Debates of Oct. 27th, 1997

Questions On The Order Paper

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the amendment.

Newfoundland School System

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Members will recall that at the termination of the debate before question period the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra had seven minutes remaining on questions and comments.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I just had a private conversation with the member for Vancouver Quadra and he is now prepared to answer the question I asked just before question period started.

I am eagerly anticipating the answer with respect to the freedom of parents to choose education for their children and not to suffer a financial penalty for making that choice.

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I had begun to answer the question and question period arrived so my answers were a little elliptic. I am happy to add to them.

The situation in Canada is different from that in the United States. In particular our charter of rights is different from the American bill of rights. I think we can resume the position as follows.

There is no constitutional separation of church and state in Canada. Therefore it is perfectly open for any province within the constitutional provisions to make provision for financial aid to church schools or other schools. That is a political choice of the province. There is no constitutional barrier to that.

As to the issue of parents' rights, it is within the rights of parents to ask for religious exercises in schools. That was again a decision for the province and the provincial instrumentalities which include municipal bodies and eventually school boards. The matter essentially is that there are no constitutional fetters. It is a matter of the political choice of the electors and their elected representatives.

I hope that answers the question the hon. member posed. It is an important question. I realize in this general debate on the Newfoundland amendment, and I suspect the Quebec amendment to come, there are matters of this sort that are a concern to citizens of the country. I have received representations and questions on them myself.

For that reason I thank the hon. member for aiding the cause of enlightenment.

[Val Meredith, Reform, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra if there is no constitutional separation of church and state in Canada where the protection for denominational schools is. Is it under section 93?

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the only constitutional protections that exist are under section 93 as such. I should have said when there is no separation of church and state as in the United States. There is no official religion here as there is in Great Britain. The only formal constitutional guarantees are in section 93.

We will be called upon in the next few weeks to rule on the question in relation to Quebec and its request for a constitutional amendment. It is essentially a matter of the political will. There are no barriers other than the barriers in the political processes of persuading one's citizens to adopt a particular course.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, since the hon. member opposite has said that it is a matter of political will I have another question.

It seems to be a fundamental right of parents to make choices with respect to how and where their children are educated. If they were not taxpayers I suppose we could simply say it was public policy, public money, and not their money.

Essentially 100% of these parents are also taxpayers. They pay into the education pot. Why can they not take money from the education pot to which they have contributed and make a free choice on how their children are educated?

Does the member suppose the Liberal Party will ever demonstrate the political will to grant this most fundamental human freedom?

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would have to reply to the hon. member that we have a federal system and a constitutional division of competencies. That is a question more properly addressed to the provincial legislature in his case or to provincial legislatures generally.

It is within the free will of the provincial legislatures to make these arrangements. There is an increasing sophistication in provincial legislatures and a realization that within the cost of education there has to be some greater pluralizing of the educational system.

I would say he should go directly to the provincial legislature. The problems are not constitutional. They are matters of political choice.

[Val Meredith, Reform, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I address the debate today on term 17 and the Newfoundland educational system.

It is extremely important for all of us to look at what a Canadian constitution is and to decide whether it is an historical document with no relevance to today's society. Should it be a document that evolves with the changes in our society, stays up to date with the times and changes with the needs expressed in different communities?

The motion before the House refers to term 17 and the Newfoundland agreement of coming into Confederation. It deals with denominational schools and whether or not they should be run by the churches as opposed to the state.

This situation has occurred over the years and was brought into question in 1992 by the Williams Royal Commission on Education that reported to the government with recommendations for change.

Discussions were entered between the government and the churches to try to come up with some kind of consensus. They were unable to do so.

Because of this situation then Premier Clyde Wells of Newfoundland attempted to reach a compromise position in 1995 with the churches and the government by introducing a constitutional amendment to term 17 which altered but did not eliminate denominational rights. On September 5, 1995 the people of Newfoundland voted in a referendum on the following question:

Do you support revising term 17 in the manner proposed by the government to enable reform of the denominational education system? Yes or No.

Of the 384,734 voters on the list 52% of them cast ballots. The result was that 54.8% said yes. They felt that there should be some changes to term 17.

On October 31, 1995 the Newfoundland House of Assembly passed the resolution to amend term 17. In June 1996 the House of Commons passed the motion. In July 1996, after holding committee meetings from June 18 to July 10, the Senate committee issued its report recommending amendments to the resolution. In August 1996 amendments to the school act and the education act were proclaimed replacing the 37 denominational school boards with 10 interdenominational boards.

When I looked at that and at the population of Newfoundland with 37 denominational school boards it seemed like an onerous system. In Vancouver, Surrey and Richmond, each city has a school board. In essence, we are talking about 1.5 million people in the greater Vancouver area with less than 10 school boards. I would think that perhaps it makes some sense for that to have happened.

In 1996 the Senate voted to amend the resolution. In December 1996 the House of Commons passed the original resolution for a second time. A new Schools Act and Education Act came into force in January 1997.

One thing we have to acknowledge is that Newfoundland has done something that Quebec has yet to do. When Newfoundland decided that it was going to bring these kinds of changes to the school system, whether or not it had the support of the people, it had a referendum. It knew that if it was going to be supported by the people, by the citizens of Newfoundland, that it would have to go out and sell the idea. As I said a little earlier in my comments, 54% of the people of Newfoundland said yes.

What happens is that people challenge and this was no different. After the Schools Act and Education Act came into force there was a challenge to the way the province of Newfoundland was going to administer it. In May 1997 the Catholic and Pentecostal churches issued a statement of claim and application for interlocutory relief in the Newfoundland supreme court. In July 1997 Mr. Justice Leo Barry granted an injunction.

I think it is necessary for us to understand that the injunction was not against amending term 17 but it was against the changes to the Schools Act as a result of the changes to term 17. I would hate to see in Canada that we would feel that a constitution cannot be changed. It is important for me to make the clarification that the courts were not saying we could not change the Constitution. They were merely addressing how the changes to the Constitution were being processed through the Education Act.

Newfoundland, in realizing that there was a problem in its constituency, did another honourable thing. It went back to the people and said that it wanted the people to tell it whether they agreed with what it was trying to do.

In September 1997 Newfoundland put another question to its people which was very clear: Do you support a single school system where all children, regardless of their religious affiliation, attend the same schools where opportunities for religious education and observances are provided, yes or no? The result of that referendum was 73%.

It is very important to use three tests as to whether or not the Constitution should be amended. It is very important if we accept the fact that they are changing a living document which can be amended, to understand or accept whether the people are behind the changes, the people who will be affected by them.

Does the change have the consensus of the population? I think Newfoundland has gone to great lengths to find that consensus and it has met that test.

The second test is whether they are legally able to do that. Something we will see over the next few years is whether there is a consensus that Newfoundland has the right under the law to make those kinds of changes to term 17.

One of the final tests has to be as to whether it is in the national interest. Is the change that is taking place going to be in the best interests of the citizenry? Is it going to protect the minority populations that will be affected by it? Is it going to recognize that sometimes when we do things for one province it has an effect on other provinces in Confederation?

As a country, we must always look at whether this amendment to part of the Constitution which may only affect one province will have any effect on other provinces in a way that would not have the support of the people in the other provinces. Is it going to be a precedent when dealing with constitutional issues down the road? We have to look at the three different areas that might be affected through constitutional change.

I suggest to individuals who are concerned as to whether or not there was a proper consensus of the population, I would like to think that with two resolutions that clearly indicated what the province was intending to do with the support of the majority of the population that they could feel comforted that it did have a consensus. Within the rule of law if there is a problem concerning whether or not there is a legal right, it will be challenged in the courts and it will be decided very clearly.

The third question on national interests is perhaps a little harder to deal with. That is a question we will have to set our minds to. The committee that will be formed by the House of Commons will have to set its mind to the question of whether this is in the national interest.

The amendment that was introduced earlier today by the Leader of the Opposition deals with whether it should be a joint committee and whether the hearings should take place in Newfoundland. It is time the Senate be relegated to the position it is in, a house that has no support because it is unelected. How is it possible for an unelected body to be making these serious recommendations on changing a constitution when it is not accountable to anybody? It is a system that may be outdated and should be looked at being changed, as is term 17 of the Newfoundland school act.

The other issue is whether we can justify dealing with term 17 in Ottawa. How is it possible for the people of Newfoundland to feel they have been taken seriously, that they are being given every opportunity and an equal opportunity to meet with committee members to have their positions heard if they are expected to travel to Ottawa? In this situation the committee should be holding its hearings in Newfoundland where the parents live. The committee should make sure Newfoundlanders have the full opportunity to present their position before the committee.

Once again the government is dealing with a very serious issue, amending the Canadian Constitution, and it has set a deadline. The committee must report back by December 5. When we talk about constitutional matters that have great importance to our country, although I believe it should be a living breathing document, we cannot make decisions in haste without fully reviewing all the aspects of legality, consensus and national interest. I would hope the government would allow ample opportunity for that process to take place before it forces a report back in this House.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce today a resolution to allow a bilateral amendment to Term 17 of the Terms of Union of Newfoundland with Canada.

The Terms of Union of Newfoundland are part of the Constitution of Canada. Section 43 of the Constitution Act, 1982, provides that an amendment may be made to the Constitution of Canada in relation to any provision that applies to one or more, but not all, provinces. Such an amendment may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada where so authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province to which the amendment applies.

On September 5, the Legislative Assembly of Newfoundland adopted unanimously a resolution authorizing certain amendments to Term 17 of its Terms of Union with Canada, which apply to Newfoundland only. This amendment will have no legal impact on the educational systems or religious minorities of other provinces. In accordance with established procedure, the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Newfoundland forwarded to the Clerk of the Privy Council a certified copy of the resolution, which was received on September 8, 1997.

Our role and responsibility as parliamentarians is to consider the proposed amendment and to decide whether to approve it. As I have already indicated on several occasions, the Government of Canada supports the proposed amendment which will allow Newfoundland to proceed with major reforms to its education system.

Following many years of rancorous and divisive debate in Newfoundland over the role of the churches and religion in education, it is the government's view that the proposed amendment strikes a workable balance. In Newfoundland the proposed amendment appears to enjoy a high level of consensus, including a reasonable degree of support from affected minorities. The government bases its assessment in part on the House of Assembly's unanimous endorsement of the amendment resolution and on the result of the provincial referendum in which 73% of the voters approved a proposal to reform the education system.

Nevertheless the Government of Canada is of the view that any attempt to alter entrenched minority rights should be marked by processes that are fair and thorough. To this end, the government is striking a special joint committee to examine Newfoundland's resolution to amend term 17.

It is our belief that the hearings will help to enhance public input and understanding of the proposed amendment. Moreover the committee's work will aid Parliament in making its independent assessment on the facts of the case and on the merits and appropriateness of the proposed amendment.

As hon. colleagues will recall, this is the second time in less than two years that Parliament has been asked to consider an amendment to term 17 of Newfoundland's terms of union. While this situation may seem unusual, the Constitution does not set any limits on how often legislators may seek constitutional amendments. It is up to Parliament and the provincial legislature to which the amendment applies to determine the appropriateness of each proposed constitutional change.

To understand fully the circumstances which have given rise to this second amendment proposal, it is necessary to briefly review the provisions of term 17. It is also helpful to examine the intensive efforts that have been made over the past seven years to reform the education system in Newfoundland.

In lieu of section 93 of the Constitution Act 1867, constitutional authority for education in Newfoundland was set out in term 17 of the province's 1949 terms of union with Canada. Term 17 granted six denominations the right to operate their own publicly funded schools. In 1987 term 17 was amended to extend denominational school rights to the Pentecostal assemblies. These seven denominations operated four separate school systems: the integrated school system of Anglican, Presbyterian, Salvation Army and United churches; the Pentecostal school system; the Roman Catholic school system; and the Seventh Day Adventist school system.

In 1990 the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador appointed Dr. Len Williams, a former teacher, principal and president of the provincial teachers association and current university professor, to chair a royal commission on education reform. The commission was asked “to obtain an impartial assessment of the existing education system and to seek an appropriate vision for change”.

The 1992 report of the Williams royal commission recommended the reorganization of the education system in Newfoundland and Labrador to permit government to administer the system in a more efficient manner. The commission proposed the creation of a single interdenominational school system encompassing the four separate denominational systems in operation at the time.

Initially the Government of Newfoundland sought to achieve this change through non-constitutional negotiations with denominational leaders. When nearly three years of discussions failed to achieve an agreement the Government of Newfoundland sought institutional reform through a constitutional amendment to term 17 of its terms of union.

But the amendment that Newfoundland sought, and which was authorized by this House and proclaimed by the Governor General on April 21, 1997, represented a compromise. The amendment would not have eliminated all single denominational schools. The amendment was designed to provide the Newfoundland House of Assembly with additional powers to organize and administer public education through a system of interdenominational schools, while retaining the rights of Roman Catholics and Pentecostals to unidenominational schools under certain conditions. These conditions were to be set out in provincial legislation that was equally applicable to all schools, either unidenominational or interdenominational.

However, the attempt to legislatively implement the new term 17 under a revised schools act was successfully challenged in the Newfoundland supreme court. On July 8, 1997, Mr. Justice Leo Barry granted representatives of the Roman Catholic and Pentecostal churches a temporary injunction halting the entire educational reform process. In Justice Barry's view, the new schools act favoured interdenominational over unidenominational schools. Therefore he found that a trial judge would likely find that the legislation was contrary to the amended term 17, which required that interdenominational and unidenominational Roman Catholic and Pentecostal schools be given equal treatment.

As even Mr. Justice Barry acknowledged and anticipated, the injunction resulted in a “significant disruption” for teachers, principals and students who had been reassigned to different schools on the basis of the new school legislation. It also resulted in the reopening of some schools and the rehiring of some teachers who had been laid off following certain school closures and resignations. For the Government of Newfoundland and citizens who thought the divisive of education debate was behind them, the injunction raised many questions and a great deal of uncertainty about the future structure of the school system.

The Government of Newfoundland filed an appeal, but did not pursue the matter. Instead, on July 31, 1997, Premier Tobin announced in a province-wide telecast that he would hold a referendum on September 2 to secure a mandate to amend term 17 once again. Premier Tobin explained that for five years the provincial government, schools boards, teachers' associations, the churches, parents and students “have all been engaged in what seems to be a never ending debate about how to reconcile the need for reform of our education system with the rights of the denominations in the education system”.

While not referring specifically to the injunction blocking educational reform, Premier Tobin argued that “During the last five years, we have seen every attempt to reconcile these two ideas, education reform and denominational rights, end in more confusion and more conflict”. Consequently, Premier Tobin decided to go to the people once again to seek a mandate for an amendment to term 17. The proposed amendment, which we are asked to consider, is to create a single, publicly funded and administered school system. The brief text of this term 17 amendment which only contains three clauses, is plain and clear and states that:

(1) In lieu of section 93 of the Constitution Act 1867, this section shall apply in respect of the Province of Newfoundland.

(2) In and for the province of Newfoundland, the legislature shall exclusive authority to make laws in relation to education, but shall provided for courses in religion that are not specific to a religious denomination.

(3) Religious observances shall be permitted in a school where requested by parents.

This proposed amendment, which constitutes a major restructuring of Newfoundland's education system, is supported by a substantial majority of the province's population and enjoys a fair degree of support from affected minorities. In addition, the House of Assembly gave the unanimous approval on September 5.

In considering this amendment the government has sought to ensure that its process is thorough and gives due respect to affected minorities. Members will recall that the issue of minority rights was not central to the government's consideration of the previous term 17 amendment. The old term 17 granted certain rights to seven denominations representing 95% of the population. However, following the amendment to term 17, the integrated group, Anglican, Presbyterian, Salvation Army and the United Church became one majority class of persons comprising 52% of the population. The Roman Catholics became a sizeable minority of 37%, the Pentecostal are a minority of 7%.

Given this amendment's effect on minority rights, a mere 50% plus one referendum majority would not have been sufficient nor adequate in measuring the degree of consensus among affected Roman Catholics and Pentecostals. But the referendum did not result in a narrow majority: it was an overwhelming majority of 73%, which provided evidence of minority support. The proposal carried in 47 of Newfoundland's 48 electoral districts.

Voter turn out was 53%, but given the high probability that opponents of the education reform proposal were most liken to vote, the results sent a clear message that there is substantial support for this amendment.

An analysis indicates that in heavily Roman Catholic areas the proposal was supported by a majority. The St. George's Bay region, which is 74% Roman Catholic, voted 59% yes. The Avalon peninsula, which is 48.5% Roman Catholic, voted 72% yes. Coincidentally, the Burin peninsula is also 48.5% Roman Catholic and it also voted 72% yes. Approximately 75% of all Roman Catholics in Newfoundland and Labrador reside in these three regions.

It is difficult to assess accurately the exact degree to which members of the smaller Pentecostal community supported the proposed amendment. However, in the four electoral districts where Pentecostals are most heavily concentrated the resolution carried with majorities of 57% to 64%.

Moreover, on September 5, the four members of the Pentecostal faith who sit in the Newfoundland House of Assembly and represent districts with significant Pentecostal populations, joined their colleagues in unanimously supporting the resolution to amend term 17.

Indeed, in assessing the proposed amendment, parliamentarians should accord due respect to the fact that all of the members of the House of Assembly voted in favour of the resolution to amend term 17. This included all Catholic and Pentecostal members who had campaigned for the no side and voted no in the provincial referendum.

The overwhelming support the amendment received in the referendum and the House of Assembly represents a clear consensus that appears to include a reasonable measure of support from the affected minorities. Parliament should interpret this as a clear signal that the population of Newfoundland and Labrador wants to proceed expeditiously to reform its education system in a manner that is fair to all.

In the midst of the confusion that resulted following the injunction halting the implementation of the 1997 term 17 amendment and after years of debate over educational reform and the role of the churches, Newfoundlanders want to move on. The results of the referendum and the unanimous vote of the House of Assembly indicate that it feels the proposed amendment strikes a fair and workable balance that allows reform to proceed.

The proposed term 17 clearly states that education is a matter of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. However, the amendment will not take religion out of the schools. The new term 17 contains a mandatory provision that guarantees that “courses in religion” must be taught and “religious observances” must be “permitted in schools where requested by parents”.

Correspondingly, the term will not require children to attend religious observances or classes if their parents object. This interpretation is supported by the legal opinion of two eminent lawyers, the well-known constitutional expert, Mr. Ian Binnie, and former federal justice minister, the Hon. John Crosbie.

The government acknowledges that the Newfoundland and Labrador Roman Catholic bishops and the leadership of the Pentecostal church have concerns about the new amendment. However, we feel the Government of Newfoundland is demonstrating a spirit of openness with regard to a continued role, albeit non-constitutional, for the churches.

In anticipation for the term 17 amendment's adoption, the Newfoundland department of education has begun setting up a consultative process for developing the new religious education curriculum. Although there is no requirement to do so, the department of education has indicated that this process will seek representations from the province's various denominations.

In conclusion, should another province wish to propose changes to the conditions of its union or to section 93, it will be incumbent on Parliament to look at the facts and to assess the validity and appropriateness of the proposed amendment. Parliament will also carefully determine whether the amendment enjoys reasonable support from those concerned.

In the case before us, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador duly authorized, under section 43, an amendment to Term 17 which will only apply to that province.

The Government of Canada believes the amendment is justified. We feel it enjoys adequate support from those concerned, including minorities, and we believe it deserves Parliament's support and approbation. However, the joint committee and all parliamentarians will have to conduct their own assessment of this amendment, which will allow Newfoundland to implement the necessary reforms to its education system, as it has been hoping to do for a long time.

[Peter Goldring, Reform, Edmonton East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the hon. Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

As the consensus in Newfoundland has been by referendum and the consensus for the Quebec application is by the legislative assembly, why is the Government of Newfoundland not prepared to obtain a ruling from the provincial supreme court on this matter to clarify the issue?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what issue he is talking about. I do not find the question to be precise enough.

[Peter Goldring, Reform, Edmonton East, AB]

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. My question for the hon. minister is why has the Government of Newfoundland not sought to obtain a ruling from the provincial supreme court to clarify this issue?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I understand the question.

I do not understand the problem the hon. member has.

Section 43 applies, so it is a bilateral amendment. Is that the point? If the point is that it is a bilateral amendment, there is no problem with that. I was surprised to hear the Leader of the Opposition say that section 93 is involved. By no means does section 93 have anything to do with this. It is section 17.

The first sentence in term 17 is: “In lieu of section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867, the following term shall apply in respect of the province of Newfoundland”.

It is section 17, not section 93.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a short comment before putting my question to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

Since this morning, Reform members seem to get the Quebec and Newfoundland issues mixed up, not realizing that section 93 is not involved, contrary to what they have been saying all day. The two issues are different from a procedural point of view.

Obviously, Reformers would like a referendum to be held in Quebec on this issue. However, there is a consensus on this issue, which even the federal government deemed adequate to move forward. I remind Reform members that it is not only sovereignists who feel there is an adequate consensus.

My question to the minister is this: Given that Newfoundlanders said yes twice—both times through a democratic process involving consultations and a royal commission of inquiry—why establish such a committee? We will not oppose it, but one wonders. Why set up a committee?

Could it be that, following the work of the committee, the government may find it necessary to make amendments, changes, etc., or is everything already decided anyway? The people have spoken. Why set up a committee and particularly, as I said this morning, a joint committee that will include our dear senators, whose legitimacy is being questioned by everyone? So, why set up a committee after the people have already clearly voiced their opinion and are, for all intents and purposes, waiting for us to move forward?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, the member is quite right. Each province must be considered individually. But the same principles must be applied to all.

In the case of the Government of Canada, there are two principles. First, is the proposed amendment good for the province in question? Second, does it have enough support, including by the minorities affected? The Constitution obliges us as parliamentarians—in a sense this is what we are paid and elected by our constituents to do—to make up our own minds and to examine these two issues. That is why there must be a parliamentary committee.

The second reason there must be a parliamentary committee, and the case of Quebec is an illustration, is that even when there is a consensus, and a fairly clear one, there are always some people who are worried. When no one will speak with them, they worry even more. It is better to speak with them, hear what they have to say and see that their point of view is made widely known, as was done by the newspapers in Quebec on the weekend, so that provincial legislators can see how they can finetune their policy so that things will go well in the province, because consensus is not the same thing as unanimity.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since we are comparing the two cases, you will forgive me if I correct certain facts.

These groups, in the case of both Newfoundland and Quebec, have already been heard. Here in Ottawa, they are talking as though there had never been any consultations regarding the constitutional amendment affecting Quebec. There were the États généraux sur l'éducation and consultations on Bill 109. So the groups that come here are not expressing new and different points of view. You want the provincial governments to hear these arguments, but I do not think there is anyone who has heard a single new thing with respect to either the case of Newfoundland or that of the Government of Quebec. It then becomes a pretext.

It is always a bit of a paternalistic attitude that the folks in Ottawa must form their own opinion. The people of Newfoundland have expressed their point of view, and they clearly had one opinion. There were several years of discussions with the groups concerned, and the reason the government held a referendum was because it was unable to come to an agreement with these groups. Almost everything there is to say has been said. How does the government think we are going to reach different conclusions? On the contrary, this even weakens the consensuses somewhat because the two concepts of consensus and unanimity are being dragged in.

Is the government's process not going to weaken somewhat the existing consensuses, which are strong both in the case of Newfoundland and in that of Quebec?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is not paternalism in the least, it is federalism. Federalism is defined as a system in which public power is not concentrated in a single order of government, thus better protecting the freedom of citizens. The democratic federations are evidence of this.

We, the Canadian Parliament, have the responsibility of looking at what has occurred. The hon. member tells me it is unlikely the judgment brought down unanimously for the province of Newfoundland—this being the case we are addressing today—can be changed. The government agrees fully that it is unlikely, but we still cannot be remiss in our duty to look at this very closely.

[Pierre De Savoye, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have just heard the minister say that we must protect citizens' rights. But a parliament must also, unquestionably, respect citizens' wishes. In order to understand his argument better, I would like to propose a totally opposite scenario to him.

Let us imagine that the conclusions of the committee, the formation of which is referred to in the motion before us, were contrary to the intentions of the people of Newfoundland as expressed in the referendum. What should we conclude about our parliamentary system and about a federalism that no longer respected the will of the people?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is an extremely hypothetical example.

Since we are dealing with hypotheses, let us assume that one province, with a very strong majority, were to turn up with a constitutional change that was clearly discriminatory toward a minority in that province—and I am not in the least singling out New Brunswick with this, it being a bilingual and profoundly democratic province—but let us assume that sometime in the next few decades a government with a bad idea were to say to us “We've had enough of official bilingualism in New Brunswick, and we have a clear majority behind us in this”. We would still ask them what the Acadian minority in New Brunswick thought about this.

Despite a clear majority, the Government of Canada—probably a Liberal one—would say “You will not even get that past the first door of this Parliament, because there are minority rights that have to be respected”.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am a bit surprised by the minister's responses to my two colleagues' questions, particularly on the subject of minority rights.

I am surprised at not having heard anything from him since his arrival here on the assimilation of francophones in Manitoba, for example, or the assimilation of 72% of the francophones in British Columbia. I am also very surprised that he did not rise in response to remarks by a member of his party, the member for Vaudreuil. He spoke in committee, but did not rise in the House when the member for Vaudreuil said “I want anglophones in Quebec to have the same rights as francophones in Manitoba, Ontario and British Columbia”. This kind of argument does not hold water, given the rights enjoyed by the anglophones in Quebec.

If francophones in the rest of Canada had only 10% or 15% of these rights, they would be in heaven. And in a committee struck by this minister and this government, for remarks such as these to come from the mouth of a member from Quebec, the member for Vaudreuil, al I can say is this is what these empty committees lead to. In Newfoundland, 73% of the population and a royal commission have shown that this is clearly what they want. And clearly this committee will come to the same conclusion reached in Newfoundland. Otherwise, everything would be topsy turvey.

The central government is the offspring of the provinces, rather than the reverse. So the provinces should be telling the central government what to do. They must tell the central government: “We are transferring jurisdictions over to you”. But the federal government has no business interfering in provincial jurisdictions. There is a will that was clearly expressed.

Once again, I agree with our party critic. We will not object to the establishment of the committee, so that this is not interpreted as our being opposed to the motion per se. But it is nonetheless ridiculous to spend time and money to sit and discuss rights and democracy with unelected senators, with remnants of colonialism.

I do not see any need to go to the great dormitory to come to an honest and appropriate decision. We could do without these hon. sleepyheads, as a now retired senator used to call them before becoming one of them.

I repeat, there is no need for such a committee since there is a clear and unequivocal will. And if the government had wanted to do the right thing, the responsible thing, it would have tabled a motion and we could have moved on, instead of wasting time and money when the people have clearly expressed their will.

The same is happening with the Quebec resolution. When I see a minister, an academic from Quebec, question a unanimous resolution passed by the National Assembly, after the consultations that have taken place, after the anglophone minorities were consulted, after anglophone members from Quebec said they were satisfied following the changes they themselves proposed. Here is a minister from Montreal, who, while having some experience and knowing that the entire Montreal intelligentsia realizes that this resolution should have been passed 30 years ago, is wasting our time and, for partisan purposes before the election, refused to bring in a motion to settle the matter. I can see the minister leaving. I cannot blame him. Sometimes the truth is hard to take.

Instead of bringing in a motion, he focused on the election, and today he is referring the matter to committee. What do we hear in these committees? Stupidities and idiotic comments such as those made by the members for Vaudreuil and Mount Royal. This is a fine kettle of fish. The government decided to strike such a committee, but when the minister goes around with his committee's picnic basket, he does not realize that ants are getting into the basket and that,moreover, these ants are Liberal Party members.

We hear extremists make all sorts of idiotic comments and present arguments not based on any principle or consultation. Such is the threat posed by these committees, particularly expanded committees, with senators, or members of the other place as we say here, who want to give us lessons in democracy. The world's most undemocratic institution sits next to us, and this government is giving it importance in two ways: first, by having senators sit on so-called joint committees and, second, by appointing new senators when others retire.

There is only one way to deal with the Upper House: it must be abolished. Conduct a poll and hold a referendum. You will see what the public thinks. In Quebec, 92% are in favour of abolishing that institution. The only way to get rid of the Upper House is by attrition, as we did in Quebec. I believe it was the Bertrand government which made a pact with the Quebec Senate. It stopped appointing new senators and told those who were there “Go home. You will get paid for the rest of your life. After all, you only come here for that pay cheque”. They were absolutely useless. This is a cancer we must get rid of.

This upper House is a hotbed of patronage, and this is something that the Liberal Party specializes in, patronage, financing, rewarding buddies, this is what the Liberal Party stands for. You keep the operation open and when you have a chance you put in another buddy, as was done for the latest appointments, for example.

However, while considering this issue here, with this debate on the creation of this useless committee, we have at least the opportunity to ask the following question: When the people of Newfoundland approved the referendum with a 54% majority and then when judges, not from the Supreme Court this time with their Santa Claus costumes, but judges from the Superior Court ruled that the question was not appropriate, what did the Government of Newfoundland do? It told them where to go and it held another referendum. What does the federal government do? It says: “There was a second referendum and the yes side won again so we will agree to create a committee and put a resolution before the House to have it approved”.

But have you noticed that when Quebec is involved, people refer to the Supreme Court? In this case, even if there is a referendum in Quebec, people say: “In this case this is not acceptable”. If there is a referendum on sovereignty, people will say: “This is not acceptable”. In the case of Newfoundland, it told its Superior Court where to go and it held a referendum.

Personally, I prefer to tell the minister and his government colleagues that when there is a referendum with a clear yes for sovereignty, nobody, but nobody will prevent a people from going forward, especially not judges from the Supreme Court dressed in Santa Claus costumes and appointed by the Liberal Party.

This debate at least gives us the opportunity to show to all Quebeckers that if they want to assume responsibility for themselves by voting yes in a referendum, the federal government will have to submit to their will, like Newfoundland has just done. It did not appeal the ruling of the court. It said “We are having another referendum”. And bang, the government finds itself forced to respect that desire.

I wonder, when I hear what is being said in the House today, if the suggestion does not need to be made that, when this committee's work is over—which I hope will be as soon as possible—and when it comes back to this House, if we could not talk of the rights of francophone Newfoundlanders, and make a little comparison between the rights of the francophone Newfoundlanders and the rights, the treatment—a source of great pride to us—of the anglophones of Quebec. The anglophone minority in Quebec is the best treated minority in the world, and Quebecers are proud of that.

And we will continue to be proud after sovereignty, when we will still be cited as an example throughout the world for the way we treat our anglophone minority, for our anglophone minority in Quebec has played an important part in our development as a nation. I cannot say the same for the treatment reserved for the francophone Newfoundlanders, the Franco-Manitobans. If we review the history of the provinces, when most of the Canadian provinces were founded, francophones outnumbered anglophones. Today, because of legislation passed in recent years, the past 20, 30, 40 or 50 years, legislation forbidding francophones from having the same rights as anglophones, the rate of assimilation has been so strong that it is still 72% in British Columbia and 60% in Manitoba, and francophones who speak French in the home are virtually non-existent in the western provinces. They were a majority when these provinces came into being.

At the end of our proceedings in committee, we could perhaps tell Newfoundland to provide its French speaking population, in its regulations, practices and school boards, the same rights English speaking Quebekers have in Quebec. I dream of the day when the federal government and the other provinces in Canada will have enough determination to sign a reciprocal treaty concerning the rights of anglophones in Quebec and of francophones in the rest of Canada.

Ask French speaking people in the rest of Canada, in your provinces, whether they would support a motion in this House granting them the same rights English speaking Quebeckers are enjoying. They have English primary schools and high schools and comprehensive education in English from kindergarten to university. They have three universities when they make up only 10% of the Quebec population. Mr. Larose, in his testimony before the committee, listed all the benefits English speaking Quebekers have in Quebec. As a majority and as a government, we are proud to give them those benefits because they are full-fledged members of Quebec society. We are proud. How nice it would be if French speaking Canadians could say the same.

The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs seems to like committees a lot. Let me suggest one to him, a committee on minority rights in Quebec and Canada. Let us review these rights province by province. Some people here will be ashamed because, as happened a couple years ago, the French speaking minority had to go to school in sheds, with kids having to go to the outhouse. Things have been that bad for some French speaking Canadians. We have been talking about that. Some of them are treated that way. We could compare, and then talk about bilingualism and about the two official languages of this great Canada. We would see what the real situation is like, and how serious the assimilation problem is.

Therefore, this committee should be as short-lived as possible. As a matter of fact, it should not even have been struck; however, it must be because of the minister's public commitment to do so, thus wasting a lot of time and money. The government has probably run out of ideas, as it usually does when it comes to interesting issues, such as how to deal with unemployment, use the employment insurance surplus, develop a policy to eliminate the deficit, review the cuts to social programs in order to remedy the situation since the economy is improving. Rather than dealing with these things, it keeps on talking about the Constitution. It is the world gone topsy turvey. All the federal government wants to do is talk about the Constitution and strike constitutional committees, instead of dealing with the issue in one day, when Newfoundland has made its wishes clearly known.

I hope this committee will be short-lived and that it will also be seen as an opportunity to ponder the rights of francophones outside Quebec.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague from Richelieu for his speech delivered with his usual dynamism, which provided a very insightful look at our institutions.

As you heard, he very aptly described the other House, which is called the Senate and which should not be called the Senate—a collection of dinosaurs that costs Canadians millions of dollars, an undemocratic institution, as my colleague from Richelieu so ably pointed out.

I would like to ask him, more specifically, what logic he sees in the operation of the Senate and in the head of Senator Beaudouin. I hope we can name him, for I want to make sure we understand one another. What kind of logic does he detect in the head of the ineffable constitutionalist Beaudouin, who is now a richly rewarded and oh-so-objective senator, who continues to appear as an expert on the CBC with all of its objectivity, who covered himself in shame the other day in the face of the alleged consensus, as he put it, in Quebec on the amendments to be made to the Constitution in order to set up a system of education based on language rather than religion, and who said that a referendum was required? There is no consensus in Quebec, a referendum is required.

In Newfoundland they had a referendum and the government is once again stepping in to slow the democratic process and set up a joint committee to study the problem. I do not understand the logic of these people. I would like to know whether my colleague from Richelieu understands it. They want us to hold a referendum and when we have one, it is still not enough.

Where is democracy in Parliament, in this government, in Canadian institutions, which are becoming increasingly spineless and which are increasingly branding Canada as a country with no ethics?

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish I had a clear answer to give my hon. colleague. I share the concerns of the hon. member for Trois-Rivières.

He mentioned the dinosaurs—oops, sorry—the senators. Dinosaurs and senators. When I travelled through my riding last week, someone told me a story about senators. It went like this “How does a senator wink? By opening an eye.” It is odd, but it describes them well.

About a year ago, I passed by a senator's office as I was walking down a corridor. It was 10 a.m. and the senator was at his window. I stopped and said “Stop looking out of your window, senator, or you will have nothing left to do this afternoon”.

That is the image we have of these dinosaurs, as you called them. One of the dinosaurs you referred to would like to give us lessons in democracy. That takes the cake. A member of the most undemocratic institution in the world wants to give lessons in democracy to a province, or a legislature, that legitimately obtained a democratic mandate from the people.

Two referenda were held in Newfoundland. That is still not enough. He comes and tells us “You in Quebec, your consensus—” Our consensus is based on a unanimous resolution passed in the National Assembly, where three political parties are represented: the ADQ, the PQ and the Liberal Party. I estimate that half the Liberal Party members are anglophones and individuals from the various ethnic backgrounds that enrich the people of Quebec. These members unanimously proposed, after consulting their communities, a number of amendments, which were approved by the National Assembly following further consultations at the time of the États généraux on Bill 109.

So, we held the necessary consultations and all of a sudden an old dinosaur from the other place told us: “Is this a democratic process?” And he adds that when we hold a referendum on sovereignty, and we will, he will not feel bound by it. He is saying: “Hold a referendum, but if it goes through, we will not feel bound by the decision. However, if it does not go through, we will say that it was proper, that democracy is protected”.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

It only works one way.