Debates of Oct. 27th, 1997

Newfoundland School System

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

It is a one-way democracy.

In response to the hon. member for Trois-Rivières, I ask myself the same questions on the institution, on those who are part of it, and on the government's true intentions in setting up a committee. Today, it announced the setting-up of a committee which, when you think of it, will only rehash the same old arguments that were raised for months in Newfoundland, before finally arriving at an almost unanimous conclusion. And the same goes for Quebec, where the National Assembly was unanimous.

So, why set up committees? It is probably—and I ask myself the same question as the hon. member for Trois-Rivières does—to pass the time, because the government has no political will to truly lead the country, to advocate new directions for the economy, and to ensure that the injustices created by the cuts it imposed on the provinces are corrected.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure as a young member of Parliament from Newfoundland to participate in the discussion on the amendment to term 17. I would like to emphasize a couple of points.

While we speak of the amendment to term 17 in the House, we are also speaking to all the Canadian public. We do so through the televised debates in the Chamber.

I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis.

There are certain points which the hon. member opposite raised which cannot go unchallenged. It would be unfair not to challenge them.

It was suggested that the francophone community of my province of Newfoundland and Labrador enjoys second class status, that it has accepted second class status, as alleged by the hon. member. He alleges that it is content with that position. I am here to report to the House of Commons this afternoon that the francophone community of Newfoundland and Labrador is very much alive, vibrant and very assertive about its position in our society. It has done so with great power, great conviction and great pride.

I am proud to report to the House this afternoon that the francophone community will be participating in the school board process. It will enjoy the privileges and rights of its own school board. That is something which is very specific and unique to the francophone community. It is in celebration of the fact that it has a very special culture, a very special language which deserves recognition within the policy of school board governance.

The francophone community also enjoys its own newspaper. In the riding of the hon. member for Burin—St. George's there is a francophone community that flourishes. It is very much alive. It is not second class to anyone, as suggested by the hon. member opposite. It is very much alive and very proud. They are very much willing to participate in strengthening their culture. I salute the francophone community of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The current debate is on the amendment to term 17. In this House we enjoy certain privileges, one being the privilege of debate. I am proud that the privilege of debate was extended to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador in this argument.

A referendum was held in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador and it has been stated on several occasions that the debate was very clear, the referendum was very clear. The conclusion of the referendum was a change was requested by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

We have a situation where we are going to change the school system of my province to what the wishes of the people are. I am pleased to continue with this particular debate among my colleagues in this House and in the other place so that we can ensure speedy passage, a thorough thoughtful passage, because that is exactly what the people of Newfoundland and Labrador want us to do.

Saying that the other place has no part in this debate I think is fundamentally wrong. Our Constitution recognizes the other place, recognizes its existence. Therefore a unilateral decision to say that we should not join in discussion with the other place is wrong. It is important that we take into consideration all parliamentarians' points of views. In saying that, I take into consideration some great members of the other place.

I speak of none other than the hon. Jack Marshall, a member of the other place who very much protected the rights, privileges and responsibilities of all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. He was an outspoken advocate of the rights of veterans and did a very good job. I am not prepared to say that his role was in the least bit insignificant. Quite frankly it was very significant. The people in my riding as well as those in the riding of Burin—St. George's understand that. I am sure if he were still a member of the other place he would be anxious to join in this debate and would provide a fruitful discussion and would add considerably to the context.

As a Newfoundlander educated in the very school system that we now debate, and as a Roman Catholic educated in the system that we now debate, I support the change. I support the amendments fully. I think it is time Newfoundland and Labrador be the recipient of a modern education system in line with the wishes of the people.

I feel strongly that this is about the protection of rights. I feel strongly that all citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador should be afforded all those protections. I will give a specific example.

In my province there are approximately 1,100 to 1,200 communities. Every community has a school. Not every community has 20 schools representing all the major religions that are vested within the province but all communities have at least one school. Some have three. Some communities with small population levels have a number of schools.

Where a denominational right exists, if you are a member of that community but you are not a member of the denomination which holds the school in the community, under the current system that we are suggesting we should amend you will be instructed in a religious denomination which is not your own faith. I have been through that system and I have seen young men and women of other religions, future leaders of our country, instructed in a faith not of their choice. It is not because of anything we are doing in the House today, but because of the old system. That is exactly what happened.

If you happen to be a member of the United faith or the Pentecostal faith in a community which only had a Catholic church, then you were either instructed in Catholicism or you did not go to school. That quite frankly is not befitting of a modern day society.

Religious instruction will be entrenched. There will be religious instruction for those who wish to participate. That is a fundamental right. What will also be fundamentally guaranteed is that those who do not want to be instructed in a religious faith not of their choice will not have to be subjected to that. From the point of view of this House that is a very important consideration.

Part of a modern democracy is making sure that in the case of a community where the majority is of one particular faith, that for some reason the minority is not required that they get either no education whatsoever or religious instruction in a faith not of their choice. That is just a simple point I would like to add to the debate.

As someone who grew up in the system, someone who believes in the need for change and will be supporting it strongly, I encourage members opposite to think once again about the constitutional provisions that provide for debate by the Senate, to support this change and to do so in an expeditious fashion.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a comment before my question. The member has said he thinks it perfectly normal to have senators—he named one—, for they can be important individuals, distinguished citizens and so forth.

That is not the question. The question is: Who do they represent? I repeat, and I said this earlier in the House, that I am going to be uncomfortable on the committee to see people around me who are not elected, who have been appointed by the Prime Minister or by a former Primer Minister, because they are sometimes there so long that it is not necessarily the one now in office who appointed them. These people do not represent any democratic values and will be questioning democratic decisions—I am coming to my question—that were taken on two occasions in the case before us.

Does he not find it abnormal that a committee is being formed when we could simply pass a motion, since the issue has been debated several times in his province? It could be wrapped up this week and approval given to the constitutional amendment as requested by the people in his own province.

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

Mr. Speaker, the question asked by the hon. member opposite is if I find it abnormal or unusual. The simple answer is no. The Canadian parliamentary system allows for two houses. Joining forces to hear testimony from expert witnesses in one forum is very efficient. It is very honest and it is very straightforward. I have absolutely no problem with it at all.

[Maurice Vellacott, Reform, Wanuskewin, SK]

Mr. Speaker, under section 93 the Constitution requires that in Newfoundland or anywhere else in the country for that matter, the rights of the minority dissenting group are not to be prejudicially affected when changes are made.

The denominational supporters have been offered only a very sanitized, sterilized, neutered, generic, no name brand of religious class in place of the religious instruction that they were accustomed to in the past. Because they are basically offered a sociology of religion course, that does not equate to the provisions made for them in the past. It seems that there is a negative and prejudicial effect for the Roman Catholic and Pentecostal church adherence. How are their interests not prejudicially affected?

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

Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding that it was the minority itself that chose a change, the hon. member opposite raised the issue that section 93 applies here.

I would caution that term 17 is a fundamentally unique amendment. It is part of the terms of the union between Canada and Newfoundland. It is an agreement that affects only the province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

While education is a provincial jurisdiction, term 17, as it was formerly worded and as we are debating in the House, was a limitation on provincial responsibility or provincial right. We are changing that term and section 93 does not apply.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

Mr. Speaker, earlier, the member said he did not consider francophones as second class people and he is right, as was another of my colleagues who was misquoted when he said that the perception of people is that, when they see how francophones have been treated, they have the impression they were treated as second class people.

In Quebec for example, the rights of anglophones are well respected, we are a model for the rest of the world. For instance, an English speaking person from Quebec can be elected and sit in the House of Commons or the National Assembly. Three Equality Party members spoke only English and they sat in the National Assembly. I am a francophone, I speak only French and I sit here. Could a Newfoundland member speak only French, as the member speaks only English, and still be allowed to sit in the House of Commons? Could he get elected?

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

Mr. Speaker, absolutely.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Mississauga West, Airports; the hon. member for Frontenac—Mégantic, Closure of a B.C. Mine; the hon. member for Davenport, Law of the Sea.

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I think this is a crucial debate. The basic issue is the fundamental rights of minorities. So, the basic question is the following: Before replacing constitutional rights with legislative rights, what process should we follow? I think that is the question before us today.

By the way, I have to point out the surprising differences between the comments made by my hon. colleague from Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte and those made by the hon. member for Richelieu, who spoke just before him. On the one hand, my colleague made a reasonable, sincere and positive contribution to this crucial debate about minorities and their vested rights.

Meanwhile, what did we hear from the hon. member for Richelieu?

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

The truth.

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

That the committee currently holding hearings and hearing a lot of witnesses about the repeal of section 93 of the Constitution is wasting its time. That it has heard nothing but rubbish and nonsense. That the justices of the Supreme Court—

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

You got that right. It is all rubbish and nonsense.

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that just goes to prove what I want to say, that these people cannot take part in an honest and open debate. Their describing the justices of the Supreme Court as people dressed up like Santa Claus shows the respect the Bloc Quebecois has for the eminent justices of our Supreme Court. That is the tone of this debate.

That is precisely why we need parliamentary commissions. We need parliamentary commissions, because we are dealing here with the vested rights of minorities who have the right to be heard and to ask for a comprehensive debate on their rights.

The Bloc Quebecois would like to see this pushed through because the three parties in the Quebec National Assembly voted unanimously in favour of the resolution placed before them. I would point out to the members of the Bloc Quebecois that this same resolution denies the existence for Quebec of the 1982 Constitution, which they themselves invoke in creating linguistic school boards.

So the minorities will have to trust a government which says “You are protected under section 23 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but at the same time we do not recognize that Charter”. These are the same people who have referred to the Supreme Court justices as wearing Santa suits. That is why we need parliamentary commissions here.

In the case of Newfoundland, at least its government will have had the courage to hold two referendums in a row. Let us recall the debates that went on about term 17—

A lot of us said “Let's be careful. Let's use extreme caution when you talk about constitutional amendments”. Maybe we should have had a longstanding parliamentary commission when term 17 was first debated.

That is not what we did. We pushed it through quickly. What happened? When it got to Newfoundland, the Supreme Court of Newfoundland said “No, no, don't go ahead with the school boards”, which caused a second referendum to take place.

I know 73% of those who voted declared that they were for the changes proposed by the Government of Newfoundland. That means also on the other side, and I appreciate all that my colleague has said.

Of course we need reform in the school system. Of course all of us are for reform in the school system, but what we should worry about—I don't say that our answers will be any different—fundamentally is that 27% in Newfoundland, and those people in Quebec who come before us at the parliamentary commission and say “Let's use more caution. Let's take more time”. Instead of that, we have declared that on November 7, for Quebec for all intents and purposes the committee stops its work, and December 5 for Newfoundland.

I have taken part in many pieces of legislation, both in the National Assembly of Quebec and here, where we took months to look at legislation. I remember the CEPA hearings on the environment which took over a year to decide whether we were on the right track or not.

Yet somehow we trivialize constitutional amendments. We take them for granted. If a majority here or a majority there decides, then it must be right.

The fundamental reason for constitutional protection is not to protect majorities who can change laws whenever they want. It is to protect minorities who cannot change those laws. That is why we need those parliamentary commissions. That is why we need senators, because the fact is that senators are far less partisan than our Houses, whether it be in Quebec or Newfoundland or here.

That is why we need depth in our parliamentary commissions, to hear as many people as possible, to take more time if necessary, to pause, to use caution before we change the constitutional provision which, once gone, can never come back because the minorities can never reinstitute them. The majority will always rule.

That is the point I want to make today. I want to ask that we treat these constitutional amendments, whether they be in Newfoundland or in Quebec, by taking all the time necessary. I must admit very frankly that in Newfoundland much more care has been taken to involve people than was the case in Quebec. If another week will go by, another month will go by and another year will go by, this will not change the world.

That is the spirit. I never interrupted the gentleman. That is the spirit. That is the spirit of the Bloc Quebecois. They cannot tolerate another opinion. They cannot tolerate an opinion that is not theirs, and they talk about democracy. They talk about extremists in the parliamentary commission that is hearing Bill 93. I will suggest that the public will judge from the debate here where extremism is. I suggest it is not on this side. We want a fair debate. We want an open debate. We want a constructive debate. All we say is that constitutional provisions are there to protect acquired rights, fundamental rights and minority rights. Let us take whatever time is necessary to listen to people to make sure once and for all that we are on the right track.

[Pierre De Savoye, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the hon. member that if you sow discord and attack members opposite, you should not be surprised to be repaid in kind.

I would also like to say that in 1792, when the British Crown created the first Upper House, its members—we now call them senators—were appointed, not elected, and their only role was to oppose the decisions of the Lower House on behalf of the British Crown.

Things have not really changed. The Upper House, the Senate, is here to oppose the measures that the establishment, and I would say the financial establishment of Toronto in particular, does not like. It is here to oppose the decisions of elected representatives and to make sure that the government does not have to abide by the public will.

Now, I have a question for the hon. member. When we strike a committee, I believe we give it the power to recommend in favour or against. Would my colleague agree if the committee were to return with a negative recommendation on the amendment requested by Newfoundland? How could he explain to his colleagues from Newfoundland that the will of the people would not be respected, when they clearly indicated the decision they wanted the House to make? In other words, are we going to have a kangaroo committee or a committee which might decide against the people of Newfoundland? I am anxious to hear our colleague's answer.

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs has answered the question very clearly. A committee will be struck to assess the matter, it will report to the House, and the House will decide after due consideration. This is how it is done in every committee. The committee will hear the stakeholders. It will review the matter, it will report to the House and the House will decide accordingly. The decision rests with us here.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just spoken has taken exception to some of my comments.

I would remind him that he was once a member of the National Assembly, and I find it odd to see a member from Quebec who sat in the National Assembly, who experienced the quality and the greatness of the democratic debate there and of the consensuses that develop occasionally and who knows that it is only rarely that an unanimous resolution can be achieved, question the consultations that these members from Quebec carried out in their ridings to reach a consensus.

But he does not know what consensus is, because when he was in the National Assembly and when his premier, Mr. Bourassa, introduced Bill 178 which met the expectations of both anglophone and francophone communities, he and a couple of his colleagues voted against the consensus that existed in Quebec, and for this he was no longer welcome in his own Liberal Party and he had to come here to beg for a job, perhaps eight or ten years before he actually got elected to this House.

However, it is typical of the Liberal Party to pick up people like that. The proof is that there was Mr. Harper who sat here, Mrs. Carstairs was named to the Senate. Clyde Wells will most likely be appointed one day to the supreme court. This year, they have a new batch: the members for Abitibi, Bourassa and Anjou, they are the Liberal Party's new batch.

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to stoop to the level of the member for Richelieu. What he is saying makes no sense.

I voted in the National Assembly according to my conscience. Most of the time, I voted for my party. I also voted against it many times. I have done so here. I will continue to do so. I will vote according to my conscience. I will do so whenever my conscience demands it. If that bothers the member for Richelieu, too bad.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Compton—Stanstead.

There is a need today for religious denominational schools like I have probably never seen in the last 25 years. We just have to come into the House of Commons and take a look at what has happened here. We cannot say the Lord's Prayer for the first time in 131 years in the House of Commons. I am really appalled that has happened here. When that was going to happen I was on call-in shows from British Columbia to Newfoundland about the fact that the word God was being taken out of the prayer of the House of Commons as well as not saying the Lord's Prayer.

I got a call from the hon. member on the government side saying: “Elsie, we are going to put “God” back in the prayer tomorrow morning”. And I said thank God for that.

Just take a look at our young people and the pressures they are under today. I took my two sons out of the regular school system in Saint John, New Brunswick. I am Protestant but I put my sons into the Catholic school because they had the teachings there that were needed. The peer pressure in our society today is unbelievable. I am appalled to think that we would even talk about not allowing our denominational schools, our Catholic and Pentecostal schools in Newfoundland to exist.

I believe that all of us in the House of Commons have received correspondence from the Hon. Kevin Barry, a retired judge of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland. I am going to refer to the Hon. Mr. Barry's correspondence because he spells it out just the way it is.

He is saying that the new amendment proposed by the government would provide for religious courses which it would compose itself from whatever sources it deems appropriate. He says the only condition it would have to observe in so doing would be that the content of such courses must not be specific to any denomination. In effect, with that sole limitation the government would then be in complete charge of religious education in schools.

We know this country was built on good Christian values. We have respect for all cultures. That is why we open our doors here in Canada, for people to come from all over the world, and we expect them to respect our culture as well, which was built on Christianity.

According to the Hon. Mr. Barry, there would be no obligation on the government to consult with leaders of the principal denominations or any of them. For Catholics religious education for their children in school is a vital part of their educational development and it has been part of the school system in Newfoundland for the past 200 years. To eliminate it because 38% of the population voted for a questionable saving in the cost of education would be a very grave injustice to the parents who wish to educate their children in a denominational school. It was never intended by our forefathers that democracy would be used to crush minority rights in this way.

In the course of the Newfoundland government's campaign, the government had declared that religious education would still be available after the passage of the amendment. Let me say that this could be no more than a pious hope on its part since term 17 as amended provides absolutely no such guarantees.

The fact is that if the proposed amendment becomes law, government will have the exclusive authority and control over religion in all schools without obligation to consult any outside party as to its content.

Just take a look at us right here. Government decided to move in and we cannot say the Lord's Prayer in the House of Commons. What is going to happen in the school system?

Although the government received many requests for a judicial interpretation of the text of the amendment before the referendum vote, it steadfastly refused to consider it.

It keeps referring to the fact that it is going to save money and that it is going to be a better school system. As far as I understand it and have been told, the Newfoundland school system, as it exists today with the denominational schools and the other public school system, rates third across the country. They cannot do much better than that unless they come up to second and first. If we leave them alone in the system they probably will.

The government declared as one of its reasons to abolish denominational religious education in schools that its standard of pre-university education was intolerably low. When we have a referendum and this is what we are telling the people, that it would be greatly improved by getting rid of church influences in our schools, I pray that we will have more church influences in society in the future. I mean that.

I look at the pages who are here today and the young people I see on the streets. I look at the young people who are lost in my own city. They need to have church influences. As I started to say at the very beginning, they need it more now than in the last 30 years.

The truth is that the standard of education for schools in Newfoundland ranks the third highest in all of Canada. The government also informed the public that the cost that denominational schooling adds to the general system of education is intolerably high. We have been informed that the cost of education on a per capita basis in Newfoundland is the lowest in Canada.

We have been hearing from our people that they are going to save money. We heard from Premier Tobin that this is why we have to do it. Yet the cost of their education on a per capita basis is the lowest in Canada the way it is now.

From the day it announced the referendum, Premier Tobin's government utilized public moneys and resources to finance and support its campaign to abolish denominational education. At the same time, it denied any requests from the other parties for funding to assist them. It campaigned as though the referendum was a political election. It did not permit any scrutineers to be present in the ballot booths during the voting process, during the counting of the ballots or to oversee the measures taken for the scrutiny of the ballot boxes. I have never heard tell of this before. No, sir. That is a very serious situation.

While I am not aware of any allegations of fraud or improper dealings with the ballots, it is an old saying that justice must not only be done but must also appear to be done.

I am very concerned, just like the hon. Kevin Barry is, and many other people. Educated and intelligent people over there can see that this is going down the wrong road. It is going in the wrong direction. I am in favour, as we are here, of having a committee. Senators should be on it because they have people there to assist them.

I appeal to all members in this House to not let this happen. Do not go in this direction. Think about the children. Put them before politics and before anything else and keep the denominational schools in Newfoundland.

[Rob Anders, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am torn on this issue because my background is both as a Catholic and a democrat. I wish that Catholics in Newfoundland had turned out at the polls in numbers requisite to be able to stop this. However, that being said, democratic consent was sought on this issue.

Issues have been raised in terms of whether or not there were scrutineers at the polls. Unlike general elections, there were no people representing specific parties and there were no stipulated interest groups. As a result, it was very difficult to determine which people would act as scrutineers.

I am not impressed that the Government of Newfoundland did this during the summer, allowing only a 31-day writ period. Nonetheless, the people of Newfoundland have spoken. As a democrat it is difficult for me to stand in the House today and say this provincial initiative should not be supported because the people of Newfoundland did indeed vote for it.

I would like to propose the following. I know this is not the question that the people of Newfoundland had an opportunity to vote on, but I wish it had been the case. This question was asked today within our caucus. Why should a parent not be free to choose where to educate their child without financial penalty?

I am drawing attention to the idea that funding should follow the student, as in a voucher system. Religious based schooling should not be ended to bring in monopolistic, cookie cutter public education under a single board. Indeed, I wish the people of Newfoundland had been presented options, a whole bunch of choices, rather than being presented with a cookie cutter.

Does the hon. member believe that vouchers and direct school funding would have been a better scenario?

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member said that there were no political parties involved and that there was no politics involved. Politics was involved, as we stated, concerning scrutineers.

Also, if we take a look at the system that was put in place, the people of Newfoundland were not given an opportunity to digest what was happening to them. They had only 16 hours before the advance polls from the time the question was put before them. There is no place in the world in which we would let that happen.

There has to be a better system. Perhaps the system suggested by the hon. member is the better system.

We have denominational schools and a Roman Catholic school in my city. The provincial Liberal government wants to close the denominational schools. I fought to keep them. We had only one girls Catholic school and one boys Catholic school. It is a boys and girls Catholic school now. We also have one Evangelical school. That is all we have, but the government wants to close them too.

I am really worried about the direction in which we are going. I have to say that what they are proposing is wrong. We have to, all of us, take a look at it for the sake of the children of this country.

[Peter Goldring, Reform, Edmonton East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak to the motion put forward by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. The motion is to strike a special joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons to consider matters related to the proposed amendment of the terms of union of Newfoundland concerning that province's school system.

The special joint committee will be instructed to consult broadly and review such information as it deems appropriate with respect to this issue. The committee is to be composed of 16 members of the House and seven members of the Senate and must present its final report no later than December 5, 1997.

Reformers recently supported a motion to strike a special joint committee to study a proposed constitutional amendment to the Quebec school system. However, we had reservations about that process. We were concerned about the extremely short timeframe the committee had to conduct its review and to report its findings. We also believe it was absurd to have senators who have no democratic legitimacy sitting on the committee.

However, despite these points of concern, the members of this side of the House were generally supportive of the establishment of a parliamentary committee to study the proposed resolution on the Quebec school system. Similarly, while we have corresponding concerns regarding this special joint committee, we generally support the establishment of another parliamentary committee to study the proposed amendment regarding the Newfoundland school system.

A large number of people in Newfoundland have been demanding a non-denominational school system for that province for more than three decades. During that time two royal commissions have studied the issue. There have been endless negotiations and debate, several court rulings and one constitutional amendment, and now two province-wide referendums on the school system.

Many commentators have noted that a single denominational system will be less costly and more efficient. The Premier of Newfoundland has estimated that the system will save $25 million per year. Clearly this is a very important issue. The proposed amendment deals with the Canadian Constitution which is the fundamental law of this land. In this case Parliament has been asked to constitutionally amend the 1949 terms of union that brought Newfoundland into Confederation.

The Reform Party believes strongly that education is a matter of provincial responsibility and that provincial jurisdiction over education should be respected and enhanced. Therefore, we neither support nor oppose church run or non-denominational schools for Newfoundland. We believe this is an issue that must be decided by Newfoundlanders by free and democratic processes and in accordance with the rule of law.

The principal interest of the federal Parliament in educational reform is primarily that such reforms do not prejudicially affect the rights of minorities which Parliament has an obligation to protect. As the other speakers from my party have stated, we believe Parliament should discharge these responsibilities by making any constitutional amendment proposed by a province, such as the one that will be considered by this special joint committee, subject to these three tests: democratic consent, the rule of law and the Canadian national interest.

Let me quickly review the three tests we feel must be satisfied if this amendment is to gain the support of the Reform Party. First, was there a clear majority of Newfoundlanders that supported the constitutional amendment through the results of a province wide referendum? Was the referendum process fair? And was the referendum question unbiased? The amendment was approved by majority in two separate referendums with the second referendum having an overwhelming majority of 73%. The turnout of 53% of eligible voters was fairly high when compared to other similar referendums. The referendum vote was conducted by Newfoundland Elections, the government's arm's length agency established to ensure fair and democratic elections. Therefore it appears that term 17 amendments have passed the test of democratic consent.

Second, is there compelling legal evidence such as an upper court ruling that certified the constitutional amendment itself conforms to the rule of law? Term 17 of the 1949 terms of union is intended to serve as a replacement for section 93 of the Constitution Act concerning education and applies exclusively to the province of Newfoundland. Therefore, it can legitimately be amended by the provincial legislature and the House of Commons passing identical resolutions in accordance with section 43 of the Constitution.

Section 93 does not prevent Newfoundland from reforming its educational system or from implementing reforms that affect minority rights. But the rule of law requires that the Newfoundland government demonstrate that its proposed reforms do not prejudicially affect the rights of those who desire a religious orientation in the education of their children.

We have been informed that Newfoundland's minister of education has obtained a legal opinion stating that the proposed amendment to term 17 is legal. However, the original term 17 amendment proposed by the Newfoundland government in 1995 was found to be constitutionally questionable by the Newfoundland supreme court. Therefore, we are not entirely convinced that the latest term 17 amendment fully conforms to the rule of law. Our concerns might be alleviated, however, if the Newfoundland government was to obtain a ruling from that province's supreme court establishing that the proposed amendment does not prejudicially affect the rights under section 93 of the Constitution act.

Third, is there is clear evidence that this educational reform does not prejudicially affect rights previously granted to the citizens of that province and in no way damages minority rights in that province or any other province? As with the proposed constitutional amendment regarding the Quebec school system, the manner in which this matter is handled may set an important precedent for other provinces with respect to educational reform as well as minority rights. Because we are not convinced that the latest Newfoundland amendment adheres to the rule of law, we are also not convinced that the term 17 amendment meets the test of the Canadian national interest.

I would like to close with an appeal to any common sense that exists in the government to allow a free vote on constitutional amendments, such as the one before us on Newfoundland term 17.

While claiming there is strong consensus for a linguistic school system in Quebec, the federal intergovernmental affairs minister has ducked the question whether there should be a free vote in Parliament on the constitutional amendment. The government has been successful in paying lip service to the principle of free votes for members of the House, but it has failed to put its words into action. Free votes have been few and far between. One of the few times members have been actually allowed a free vote was on the previous vote on the Newfoundland school question.

We encourage the government to make a clear and unequivocal public acknowledgement of the precedents set by the previous Newfoundland amendment for both the Quebec amendment as well as the vote that is now required on the Newfoundland constitutional amendment. Such a declaration of support for the principle of free votes would remove the constraints of party discipline from members of the House and allow government backbenchers to vote without falling out of favour with the party leadership.

I can assure members that on matters as important as changes to fundamental law of the land, Reform MPs will be particularly influenced by the opinions of their constituents and whether Canadians are satisfied that the amendment in question is democratic, legal and in the national interest.

In conclusion I ask, what will guide the MPs from other parties in these matters, the will of their constituents and the Canadian national interest or the heavy hand of party discipline?

[Gary Lunn, Reform, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is quite a topical issue when we look at the news today and see what is happening in Ontario. I want to put a few comments out for thought. I also agree with my colleague from Calgary West when he speaks of a voucher system.

I, too, believe in the democratic process. The people of Newfoundland have spoken and we have come up with this three part test. I also would encourage a free vote in the House.

I recognize how important education is to all of our children. We are setting trends for what could follow across other provinces. We need to provide the best possible education we can for our children.

This comes close to home for me. In British Columbia, we face numerous challenges and problems within our public school system. I have studied very carefully the next door province of Alberta which has both the public school systems. It has the Catholic public school board and the other public school boards. The taxpayers are given the option of choosing where their tax dollars go. They have some choices for their children. By doing so, they hold the school boards and the schools accountable.

Again it follows along the lines of if someone provided the student or the child with a voucher, the schools and the school boards would have to be accountable because they want to attract those vouchers to their schools.

I believe in the democratic process. The people of Newfoundland have spoken, provided they have satisfied these three tests. I am not convinced they have totally done that but it is something we have to be having a hard look at. We need to look beyond December 5. It is something that is of provincial jurisdiction, but it is something we must all be thinking about for the sake of our children and their future.

[Peter Goldring, Reform, Edmonton East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I too believe that it has the appearance that democratic consent has been met by having a referendum in Newfoundland to test the question. I have some concern about whether a majority can overrule minority rights and this is a minority rights issue. I believe that good effort has been made for democratic consent.

The test not put forward has been the test of the rule of law. That is one test that should be implemented as soon as possible to clarify areas of doubt in the democratic consent as well as whether it affects Canadian interests. It should have a a test for the rule of law.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Reform Party. The hon. member mentioned earlier that in his opinion 53% was a fairly good turnout for a vote of this nature.

I asked the members for St. John's East and St. John's West earlier why they felt there was such a low turnout for such an important question. The response from the representatives from St. John's East and from St. John's West was that it was during the summertime, during the Cabot celebrations and many people felt that because there was unanimity by the members of the legislature in Newfoundland was the reason the turnout was low.

Does the hon. member honestly believe that 53%, under those circumstances during that time, is really a high turnout for such an important issue?