the province of Quebec to administer the Canada Student Loans Act. What has the province of Quebec recently done in that area? It has said that those students who want to take educational training outside the province of Quebec are prevented from doing so.

Was there a referendum? No. Was there a consultation process with the people of Quebec? No. Do not tell me about your attitudes toward a consultative and democratic process. Do not tell me about using the children of Newfoundland to support the cause of separation.

Finally, I support this amendment. It is not perfect. Nothing is perfect in our democracy but the feeling and the general attitude of the people of Newfoundland is that they need to get on with their lives, that they need to create a new educational system in the province. They need to create the opportunities for the people of that province.

They have waited much too long to try to resolve this problem. I am willing to believe that the fair minded people of Newfoundland have made a decision both in the legislature and also with a referendum and they basically want to get on with their lives.

The general thrust of the federal government should be to endorse that. I fully endorse it.

[Harold Culbert, Liberal, Carleton—Charlotte, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to my hon. colleague's presentation. I was pleased to hear him indicate that while the province of Newfoundland made a decision to have a referendum, there was no necessity for them to do that. It did so only to get input from its citizenry.

What happens after this amendment hypothetically is passed? Does it mean, for example, that it is the end of religious education? Does it mean that it is the end of denominations having input into the education system in Newfoundland? I wonder if the hon. member would care to comment on that?

[Alex Shepherd, Liberal, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, denominational schools will continue in the province of Newfoundland.

The framework is where numbers permit. Newfoundland has a population of that of the city of Calgary. It has the great problem it had in the time of Joey Smallwood of how to administer services in rural areas. It is very difficult to administer Cadillac services in areas which do not have the population base to sustain them.

There is a need for rationalization but it does not mean the end of denominational schools. In those urban areas where numbers permit the denominational schools will continue. I believe the Roman Catholic school board will have more powers under this change because it will have a better rationalization of resources and a better ability to deliver those services to its students.

There really has not been a significant change. Many people in Newfoundland are arguing that the changes in the proposals of the province of Newfoundland have not gone far enough to address some of their major concerns. The bottom line is that I respect the member's question. This is a change for the better for Newfoundland. Many people people still argue that it has not gone far enough, but it is our role to endorse those proposals and reform the educational system.

[Stéphan Tremblay, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there are only a few minor elements I would like to discuss tonight. Many references to the participation rate in the referendum that took place in Newfoundland were made. It was said that that rate was so low that it undermined slightly the credibility of the exercise.

People often say that the right to vote is a also a responsibility for the citizen. We know that there are citizens who are highly interested in politics and others who are not very interested. Would had it been very appropriate for those who did not really take an interest in the debate surrounding the Newfoundland referendum to make a judgment on the issue since they had decided to leave it to other more informed people?

So, the participation rate is not really important. In Quebec, the participation rate, or the percentage of people who felt concerned by the issue, exceeded 90 p. 100. In Newfoundland, less people decided to participate. So be it. We have to respect their decision.

The other thing I would like to mention is the fact that the word referendum seems to raise great fear in this House. I believe that a referendum, as has been said so many times this evening, is a very modern and highly democratic tool.

What is important to understand is that, at the present time, in this dynamic world with its rapid changes, where we are constantly being required to totally change our tack, decisions must be made quickly, but they must be tailored to the wishes of the people. That leads us to the concept of referendum.

What can be wrong with consulting the people, consulting those who have pondered the question? So we prepare a question for the population, and those who want to answer do so. That is completely normal, and I believe there ought to be more referenda.

The other point is that, when legislation is being prepared, we need to add things to it, and then later on it will dictate to us how we ought to act.

In the end, the people are represented by politicians, and these very politicians establish the laws defining the broad social trends in our society. At some point in time, we realize that these laws, including the Constitution, are so complex we get lost in them. How can our country remain dynamic and adapt quickly, when we are caught up in a jumble of laws?

This brings me to the Bertrand case, which claims that we cannot do what we want to do because the law prevents it. But the people, through their politicians, establish the laws to define the course of society, and we are not even allowed any more to oppose it. I think there is room to question this. Society needs to debate this point. We should ask people about this, because they are those who elected us here.

They elected us to represent them along some party lines and those party lines are the ones defining social trends. However, we must lend an ear to the people to know if our decisions are appropriate. These are considerations that fascinate me tonight, and I think we would gain from pondering over them.

Last September 5, the Newfoundland government held a referendum to change the school system to a non-denominational one. Results were a yes vote of 54 per cent with a 52 per cent participation rate, which meant that the Newfoundland government could start the process whereby it is today asking the federal government to amend term 17 of the 1949 union act, in accordance with clause 43.

As we know, section 43 allows the federal government to amend the Constitution with the consent of one province when the amendment applies only to this province. We also know that section 43 was used on three occasions in the recent past. In 1987, with regard to the same rights of churches in Newfoundland, but it had to do with the Pentecostal Church. In 1993, to enshrine the equality of the French and English languages in New Brunswick. And again in 1993, to facilitate the building of a bridge between Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick.

We do not see anything wrong with the proposed reform. The school system in Newfoundland has become too complex and too costly. Three years of consultations with the churches involved have led nowhere. If an agreement had been reached, it could have been cancelled by anyone with the help of the courts.

As I was saying, the rule of law Mr. Bertrand is so adamant to support has its limits. When the limits have been reached, fortunately there remains democracy. We come full circle; is the law there to serve the people or are the people there to serve the law? What tools can we use? I think a referendum is a very good one.

When the population so wishes, even if the turnout is not so large, the opinion of the well-informed prevails. Fifty-three per cent of the people felt they were informed enough to give their opinion. They said what they had to say. Democracy played its role. I hope things work just as well during the next referendum in Quebec. The participation rate will be determined by the number of people really interested in the debate.

Maybe we should hold a broad public debate on the right to vote. Is it a civic duty or a right? Are those who vote knowledgeable enough to give direction to public debates in our country?

[Alex Shepherd, Liberal, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's dissertation that referendums were so valuable in society. Maybe they are, but at what point do we run a referendum or an opinion poll? Do we do it every five or ten years, every year, every two months or every two days?

The member talks about democracy and the respect of democracy and yet we know there was a referendum recently in his province and he continues to talk about the next referendum. There does not seem to be any real appreciation of the votes and the desires of the people of Quebec to stay within the country. How can he claim he is a democrat?

[Stéphan Tremblay, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when can a referendum be held? In my opinion, whenever we see division among the people or the need for a societal debate.

So, I would say to my colleague that, at 50 per cent and a little more or less, the issue is not really decided. When the people are asking themselves some questions, I believe it is appropriate to further the debate to inform them well. At that time, I think it will be very credible to have another one in four years, in two years.

To respond also to the first question of my colleague, I would say that referenda are appropriate when the people ask themselves questions. It would even be interesting in the future to have a card announcing a referendum to be held at a given time and on a given issue. Perhaps we could have an annual day of referendum to ensure the people would participate more.

There are many questions we have to ask ourselves. Inasmuch as we ask ourselves questions on our system and we not do consider it the best in the world, perhaps it is the best in the world, but that is not a reason for sitting down and saying it should stay the same. On the contrary. I think the world is modernizing today and we must constantly ask ourselves questions on what we do and what we want to become.

[Fred Mifflin, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, I am speaking in support of the amendment before the House tonight because I believe it will be beneficial to the people of my province of Newfoundland and Labrador and to all of Canada.

The educational system of Newfoundland and Labrador is distinct in Canada. The responsibility for educational matters falls within the legislative jurisdiction of the provinces. As a result there is a wide diversity among provincial school systems reflecting the wide diversity that is such an integral part of Canadian society.

Members will recall there are no public schools in Newfoundland and Labrador. Our education system is a part of our history. That is the case in most provinces. Our first schools were sponsored, fostered and promoted by the churches and their clergy. Governments did not assume responsibility for education until much later in our history. Even when public funding became available the Newfoundland system was still directly exclusively run by the churches.

The example of my home of Bonavista, an historic fishing town on the tip of the Bonavista Peninsula, best illustrates this. Not only is Bonavista the landfall of John Cabot 499 years ago this year, it is famous for other historic events.

In 1722 Reverend Henry Jones came to serve in Bonavista where he supervised the building of the first church in Newfoundland. Four years later he organized the first school in Newfoundland in my home town. I did not attend that school but the three room, one teacher per room school on the very same site of that school that the existing system directed I attend. I had good teachers and enjoyed my time in school, but it kept me from attending a larger, more modern, better equipped school that would have more effectively prepared me for the future.

By the time of Confederation, six individual denominations had been granted the right to operate schools. They still possess that. One denomination was added in 1987. Today in Newfoundland and Labrador there are four separate, distinct and individual school systems with 27 overlapping boards in a province with 575,000 people and 110,000 students, roughly the size of Calgary.

The people of Newfoundland and Labrador have now asked Parliament to give the provincial legislature the authority to make changes in the denominational educational system. That will be the effect of the amended term 17. Simply put, the legislature would have more authority to decide and direct educational issues and the individual denominations would have less. Those arrangements which were incorporated in the Constitution in 1949 reflected the wishes and the beliefs of the Newfoundlanders of that day.

The people of the province through their government now wish to make different arrangements. They believe changes must be made to the schools for the sake of their children and their children's future. The decision to make change was neither hasty nor arbitrary and came as a consequence of a long process of public discussion and negotiation.

Six years ago the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador appointed a royal commission on education. More than 30 years had passed since such a study had been made. The commission was chaired by Dr. Len Williams, a respected and experienced educator. The commission recommended far reaching changes designed to give the children of Newfoundland and Labrador far greater opportunities to prepare themselves to lead full, satisfying and productive lives.

The provincial government quickly decided to negotiate new arrangements and then Premier Clyde Wells and several of his senior colleagues began a series of discussions with the representatives of the denominations. These discussions continued for more than two and a half years. Agreement was not possible, however, despite the best efforts of all involved. I know all of those involved, representing churches and government alike, strove mightily and in the best of good faith to reach an agreement but were not able to do so.

The provincial government was then faced with only three options: abandon the project to make changes it believed were necessary, agree to the much less far reaching changes which the leaders of the churches were prepared to accept, or seek a constitutional amendment to give the legislature powers with respect to

education similar to those already vested in every other provincial legislature. It chose the amendment route.

The government believed that because the changes were so important to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that it should not seek a constitutional amendment unless the people of the province agreed they wanted one. The government sought the views of its electors, the parents of the children of the province, in a referendum. A majority of 54.8 per cent of those who voted endorsed the government's reform proposal.

The government then asked the House of Assembly to decide the issue. Every member of the House except the Speaker voted on the proposal. Thirty-one members supported the proposal, 20 voted against. All three party leaders voted in favour of it. That resolution is the one which is before us now.

My colleague, the Minister of Justice, has described the amendment in detail and addressed the legal issues that arise from it.

I want to say a word or two about the educational issues in the context of the province and her peoples. I know the denominational system well. I am a product of the denominational school, as I mentioned earlier. The system has served Newfoundland and her people well, but I am convinced it can be improved. I am convinced the changes proposed by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador will provide a better education for the children who live in my constituency of Bonavista-Trinity-Conception and for all the children of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I realize some of my colleagues and members on the other side of the House have concerns about the wisdom of the government's decision to ask Parliament to amend term 17. I have discussed it with many of them. I respect their opinions, which I know they have weighed carefully. I have done so too. So have many of our colleagues in the government. We did not come lightly or quickly to our decision to recommend the amendment to Parliament. Our decision came after detailed study, much thought, much reflection and strong debate.

We are fully persuaded that the amendment is an appropriate and proper change. We have no hesitation in recommending it to Parliament and in asking members on both sides of the House and those in the other place to support it. We believe the result will be a better educational system for the children of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The case for this amendment requested by the Newfoundland legislature is compelling in my judgment. I speak as a Newfoundlander, as a Canadian and as a member of the Government of Canada. It is true the powers enjoyed by our churches for the last half century will be diminished somewhat. However, all will be diminished equally, and so the question is not one of the majority discriminating against a minority.

Any fair minded observer would have to acknowledge that the constitutional protections, which will still be vested in seven denominations in Newfoundland and Labrador if the amendment is adopted, will compare favourably with those enjoyed by any established religious group anywhere else in Canada.

It would be both fair and accurate to describe the effect of the amendment as being an intent to introduce in Newfoundland and Labrador a system comparable to that in effect in many other provinces, with the significant exception that all schools in the province will still be denominational.

Members will have seen that the amendment gives the legislature the power to make provision for unidenominational schools. A constitutional provision will ensure the powers of the churches with respect to these schools will be comparable to those of separate schools in Ontario, for example.

Some are troubled by the suggestion that the legislature's power, which is found in section (b)(i) of the item which has been discussed often today, to make rules with respect to the establishment of unidenominational schools could be used to frustrate the ability of any given denomination to organize a denominational school. I looked closely at that. I have sought advice from our lawyers on that point and I am assured that such a result cannot come to pass.

This comes about because of the use of the words "subject to provincial legislation that is uniformly acceptable to all schools", the preamble of the new term. I am told these are words which have a precise meaning in law and would be used by a court to determine the reasonableness of a legislative enactment. Those members who are concerned by this point can take comfort in this protection.

In closing, I am convinced the legislature and the government of Newfoundland and Labrador will be able to provide the children of the province with a better education if we adopt this amendment. I am persuaded on the merits of the amendment. I am persuaded that it would not threaten or harm the rights of any other Canadian. I am persuaded that its adoption would not require a future Parliament to adopt an amendment that would unacceptably change the rights of any Canadian.

I am going to vote for it for those reasons and on that basis. I am going to vote for it because I believe it to be in the best interests of the children who live in the constituency of Bonavista-Trinity-Conception and the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. They deserve the best that Newfoundland and Labrador can provide. The adoption of this amendment will help make this so.

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Gaspé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief because there are other members who want to speak and because we are anxious to vote on this motion. All I want to indicate to the minister with my comment-because I do not necessarily want to ask a question-is that this is a very emotional issue. I have listened carefully to questions and comments today and I must say that there was a lot of emotion involved.

If I may use a little irony, I will say to the minister that each time we speak on issues like this, we are opening up the crab trap. The minister is smiling, so he is definitely listening to the simultaneous interpretation. I would like to tell him that regardless of our political differences or the different perception we often have of problems, I have made the effort to listen to all the debates on this issue. I must tell him from the start that I am always interested in recognizing democracy through a referendum.

I am not interested in commenting on the specifics of what the province does or does not need. What I wanted to say is that I have taken the time to listen, and I will vote in favour of the motion this evening. I would like to hear from the minister that he too intends to listen to all the other problems that arise, including in the crab fishery, so that people of good will can be heard in this House.

[Fred Mifflin, Liberal, Bonavista—Trinity—Conception, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much the comments of my hon. colleague. He listened to me and he is very much aware of course that I always listen to his very learned comments and seriously to the concerns of the constituency he represents, the concerns of fishermen on fishing issues and items related to the coast guard and marine service fees.

He is aware that I listen but I cannot always accede to his requests because sometimes they are outside the bounds even of my jurisdiction. I always listen attentively to what he has to say. I always give due weight to the learned comments he brings to the House.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the hon. minister's comments.

The minister will know that the issue of precedent with regard to the educational minority rights in other provinces is a very, very important issue. I refer the minister to the letter of March 26 to the Prime Minister from Archbishop Emeritus Cardinal G. Emmett Carter of Toronto, in which he refers to Professor Patrick Monahan of Osgoode Hall Law School, in which he said, among other things, that an amendment to term 17 would create a risk to denominational school guarantees in other provinces that hitherto did not exist.

The minister has presented that there are judgments to the contrary. Would the minister not agree that a reference to the supreme court to clarify the question might help a lot of members in this place?

[Fred Mifflin, Liberal, Bonavista—Trinity—Conception, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I hear what my hon. colleague is saying. As I said in my comments, I was troubled by this debate. I sought legal advice. According to legal opinions, the preamble precludes this from happening in any other case. I am satisfied that this item of interpretation has been clarified and I think the Minister of Justice agrees. I am convinced that the adoption of this motion would not adversely affect any other province as is the concern of my hon. colleague.