Debates of June 3rd, 1996

Questions On The Order Paper

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is with frustration that I speak to this point of order. I have had a question on the Order Paper since February 28, Question No. 9. Prior to that it was on the Order Paper from September 1994 until the House prorogued.

If this question is not answered in June, it will have been on the Order Paper for two years without being answered. I brought forward several times in the House and I have been assured it would be answered imminently, even from the past parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

It is come to the point where I wonder if my privileges are being breached and I may have to raise the matter in another form if the question is not answered forthwith.

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is important for the House to recognize it is not a simple matter of asking one person to get information and have it delivered or deposited. If it were that simple the question would have been answered a long time ago.

The member well knows this matter is very complicated. It is a very pervasive question which is being asked. Frankly, it is a matter of dollars and civil service responsibility in terms of allocating time to get the information.

The member should respect that issue. We are doing to very best we can.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I wish to inform the House that because of the ministerial statement Government Orders will be extended by 14 minutes.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

The Constitution

[Jean-Paul Marchand, Bloc, Québec-Est, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate, as I was seing before oral question period, that

the Bloc Quebecois does not oppose the motion. We feel that several aspects of the proposed change concerning schools in Newfoundland are acceptable. We view it as reasonable. The majority expressed itself through a referendum and the motion does not interfere with the rights of members of denominations, who can teach religion in schools. There are also practical considerations, in the sense that the province will save money and streamline its school board structure.

However, we feel that the Government of Canada, the Prime Minister of Canada and the premier of Newfoundland, Brian Tobin, are not fulfilling their obligations under section 23 of the 1982 charter.

While the motion on term 17 does not violate section 23, both provisions deal with the right to manage schools. Some members rose to say that they do not support term 17 simply because minority rights will be violated. I remind this House that the rights of French speaking minorities in Newfoundland are currently being violated, because, for 14 years now, the province has not been complying with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 23 is not complied with in Newfoundland.

That is precisely the problem. This charter is forever being dragged in to show how respectful Canada is of minorities, how it has one of the best charters in the world, and how Canada is, in addition, bilingual. The problem is that it is not being implemented in all the provinces. Furthermore, four provinces in Canada do not respect the Canadian Constitution, and we are talking about the supreme law of Canada. Four provinces are not respecting the provisions of section 23 of the charter: British Columbia, Ontario, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland.

This change, the motion to amend term 17, gives Brian Tobin, the premier of Newfoundland, a golden opportunity to bring the province in line with the charter. Section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms gives francophone minorities living outside Quebec, in Canada, the right to manage their own school boards. This is guaranteed in the charter. Furthermore, there have even been two Supreme Court decisions confirming this right, in 1988, and in 1990. There was the Supreme Court decision in the Mahé case, indicating clearly that the francophone minority in every province of Canada had the right to manage its own schools.

In Newfoundland, once again, the charter is not being respected. Francophones still do not have the right to manage their own schools. On the contrary, in Newfoundland, the rights of the francophone minority are being completely disregarded.

I will explain to you what has happened. Mr. Tobin is saying that he will respect the rights of francophones, but we know very well this is so much hot air. His predecessor, Clyde Wells, was no different. When they saw that Newfoundland was not respecting their rights, members of the francophone minority filed a complaint with the Newfoundland Supreme Court to right the situation. Mr. Wells told them: "No, withdraw your complaint to the Newfoundland Supreme Court and I will give you the power to manage your own schools". After the association of francophones withdrew its complaint, no more was heard of the promises made by Mr. Wells.

We are in the same situation today, exactly the same situation. History repeats itself. It looks like Mr. Tobin is indeed telling us that he will protect the rights of francophone minorities in Newfoundland, but is putting nothing in writing, is not making any black and white commitments. These words will disappear into the ether, there is no doubt. All indications are that Mr. Tobin will not honour this promise.

That is the Prime Minister's role in this country, he who is supposedly responsible for making sure the Constitution of Canada is respected. This would have been the ideal opportunity for doing so. He could have said, "Brian, old boy, we will reach a deal. We will pass your little motion, so that you can reorganize the school boards in Newfoundland, but then, in exchange, you will agree to respect section 23 of the charter".

That, precisely, was the responsibility of the Prime Minister of Canada, the man who claims to champion francophone rights in Canada. By the way, he has done nothing. Moreover, in a letter to the premier of Newfoundland, which I could quote to you, he makes no reference to the fact that Newfoundland does not respect section 23 of the charter. I see this as unfortunate and serious. Minority rights in Canada have been ignored for a long time, and here we have one more example, in Newfoundland.

The people of Newfoundland and the francophone association in that province are entitled to administer their own school boards, and Newfoundland has denied them that right. In 1988, they went before the Newfoundland Supreme Court to ensure that their rights were respected. They obtained an agreement, rather a promise, from Mr. Wells that he would respect the charter, but that did not happen.

Now today, Mr. Tobin is holding up the possibility of ensuring the charter is respected. Whether it is or not remains to be seen. After Mr. Wells' promise to the association of Newfoundland and Labrador francophones to see that their right to administer their own schools would be respected, Mr. Wells instead set up the Normand commission. This commission confirmed, not surprisingly, that francophones in Newfoundland were indeed entitled to manage their own schools. That was the finding of the Normand commission.

The Newfoundland government managed to keep the Normand report out of the hands of the association of Newfoundland and Labrador francophones for two and a half years. It took two and a half years for the association to even have access to the Normand report, which said that francophones had the right to manage their own schools.

Newfoundland does not treat its francophones with the greatest respect. This problem is a Canadian problem because, although Canada claims to respect its minorities and to be sensitive to their rights, even today there are still four provinces that do not abide by the terms of the Canadian Constitution.

Newfoundland could have seized this opportunity to protect these rights. Especially since, on the one hand, Captain Canada himself is afraid to make a commitment to protect minority rights and, on the other hand, the champion of francophone rights in Canada, the Prime Minister, cannot make a commitment either. He could have done so easily in this case. It would have been so easy.

Why did he not do so? Why did Brian Tobin not make a commitment to protect the rights of francophones so they can manage their own schools? Because he has no intention of doing so. There is no political will in Newfoundland to do so.

Why did the Prime Minister not make a commitment either? Why did he not force Brian Tobin to clearly promise to protect the rights of francophones in Newfoundland? Because this government does not have the political will either to protect the rights of francophones.

This political will is disappearing over time, not only in Newfoundland but in all the other provinces as we can see. Just last weekend, we learned that this federal government has cut by almost two thirds the funding for Ontario's francophone associations.

I could give you several other examples that clearly show they are no longer trying to defend the rights of francophones. This government is showing once again that it lacks the backbone to enforce the terms of the Canadian Constitution.

[Bonnie Hickey, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I advise the member opposite of a letter written to the Leader of the Opposition from the minister of education for Newfoundland which suggests they have no problem with sitting down to discuss this with the francophone society of Newfoundland and that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is more than willing to give every tool necessary to help the francophone association of Newfoundland and Labrador.

[Jean-Paul Marchand, Bloc, Québec-Est, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her comment. The problem is there has not been any formal engagement on the part of Mr. Brian Tobin, the premier of Newfoundland.

Unfortunately when one reads the press releases one has the eerie feeling that what Mr. Tobin is preparing is what other provinces have done in the past. Instead of providing them with control of their school system Mr. Tobin, like other premiers in Canada, will provide the system with a what is called conseil consultatif in French. It would be like a seat on the school board which would provide the francophones the opportunity to listen in but gives them absolutely no power. It looks good.

That is what is being done in B.C, in Ontario, in Nova Scotia: "We will give them all kinds of latitude and consultative power". It comes down to a big zero plus zero in terms of real power.

Furthermore, it is very far from respecting the Constitution. Article XXIII of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is supposed to be the supreme law of the land, clearly specifies they have the right to control their school systems. There have been supreme court judgements reaffirming that fact. That is where Mr. Tobin has not formally engaged himself and we doubt he will do anything.

[An hon. member]

Trust him.

[Jean-Paul Marchand, Bloc, Québec-Est, QC]

We have to trust him, of course. My claim is not so much with Mr. Tobin as it is with the Prime Minister. He should have made some formal agreement with Mr. Tobin. We have to trust him too. Even if the Prime Minister had made promises in that respect, his promises are not always kept, as we know.

[Bonnie Hickey, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, with the permission of the House I would like to send my colleague opposite a copy of the letter written by the department of education to the Leader of the Opposition.

[Jean-Paul Marchand, Bloc, Québec-Est, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a copy of that letter. I believe it was sent by the minister of education in Newfoundland, Roger Grimes.

Actually it is unfortunate. All the requests made and the work the association of parents in Newfoundland has done to have their rights respected were never even received by Mr. Tobin. They never got to his door. They got a very flat response from the minister of education, which the association says is a lot of hot air.

[Maurice Bernier, Bloc, Mégantic—Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in this debate on the motion we have been requested to adopt in this place, as well as in the other place, to make it possible for the province of Newfoundland to obtain a constitutional amendment giving it the authority to reform its public education system, in which districts

are defined on the basis of school denomination, and to ensure that the educational system is organized along different lines.

As we know, the existing system, which has in fact been in place since Newfoundland entered Confederation in 1949, is protected under term 17 of the agreement setting the terms under which Newfoundland joined the Canadian Confederation.

In 1982, certain constitutional amendments were made-incidentally, Quebec did not support these amendments and, as a result, was excluded from the Canadian Constitution, although the Constitution applies in Quebec as well as anywhere in Canada. As provided in section 43 of the Constitution Act, 1982, amendments to the Constitution may be made, where authorized by the House of Commons, the Upper House and the legislative assembly of a province when the amendments in question apply to a very specific territory, namely a province.

This provision of the Constitution Act, 1982, has been used a few times since. Section 43 was used in 1987 to recognize Pentecostal schools in Newfoundland and again, in 1993, when New Brunswick became officially bilingual, that is to say a province recognizing linguistic equality between French and English. This was all done under this section, section 43 of the Constitution Act. Finally, more recently, it was used when a constitutional amendment was needed to make it possible to build this bridge that will soon, within a year, link Prince Edward Island to New Brunswick. The provision was used three time in all to amend the Constitution.

As I said, the motion before us arises from a decision made by the Government of Newfoundland to change its denominational system. How did the Government of Newfoundland come to this decision? First, following a long internal debate as we see in other provinces, particularly Quebec, on this specific issue. This debate allowed all those concerned to express their views and lasted months and even years in Newfoundland.

It ended on September 5, 1995, when the population made the final decision, by way of a referendum. Even though only 52 per cent of eligible voters took part in the referendum, a clear majority of 54 per cent supported the proposed changes to the denominational system.

So, on October 31, Newfoundland's legislative assembly acknowledged the public's wish, as expressed in a democratic referendum, and took action to follow up on that decision. Later, the Prime Minister of Canada recognized, of course, the referendum result and agreed to put this motion on the House's agenda for the current session, so that the issue would be settled once and for all when the House and the Senate adopt it.

I want to take the 15 minutes or so that I have left to stress important aspects in this exercise, namely the recognition of the will expressed by the public, and the obligation, for a democracy, to follow up on that will. I dare say that, in the eyes of the international community, a referendum is recognized as the most democratic tool, since all the citizens of a territory are asked to express their views on a very specific issue, following a debate in which all the parties were able to present their arguments. In other words, a referendum is the ultimate poll, since everyone can express his or her view.

A referendum does not always carry the same weight for the Liberal government currently in office in Ottawa, as we saw during the last referendum held in Quebec. During the campaign, the Prime Minister of Canada repeatedly questioned the legitimacy of the Quebec referendum and said he would not recognize the result, should the yes side win by a slim margin.

We know what the final verdict was: 49.6 per cent of Quebecers voted yes and 50.4 per cent voted no at the last referendum, and that outcome was not only recognized by the sovereignist government in Quebec, but was also recognized and fully respected by each and every sovereignist and resident of the province of Quebec. What it means is that Quebec remains a part of the Canadian federation, even if it was excluded from the Constitution in 1982, following well-known events, that is the unilateral patriation of the Constitution.

As I said before, the Prime Minister implied that any decision Quebecers make does not have the same significance if it goes against his wishes. I find such an argument, such a statement particularly outrageous. It means that they will respect the democratic rules if and only if the outcome of a democratic process goes along with their wishes. I think that is the kind of arguments most dictators on this planet use. No dictator is against a referendum, as long as he wins it.

These people are true democrats, as long as the dice are loaded and they are sure of the results. I find it a bit peculiar to hear these arguments, which were taken up for the most part by the individual who is responsible, at the governmental level, for ensuring that changes or negotiations are undertaken to improve, if that is at all possible, the Constitution of Canada, so that it meets the expectations of all Quebecers. That individual, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, in a comment about the motion now before the House, stated that referenda do not all have the same significance.

I would like to quote-and I think this is an exact quote-a report in Tuesday May 28's Le Devoir in reaction to the words of a sovereignist spokesperson who had said: ``The Newfoundlanders spoke clearly. A majority of Newfoundlanders have demanded that the Constitution be amended in response to their aspirations for the organization of their school system''.

We sovereignists say, and rightly so I believe, that if this was good enough for a decision made in Newfoundland, and was the case when Newfoundland entered Confederation as well, it is certainly so for Quebecers when they want to determine their future. It seems to me that the same principle applies in both cases. There cannot be one democratic principle for Newfoundland, and another for Quebec. That is completely unacceptable.

But not for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs has been quoted as saying during a media scrum: "The principle is that, the more serious a decision and the more it impacts upon future generations, the more strictly the rules of democracy must be applied".

My understanding of this statement as I read it is that the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is saying that the Newfoundlanders' decision was on a mere detail. Yet remodelling the denominational school system seems to me to impact on future generations since we are speaking of today's children and our children's children. It would seem to mean that he considers modifying the school system in a province, Newfoundland in this case, a mere detail.

So some rules of democracy can be a bit looser. Can we consider the debate of Newfoundlanders, which lasted months, years, to be a waste of time, according to the evaluation of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs? I think this is rather offensive. It treats with disdain people who reached a decision through democratic process.

The minister went on to say, in the same article, in the same statement: "There is a world of difference between modernizing an education system and dismantling a country". I think the basis of this discussion reveals the importance of such action. I do not think we can tell Newfoundlanders that the whole issue of their debate was not as important as the potential debate in Quebec over its constitutional future.

I would like to give a few examples and I would like to hear the opinion of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs on the Maastricht treaty, a highly complex treaty ratified by all the countries in the European Community.

The people in these countries had to vote on this treaty, which had-still has and will continue have for generations to come-major consequences on their lives, because it significantly changed the way their countries worked.

All the countries or almost-not all, but a good majority-held a referendum. I will give you two examples. In Sweden, 52 per cent of the population supported Sweden's entry into the European common market. In France, 50.9 per cent voted in favour of a significant change, a major change.

The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs might think otherwise, but when one refers to the debates which took place in those countries on the Maastricht treaty, one realizes that the decision to be taken had far reaching consequences.

In the case of Sweden and France, where the population was nearly equally divided, opponents did not ask that those who did not support the Maastricht treaty be excluded from it. On the contrary, in these countries, it is understood that the democratic rule is 50 per cent plus 1.

I will give as a last example the recent elections in Israel where, for all intents and purposes, the prime minister was elected by referendum since there was a vote by universal suffrage; the whole population was called to choose the prime minister. In this particular case, I would like you to remember this, 50.4 per cent of the Israeli population voted in favour of a change of prime minister against 49.6 per cent, which is the same results as in Quebec, last October.

If one follows international events and knows what consequences this election might have in Israel, one might think that there is food for thought for the voters, especially in view of the very important consequences of their vote on their future. And, in spite of it all, the outgoing prime minister, Mr. Peres, accepted the results as the good democrat he is, conceded defeat and agreed to recognize the new prime minister.

I say all this to show that you cannot have double standards, even if that is what the Liberal government, and especially the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, have in mind. In a democracy, you cannot have double standards. The rule of democracy is 50 per cent plus 1 for any referendum. On two separate occasions, Quebecers have respected the results of decisions which were contrary to the hopes of sovereignists.

We cannot discredit a decision or discount its importance when it results from a democratic process. That is why I will support Motion No. 5 concerning Newfoundland, which is before us today.

I hope our colleagues, from the Liberal Party in particular, will show some consistency. When Quebecers vote in favour of Quebec's sovereignty, whatever the result might be, if it represents a democratic decision, I hope they will abide by it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this House for my first speech after undergoing open-heart surgery. I hope to go on for at least 10 minutes.

I have great concerns about this bill, which would amend the Constitution at the request of the Newfoundland government, which held a referendum on the issue of educational rights and how the school system in that province should work. I have serious concerns about th impact on minorities, be they Catholics,

francophones or Quebec anglophones, or even on other religions such as the Jewish faith.

We are also talking about separation and process, but I will go back to separation. Since the beginning of the debate, Bloc members have been making a lot of noise with their hands and feet, saying this is what democratic process is all about. We are quite familiar with the Bloc Quebecois' platform.

Let us talk about the referendum process. In 1949, Newfoundland wanted to join Canada and struck an agreement whereby religious denominations had the right to manage their own schools. That is why the people of Newfoundland voted in favour of joining Confederation.

Now, nearly 50 years later, the federal Parliament is being asked to amend the Constitution to accommodate Newfoundland. I see a problem in that only 52 per cent of all the people in Newfoundland voted in the referendum that was held in that province late last summer. Yes, 54 per cent voted in favour of the question asked in the referendum, that is to say, 25 per cent of all the people in Newfoundland were in favour of the question asked in the referendum.

What does this referendum tell us? If we look at the question, as an English language newspaper said: "This was a loaded question". A member of the third opposition party also told me: "This was a fuzzy question". An article in the Toronto Star says this:

"Newfoundlanders were asked whether or not they supported reform of the denominational educational system, and this was won by a narrow margin".

Obviously, when people are asked if this, that or the other should be changed, they always want us to go ahead and constantly make adjustments to suit the demands and meet the needs of the people.

I find the question rather suspicious. It is not clear, not distinct, as my colleagues opposite would say. Are we in favour of reforming the school system? Of course. School systems keep being changed, always for the better. But in this case, it would not be for the better. In this case, the purpose of the change would be to reduce, if not to abolish, but mainly to reduce the involvement of minorities in the management of their school system.

Just recently, someone told me: "Are you not in favour of public school boards, Mr. Bellemare?" I replied that I was of course in favour of public systems. As a teacher, I was involved with Ottawa public school boards for 30 years. So, I do believe in the system. My own children attended high school in the public system after attending elementary school in the Catholic system.

I do believe in both systems. I believe in several educational systems. What matters is the choice that parents and children make.

As regards the specific question I was asked about the establishment of public school boards, as I said before, I just recently learned that a public school system already exists in Newfoundland. It is referred to under the designation of integrated schools. They do not use the same terminology as we do in Ontario. We say public system, they say integrated system. I am now apprised of the fact that 56 per cent of schools in Newfoundland are in fact integrated schools, while 37 per cent are Roman Catholic and 7 per cent Pentecostal.

What is the point in amending the Constitution to establish integrated schools, or public schools, if such schools already exist? I would like Newfoundland, the Government of Newfoundland to tell me why public hearings were never held to give Newfoundlanders the opportunity to make representations. Why were the stakeholders not invited to appear before parliamentary committees to make presentations? Why was the bill in question introduced during the summer, when Newfoundlanders are at the cottage, at work or out fishing, and voted on at the end of the summer?

As could be expected, public participation was low. A small majority voted in favour of the referendum bill. Bloc members are thrilled, they who have been telling us for a while now how they will be voting. They will vote in favour, not out of concern for minorities, given that they could not care less about minorities. Bloc members do not care about francophones living outside Quebec. They do not care about the anglophone minority in their own province, and I say province, not country.

The Bloc tells us, and I quote: "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".

Of course Bloc members support this bill. Another Bloc member said: "In other words, the Government of Newfoundland had its political decision confirmed through a referendum, and this is sacred for the Bloc Quebecois".

Of course the Bloc Quebecois agrees with the amendments affecting minorities in Newfoundland. As for Reform Party members, most of them will be in favour of respecting the result of the referendum, because reformers believe in referenda. Their member for Nanaimo-Cowichan even recently asked that a referendum be held to abolish bilingualism in Canada. Fortunately, the Canadian government and the House voted against the proposal.

In Ontario, at the beginning of the century, regulation 17 abolished the teaching of French in the province. For decades, Franco-Ontarians had to fight tooth and nail to build schools and to teach in French, in spite of the Ontario law. Regulation 17 was finally and, quietly, abolished in the thirties.

I say there is a danger that, in supporting or proposing a constitutional change to accommodate the Government of Newfoundland, the federal government may violate minority rights.

There are risks for minorities living outside Quebec, such as francophones in Ontario and elsewhere. There are risks in certain western provinces, where some rednecks are totally anti-French and would be happy to see us assimilated and disappear from the Canadian map. This really concerns me and this is why I will vote against this bill.

[George Baker, Liberal, Gander—Grand Falls, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I presented seven petitions a few moments ago from 8,900 people. A few of the petitions were from schools. Some of these petitions came from outside my riding. A student wrote: "We decided to send it to you, Mr. Baker, because you are the oldest member of the House of Commons". Perhaps the student meant the most senior member from Newfoundland, not the oldest member. There are some members here who are older than I am.

The reason I decided to say a few words is because there have been erroneous statements made in and outside the Chamber regarding the Newfoundland school system. I picked up the Globe and Mail this morning and what does a columnist say? People from Newfoundland who are listening to this are going to roll on floor in laughter.

"Newfoundland is the only place in North America without a public school system. The hallowed Terms of Union with Canada in 1949 requires the province to do for one of those seven denominations, build a new school for example, whatever it does for another. Even Anglicans like Clyde Wells and his kids who have no Anglican school nearby have been forced either go on a waiting list for admission to a religious school not of their faith, or to suffer a three-hour bus ride to find an Anglican school". I see a Newfoundlander in the gallery laughing right now.

The fact is that there is no such thing in Gander, Newfoundland, where I come from. There are four schools, yes, but they cover everybody. There is no Roman Catholic school, there is no Pentecostal school, no Seventh Day Adventist school, no Anglican school, no Salvation Army school. There is just one school system.

There is the elementary school, second school, high school and a collegiate. But there is one school with no denomination in Gander, Newfoundland. Over the years things have changed in Newfoundland. Where it was not economical or the numbers did not warrant, things changed. Integration took place.

The integrated school, which is similar to public schools in Ontario, would have everybody who is not Roman Catholic, Pentecostal or Seventh Day Adventist. But that cannot be said either. Children could go to a Roman Catholic school if they wanted to. If they went into St. John's, the capital, they would find, I think, two Seventh Day Adventist schools. The Seventh Day Adventist total enrolment for all of the Newfoundland and Labrador is 203 students. Members of the House talk about what an expense the Seventh Day Adventist school is. Yes, it has 203 students. There are two Seventh Day Adventist schools. There are Roman Catholic schools. They would be integrated schools. There would be a Pentecostal school. There would also be a French school.

A Seven Day Adventist bus comes from Conception Bay south. Taking that bus would be Pentecostals, Roman Catholics and those students attending what they call the French school. The entire school is French immersion. Most of our schools have just French immersion classes in them. In other words, only French is spoken all the way up to grade 12. We are pretty modern in Newfoundland. We are up to date in Newfoundland.

They talk about discrimination. I am a Liberal member. I get only 10 minutes to speak and the Bloc opposite gets 30 minutes. Twenty minutes for the opposition members. We are limited to 10. I have to watch the clock.

What really infuriated me was listening to members of Parliament making two statements. One statement was regarding the quality of education in Newfoundland. The remark was made that if you have grade 12 in Newfoundland, according to a certain standard, you really only have a grade 8 standard in Ontario.

[Janko Peric, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

What an insult.

[George Baker, Liberal, Gander—Grand Falls, NL]

Yes, what an insult. The other statement was that we have to be careful because our money is going to Newfoundland to pay for these things. It has to be spent wisely.

In Newfoundland our students get as good or better an education than in any other province in Canada. When someone goes to the University of Ottawa or Carleton University and sees first-year university students there from Newfoundland, what do those students have? Only grade 8? Is that the standard of enrolment? Of course not. Students that come from Newfoundland are usually put ahead in the province of Ontario when they do the entrance exams.

The fact of the matter is yes, it is an expensive system in Newfoundland. One of the main reasons is that we have more degreed teachers per capita than any province in Canada. Why? Way back at the beginning of the 1960s, the Government of Newfoundland decided to give students free tuition and salaries to go to university to become teachers. It gave $600 to boot as a person entered university to increase their qualifications to become teachers so there are teachers today in Newfoundland with masters degrees, and PhDs are common. Every second teacher has two and three degrees, the highest number of degreed teachers in this nation. That is reality in the province of Newfoundland. We get a solid education.

The other reason of sending money to Newfoundland really infuriated me. It is good that they are sending money to Newfoundland. It is good that they are supporting Cornwall too, with Domtar, and Trail, British Columbia, northern Quebec and îles de la Madeleine. It is good that they are supporting those people who claim that they are sending money to Newfoundland through their tax system. Why? Those are the people who make this country rich. Those are the producers. When it is seen on a scale, Newfoundland and Labrador contributes more to the economy of this nation per capita in exports than any other province in Canada.

A member of Parliament stands up and says: "We are sending money to them now for their education. We have to be careful how they spend it". They should be thanking everybody for having Newfoundland for doing what Newfoundland does best, that is, we produce. We produce over $1 billion worth of electricity for export. We have our paper mills, our fish plants and all of those primary producers who keep this nation going. They keep the member of Parliament who made that statement in a position where that member of Parliament can go to a plush office in a big, fancy car and live pretty well. We have heard the fallacies and the misleading statements.

I notice that my 10 minutes are up and I have not said what I really wanted to say. The Speaker is going to call me to order.

I suppose the student put it the best way the other day when he gave me a petition to present to the House. Of course when somebody gives a member of Parliament a petition, whether or not the member agrees with the petition, the member of Parliament should present it to the Chamber. The member of Parliament has a duty to do that.

The student made a wonderful speech when he gave me the petition. He quoted from a document which was written when we joined Canada and then he quoted from what we call the Ode to Newfoundland. He pointed out that the Constitution of this country should be something that is pretty solid. A constitution is supposed to be the real framework of a country. He noted that eight years ago when the Tories were in power members of Parliament on both sides of the House stood in this Chamber to amend the Constitution of Canada to include the Pentecostals in education. They were given equal rights.

The student said: "Now the Parliament of Canada eight years later is going to take away those rights". His final words were from the Ode to Newfoundland. I do not blame him for what he said. The verse in the Ode to Newfoundland is: "God guard thee, God guard thee, God guard thee Newfoundland". He included the words: "because the House of Commons certainly will not".

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Broadview—Greenwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it was refreshing for us to hear a member from Newfoundland who talked so positively about the quality of education in the province. That is the information we have been receiving as well. When we hear from other members of the House about the disastrous state of the educational system in Newfoundland, we wonder where they are coming from.

As a Toronto member of Parliament, none of my constituents are urging me to pass this amendment to save $10 million or $12 million in the province of Newfoundland. In fact, many of my constituents in the city of Toronto feel that the precedent which is being set here could one day create a debate in our province which would make it very difficult for us to protect the educational system in Ontario.

The people of Newfoundland should not think we are so fiscally obsessed that for the sake of $10 million or $12 million we want the current system changed to the point where it requires a radical constitutional amendment. We are much more concerned about minority rights which has always been the heart and soul of the Liberal Party. One of the reasons the Prime Minister became the leader of the Liberal Party was that he was a champion of defending minority rights. The member from Newfoundland should know there are many constituents in Ontario who feel that for the sake of $10 million or $12 million we should not pass this amendment.

To the member from Halifax, there is absolutely no comparison between Bill C-33 and a constitutional amendment such as this. There is absolutely no comparison and the member knows that.

[George Baker, Liberal, Gander—Grand Falls, NL]

Mr. Speaker, to get to the core of what the hon. member talked about, it is about money. Perhaps that is what is behind practically every action of provincial governments and federal governments these days, that is, to cut, cut, cut. The money is not there according to the Department of Finance and Treasury Board.

We went through a very terrible period in Newfoundland in the last two months. In my riding two trade schools closed, Springdale and Lewisporte, which are vocational schools, community colleges. There was a government announcement that first year university education is no longer offered in the three locations in my riding where it was formerly offered.

Last week there were announcements that school buses would no longer be provided to bring children home for lunch unless the parents paid for it. Some may ask what is wrong with that. To me there is a lot wrong with it. It is okay for my kids. If people saw my kids going along in the school bus on a stormy day, they would know we could pay the $200. But the children of the poor will be trudging along through the snow because their parents cannot pay the fee.

Many things have taken place that should never have taken place as far as education is concerned. Health care and education are two things we should preserve. This government or any other government should not be slashing as is being done right across Canada today.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

That concludes the period of questions and comments to the hon. member's intervention.

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce-Terrorism.

[John Cummins, Reform, Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I live on the other side of the country and the issue today, as the member for Broadview-Greenwood suggested, is not one on which I have had many calls. However, it is an issue of utmost importance to all Canadians for a variety of reasons which I will get into later on.

The issue before us is not an issue of quality of education. In my view education is not served well by taking decision making away from parents and moving it into 10 large school boards. That issue is also an issue of cost. Never in my 25-year career of teaching school did I ever see a school district reduce its cost through centralization and increasing the size of school boards. The exact opposite happened. As school boards were formed and increased in size, the cost increased at the same time.

The issue today is about the constitutionally guaranteed right to religious schools. It is also about the process of change, in fact the referendum which I will talk about in a few minutes.

First I will address the issue of the constitutional guarantee. The act which brought Newfoundland into the Canadian Confederation contains certain paragraphs which deal with education:

In and for the province of Newfoundland, the legislature shall have exclusive authority to make laws in relation to education, but the legislature will not have authority to make laws prejudicially affecting any right or privilege with respect to denominational schools, common (amalgamated) schools, or denominational colleges, that any class or classes of persons have by law in Newfoundland at the date of union, and out of public funds of the province of Newfoundland, provided for education.

The act is saying that the people of Newfoundland have a guaranteed right to these religious schools and that guaranteed right cannot be taken away from them by a mere act of the legislature. In other words the people were to be protected against the vagaries of the majority in the legislature. In my view that guarantee is being violated.

In Newfoundland 37 per cent of the population is Roman Catholic and 7 per cent is Pentecostal. In the referendum in all 16 electoral districts where Roman Catholics or Pentecostals were in the majority, they voted no to the changes. The changes then were foisted upon those people by the majority, which is the very point that the constitutional amendment which brought Newfoundland into Confederation was trying to protect them against.

With regard to the referendum the first issue we must look at is the question. The question was: Do you support revising term 17 in the manner proposed by the government to enable reform of the denominational education system, yes or no? That is not a clear question. It is the same fuzzy type of question all of us worried about and were concerned about in the recently concluded referendum in Quebec. What we said then was that when a question is put to the people, the question should be clear and should be easily understood by all and the effect of voting either yea or nay on that question should be clear beyond any question.

That is not the case in this question. The question itself is mushy. It talks about revising term 17. What does term 17 mean? It means a variety of things to a variety of people. That in itself concerns me. It talks about "in the manner proposed by the government". Again, that is not a clear statement of intent. It says also "to enable reform". That in itself encourages someone to say yes. It talks about reforming the education system. In that regard it can be

suggested that it talks about improving the education system. Who is not for improving or for reforming the education system? That is a real violation of an obligation of the government to put a clear question to the people.

If we vote in favour of this motion, what we are saying is that the next time there is an election in Quebec if the question put is not clear, if the intent of that question is not clear, if it is not of the utmost clarity to the people on what it is they are voting for, we have nothing to say. We will simply have to stand on the sidelines and watch that event unfold.

Other concerns about the referendum process were that the House of Assembly was adjourned for the months that the issue was before the people. The issue was not debated in the House of Assembly which is something one has to regret. When issues are put before the people, the people deserve to have those issues debated by their members in the House of Assembly in order to clarify the outstanding questions and issues.

Allowing the interim between the announcement of the referendum and the actual date of the referendum to happen over the summer months limited the effect of the debate. The schools were closed. Everybody knows that schools, especially on a referendum issue like this one, are places where people would focus and would look for clarification of the issues. That did not happen.

This whole referendum process was fundamentally flawed. The question was carefully crafted to imply falsely that amendment of the Constitution was necessary in order for reform to occur as a matter of law. That simply was not the case.

I have more than a passing interest on the issue of referendum and whatnot. It is an issue which I studied as a masters student at university and is one on which I spend a considerable amount of time studying and reviewing. In all manner of ways I find that the referendum question was flawed, as was the process by which it was put to the people. It is going to lead to serious problems in the future for us as a nation when we deal with referendums put forward in the province of Quebec.

Another issue worth noting is that when this referendum result was placed before members in the House of Assembly, 31 members voted in favour and 20 members voted against. All 14 cabinet ministers were required to vote in support of the resolution regardless of where their constituents stood on the issue. There again the way the issue was put before the house of representatives, the way the question was put and the fact that the vote was forced, is opposite to everything my party stands for. It is completely unacceptable that there would be a vote which required cabinet solidarity on an issue such as this one. People should have been required to support the wishes of their constituents on this most critical issue.

Another point is most worthy of consideration. I will read from a letter written by the Most Reverend James H. MacDonald, Archbishop of St. John's:

It is of crucial importance to recognize that the denominational rights which are intended to remain under the framework agreement will under the proposed term 17 have no constitutional guarantee of protection, but will be subject to provincial legislation which can be changed by an arbitrary decision of any future government of our province.

That is exactly the situation we have in British Columbia. Denominational schools in British Columbia have no constitutional guarantees. They exist merely at the whim of the provincial government. They receive partial funding, again only at the whim of the provincial government. However, those schools are the schools of choice by parents. That has to be a key issue: Whose children are we educating, the government's or the parents'? The answer is obvious. Children belong to their parents. It should be the parents' right to choose the type of education system they wish. It should also be their right to choose a denominational system if they wish. The obligation should fall to the government to fund that system the same as it does for everyone else.

As I mentioned earlier, the question before us in some ways is much more than simply a question of the right for denominational schools to exist, although that question is of paramount importance. It has the side issue of the future of this country and the type of question we would require to be put in a referendum in Quebec on separation. We cannot vote on this issue without seriously considering the implications of our vote.

[Gilbert Fillion, Bloc, Chicoutimi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from Delta started off on the right foot, when he began his speech by saying that education must be the responsibility of the provinces. We, in Quebec, consider that education is indeed a matter for the provinces.

However, this is not the issue we have to debate here today, and that is where the hon. member went wrong. He said that the referendum held on September 5, in Newfoundland, was simply not legitimate and for several reasons. First, there was the question. Was the question clear? Was the question easily understood by everybody? Was the referendum held at an appropriate time? Was September 5 convenient?

He came up with several reasons why it was not convenient. So, his position has drawn him a bit closer to the Liberal member for St. Boniface, who stated the same thing. There is never a good time to hold a referendum.

Did both sides have the same financial resources at their disposal? That was one of the questions he asked. In his speech, he

constantly questioned the legitimacy of referenda, wherever it is held, here, in another province, or abroad.

My question is the following: What does my hon. colleague need to recognize the outcome of a referendum, when in the past, in 1980 and again in 1992, the federalists always said and indicated that an absolute majority was enough and that they would react accordingly? Why is it that, along the way, when we do not like the outcome of a referendum, we want to change the rules. Is that what the hon. member intends to do?

[John Cummins, Reform, Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, any referendum question must be a clear question. The respondent must understand without question the implications of his response. That was not the case. I have serious reservations about those kinds of questions. I do not think we want to establish a practice where we are prepared to put to a referendum a variety of questions unless we are certain that people clearly understand what it is they are being asked to vote on. I repeat, that was not the case in this instance.

The hon. member raised the issue of what percentage is necessary. It has become the practice that 50 per cent plus one carries the day. I am concerned about a motion for a constitutional change where 50 per cent plus one is the norm. Currently we require the approval of seven provinces as well as the federal government to make a constitutional change. I am not convinced that a two-thirds majority for serious changes would not be helpful. It is not an issue which either the hon. member or I have any control over, but I see it as a valuable direction for us to pursue.

[Bonnie Hickey, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleague from the Reform Party that in the last provincial election in Newfoundland and Labrador 36 out of 52 seats were won with a yes answer for reform. Reform to Newfoundland means to educate our children, to give them a better education or as good an education as everybody else in Canada. Thirty-six is a large number for yes.

The question on term 17 means exactly what it says and that is to reform our education system, to make it better and to make us equal to everybody else in Canada. Whatever way he feels the question is read, I would like him to suggest another question. I cannot see it being any clearer than what it already is.

[John Cummins, Reform, Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the question itself had a number of flaws. In this instance the government asked: Do you support revising term 17 in the manner proposed by the government? That is not a clear question. The intent of the changes should be clearly stated. This simply does not do it and I have a problem with that.

As far as the reference to the quality of education in Newfoundland, the member for Gander-Grand Falls just concluded that in his view the quality of education available in Newfoundland was every bit on par with the quality of education in the rest of the country. I have no reason to question that.

The administrative costs of education are always a problem. I will say that by reducing the number of school boards to 10 large boards in very short order it will be found that it is not going to allow a reduction in the cost of education. The experience elsewhere in the country has been exactly the opposite. These large boards tend to create a need for specialists in various fields and before we know it the school board office has more people sitting in it than the largest school in the district.

[Mary Clancy, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, in listening to the member for Delta, when he talked about the amalgamation of school boards he may have been speaking in a British Columbia context as opposed to a Newfoundland context. The idea that in any of the small Atlantic provinces the vast numbers he thinks are being dealt with is a little unusual to those of us who come from Atlantic Canada.

When he talks about 50 per cent plus one, I wonder if he understands that the referendum in Newfoundland was actually 55 to 45, which is a fairly substantial 10 point difference.

I am not being tongue in cheek here, but I wonder if the hon. member really does know about the Newfoundland school system and the divergence in the level of schooling of the two ridings of Grander-Grand Falls and St. John's East. Does he understand how great a divergence that might be in the province of Newfoundland? Does he know any of these things?