Mr. Speaker, if we share one unanimous concern and position on this side of the House regarding the amendment to term 17 it is that Newfoundland's educational system fully deserves to be modernized and reformed to make it more efficient and more responsive to a changing world.
However, if many of us on this side of the House have reservations about the amendment, some with very strong reservations, it is not regarding the need for reform but the process used to achieve the worthy objective of reform.
The Government of Newfoundland holds that a constitutional amendment is essential to achieve reform. However, eminent experts are convinced the required reforms are quite possible within the present framework of term 17.
A framework agreement is already near reality. As recently as April 24, 1996, a mere five weeks ago, Newfoundland's education minister, Mr. Grimes, spoke thus of the framework agreement: "I am confident this framework agreement will allow us, working with stakeholders, to assist in the planning, to move forward in an efficient and reasonable manner and be consistent with the objectives government set out prior to the referendum".
Today, only five weeks after, the Government of Newfoundland would have us believe no agreement is possible and were one to happen it would be challengeable in court. Learned constitutional expert Colin Irving disagrees firmly with this presumption.
My strong objection to the present term 17 amendment relates to its real and potential effects on minority rights. Certain constitutional experts of high repute and credibility hold that in transferring to the legislative powers of the Newfoundland government certain prerogatives now enjoyed by specific parties by constitutional right, these rights and prerogatives are thereby diluted and left to the discretion and vagaries of any majority government of a provincial parliament.
Reform, no matter how praiseworthy, must never happen at the expense of acquired rights. If any rights are diminished then the reform is flawed in its very essence. The Government of Newfoundland, as indeed our own federal government, holds there is no consequence or relation to comparable minority rights under the Constitution. I beg very respectfully to differ.
Take the example of Quebec's religious educational commissions now protected under section 93 of the Constitution. It certainly would be one thing to amend this provision to implement linguistic boards-today in Quebec there is a consensus around linguistic boards-by enshrining these linguistic boards with equivalent protection within a constitutional amendment. It would be quite another thing to delegate any of the existing protections and safeguards now held under section 93 of the Constitution to the National Assembly of Quebec.
The important warning and caution expressed by Professor Patrick Monahan of Osgoode Hall Law School should not be taken lightly. I will quote: "The amendment of Term 17 would create a risk to denominational school guarantees in other provinces that did not hitherto exist".
Such an important question should not be the subject of a two-day summary debate in this House. It should be the subject of a full debate and a thorough examination, which is certainly the case for any measure before any legislature in Canada.
We must also take into account the fact that the referendum in Newfoundland was held at the end of the summer and that those opposing the issue did not have the necessary funding and infrastructure to argue their case. It was the big government machine supported by public funds on one side against the volunteers who were doing their best to fight a vague question that read as follows, and I quote:
"Do you support revising Term 17 in the manner proposed by the government to enable the reform of the denominational education system, yes or no?" I know lawyers might find it very straightforward but I know a lot of ordinary Newfoundlanders who feel differently about it.
The Newfoundland government claimed it did not have to hold a referendum. However, having decided to do so, it had to give equal opportunity to its opponents, to ask a clear question and to avoid holding the referendum during the summer months. The result was a poor turnout of only 52 per cent of voters, 54 per cent of whom voted in favour of the government position, representing only 28 p. 100 of the total number of eligible voters in Newfoundland.
It is certainly not the most convincing exercise in democracy, especially when you consider what is at stake here, namely a constitutional amendment affecting minority rights.
Minority rights are our most precious cause. As a Liberal, I consider them paramount within the exercise of my mandate as a parliamentarian. There is no more sacred trust. No one can predict how the future will unfold. Of course it is always possible that my fears and concerns may prove completely unfounded. I hope so.
However, if there should be the slightest risk that minority rights in this case may be impaired or that of other minorities be affected by creating a precedent, then the course of wisdom and equity becomes one of extreme care and caution.
Having informed myself as faithfully and intelligently as I can on both sides of the issue, I am convinced the amendment as presently framed and worded has a real and potential impact on minority rights.
As a committed Liberal, I cannot in all conscience support it and I intend to vote against it. Although I am convinced the amendment will pass handily, with the Bloc and others voting for it, I keep hoping that before it is sanctioned, the voice of caution will be
heard and there will be further debate and rethinking along the way so that a wiser solution may emerge.
When minority rights exist and are involved, the precautionary principle should always and must always apply. When minority rights exist and are involved, wisdom and equity tell us loudly and clearly that we should make haste very slowly. May care, equity, wisdom and patience prevail in the end. The cause of minority rights deserves no less.
Finally, I remind the House of the eloquent warning of a famous United States jurist, Ramsey Clark, who said some 20 years ago: "A right is not what someone gives you, it is what no one can take from you". I can hear the voices of many of the groups affected by this amendment of Term 17 asking members of this House: What right have you, have us, have we, to be taking our rights, their rights away from us, from them? This in my view is a subtle question.