Debates of June 3rd, 1996

The Constitution

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his generous remarks. I am not a constitutional expert so I do not want in any way to lead anyone to believe that my remarks are based on some deep constitutional study or thought.

My concern has to do with the preoccupation in this Chamber and in other chambers across the land that the fiscal framework is the guideline for anything and everything. I have always believed that Canada's value system is something which is central to this Chamber. We are the legislative Chamber that is supposed to ensure that national standards are maintained, not just in education but also in health. National standards should be our driving force. I am concerned that as we compartmentalize and decentralize this country we are going to lose a lot of the thrust that has bound us together.

When our forefathers started putting this country together, very little of it made any economic sense. We defied economic logic, brought this country together and made it work. My concern is that if all of a sudden, in the name of our preoccupation with the deficit and debt, we end up squeezing some of the more disadvantaged regions, which by the way exist in every province, and we lose sense of what pulled us together and the assets which have helped to make this country great, then before we know it there is going to be very little holding us together.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC]

No, it is a Liberal who spoke, now it is his turn.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I thank the members. As my colleague has just pointed out, the member for Broadview-Greenwood spoke as an independent, not as a Liberal. In this case, we go around each time. It is now the turn of a member from the government side.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it has been a very interesting debate with regard to the constitutional amendment which was tabled in the House on Friday, May 31 by the hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General for Canada.

This issue has been discussed among governments, school boards and members of Parliament for some time now. One of the things I found about this issue is that many different dimensions and many themes have evolved. A lot of those really depend on what point of view one is taking. In listening to the argument, in looking at the research and in looking at the information that was received by all members of Parliament, a number of questions came to my attention just by looking at some of the basic facts.

I understand that a referendum was not necessary in Newfoundland. This particular amendment under section 43 of the Constitution Act does not require a referendum, but rather a bilateral change as a result of the will of the legislature of Newfoundland and concurrence or agreement by the federal government pursuant to section 43. However, a referendum was taken and that alone raises a question for me. Why was there a referendum? If it was not necessary, why did the Newfoundland government of the day decide that a referendum had to be held? It is an interesting question.

We could carry this aspect of the referendum a bit further. We are wondering why Newfoundland held a referendum. Then we look at the fact that the referendum was called during the summertime, a time when people across Canada tune out politics and other matters. And why is it that the Government of Newfoundland did not campaign during the referendum campaign? The vote was held on September 5, 1995. These are the questions I have and I hope all hon. members will find the answers before they cast their votes tonight.

There was a referendum which was not necessary. It was held at a time when people were tuned out. The government did not campaign for the referendum. However, every member who spoke in this place in favour of the term 17 amendment said how critical it was, how crucial it was for the poor kids in Newfoundland.

I do not think we could find a person in this place who would argue against fixing Newfoundland's education system. We could ask for unanimous consent at this moment and get it. I am absolutely certain of that. The issue is not whether we should help the province of Newfoundland fix its education system, it is more than that. I am not exactly sure of all the details, but there is more to this. If we asked the people of Newfoundland today whether they wanted to fix the education system, 100 per cent would say yes.

That begs another question which must be answered: Why did 45 per cent of the people vote against fixing the education system? Only 52 per cent of the eligible voters turned out to vote on this very important issue. One hundred per cent of the people should have voted for it because it is so critical, yet only 52 per cent of the people turned out to vote. Of those who voted, only 54 per cent actually voted in favour of the resolution. Forty-five per cent were against it. I do not know what the answer to the question is. Why is it that such a large number of the people in Newfoundland whose

education system is in a terrible situation voted against something which obviously would have fixed it? There must be more to this.

Newfoundland entered Confederation in 1949. As part of the terms of joining the union, its present system was established. There are presently many school boards and denominational rights. In fact, others have often said that all of these denominations represent 95 per cent of the people in Newfoundland and it could not possibly be some majority trying to do something to the minority denominations, that it must be something else.

The problem started in 1949. There was no public school system. There were entrenched minority rights on a denominational basis. They were earned. There was a quid pro quo. They gave up something to have this and the other party gave up something to have this. That is the essence of negotiation. That is why they have a lengthy debate about the terms of union of Newfoundland.

Some would say this is not an issue of minority rights. That is not true. in 1987, after so many years under the system, the Government of Newfoundland in its wisdom, having assessed its whole situation since 1949 right through to 1987, saw this terrible problem. What did it do? It came to Parliament and said it wants a constitutional amendment and it wants to add two more school boards, it wants to make the problem worse.

It raises another question with me. If people have a problem with a school board system, why would they ask for changes to even add more school boards? It does not make sense.

There must be an answer to this question. The issue of this 95 per cent of the people of Newfoundland as represented by the seven denominational groups is a very good trick in politics. It is intellectual dishonesty but it is a trick because it is using numbers to say something to make people think it is such a big number, it must be true. If people list all the denominations in the world, obviously they will add up to being the majority of the population of the world.

In this case we have seven denominations with various boards associated with them, some 27. It is not so much that these denominations add up to 95 per cent. It is how those denominations voted as a block or as a group and who voted for and who voted against.

There is a minority rights issue here. Ask anybody who knows anything about the situation that occurred during that referendum and they will say very clearly it was the Catholics and the Pentecostals who predominantly voted against term 17.

The rest of them, as a block, consolidated their efforts. Those individual minorities became a majority of 55 per cent. As a result of that referendum, which was not necessary, they made a decision affecting primarily the Roman Catholic church and the Pentecostal church.

This is a clear example of a minority right acquired under the terms of union with Newfoundland when Newfoundland entered Confederation. That minority right is lost. The majority took it away.

I looked at many of the letters. I have another question for all members. Can anybody explain to me why in late March and April a framework agreement was moving forward to address all these problems without the federal government, without the legislators?

It was school boards and churches and government officials working together. We have all kinds of examples of the commission and the various other things. These things were moving along and then something happened.

Once we had things in place that over a few months would have resolved most of the substantive issues related to the educational problems in Newfoundland something else happened. It was an election. It was a premier who had made some commitments, who had done something and said something and had a plan in place and we had an election. I do not know what the arrangements were. I do not know what the deals were. There are more considerations here than education.

What happens to the assets of the various denomination groups that lost the referendum, that will lose their denominations rights. They own the buildings. They do not own the land. What can they do with them?

Those are real problems to deal with. Were the people of Newfoundland, when they were asked to consider to vote in that referendum, given all the facts and figures? Were they told about the minority rights situation? Were they told about the constitutional implications? Were they asked about the future of minority rights as they relate to education, language and other aspects which they negotiated for? They were not.

I asked the member to please help me answer the question. Why did 45 per cent of the people who voted vote against this? The member, who is supporting term 17, said it was ignorance.

It is not ignorance. We must understand why 45 per cent of the people voted against term 17. It is a principle the Liberal Party has stood for time and time again through its history, fighting on behalf of minority rights. It is why I am a Liberal. I am here fighting for minority rights.

Term 17 to me is not an education issue. I will do whatever I can and I know all members in this place will do what they can to make sure Newfoundland's education system is rectified properly. However, I do not want to see decisions made for fiscal expediency. That is what it really comes down to. We can put out a budget and

save $25 million. Let us just grab control of the situation and placate this and we could have a public school system.

The issues raised have been interesting, but they do not go to the heart of it. We need the political will and integrity to deal with the real issues, the real points of debate, minority rights. For all of these reasons and all the questions and concerns I have, I cannot support the constitutional amendment to term 17.

[Warren Allmand, Liberal, Notre-Dame-De-Grâce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I start by making absolutely clear that I am not opposed to educational reform in Newfoundland. I also want to make it absolutely clear this is not a debate between those who support educational reform in Newfoundland and those who oppose it.

To me this is a debate on how the federal government should respond to a request for an amendment from a province under article 43 of the Constitution, especially when that request deals with removing entrenched rights from the Constitution. That is the issue.

I fully support measures to modernize Newfoundland's school system to make it more efficient and financially cost effective. There is no way I would support the status quo in Newfoundland, nor do I carry any brief for religious schools.

I have very serious concerns with the substance of the motion and I have very serious concern with the process by which we are dealing with the motion.

This is a serious constitutional amendment which removes certain entrenched rights. Yet we are dealing with it in two days. This motion was tabled in the House last Thursday, only four days ago. The debate started on a Friday, a short day when most members are on their way home to their constituencies. It has resumed today and we are to vote tonight; only two days on an important constitutional amendment which could have implications for other provinces.

Let us compare this with our ordinary legislative procedure. On an ordinary bill dealing with mundane matters we have two debates, one on second reading and one on third reading, and we have committee hearings. The reason there is a committee hearing is to give an opportunity to those who oppose and to those who support the bill to put their views before parliamentarians where they can be asked hard, tough questions and cross-examined. By doing that through those hearings we sift out the truth with respect to certain questions. My colleague who just spoke posed several questions which need clarification.

After all these years why do we have to proceed with this important motion in just two days without public hearings? I approached the table with the attempt to amend this motion to have public hearings on it for two weeks and then report back to the House on June 17, which would still give us a chance to pass it before the House adjourned. However, I was told that such an amendment would not be in order.

We have been asked to vote on this tonight with many questions unanswered. The government might say there are no hearings on this because this is a motion, not bill. However, we have seen in the House occasions when there have been committee hearings on motions, including constitutional motions. I was on the committee that dealt with the motions dealing with the Meech and Charlottetown accords. Those were more comprehensive but nevertheless they were motions dealing with constitutional matters.

I will now deal with the argument made by some that since the Newfoundland government has decided to request this amendment we should simply grant it and not interfere. In other words, we should act as a rubber stamp.

That article 43 of the amendment formula requires the consent of both the federal and provincial Parliaments indicates we are not simply to act as a rubber stamp. Of course we must give weight to the debate and decision in Newfoundland, but we have an obligation to inquire whether all is in order, whether the entrenched rights are being given up by consent and to what extent there was agreement. Precedents are set in these matters and we have to ensure no oppressive precedents are being set or initiated in this decision.

I raise some of my concerns with respect to this motion. If we had committee hearings on this matter it is possible these concerns could have been dealt with there. My first concern is with respect to the referendum. I know it was not necessary in accordance with article 43 that there be a referendum. All that was required was a resolution of the Newfoundland House of Assembly. However, the Government of Newfoundland decided to have a referendum and is now using the results of that referendum to support this amendment.

However, we have to recognize that only 52 per cent of the electorate showed up for that referendum. It was held during the summertime. The proposal received only a 54 per cent approval. That means less than 30 per cent of the electorate in Newfoundland supports the proposal.

It is also stated the referendum question was not clear, to which I think there is some truth. Some Newfoundlanders have told me they did not know whether they were voting simply on the reform of the system or for a constitutional amendment. Many who agreed to a reform of the system did not agree to give up their rights constitutionally.

Unlike in Quebec, there was no referendum act, no provision for yes and no committees, no organization of the no and no funding of the no in an organized way.

All these questions lead me to believe there is a need for concern. Maybe there are answers to those concerns. That is why we should have public hearings through a parliamentary committee.

The next point that raises concern is the framework agreement. Opponents to this provision have told us a framework agreement has been negotiated which deals with all the major faults in the Newfoundland school system and it has been agreed to by all the churches, including the Catholic and Pentecostal. That agreement reduces the number of boards from 27 to 10 and deals with other matters. They say these changes can be implemented by ordinary legislation and that a constitutional amendment is not necessary.

There are different opinions on this. The Newfoundland government says it cannot do it without a constitutional amendment. Others, including eminent constitutional lawyers, say it can. Again, this is the sort of issue I would have been pleased to deal with in a parliamentary committee with committee hearings.

My third concern is the Newfoundland government says that even if it were to legislate this framework agreement and even though the churches have officially agreed to it by resolution, it still could be challenged in the courts by individual church people and so on. That is correct. Anybody with money can go to court and challenge something. However, at a meeting I attended the other day where there was a very prominent constitutional lawyer present, he said that while one can challenge it, there is very little chance the courts would overturn such a piece of legislation to change, improve and modernize the Newfoundland school system. There is very little chance of success in challenging that in the courts. Again it is an issue that could be clarified by hearings in committee.

My fourth concern is with respect to the proposed amended term 17. The Government of Newfoundland said in statements that the proposed amended term 17 protects rights to minority religious schools and that religious schools will remain where numbers warrant. I should point out that nowhere in the proposed new term 17, which is part of the resolution of this motion, are the words "when numbers warrant" present.

My colleague has introduced an amendment to put those words in the resolution but they are not in the resolution tabled by the Newfoundland government.

The words that are of concern to people opposing this are in subsection (b) which say that religious schools will continue: "subject to provincial legislation that is uniformly applicable to all schools". In other words, it is not a guarantee. It is subject to legislation in the assembly of Newfoundland. It does not seem to guarantee anything. Again that is an issue which could be clarified in committee.

We are also told by eminent legal counsel that the Government of Newfoundland could have established real public schools before now had it wanted to do so. It does not need an amendment to the Constitution.

A very important court decision in 1926 said that any province, because they control education, can establish parallel systems of public education in their provinces if they want to. It is the same with respect to French language schools. Under the present Constitution the province of Newfoundland could establish French language schools if it wanted to. It does not need this amendment.

In conclusion, I want to repeat that my objection to this motion is the process, and the implications for similar motions from other provinces. I am not opposed to the modernization and reform of the Newfoundland school system. I am fully supportive but why could we not have a limited period of public hearings? Why could we not have at least two weeks of public hearings until June 17 where both sides could have been heard?

I ask the government to respect Parliament, and to adjourn this debate for two weeks, hold public hearings and return this motion to the House on June 17.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am amazed at what I am hearing.

The Liberals, while in opposition, time and time again berated the then government for putting time limitation on bills and motions. They become the government and now members stand up and say this is a catastrophe, an affront to democracy. Two days to put a bill through this House. Time limitation out the door. Terrible.

The government called time allocated twice on Bill C-33, the gay rights legislation. It shut off hearings, even in committee. Where were these members then? Why does it come to the floor of the House when it suits them?

[Warren Allmand, Liberal, Notre-Dame-De-Grâce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should apologize. He should look at the record. I voted against time allocation on several occasions. I spoke against it on several occasions. If he wants the references I will send them to him.

I agree with him that we use time allocation and closure too much and I have said that before. I voted against it before when it was a serious matter and I will do so again.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate hearing that explanation from the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce.

The government House leader assured this Parliament shortly after the election that this government would use time allocation and closure far less frequently than the previous Mulroney administration did.

However, the government has used time allocation and closure more than the Mulroney government. Maybe the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce is not the culprit, but members will support it when it suits them and when it does not suit them they will support it. That is wrong.

Why does the member not suggest that the government-

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce.

[Warren Allmand, Liberal, Notre-Dame-De-Grâce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have supported time allocation too. I believe that when the debate is being abused by the opposition it should be used. I would agree that sometimes we use time allocation too quickly, but in this case time allocation has not been applied.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Warren Allmand, Liberal, Notre-Dame-De-Grâce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer the question which was put by the hon. member. I guess they are not interested in my answer.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC]

Mr. Speaker, at last, it is my turn to speak. We have heard about every kind of statement that could possibly be made and it is obvious that members present things the way it suits them. For example, it was said that there was a referendum but that the participation was not high enough, it was summer time and so on and so forth. Yes, there was a referendum. Democracy was respected since everybody was allowed to vote.

Now, if only 52 per cent of eligible voters did vote, it means that only 52 per cent were interested enough to vote on that issue, nothing more. A referendum must not be judged according to the number of people who vote. Was the referendum a democratic process? Yes, if all conditions were respected, if everything that is possible was done to have everybody on the list of voters, if all the polls were in place and if they were manned with sufficient staff to enable people to vote. That is what democracy is. It is not about the number of people having voted. With a 94 per cent participation, the referendum in Quebec was no more or less important than this one. It has nothing to do with it. What is important is the people who do vote, nothing else. What is important is that the people who want to vote are able to do so.

Mr. Speaker, I forgot to advise you that, from now on, Bloc members will share their 20-minute periods between them.

I heard the member for Carleton-Gloucester who spoke this afternoon. I am very happy to see that he is back on his feet, but I think the Chair should check the blues to see exactly what the member said. He tried to go after everyone and insulted all the members of this House. The words he used in the House cannot even be repeated. I think what is also important to see is an attempt toclaim that protection is being sought for minority rights. But I say to someone who protected minority rights, our colleague who became an independent member has added an amendment saying: "where numbers warrant". So, he has just limited the minority rights of francophones.

What has been debated in the House for a few hours is the attempt to protect religion. Let us talk clearly about what we want to protect, that is, religious rights in Newfoundland. Simply put, we have no business in Newfoundland affairs. Section 43 that says how the Constitution may be amended.

In this section, the process for amending the Constitution is outlined. The Newfoundland legislature expressed its opinion twice: once by a majority and, in all parties, there were members opposed to the motion, and recently, by an unanimous vote. The premier was accompanied by the opposition leader and the leader of the third party when he came to do his lobbying. Was there better lobbying in Canada recently? Usually lobbyists hide. The premier gave press conferences. He brought all his people with him. Why? Because he finds it extremely important for his province to be able to manage its education system. We have no business in there. He has met the terms of section 43.

This afternoon, the member for Carleton-Gloucester said that there had been no consultation. There was a royal commission which issued its report and recommendations in 1992. As we know the churches are usually on the conservative side, and when the government tried in 1992 to negotiate with church leaders and see how they were going to implement the recommendations, these leaders decided not to take part in the modernization of the system in Newfoundland. The government then changed its mind and decided to request an amendment under section 43. Moreover, it added a referendum.

I believe, as the justice minister himself was saying, that we must make an informed decision, and I do hope that the Holy Spirit will be at work until we vote, because some members need more help than others in this respect.

If we look at the situation, we understand that since 1723, when schools were first established in Newfoundland, they have always been run by churches. It is obvious that in 1996, 250 years later, churches will have to make a decision, either to withdraw-this reminds me that when we, in Quebec, asked the council-

[An hon. member]

The legislative council.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC]

The legislative council. We got rid of it such a long time ago that I even forgot how it was called.

When we applied to the legislative council to change our education system, we were told that would lead to total decadence. We wanted our own education department and all the rest. There has not been an increase in problems since then, but we can now carry out reforms and can keep the system up to date and change it anytime we want things to progress.

Since 1723, churches have been in charge of schools, but each Church brings its own people to its own school. This afternoon, one Newfoundland member made a great speech explaining clearly that in his province, where the population is equal to that of Calgary and the territory is quite large, the system can no longer afford a situation where there are six schools in one municipality because there are six different religions and that the province wants to make some changes.

I think we have to push aside all pettiness. We must not meddle in Newfoundland's affairs except to check whatever comes under our own jurisdiction. In my view, our jurisdiction is about two things. There is, first of all, section 43. Did Newfoundland abide by section 43? Yes. Section 43 states that we can amend the Constitution if the amendment applies to one province only.

If some people fear that Quebec will use that precedent to deny rights to English-Canadians, they should not lose any sleep over that because the anglophones' rights are protected by the Quebec charter. The charter would have to be modified in Quebec City, not here, before we could hurt the English-Canadians in Quebec.

Therefore, we would not ask Ottawa's permission to do so, we would do it directly in Quebec and accept the consequences of such a measure. You can sleep like logs all over Canada tonight and not worry, because the rights of anglophones are well protected in Quebec.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Better than anywhere else.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC]

Better than anywhere else. That was another of those derogatory remarks by the hon. member for Carleton-Gloucester who attacked the way Quebec deals with minority rights. I already said in this House that if French speaking Canadians outside Quebec were treated as well as anglophones are treated in Quebec, we would not have the problems we have right now.

There is one thing, regrettably, which I feel is worth mentioning. Of course, the Bloc gave its support to Mr. Tobin when he came here. But we gave it with a slight reservation concerning the rights that are really threatened, those of French speaking Newfoundlanders.

I have here the draft of a bill the Newfoundland government introduced on January 3, 1996. I certainly hope the final version will be more explicit concerning the protection of minority rights.

I also have a copy of the documents concerning the legal action French speaking Newfoundlanders are taking before the Supreme Court of Newfoundland because their provincial government is not complying with section 23 of the charter. That is where the real problem is. Good intentions are there, apparently, but we are anxious to see how it will really turn out and through which means the rights of francophones will be protected.

The province wants to create a school board that would include a three-member committee in charge of the French schools, the French language committee. The mandate of these three members is set out in clause 3, which includes six subclauses. It says that, within the curriculum established by the government, francophones will be able to make decisions regarding the aspects of the program that affect their language and their culture. It is a bit difficult to accept. How can you meet the needs of the francophone culture in an anglophone environment? They are limited to the curriculum established by the government.

Another difficulty is the hiring of personnel that will have to be recommended by board members before the three francophones can approve them. We will support the resolution but not the amendment put forward by our colleague, and we hope Newfoundland will do whatever it takes to protect the rights of the francophone minority.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, near the end of her speech the member talked about Premier Tobin of Newfoundland coming to speak to the Bloc and to explain the situation. I am sure the member and all other members would agree that the Government of Newfoundland has conducted an extraordinary lobby of members of Parliament for support for this amendment.

Would the member care to speculate or hazard a guess as to why the Newfoundland government did not participate or campaign during the referendum?

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC]

Mr. Speaker, only the Newfoundland government can answer the question as to why it did not campaign during the referendum. I do not even know what referendum the member is referring to. There were quite a few of them in Canada. Which one is he referring to? If it is the last one, Mr. Tobin took an active part in the Quebec referendum.

[Gilbert Fillion, Bloc, Chicoutimi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, following the example of my colleague, I would like to take part in this debate. We know that on September 5 of last year, the province of Newfoundland held a referendum, and that this consultation dealt with the reorganization of the school system in that province.

Fifty-two per cent of the population voted in favour of the government's proposal.

The consultation was carried out in an entirely legitimate manner. However, in order for it to be implemented, an amendment by the House of Commons is essential. We must therefore amend a section of the Constitution.

For the province of Newfoundland, going ahead with the reform approved in this referendum will mean important changes to the system. In discussions, this government relied on a number of arguments, including the one that the existing system has led to a proliferation of small schools, often located very close to one another, and having very complex administrative structures.

The issue of denomination also came up in this connection. However, with respect to the issue we are debating today, because everything concerning education comes under provincial jurisdiction, we need not concern ourselves with the actual manner of implementation.

We should concentrate, I think, on how things were done during this referendum. The Government of Newfoundland submitted this question to the population. The latter responded to the question, and we know the results. It is therefore entirely legitimate for Newfoundland to expect the federal government to agree to amend its Constitution so that this plan can go ahead.

Of course, many of the Liberal MPs who have spoken today, and on Friday as well, have refused to acknowledge that this referendum has any legitimacy. I am thinking, for instance, of the hon. member for St. Boniface, who has made a great song and dance about the question not being the right one. There are always questions about what is the right one. When will someone finally ask the right question, regardless of what referendum it is?

It is the outcome which determines whether a question is good or bad. He interprets it as bad because it did not meet his expectations. If the Newfoundlanders had voted differently, the question would have been the right one, in his opinion. He has also referred to the fact that the financial outlay of the two camps was not equal, and so on, the same story over and over, and the same story that repeats itself when Quebec is asking questions about its future.

Of course, we know that the federal government has already recognized, in 1948 for example, that 52.3 per cent of the population of Newfoundland had said yes to joining Confederation. Why then today would we claim, as the hon. member for St. Boniface has said, that this figure is not sufficient? He will reply that not enough people voted.

So when, do you think, can we satisfy these people? It is very difficult. We might as well say no other referendum should ever be held again. We might as well say: "Let us allow the courts to decide our future for us. Let us allow the House of Commons to adopt whatever it wants, and not to take public consultation into consideration".

As a Quebecer, I must wonder a few things about this motion. Last September 5, for example, did the Prime Minister, or his Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, or some MP in his group describe the question as the right one? Did they analyze it? Did they put it under a microscope? No. In the course of discussions, we have not looked at the question. Today, we are to consider the matter and then vote on an outcome. Now, however, is the time to analyze it. I think it is a bit late to do an analysis.

Did the Prime Minister of Canada tell Newfoundlanders whether he considered the question legitimate or not? No. He did not raise a finger over it. There was no mention of it either in any debate in this House. The 52 per cent was accepted.

Today, however, the figures are being questioned. Of course, when it involves Quebec, does this country called the finest in the world have a double standard-and I think we have to ask the question? I think so. When a province besides Quebec is involved, a double standard is acceptable.

Quebecers of all stripes, with a few exceptions perhaps, agree that they alone may decide their future.

Of course, we know the leader of the Liberal Party in Quebec. He is probably the exception to the rule, because, recently, he voted against Quebecers' right to decide their own future. Will a rule be made because he said these things? I think not.

On a number of occasions, the current Prime Minister also said he would see about the question put to Quebecers at the next referendum. Did he write the question for Newfoundland's referendum on September 5. We are entitled to ask ourselves. They want to take a stand when Quebec is concerned, but do they do the same thing for other provinces?

In the words of the Prime Minister, what is the acceptable majority? With only 52 per cent of registered voters in Newfoundland exercising their right, the resulting majority was enough for the province to consider the referendum legitimate.

In Quebec, 94 or 95 per cent of the population voted, and a favourable outcome would not have been accepted. One thing is sure, when Quebecers say yes to a sovereign Quebec, we will have to remember that a majority there has always been simply 50 per cent plus 1. We will not let a minority decide our future.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the member's remarks and his concern concern about double standards. I would like to address that point.

Earlier this evening I put forth an amendment in the House which was accepted and will be voted on later this evening. Essentially the amendment puts into the (b) amendment we are debating the exact words from the mouth of the Minister of Justice on Friday and the premier of Newfoundland in his press conference last week.

Where numbers warrant we would be providing the same test for the establishment of denominated schools in conformity with section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which also reflects the express intention of the Government of Newfoundland. In other words, these matters can be settled by an objective test either by agreement or by the courts.

Will the member and all members of the Bloc, for that matter, support the amendment where numbers warrant? It establishes the same condition or the same opportunity that would be afforded to minority rights related to French schools in Newfoundland which the premier of Newfoundland verbalized when he had his private meeting with members of the Bloc. Will they support the amendment before the House this evening?

[Gilbert Fillion, Bloc, Chicoutimi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois' position is very clear. First of all, we gave our support to the motion tabled by the Government of Newfoundland, because we want to respect the referendum. The people have expressed their opinion and we respect the majority. However, we have some concern about minority rights.

That was brought to the attention of the Government of Newfoundland. It was told that minority rights should be further protected when it proceeds with its reform. But it is up to Newfoundland to make this school reform. That is up to the provinces. But we are asking Newfoundland to respect minority rights. However, the amendment proposed by my colleague brings absolutely nothing to the debate. It brings absolutely nothing, except that he is simply trying to make political hay for himself, at the expense of the people of Newfoundland.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member was the one who referred to a double standard. Why will he not support an amendment that, when put into the body of this constitutional amendment, will give not only denominational schools but also the French minority in Newfoundland an enshrined position?

Why does the Bloc run away from something being enshrined in a constitutional amendment when it is right before the members?

[Gilbert Fillion, Bloc, Chicoutimi, QC]

No, Mr. Speaker, once again, to be very very clear, of course, Quebec will not intrude in the decisions Newfoundland will have to make.

We will not intrude in these decisions, because it is for the province to make its decisions. What we are asking is for minority rights to be totally protected.

You never took into account the law of the majority when you were on the other side, my dear colleague.

[Tony Ianno, Liberal, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak about the implications of amending Canada's Constitution at the request of Newfoundland's legislature.

I would like to thank the Prime Minister for allowing a free vote on this vital issue. I respect that most of my colleagues from this side of the House do not see this resolution as I do.

In my view, this initiative has implications for all Canadians. The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has initiated this proposed amendment in order to improve the quality of education in the province by maximizing the effectiveness of the use of taxpayers' dollars. This is a goal we all respect.

This issue also has deep implications regarding the rights of minorities. There is no question that education is a matter of provincial jurisdiction. Education was just as much a matter of provincial jurisdiction in 1949 as it is today. Nonetheless it was included in the Constitution at the time.

Changing the Constitution is very much a part of federal jurisdiction and respect for the rights of minorities is one of the federal government's responsibilities. What we are talking and voting about today is not just education, but changing the Constitution and not just any provision in the Constitution.

The constitutional provision securing the preservation of educational rights for religious minorities was a very specific and important condition with Newfoundland and Labrador joining Confederation. Entrenching educational rights was the underlying basis under which many voted in favour of joining Canada. It is not a provision that should be lightly cast aside.

As elected parliamentarians, we have respect for the people's will. When the people of a province indicate their desire through their provincial legislature or a referendum, what is the responsibility of the Parliament of Canada?

Some would argue that to vote against a change that has been approved in a referendum and by a provincial legislature impedes the will of the majority. Sometimes a constitution requires it. Indeed, the purpose of a constitution is to circumscribe the ability of a majority to impose its will.

Due to the Constitution, my parents who are immigrants to this country, have the same rights as my children who are eighth generation Canadians. Their rights are not determined by the will of a government when it suits them.

The Constitution of Canada clearly states the conscience of our nation. Each individual's rights and freedoms are clearly spelled out. It is not something that is easily constructed and it should not be something that is easily changed.

Some would say that the provision we are discussing tonight affects only Newfoundland and Labrador. Since a majority of that province's legislators and its electors support it, it should be approved. One of the prime purposes of a Constitution is to secure the rights of minorities. The rights of minorities in any part of the country are important to Canadians in all parts of the country.

That is why this is not just a question of law. It is a question of fairness. Legally Parliament has the right, with the legislature of Newfoundland and Labrador, to implement this change. But fairness demands that we seek to maintain the respect for minorities that was the basis for Newfoundland and Labrador joining Confederation and the basis for all Canadians choosing to be part of this country.

When we are dealing with minority rights it is difficult to say we are not diminishing those rights when we change them over their objections. If we were to ask the minorities and they agreed to relinquish their enshrined rights, then that is another consideration.

This is not the case today in Newfoundland. It is easy to see why. The impact on religious minorities can be considerable. In Newfoundland, the Protestant population is more than 51 per cent. Other groups are less likely, based on their numbers, to warrant a school in their community. Busing will not necessarily be provided to the school of the parents' choice. The parents of Roman Catholic or Pentecostal or Seventh Day Adventists children may be left with a stark choice: send their children to an interdenominational school or pay to send them to a unidenominational school out of town. How then do we maintain respect for minority rights when some may be able to afford to do this and others may not?

While making this possible for the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to pursue the educational policies it believes are right for the people that province, the answer I believe can be found in the statement issued April 18, 1996 by the province's minister of education, Roger Grimes. In it he stated that "a framework agreement has been reached after extensive discussions between department officials and denominational educational councils to consolidate 27 boards into 10 and to establish a single provincial construction board".

This statement, issued just six weeks ago, stated that the agreement in principle would allow the new school year to commence with reforms in place. The government had complete authority over all matters, and has, relating to curriculum, sex materials, number of teachers, funding, teacher education, performance standards and so on.

I recommend that the Newfoundland government go back and start with this agreement in principle and build on the progress that has been made.

It is important for all members to consider what will happen when other premiers request that we proceed with amendments. Will the same principle apply? Or will we recognize here and now that a majority must respect the rights of the minority, referenda notwithstanding?

I believe a Constitution is where Canadians, regardless if they are part of a majority or a minority, can feel safe that the rule of law and their constitutional rights will be respected. Regarding reforming or modernizing the school system in Newfoundland, everyone agrees. Could this reform not be achieved without a constitutional amendment? It is ironic that the concerns of those who help complete Canada in 1949 are being ignored.

As the minister stated that the involvement of churches in making administrative and economic decisions in the education system of Newfoundland have been a matter of controversy for generations, I agree. This also was the case before the terms of union were signed in 1949. Precisely for this reason were these rights enshrined in the British North America Act of 1867. It was based on the understanding that Parliament would guarantee that the legislature would not change the terms at its convenience.

Given that it took two referenda to bring Newfoundland and Labrador into Confederation with 51 per cent of the vote, it is obvious how important this guarantee was. Now the discussions between the Newfoundland department of education and all denominational groups have resulted in a solid framework for reform, including the establishment, as I said earlier, of the interim school boards in preparation for the consolidation of school boards from 27 to 10, a single construction board and a single busing system ready to be implemented for September 1, 1996.

If it is a question of someone challenging this agreement, we could send it to the Supreme Court and ask it for an immediate ruling to see what the consequences of this move would be.

These agreements provide the basis for reforming the school system while respecting the rights of minorities. We should demonstrate a decent respect for the resolution passed by the provincial legislature, but Parliament's role is not simply to act as a rubber stamp. It is our responsibility to form an independent judgment.

We are at a crossroads in our history. Last October a premier tried to impugn a group of Canadians who did not agree with him. He blamed them for the loss and repudiation of what he saw as his divine right. That is not what Canada is about. We cannot take lightly our Constitution which dictates our rule of law and we cannot ignore the rights of minorities. That is one of the reasons we have a Constitution.

It is important that we send out a clear and concise message that the Canadian government is consistent in its dealings and that the integrity of the Canadian Constitution is not questioned.