Debates of June 3rd, 1996

The Constitution

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

Mr. Speaker, my comment concerns the rights of minorities under the Constitution and the proposed amendment that the resolution will impose the will of the majority on the minority.

The resolution affects 95 per cent of the population. There is no effect on minorities. All children in Newfoundland will benefit from this resolution. It is fair for all those affected. Fairness is the overall goal in this resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I respect the hon. member who is from Newfoundland. I know she has often supplied wise counsel.

When we are talking about minority and majority we have a breakdown in which 51.7 per cent of interdenominational schools are Anglican, Salvation Army and Presbyterian. They are working together and have been for years. The Catholic population is 37 per cent and constitute 41.5 per cent of the student population. The Pentecostal population is 7.1 per cent and constitute 7.3 per cent of the student population, and 0.1 per cent of the population are Seventh Day Adventists.

If the numbers are added up, 44 per cent of Newfoundland's population negotiated in 1949 to ensure that the majority would not in any way change the agreement. After years-some have said since 1700-the same education system has existed. However, the concern, the reason for the negotiated settlement on why Newfoundland would come into Confederation impinged on the agreement and the ability for this right that minorities would not lose their rights within the educational system.

Taking that into account, it is 95 per cent taking in seven educational systems. However, the minority, the three of them are voting against it. What we have here is the opportunity to work with the minority, to get its agreement. We have a framework already. If it agrees to the change, we will send that agreement to the Supreme Court to ensure it cannot be cast aside if the minority agrees to it. At that point we have a very solid foundation to reform the education system to ensure that our children in Newfoundland do much better than anywhere else in the country.

Some $600 million is the budget for the school system in Newfoundland and the savings proposed by this amendment is $25 million. With the framework set forth, the single busing, the construction board and the consolidation from 27 to 10 school boards will easily save $15 million. We are talking about a difference of $10 million.

On that basis it is well worth spending money to ensure minority rights are maintained.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Trinity-Spadina has very nicely laid out some facts that the House as a whole did not realize very clearly for some time.

We have been told often that the seven denominations represent 95 per cent of the population of Newfoundland and therefore we cannot have a minority issue.

The member for Trinity-Spadina indicated-and I want him to confirm it again-what really happened during the referendum. Not only did 52 per cent of the eligible voters turn out to vote. The Government of Newfoundland, which has been lobbying so aggressively today, did not work during the referendum to secure support.

In fact we have a cluster of denominations that have pooled or consolidated their support and outvoted three of the denominations. It is very important that we dispel the myth about 95 per cent, stop playing with numbers and get the truth.

Perhaps the member for Trinity-Spadina can answer the question.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. I will try to answer it by talking about minority rights. As an individual I supported constitutional changes. I supported the Meech Lake and the Charlottetown accords. More recently in the House I supported distinct society and the veto. Because of minority rights I also supported something that was not in the Constitution, a human rights amendment, Bill C-33.

It is consistent with what I said earlier to the hon. member. Whether a referendum or a legislature, if the majority is speaking, it has to be taken into account, especially when minority rights are enshrined in the Constitution of the land, to ensure that somehow or other minority rights are not left out of the equation.

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

Mr. Speaker, the discussion we are having today brings testament to the fact that this is not a rubber stamping of the issue. It is a good

and fair discussion on the merits of an issue. A lot of information is being brought forward.

The hon. member mentioned that within the concept of a framework agreement we would be able to resolve many of the issues we are discussing today.

Would the hon. member acknowledge that currently there is no framework agreement, that the framework agreement was a proposed discussion paper and that unfortunately the parties did not come to a conclusion in those discussions?

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

Mr. Speaker, I guess we have a framework that was agreed to by the minority, the Roman Catholic Church, the Pentecostal and the Seventh Day Adventists.

As stated on April 24, 1996 by the minister of education, my understanding is that it is the beginning of a framework. Somewhere down the line the Anglican bishop withdrew his support, according to some of the advocates of this amendment.

Nine or ten points have been agreed to, especially the parts concerning money. As I mentioned earlier, we are discussing a savings potential of $25 million which can go back into the educational system in Newfoundland to better educate our children. I agree with that.

People refer to high illiteracy in Newfoundland. When we take into account a budget of $600 million and the reason for the high illiteracy referred to by some advocates, $25 million should have been spent long ago to ensure that illiteracy was not a concern.

Recently the minister of education stated that the difference between Newfoundland and the rest of the country in terms of the educational system was really a myth in the minds of many. He also stated that in terms of the higher levels of education Newfoundland universities and colleges were doing extremely well.

[Jean H. Leroux, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as we know, on September 5, 1995, the Newfoundland government held a referendum on denominational schools in that province. These denominational schools are guaranteed under term 17 of the agreement signed by the Government of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland setting the terms and conditions for Newfoundland's entry into Confederation in 1949.

I would first like to talk about the referendum. The referendum is a modern tool for activating democracy. It allows the people to settle important issues. The province of Newfoundland decided to hold a referendum and it won. Some of the members here in this House are challenging the figures and percentages involved.

All the people of Newfoundland were invited to participate and to vote. Everyone knew about the referendum. People were free to vote or to abstain. Whatever their reasons for voting or for not voting, the referendum was held and it was won by the government, which is something we should not forget.

The international standard for winning a referendum is 50 per cent plus one. Referenda are a modern tool used throughout the world. I think that people and governments-including the central government, to which I will come back later-should respect the decision made by the people of Newfoundland.

When I was young and starting my studies at the Granby CEGEP, I learned one principle of the political system: vox populi vox dei, which means the voice of the people is the voice of God. I think that when governments and their leaders go to the people and the people decide, their decision must be respected. So the people have spoken.

There are still two levels of government in Canada. We still have the federal government, which, because it feels superior, likes to tell the provinces what to do.

They have this big brother attitude of always trying to interfere, always having something to say about the decisions we make and, in this House, to demonstrate that, here, due process is followed, while in other Parliaments, well-

Given that Newfoundland has met all the standards, I think all this Parliament has left to do is to assent by saying: "Yes, we agree".

Federalists, at the federal level in particular, have this attitude of always wanting to pass judgment on what is going on elsewhere and claim to be more politically correct than the others. But it is not true. The various legislatures are acting, indeed taking some very important actions.

Must I remind you that education comes under provincial jurisdiction and that the federal government has no right interfering with this jurisdiction?

If, at this point in its history, Newfoundland has decided to amend its school legislation, I think that we should support this decision. We in the Bloc Quebecois have a concern however and this concern is about minorities. As you know, there are minorities in Newfoundland, and I would like to read you this brief excerpt from the letter written to Mr. Tobin by our leader, the Leader of the Official Opposition and member for Roberval:

However, we are concerned about the inadequate school rights of Newfoundland's French speaking minority. Therefore, we strongly hope that

your government will take the opportunity provided by the restructuring of the school legislation to give francophones in your province, through legislative and administrative means, full responsibility for the management of their schools.

I think it is important at this stage to remind our friends in Newfoundland that they must have as much respect for their minorities in their province as we do for ours in Quebec. Must I remind this House of the fact that, in Quebec, the school system is organized on linguistic bases? There are therefore two school systems in Quebec. The minority has its own schools, which it controls and manages, including elementary schools, high schools, colleges, and two universities, one in Montreal and another outside of Montreal. It also controls English hospitals in the Montreal area.

Quebec has always be a model for the rest of Canada in terms of respect for its minorities.

To my English friends who are listening to us tonight and to members of the House I say that someday there will be a referendum in Quebec and we expect to win that referendum. There is a tradition of democracy in this country; it has always been a democracy.

The Parliament of Quebec which is more than 205 years old, the oldest in Canada, has always shown the tradition of democracy. When the time comes, when we have our referendum and we win it, when we decide to finally become a partner, a good neighbour and a friend with the rest of Canada, I am sure we will be able to grow together side by side in harmony as Canadians and Quebecers because of the tradition of democracy in the country. When that day comes I am sure it will be the end of all the sterile discussion that has lasted for 30 years. Quebecers and Canadians have had enough. We will have our referendum, and when the time comes I am sure democracy in this land will prevail.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member and I took him at his word when he said he was going to make sure that the letter from his leader to Mr. Tobin demanded that French minority rights be respected in the province of Newfoundland. That essentially is what my amendment is all about. It is asking that where the numbers warrant that those minority rights be respected.

Does the Bloc member support the amendment to the constitutional amendment? It would ensure that the very words his leader put in his letter to the premier of Newfoundland are put into the constitutional amendment so that those minority rights not just in terms of the French language but also other minority rights are protected.

[Jean H. Leroux, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the proposed amendment says "where numbers warrant". Without interfering in the jurisdiction of the Government of Newfoundland, I say the change will result in savings to the province and there is no need for the qualification "where numbers warrant". Either you give rights to a minority, or you do not.

When the francophone Fathers of Confederation, those representing Quebec, joined the federation, they were promised that the new territories would all be bilingual. As you know, the Upper and Lower Canada, as well as the other two provinces-three provinces took part in the discussions, but only two immediately joined Confederation; Prince Edward Island followed a little later-had had discussions to the effect that future provinces would be bilingual.

Officials representing Lower Canada voted in favour of joining by a majority of just a few votes. No referendum was held at the time but, had one been held, Lower Canada would never have become part of Canada. We can only speculate about what might have been; the past is the past. I simply want to say that the francophone Fathers of Confederation literally got taken. Why? Because when new territories opened, they were supposed to be bilingual-given the mentality of the time, people believed what they were told. However, each and every one of the new provinces adopted special laws and abolished anything that was French. They gave francophones a hard time. In some regions of Canada, French speaking minorities have literally been fighting for their rights for 125 or 130 years. They survive and they fight.

If the Government of Newfoundland wants to show its good faith, it will protect its minorities. There is no need for a qualification such as "where numbers warrant" Either you protect minorities or you do not.

[Yves Rocheleau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak on the subject before us today, following the example of my colleagues, particularly my eloquent colleague, the member for Shefford, who is, to top it all, bilingual. I will admit I am a bit intimidated by his performance, but I will do my best.

This motion was presented by the Minister of Justice. It deals with the future establishment of denominational schools in Newfoundland. The denominational system was guaranteed by term 17 of the agreement between the federal government and the government of Newfoundland, when Newfoundland entered Confederation.

In order to amend such a term, it is possible for a province to invoke section 43 of part V of the Constitution of Canada dealing with the rules for amending the Constitution. This is what Newfoundland did, by passing legislation in a particular context. This legislation was passed after consulting the public.

This is where it departs somewhat from the short history of using section 43 of part V of the Constitution of Canada. It was the first time a government consulted the public to give weight to its action. Section 43 has been used on three other occasions in the recent past.

In the case of Newfoundland, the results of this public consultation gave the following results: 52 per cent of the public turned out to vote and 54 per cent supported the government's action. According to what we are told, the Government of Newfoundland has a number of objectives in mind.

First, it wants to rationalize the province's education system and thus save $17 million. Second, it would like to have a single education system, instead of four based on the recognized religions, the last on the list being the Pentecostal Church, which has already been the subject of a section 43 application. If it is successful, Newfoundland will have a single school system serving all denominations. Finally, it would like to reduce the number of school boards from 27 to 10, and make them multidenominational.

Where this initiative is of definite interest to Quebecers is in the lessons to be drawn from the democratic basis of the process as a whole. The federal government, via its Prime Minister, immediately and apparently unhesitatingly recognized the referendum and its result, although the participation rate was only 52 per cent, and support for the government's plan only 54 per cent.

In the context of Quebec's and Canada's political evolution, this is, I believe, an action that speaks volumes, and one that is totally representative of the desire of the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party to recognize the democratic process of what went on in Newfoundland in connection with the denominational schools issue.

You will understand that, as sovereignists, we are legitimately and spontaneously moved to transpose the debate held in Newfoundland, and the government's attitude toward it, to the next steps taken by the Government of Quebec and the people of Quebec concerning its desire-this time, we are convinced, a fulfilled desire-to finally cross the threshold to sovereignty. We are counting on the same spontaneity, the same logic, the same justice from the federal government in acknowledging the democratically expressed desire of the people of Quebec to finally be a sovereign people.

It must be pointed out that, in this undertaking, the federal government did not in any way whatsoever, despite what it is now claiming, intervene in the wording of the question or in the procedure for acknowledging the results only provided there was such and such a percentage-there was none of that. The province of Newfoundland was allowed to consult its population and the democratic process was recognized. We ask no more than that. That is what democracy is.

That is, after all, how a democratic tradition is built. It is by recognizing and recalling the highly democratic events of the past that the rules of the game that have to be respected are built up over time.

In this regard, we have to give Newfoundland credit for doing what it did, for doing what it did in 1949, when once again it taught us something by consulting its people twice and ending up with 52.3 per cent of the population of Newfoundland voting in favour in 1948-49 of joining ranks with Canada and of leaving the United Kingdom behind.

With the nevertheless close result of 52.3 per cent in favour, we can assume that some regions in Newfoundland voted against joining Canada. Was Newfoundland then divided up according to the regions that voted in favour and the ones that voted against? Or did they respect the will of the majority of Newfoundlanders to join Canada in 1949? They respected the whole of Newfoundland as so they should in a democracy, without all the present kerfuffle, particularly on the part of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, who, with the least possible subtlety, is advocating the partition of Quebec the day after a vote in favour of sovereignty.

In conclusion, I would like to say that there is in this debate something I find disappointing and aggravating, namely the reaction of Mr. Tobin, the premier of Newfoundland, who was a minister in Ottawa, a seasoned parliamentarian who was elected here when he was 25, and left to become premier at 40; he had 15 good years here in Ottawa. He is quite able to understand Quebec's and Canada's problem. And yet, he stoops to such simplistic reactions as the one reported in Le Devoir of May 30.

I will quote from an article by Jean Dion entitled "Tobin elated by the Bloc's position" which says: "Brian Tobin believes that by supporting the constitutional amendment requested by Newfoundland, the Bloc Quebecois, and with it the sovereignist movement as a whole, proves that the rule of law must prevail in Canada under any circumstance. I believe that the leader of the opposition is stating his faith and confidence in Canadian laws, said Mr. Tobin, adding that it will now be difficult for those who say that the law is not important to prove it. If the law is relevant when Newfoundland requests an amendment, it must be equally relevant when any other province is seeking to amend its constitutional status".

Third quote: "In this respect, he promised that Newfoundland would wholeheartedly support Quebec if it wanted similar changes. He even invited Mr. Bouchard to take full advantage of the amending formula which only requires bilateral agreements in certain cases, and of the nature of the federation to get the changes he wants within the federation".

I am very disappointed by such comments, because they imply that, in order to abide by the rules, there must be rules. But, in the Canadian Constitution, there are no rules on how to secede. How do you expect us to respect the rules? And that explains the whole approach and the ridiculous debate which was launched by Mr. Bertrand and which is increasingly jeopardizing the government position, since the federal government has supported this approach.

The people and the Government of Quebec are ready to abide by the rules, as long as there are some rules. Unfortunately, there are no existing rules, except for the rules of international law that will some day govern Quebec's accession to sovereignty.

The second thing that irritates us is the lack of information, given Mr. Tobin's previous position on the problems between Canada and Quebec. We know that the debate has been going on for some thirty years now. My personal reference point is the Laurendeau-Dunton Commission which as early as 1963 concluded that there were two solitudes.

We have someone here who has had ministerial or similar duties for 15 years in Ottawa and who still treats Quebec as just another province and completely disregards the fact that, when we talk about the people of Quebec and their demands, we talk about a nation, and more specifically one of the two founding nations of Canada.

There is absolutely no comparison possible between a premier who so cavalierly shrugs off a democratic process and talks about bilateral agreements between Quebec and the federal government and the debate we, the sovereignists, have been holding for the last 15 years, since we are talking about the survival of the French speaking nation of Quebec.

Talking about administrative agreements with the almighty central government, especially when it is ruled by the Liberal Party-to whom all the institutions seem to belong, I could give you a lot of examples from my riding-and reducing Quebec's evolution towards its sovereignty to some mere bilateral agreements will not help to elevate this debate. We will use a democratic approach to ensure that Canadians and Quebecers realize how important this issue is and how important Quebec's impending sovereignty is.

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member drew a parallel between the referendum in Newfoundland and past and potential future referendums in Quebec. He talked so much about the need to recognize the democratic rule and so on.

If we vote down this motion tonight, that is the end of this motion; it is finished, it is dead, it is gone, it will not be revived.

Since we have had two referenda already in the province of Quebec, both of which have failed, why will the member not respect the right of the majority that has already expressed its desire to remain within Canada? That has been the expression of the democratic will of the people in Quebec. Why do his party and he not accept that and continue on in the way they have been until they think they will get the opposite opinion?

[Yves Rocheleau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his question. It is precisely because we are democrats that we respect the two referendums that we went through in Quebec. We are democrats; we are here after being defeated. If the people had voted yes, we would not be here. We are here because the people voted no and we will continue a process that probably started right after the 1760 conquest.

Quebecers have never accepted defeat. We are part of a great civilization, the French civilization, and we have never accepted defeat. We could give history lessons all day long if we wanted to. There have been many sovereignist movements in the history of Quebec, but they were never as well organized, as powerful as today's sovereignist movement, which first came to power in Quebec and then became the official opposition in the federal Parliament. This is unprecedented and shows the great progress made by the people of Quebec toward full emancipation. This should not be so difficult to understand.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his speech this evening and recognize the use the Newfoundland government made of the process of consultation.

Between 1990 and 1992 the Newfoundland royal commission received a total of 1,041 written and oral presentations, which represents 3,677 individuals and 384 groups. Consultation was widely spread in Newfoundland from corner to corner. I thank the hon. member for mentioning it.

[Yves Rocheleau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her comment. That is precisely why we readily support this bill, because it rests on an overwhelmingly and profoundly democratic basis. I do not know what more I could say. We are pleased with it and we hope and trust that the Government and the people of Canada will acknowledge and respect the same democratic process Quebecers, notably the sovereignists, are putting themselves through, because you must know that, as sovereignists, we could very well just use the same traditional British parliamentary rules,

using Parliament to effect sovereignty at goodness knows what political price.

We have accepted for many years now, as a rule, the need to have a public consultation process in which a majority of Quebecers will hopefully vote for sovereignty, but we are nevertheless accepting this rule for ourselves. It important to realize this.

[Jean Payne, Liberal, St. John's West, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to give my support to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador's wishes to amend term 17.

When Newfoundland joined Confederation in 1949 the terms of union were very specific to that province. Term 17 guaranteed the rights and privileges of the religious school system as they existed in 1949. Today the Anglicans, Presbyterians, Roman Catholic, Salvation Army, Seven Day Adventists and United Church denominations hold the same rights they held in 1949.

In 1987 these rights were also extended to Pentecostal denomination. Since that time Newfoundland's educational system has been organized along these lines and administered by individual churches or groups of churches. Today Newfoundland and Labrador has four separate education systems and administrations serving a population smaller than that of the city of Calgary, dispersed over several hundred small communities.

The amendment to term 17 would permit the removal of costly inefficiencies and would free up resources which will inevitably lead to extensive improvements in Newfoundland and Labrador's future educational system.

The province of Newfoundland and Labrador can no longer afford to continue with its current educational system, and unless its system is reformed the quality of education will continue to decline. The Newfoundland and Labrador school system has resulted in a large number of small inefficient schools. The following statistics have been quoted a number of times but they warrant repeating.

The province has 27 overlapping school boards governed by four denominational groups or groups of denominations. Some students are bussed to a school of their denomination even if they live next door to a school of another denomination. In addition, Newfoundland and Labrador has the country's highest illiteracy rate and its students have significantly lower average scores on international and standardized testing despite the fact that a higher percentage of its total expenditures is spent on education than that of any other provinces.

The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has decided removing cost inefficiencies and freeing up resources rather than spending additional money is the most effective way to improve its education system and provide its students with an opportunity to compete on an equal footing with other Canadian students.

Amendment to term 17 would permit the province to do this and will lead to extensive improvements in its future educational program. The reforms will streamline the present overlapping denominational school boards into 10 interdenominational boards. The role of the churches in operating school boards and schools will be reduced and many schools are expected to become interdenominational with all students having the right to attend.

However, schools for specific religious denominations will continue to exist where they are requested by parents and where the number of students warrants doing this. Religious activities and education will continue to be a core element in the province's school system.

In 1992 a royal commission concluded that the Newfoundland and Labrador school system was in need of reform and the government immediately entered into intense negotiations with the church leaders. These negotiations took place over a three-year period, after which time the government was unable to reach an agreement with church leaders. Recently a last ditch attempt by the province's minister of education on key elements of the educational system also failed.

The government did not act arbitrarily in this matter, nor can it pass educational legislation under term 17 to diminish the educational rights held by churches.

On September 5, 1995 the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador held a referendum on the proposed changes to term 17. The referendum question was clear and direct: "Do you support revising term 17 in the manner proposed by the government to enable the reform of the denominational education system, yes or no?" It was direct and not in any sense misleading.

Despite the extensive campaign mounted by the no side and the government's policy of actively not campaigning, Newfoundlanders voted in favour of the proposed amendment by a margin of 54.83 per cent to 44.95 per cent.

On October 31 the Newfoundland House of Assembly adopted a resolution which seeks to amend term 17 of the terms of union. The matter was brought into the House as a government measure with relaxed party discipline. There was support from all parties in the House and the resolution passed by a margin of 31 to 20. The Newfoundland and Labrador government is seeking to modernize its existing educational system to achieve better education for its students within its available financial means.

At the same time it is determined to preserve the denominational character of the system. The government does not intend to eliminate term 17 to abolish denominational education or to

extinguish the role of the churches in education. Single denominational schools can continue where the numbers warrant.

Those who speak against term 17 attempt to cast it as an infringement on minority rights. This suggestion is preposterous. The rights provided for in term 17 are common to all denominations holding them, and those denominations collectively represent more than 95 per cent of the province.

The proposed changes will affect all in precisely the same way. Those opposed to those changes argue each denomination is a minority. This is an argument that can be made about any constitutional or legislative change affecting several groups that were each less than 50 per cent of the population. The simple fact is the proposed change will affect the eight denominations making up 95 per cent of the population in precisely the same way. The true minority, the remaining 5 per cent, will have its position slightly enhanced.

By amending term 17 the government will neither abolish denominational education nor extinguish the role of the churches in education, as I have said before. The role of the churches will be modified to allow for the establishment of a more efficient system of interdenominational school boards while preserving a role for the churches in religious education, activities and observances.

Also, the 5 per cent of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who do not currently hold term 17 rights will actually see their rights enhanced under the new system. I repeat this because I think it is very important. This is because religious education for all groups may be provided in the interdenominational schools. In the present system if students do not belong to a religious group operating their schools, they have no rights to their own form of religious education. Students who do not wish to participate in a form of religious education will not be forced to do so and parents will be allowed to decide whether they want their children to participate in the program.

Term 17 is unique to Newfoundland and Labrador and is a matter that both the Newfoundland and federal governments believe to be purely the concern of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Changes to the school system in Newfoundland have no bearing on the status of denominational schools in other provinces because education falls under provincial jurisdiction and the majority of provinces have different constitutional provisions respecting denominational involvement in education. In each case the province entering Confederation decided on its respective denominational involvement. Newfoundland has ended up as the only province without a secular public system.

As term 17 affects only the province of Newfoundland, it can be amended under section 43 of the Constitution Act, 1982 which is used for amendments that apply to one or more but not all provinces. In such circumstances an amendment can be made when a resolution authorizing the amendment has been passed by the legislatures of the provinces or provinces affected and subsequently by the House of Commons and the Senate.

The denominational rights in question in Newfoundland and Labrador have a different history and constitutional context than those in other provinces. There is no direct counterpart to term 17 in any other province. Denominational rights are protected by section 93 of the Constitution of Canada and by individual terms of union in the remaining provinces. These arrangements are in no way altered or affected by the proposed changes to term 17. The situation in Newfoundland and Labrador with regard to denominational involvement in the school system differs significantly from the system that exists in any other province.

For example, the province has the only exclusively denominational school system in the country. Furthermore, in no other province do churches have such a degree of control over matters relating to capital expenditures, school construction, the hiring of teachers and related matters.

In the House of Assembly in Newfoundland and Labrador all political parties unanimously agreed to adopt the resolution. We in the House of Commons should respect the wishes of the people of that province.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for my hon. friend. Twice in her remarks she said that religious schools will continue under the new proposed term 17 where numbers warrant. I have before me the wording of the new term 17. Nowhere in it do I see the words "where numbers warrant". Maybe I am not reading it correctly but I would appreciate it if she would tell me in what paragraphs the words she referred to are found.

On the other hand, I must say what I do see is that the continuation of religious schools will be in accordance with subparagraph (b) subject to provincial legislation that is applicable to all schools. That is quite a different thing.

If I am wrong, I would appreciate her telling me where it says that religious schools will continue wherever numbers warrant.

[Jean Payne, Liberal, St. John's West, NL]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I do not have the wording of the amendment in front of me. My understanding from a reading of it is that where numbers warrant, denominational schools will be permitted.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know if the hon. member agrees with the letter from the Leader of the Opposition, the hon. member

for Roberval, to the premier of Newfoundland, Brian Tobin, in particular where the Leader of the Opposition says:

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

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

I would like the hon. member to tell me if she will work within her caucus, so that it accepts the result of a democratic referendum on the sovereignty of Quebec.

[Jean Payne, Liberal, St. John's West, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member will agree with me that the question on the sovereignty of Quebec has no resemblance at all to the referendum question on the term 17 amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is with honour that I rise this evening to express my views on the constitutional amendment to term 17 of the Newfoundland and Labrador terms of union.

I intend to support the amendment and I am happy to explain to my constituents of Elgin-Norfolk my reasoning. This has not been an easy decision. It has been a very difficult decision, one that I have studied very carefully and have taken very seriously.

I do not think I was ever asked to be a rubber stamp and I have not been been a rubber stamp. I do not plan on being a rubber stamp tonight when we vote on this. I made this decision without experiencing any pressure from any of my colleagues or from the Prime Minister. I thank him for allowing a free vote on this issue.

Let me explain my background because it is relevant to how I came to these conclusions. I was raised in the Catholic school system in Ontario. I spent 13 years there, including going to a Jesuit high school in Toronto. I learned a lot about Catholic values. My Catholic education has formed an important part of who I am today. It is because of those values that I made this decision seriously.

To those who are worried that this will be the end of Catholic education in Ontario or across the country, I do not see it that way. In my own case the choice was important for me. I support the view that people should have choices as to which school they send their children. The key principle at work in making my decision was what was in the best interests of the Newfoundland school children.

The Newfoundland school system by many reports which I accept as being factual is below the standards we have come to expect in Canada. I accept, after reviewing the material and also consulting with people who have been through the system, that the quality of education in Newfoundland is not up to Canadian standards. Whether it is the high illiteracy rates or the poor testing on science exams, Newfoundland has a serious problem, one which it is trying to address in good faith.

We are very quickly moving into a world where the divisions are not going to be so much between rich and poor, between resourced and non-resourced; rich and poor will break down between those who have knowledge and those who are ignorant. I cannot fight the battles of Ontario Catholic education or the battles of national unity on the backs of the children in Newfoundland.

Those opposed to this amendment have raised a number of arguments which I take seriously. In some respects they are quite compelling.

The first argument is that minority rights should not be abolished or amended simply at the will of the majority. If we look closer at the numbers, with only a 52 per cent turnout, 48 per cent of the people of Newfoundland by not voting demonstrated that at minimum they were ambivalent about the issue or at best, they consented with the government plan. Only 55 per cent of voters who did vote voted yes which I believe presents a real problem, but not a problem big enough to stall the vote.

Of total eligible voters, 28 per cent voted in favour and 24 per cent voted against. For example, of the Catholic population in Newfoundland which represents approximately 35 per cent, the Catholic population was at least divided. There seems to be a real division about this issue and I am taking note of it.

The next argument that people make is about precedent. Two arguments are at play here. One is that we are setting a precedent regarding how we are going to respond if there is another referendum in Quebec, what number we would respect and what number would we say is too low. The other precedent argument is that if we amend minority rights in Newfoundland then someone, perhaps Mike Harris, will try to do the same thing in Ontario.

Let me deal first with the issue of national unity. I will go back to my main point. If members accept as I do that this is necessary for the advancement of the educational experience for Newfoundland school children, is it fair to fight the national unity issue on the backs of those children?

As Canadians, we need to make a case for Canada clearly and simply. Quebecers, given a choice to vote on an honest question in a direct way will make a clear decision. We need to accommodate Quebec's need to be recognized as a distinct society and as a particular place and group of people who are different from the rest of Canada and have protection for their language and rights. We need to deal with that problem separate and distinct from the school issue in Newfoundland.

Let me move to the next precedent issue that if we open up minority rights in Newfoundland we will be opening up minority rights in Ontario. I will again go back to my main point. Is it fair for me to try to protect the rights of my children to go to Catholic schools, whether it is St. Francis of Assisi in Orleans or St. Joseph's high school in St. Thomas, on the backs of the school children in Newfoundland? I think not. If we want to have Catholic education in Ontario, then we as Catholics should work to protect it, first by going to Catholic schools and then advocating politically or in other ways the value of that education.

Another issue the opponents to the vote tonight raised is that there is a framework agreement. Let me say how frustrating it has been that both sides unfortunately have at times launched into what philosophers call an ad hominem argument where they merely attack the integrity of the other side rather than deal with the facts of the case.

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Vegreville, AB]

That is what you guys do all the time.

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

We do do it all the time but I find it frustrating because it is difficult to sort out. On one side people have said that Clyde Wells did not go into these negotiations in good faith. I do not know whether he did or not. On the other side, the premier for example has accused the Catholic church of being involved in a power struggle and not interested in the best interests of the school children.

I am not able to come to any conclusion. I do not know these people particularly. However, if they are not in agreement today, I do not see any real indication that they can come to an agreement in the near future. I accept by the counsel of those people closer to the situation that they are not likely to come to an agreement. Therefore, I conclude that we need to bring the issue to a close.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member made comments about his experience with Catholic education at St. Jean de Brebeuf high school in Toronto, a great institution. The football teams were not that good but the academics were pretty good.

The member talked about the inadequate education system in Newfoundland. I cannot understand where the member is getting his information. This is one factor which is leading him to the decision to support this amendment.

I raised specific information from Premier Tobin's red book in the House earlier today. And we all know that those red books are only guidelines. I quote a statement from Premier Tobin's red book, the platform of the Liberal Party in the recent provincial election: "Since Confederation we have made tremendous progress in education. Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have built an educational system in which we can all have pride".

Then there is this from Chris Decker, former minister of education: "The percentage of the population attaining less than eight years of schooling has decreased from 24 per cent in 1976 compared to the then Canadian average of 9.5, to 5.6 per cent, slightly more than the Canadian average of 3.8 in 1991. That is an improvement of 18.4 per cent for Newfoundland compared to an improvement of 1.8 per cent for Canada as a whole. Students in Newfoundland perform just as well as students in most other provinces in the Canadian average".

[Mary Clancy, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Think how much better they would perform if they had a good system.

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

There is the member for Halifax once again.

It is important for the students, the educators and the leaders of the whole educational system in Newfoundland that we be careful. I do not support denigrating their system. It has moved forward dramatically and constructively and we should not knock it.