Debates of Oct. 27th, 1997

Newfoundland School System

[Peter Goldring, Reform, Edmonton East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the referendum was well advertised. It was well known that it was being conducted. The low numbers of turnout are just that.

It had been well advertised. It may have been in a period of time, summertime, when it is difficult for people to acknowledge or respond to it. But by being advertised, we believe democratic consent has been given by having the referendum process.

[Joe Jordan, Liberal, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to touch on the question by the hon. member's colleague on the use of a voucher system or an educational system that makes use of empowering the user and the inherent logic in that.

I wonder, as a former educator though I may be engaged at that at the moment, does he not think or not recognize that there is a danger that the education system, by engaging in a bidding war and the marketing activities necessary to attract vouchers, might take resources away from the fundamental reason that these systems exist? I do not see this type of activity aligning itself too closely with what is going on in the classroom. If resources are scarce, is there not a danger that we might, through the funding mechanism, be forcing education systems into activities that are not in the best interests of the students?

[Peter Goldring, Reform, Edmonton East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that having a voucher system may enter an element of fairness by levelling the field and making it more fair for the different denominations to have their own education system. I would not find that to be a problem or creating undue competition. It would possibly improve the system.

[Rey D. Pagtakhan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pursue that question further. If you pursue the voucher system and all the students who receive this decide to transfer to another province, how will that catastrophe be responded to?

[Peter Goldring, Reform, Edmonton East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would consider that to be a hypothetical situation. I think we are here to debate the Newfoundland resolution which is before us.

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

Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend on the other side brought up this voucher system question. I know it is a little bit off the topic, but by empowering the students who are going to use the service, a minimum standard curriculum could be provided. I believe this would give a much better quality of education because it would be market driven and it would be up to the institution to provide the best service.

A parent may have five or six choices and would pick the institution which was most suitable and which would provide the best education. A dollar value should not be placed on the voucher. It is to provide a service. It would make the schools or institutions very competitive. Again it is such an important issue.

My colleague from Calgary West suggested that should have been part of the choice given to the people of Newfoundland. We are setting a trend for the rest of the country. It is such an important issue that we should really think it through so that we provide the best alternatives for our children.

[Peter Goldring, Reform, Edmonton East, AB]

Madam Speaker, I concur with my colleague that the voucher system would have been an important element to have in this resolution, or to propose to the people of Newfoundland. I agree it would certainly add an element of fairness to the educational system in Newfoundland.

[David Price, Progressive Conservative, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to begin today by reading to you from the column by William Johnson which appeared in the Montreal Gazette last week. In it he wrote:

Removing constitutional rights from a minority is a serious undertaking. Ottawa showed its contempt last year by trying to ram through Parliament the amendment to Newfoundland's Terms of Union as it affected religious control of the school boards. The result was a constitutional mess, and Parliament will have to deal again with the issue of Newfoundland's schools.

Well here we are again for a second time in as many years dealing with the issue. Members of the House of Commons did not travel. They did not even hold hearings. The government rushed it to judgment and the result was, as Mr. Johnson noted, a constitutional mess.

I am new here and I would certainly not want to make snap judgments. I do not wish to insinuate that the Liberals are heartless and that they are acting with no regard for others. I do not wish to insinuate that the Liberals are not doing a good job in keeping an eye on the provincial authorities and allowing them to do their jobs as they must. And I particularly do not wish to insinuate that the Liberals have mishandled the Constitution in a cavalier manner. That would be to make judgments and that is not my purpose.

What I do know is that the other place did hold hearings. Members of the other place travelled to St. John's. The Senate wrote an outstanding report. The chair was Senator Sharon Carstairs.

This government called a snap vote late one afternoon to dismiss the work and the will of another house of Parliament. In fact I am told that voices from every part of the Chamber were yelling “dispense, dispense” when the Speaker was informing this House of the message from the other place. This House did not take the time to listen, to consider and today this is the result. It is back before us again.

If we are going to do something, we should do it well. If we are going to amend our Constitution, we should do it right. If we are going to remove minority rights, we had better be certain that the affected parties are heard from. It is their right and our duty.

I want to take the time now to speak to the amendment put forward by the Reform Party. I am currently sitting on the special joint committee to amend the Constitution with regard to Quebec schools. The players are different but the same important debate remains: the protection of minority rights.

I spent one week on this committee but I have to tell this House and the Reform members who sit on this committee with me that I value the role the senators have played so far. The other place does more than provide sober second thought. The other place provides expertise. Whether it is the Constitution, human rights or education itself, the other place shares with a committee experience that is far reaching.

What we are speaking of is amending Canada's Constitution. This is serious business. Reform should understand how serious this is and should support the other place's role.

On March 3, 1896 Sir Wilfrid Laurier made what some consider his best speech. He spoke in defence of minority rights in Manitoba. At second reading of Bill 58, the Remedial Act, Wilfrid Laurier, who was not yet prime minister, asked, “Is the government impelled by the desire of doing justice to the minority?” He continued, “In a community with a free government in a free country like this, upon any question involving different conceptions of what is right or wrong, different standards of what is just or unjust, it is the part of statesmanship not to force the view of any matter but to endeavour to bring them all to a uniform standard and a uniform conception of what is right”.

None in this House approach Sir Wilfrid Laurier's eloquence and leadership, but today's Prime Minister need not be eloquent. He need only ask himself whether an amendment to term 17 is necessary to achieve the provincial government's stated intention of reforming the educational system.

Sir Wilfrid Laurier knew so long ago that rights are aimed at limiting and domesticating state power in attenuating its outcome. Does this Prime Minister understand what Laurier understood?

In contrast to the Unitarian point of view in which the ends justify the means, human rights offer an ethical approach setting constraining limits on authority. As expressed in a letter dated May 27, 1996 from Archbishop Francis J. Spence, president of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, to the Prime Minister, the primary responsibility of the Government of Canada is not the reform in Newfoundland's education system, which all parties agree is necessary, but the protection of minority rights under our Constitution from the arbitrary action of the majority.

The Constitution and the charter can either be worthless pieces of paper or very real and binding instruments of guidance. A true standard. Whether these documents will be one or the other does not depend on governments alone. It is up to all of us to determine how seriously these guidelines will be taken, how they will be implemented and made real.

It is necessary to recall these documents that guide Canadian society and try with new energy to ensure that the government acts according to their spirit. Governments must accept the indivisibility of human rights and respect constitutionally entrenched minority rights.

The Newfoundland terms of union are enshrined in the Canadian Constitution. Premier Tobin appears to no longer respect those terms. The Prime Minister appears to accede to a historical approach to public policy making. Together they appear disrespectful of the rule of law and delicate balance that must accompany a state's intrusion into a matter expressly outside its jurisdiction.

Has the will of the popular majority been a safe haven for safeguarding the rights of the minority? No it has not. Nor indeed has the majority's will always been when one considers the history books and the many clashes between minority and majority.

This is precisely why Reform Party's policy of blind adherence to government by referendum is seldom in the true public interest and hardly ever in the interests of legitimate minority interests. There are some issues that legitimately require majority action and others which lie outside the proper arena of majority determination.

Majority rule implies a great deal about civil rights, such as free speech, free assembly and free association. I might add that the word majority means major part, and so connotes the presence of other parts in one as several minorities.

Some would say that minorities constitute the margins of society. Others would say that minorities are the practical manifestations of a society's ability to accommodate and provide safe alternatives.

Rather than build on Canada's proud heritage and respect for minority education rights by extending rights, perhaps to the francophone minority in Newfoundland, Premier Tobin and the Prime Minister have actively pursued a diminution of minority safeguards.

His Eminence G. Emmett Cardinal Carter in writing to the Prime Minister on May 21, 1996 said: “I am disappointed, like many Canadians, because I took you at your word and the Liberal Party is a party of principle and a champion of minority rights”.

I take no pleasure in drawing to the attention of the House the following curious examples of political leadership. On March 12, 1993 just before an election, the then premier of Newfoundland made a statement in the House of Assembly: “In response to the church leaders' concerns that implementing certain recommendations of the royal commission report would jeopardize their traditional rights, government has assured the leaders that it is not seeking change to the Constitution that would remove the constitutionally protected rights of classes of people specifically provided for”.

Canada's great advantage over other nations is our tradition of diversity which was born of the historic necessity of English and French speaking Canadians working together and which has blossomed into a basic respect for the multitude of cultures which make up Canada.

The Canadian tradition has been one based on the obligations of history and respect for cultural, religious and ethnic minorities. That tradition is in a certain degree of peril with this latest incursion into the Constitution to strike down the valuable education rights of the religious denominations in Newfoundland.

[John Cummins, Reform, Delta—South Richmond, BC]

Mr. Speaker, today we are debating again the Newfoundland schools issue. It is an issue which the government seems to slip in and foist upon the House without due notice. I must say it certainly caught me by surprise that it was going to be discussed again today. I find that most disturbing because I think that the issue itself is an issue of significant importance not only to Newfoundland but also to Canadians from coast to coast.

This morning my leader gave an outstanding speech on this matter in the House. We would do well to listen to the cautions that he raised.

He suggested three things. He proposed three tests which should be considered before any constitutional amendment is passed by the House. The three tests which he suggested are the test of democratic consent, the test of the rule of law, and the test of the Canadian national interest.

I would first like to take a look at the test of democratic consent. He asked questions about that. Was there a clear majority result from the referendum respecting the term 17 amendment? He asked if the referendum process was fair and if the question was unbiased. I have a lot of problems with the whole process.

I would like to read into the record some of the problems that Harold Flynn, president of the Newfoundland and Labrador Catholic Education Association, printed in an advertisement in the Ottawa Citizen . He noted that the government's conduct during the referendum compromised the democratic process. He said: “We urge you to consider all the facts before making a decision”. The first point that he asked us to look at was this.

The first point read:

The proposed amendment will bring about profound social change in Newfoundland, and deprive denominational minorities of the same religious education rights that are currently enshrined in the Constitution.

I will get on to this point later in my speech but he has raised an important point, the legality of the issue. The second point read:

The referendum was announced only on July 31, leaving too little time for thoughtful analysis and informed debate.

The next point read:

The text of the proposed Constitutional amendment was not presented until August 24, precluding an opportunity to consider its merits and implications.

Another point read:

Government spent significant amounts of tax dollars to promote the YES side, but refused public funds to those with different views.

Those points he raised question the validity of the process used. It is important to note that if we are to conduct referendums; if we believe in the referendum process; if we want the referendum process to solve certain issues whether the issue be capital punishment, the abortion issue or so on; and if we are to use the referendum process, we must ensure the process is run fairly and there is no bias built into it.

By allowing for as little time as was allowed for in this vote it precluded thoughtful analysis of the issue and precluded honest debate. The fact that the government financed one portion of the debate is not healthy in a referendum process. If the government is proposing a referendum it should leave the discussion of the issue and the financing of the matter to the citizens. It is wrong for the government to involve itself in the debate in that manner.

The next point read:

Government has allowed voters to cast their ballots outside their electoral districts, increasing the opportunity for electoral abuse.

And the next read:

Government refused to allow scrutineers at polling stations, denying advocates an opportunity to observe the voting process to ensure that it was fair and democratic.

Mr. Flynn went on to note:

We regard the Canadian Constitution and its safeguards as a sacred compact. We believe the procedure to change it must be equally sacred—especially when they affect minority rights and referendums.

By exploiting this referendum “mandate”, the provincial government plans to subordinate the rights of religious minorities to the tyranny of the majority.

I could not agree more with what Mr. Flynn noted in this talk.

The last point he raised is another point raised by the Leader of the Opposition this morning, the test of the rule of law. It is important to address that issue. Inherent in that test of responsibilities is that the government has to protect minority rights, and it is something that it has not done.

In addressing that particular issue I think it is worth noting section 93(3) of the Constitution in particular:

Where in any province a system of separate or distinct schools exists by law at the union or is therefore established by the legislature of the province, an appeal shall lie to Governor General in Council from any act or decision of the provincial authority affecting any right or privilege of the Protestant or Roman Catholic minority of the Queen's subjects in relation to education.

That statement puts a heavy burden on the government. It means that the government cannot change the Constitution with regard to education rights willy-nilly. It must reflect carefully on its responsibility.

When Newfoundland entered into Confederation in 1949 the terms of the union gave special protection to the Newfoundland denominational schools. The protection given in term 17 of the terms of union was in addition to the general protection of denominational schools given in section 93 of the Constitution of 1867, what has always been known as the British North America Act.

The amendment of the Constitution of Canada proposed by the Government of Newfoundland before the House today would remove the special protection negotiated in 1949. More than that, it would exempt Newfoundland from the general protection found in section 93. That section applies to all Canadians.

This amendment would remove the protection available to all other Canadians. In one fell swoop Newfoundland would go from giving the best protection to its minority denominational schools to giving the least.

Section 93 makes the federal government a guarantor of minority denominational schools, which means the federal government has a responsibility in the matter of minority denomination schools. This Parliament has responsibility to protect minority denominational education. It cannot simply allow the Constitution to be changed in that manner.

Beyond that particular point of law is the next point addressed by the Leader of the Opposition this morning: how this would affect other Canadians. This point is important.

Ted Byfield in a recent column in The British Columbia Report noted that it is one of Canada's current ironies that the kinds of schools the Government of Newfoundland is desperately trying to institute and make compulsory people in other parts of Canada are trying just as desperately to escape.

A series of questions have to be asked here. Who will educate my children? That is a key question. Who will be responsible for educating my children? Will it be the government, the teachers' union, a committee of the school or me, the parent? Who will be ultimately responsible for educating that child? Who will ensure that the values I teach my child at home will not be undermined when I send my child to school?

Newfoundland wants to move toward a public school system, a government run school system that tries to say somehow or another it can teach values without teaching them, that somehow it can instil in my children the kinds of values I want them to take into life, and that it can do it without doing it. That sounds almost contradictory but that in fact is what it wants to say.

I think that is wrong. I have a particular set of values that deals with things important to me. Those things might be my views on the abortion issue. They might be my views on same sex marriages. They might be my views on any one of a number of things.

When my child goes to school my values should not be undermined. The religious values I may want to teach my child are not contrary to the laws of the land. They are values that have long standing in the community, at least 2,000 years. They are values I hold dearly.

In saying that I am not setting myself up as some kind of paragon of virtue. Far from it. The only perfect man died 2,000 years ago. You and I know that quite well, Mr. Speaker.

What I am saying is that I try in the best way I can to instil in my child some values that I think worth while. I do not want to send my child to a school where those values would be undermined.

In the province of British Columbia that can happen and that bothers me greatly. In Newfoundland's current system there is choice within the community. One can pick a Catholic school, a Pentecostal school or one of the unified schools. I think that choice should be expanded.

The supreme court recently heard a petition from some fundamental Christians in Ontario who wanted to have some government funding to support their schools. That was denied. I think denying that is wrong.

Parents should have the ultimate authority on how they spend their money, on how they educate their children. That authority should be issued to them with a voucher. They should have the right to pick the school they want to educate their children in. There should be no questions asked.

It bothers me greatly to see the legislation before the House. In my view the government is treating lightly its responsibility to protect denominational schools under the Constitution. Not only that. It is trampling on my rights and the rights of the citizens of Newfoundland to educate their children as they see fit.

I raise another point. I feel somewhat reluctant to do it but I will do it anyway. It has to do with the trend in our society, the news media in our society and other factors in our society. I feel somewhat awkward raising the issue. I do not want someone asking who this guy thinks he is. As I said before I do not pretend to be perfect, but it bothers me greatly to see the continual beating up the Christian community has taken by the media and by the government in bringing forward the bill.

I could cite example after example, which I will do. The first example of government beating up on the Christian community is the bill. It is as clear to me as the sun rising in the morning that the bill is somehow simply denying people the right to have their children educated the way they see fit, and that way may be the Christian way. It bothers me that is true.

We could skip out to British Columbia to take a look at what has happened with the British Columbia College of Teachers. It is denying Trinity Western University, a fundamentalist Christian university, the right to train teachers for the public school system. Trinity Western University requires that its students take an oath to abstain from homosexual activity and to abstain from premarital sex, in other words to support a clearly Christian agenda.

According to the college of teachers, the taking of that oath should disallow that university from training teachers because teachers who have made a commitment to living up to these Christian ideals are somehow unfit to teach in the public school system of British Columbia.

I think that is absolutely outrageous. It bothers me greatly to think that could happen in this country. If that were a Muslim or a Sikh university I do not think we would see that action.

There is another example of this beating up of the Christian community reflected in the bill. It is the comments of the new host of the popular CBC Radio talk show Morningside . He said “The Catholic Church is the largest criminal organization in the world after the Mafia”. Michael Enright is the host who took over from Peter Gzowski.

I cannot fathom for an instant how a man could make that kind of comment, an outrageous statement like that, and then be allowed a place on a radio station in Canada, and not only that, a publicly funded radio broadcast. It is absolutely unbelievable that statement was made, and yet it happened.

The way the CBC conducted itself during this debate, it forgot for example that the first hospice for AIDS patients in the world was founded in New York by Mother Teresa. CBC does not mention that.

Canada's national newspaper, when it reported on Mother Teresa's death, spent most of it's column beating up on her rather than acknowledging that this woman had lived a truly Christian life and tried to help people who were suffering.

It beat up on her for a number of issues. It beat up on her because she was opposed to abortion and it beat up on her because she espoused the beliefs of her church and practised them like most of us could not begin to.

The CBC did that. The Toronto Globe and Mail did that and during the debate on this Newfoundland schools issue, the CBC twice aired the show The Boys of St. Vincent , a program which had to do with problems that occurred in the Catholic school system, in the boarding school system in Newfoundland.

I know it happened. You know it happened. Everybody knows that happened, but there is an issue here that seems to be forgotten. When somebody steals from the collection plate, you don't blame the church. You blame the individual who stole.

What the CBC wants to do is when something goes wrong, it wants to blame the church. That is reflected in this bill. The key fundamental problem with this bill is that it denies parents the right to educate their children the way they want to.

Fundamentally it denies the Christian community in Newfoundland the right to educate its children and to see that its views and beliefs are not undermined by the school system. I am talking about fundamentalist Christians, I am talking about Catholics, I am talking about the Christian community in Newfoundland. That is what this bill is about. It undermines that very right. That is why it is wrong.

[Maurice Vellacott, Reform, Wanuskewin, SK]

Mr. Speaker, during the course of the afternoon we have heard on numerous occasions the fact stated that there was something in the way of a better system in Newfoundland, that various church groups were dragging their feet and slowing up the system so that this could be occurring.

I want to dismiss some of those myths and refer to some of those things that are actual fact from the Newfoundland situation. Time and again it has been asserted by people that the Roman Catholics, Pentecostals and others were seeking to frustrate the process of educational reform, how necessary it was and yet being blocked by these obstinate people.

Premier Tobin made that point on numerous occasions, that they were trying to prevent this from occurring. The truth is that those groups, the Pentecostals, the Roman Catholics, willingly embraced reforms that came along.

They entered into dozens of joint service arrangements and consolidated and closed scores of schools. They co-operated with the government in the reduction of school boards from the original 267 down to the present number of only 10.

Today 90% of Newfoundland communities have a single school system and only 10% have more than one system, so considerable changes have occurred with regard to reform over the last while.

They have no objection to the government operated provincial school construction board. They accept that school bus reform is necessary, that school councils will serve a useful purpose, that school boards may be fully elected.

For many years governments in that province have set the curriculum. They have trained and certified teachers, and until it unwisely abolished them, they also set and corrected public exams.

What do these groups want to protect? They have not been standing in the way of reform. They simple want the right, as has been stated by many others here, to bring up their children, send them to schools where their own faith values are pre-eminent. That is a bit of a prelude.

I want to pass on to the test which was mentioned by our leader this morning, the test of democratic consent, and offer some suggestions as to where it may be suspect or found to be lacking with regard to the whole matter of democratic consent. Was the question a fair one? Was it clear?

Members may be aware that this question was developed by the Newfoundland government's public relations firm and was one of several potential questions subjected to some mini polling and focus groups to try to massage it to the point where it came up with a question that would ensure a certain outcome of the vote.

The question also referred to a preference for a single system where all children would attend and where religious education is taught. Of all the children in Newfoundland, 90% are presently in that kind of system. Therefore Roman Catholic, Pentecostal and integrated children have access to a program in their own faith if there is sufficient demand. That was the question and the people believed they were voting yes to preserve this system.

On July 30, 1997 single school system was defined by the premier as a Christian school system. One month later, seven days before the actual vote, one day before the advance polls, a single school system had been redefined as a public, non-denominational school system and religious education had become not necessarily Christian but general. In the three days before the Labour Day weekend there was insufficient time to address the fact that the question now meant something entirely different than originally.

The question fails to address the real issue. Voters want some constitutional rights of parents to choose separate schools removed. It is my belief that this was not a fairly worded question. There were some shenanigans which took place in the last days which did not give people time to properly address the question before them. As a result they voted in favour of a prior question stated.

[John Cummins, Reform, Delta—South Richmond, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend for that comment. I think he has hit the nail on the head, that there was a lack of clarity in the question asked.

Again, if we are going to promote the idea of a referendum in this country, especially if we want to use a referendum to change the constitution and if this is a minority rights issue we have to be double certain that the referendum is conducted in a fair and honest way and that the question asked is clearly understood.

The whole issue goes beyond simply a referendum. The heart of the matter is the responsibility the government has to protect minority rights. The question here is larger than a bilateral change of the Constitution between the federal government and Newfoundland. When section 93 is changed, we are talking about a change that will affect Canadians elsewhere. It will have an impact on the separate school system in Ontario and across the country. That is a key issue. The government cannot treat this matter lightly. It has to be doubly certain that what it does will not undermine our Constitution and the faith that we should have in it.

[Elinor Caplan, Liberal, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the debate and the question I have for my colleague is whether he visited Newfoundland and spoke to people there. It is my understanding that 53% of the population participated in the vote, a majority of the population. Of those who voted, 73% voted in support of the change.

We also know that within the legislative assembly it was a unanimous vote. Even those who have constituencies where they represent the minorities who have expressed concerns about the change supported it.

I would ask the members who are speaking in opposition to this if they went to Newfoundland, as I did, and asked the people in Newfoundland how they felt about this. If the member did not, how could he possibly object to a legislative committee hearing that will allow people to come forward and express their views? I believe that is the appropriate course of action.

[John Cummins, Reform, Delta—South Richmond, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is yes, I have been to Newfoundland on many occasions. Yes, I have talked to people from Newfoundland on this matter.

However, the fundamental issue that my friend across the way is ignoring is the conduct of the referendum itself. The fact that the turnout was 53%, more than half the population, in a sense is appalling because it is not a huge turnout. Why that is I do not know. What I do know is that the referendum was not fair.

By the way, the first referendum was most appalling. In fact, the government gave out information, made commitments in the brochures and whatnot that it sent out in support of its position which were clearly untrue. That again is appalling. It is appalling behaviour on behalf of the government and it gets to the fundamental issue here. It we are going to use referendums we had better make darn sure that we conduct those referendums properly and that we ask clear questions.

We in this House cannot criticize referendums which take place in Quebec if fuzzy questions are asked. We have had the experience in Newfoundland and supported it unfortunately.

When we talk about conducting referendums, the issue goes far beyond this one matter here. It goes to the bigger issue of another referendum in Quebec.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this motion today and the amendment, particularly, brought in by the leader of the Reform Party earlier this day.

I would like to comment a bit about the process that we are now entering into. It is interesting for me to listen to the party that has made quite a truck and trade with the referendum issue now not only endorsing the referendum idea but also pointing out the cautions and care that must be taken when one uses referendums.

Often during campaigns and when the blood is running fairly hot and furious, people will say that the Reform Party wants a referendum every other Thursday. It wants to decide everything under the sun by referendum. That of course has never been the role or the proposed role that the Reform Party has had in mind when we talked about the use of referendums. We have always said that referendum is the best and most exact way to go to the people for their input on legislation and in order to let them have a direct say in a direct democracy way.

However, that does not mean that we can run roughshod over minority rights. That does not mean that it should be a sloppy question. It does not mean that governments should use their considerable power and ability to spend money to try to stack the vote, to get the vote out or to do all kinds of unusual things, last minute changes and amendments. All those things have been brought up on this side of the House today as precautions, things that when one uses referendums one has to be careful with. It is not something where we want someone with a sparkle in their eye and a good glib line to come out and just say maybe we can swing the country over this way and do something outrageous. That was never the intent.

I hope that people are paying attention to the fact that referendums, properly used, are a very good indicator of the people's will. However, the key is the proper use, the judicious use of the question itself and the whole thing that surrounds it. That is why we have these particular amendments that we are dealing with today. That is why we say that this should not go forward unless it has proven the test of the democratic consent. In other words, was the question fair? Was adequate notice given? Were both sides or all sides taken into account when the question was put?

The reason we say that and want this in the motion is because we were assured by the Newfoundland government that this was all done during the first referendum. Yet there were some problems. People said it was not that clear. It was not all that it should have been. Maybe it did not pass the rule of law.

That is why we have put these three amendments today. We want to make sure the democratic consent has been properly handled. We do not want a rubber stamp that says send it to the House and it will do as we say. Let us examine the whole thing. That is why it is in this motion. By all means send it to committee and let us examine it. We do not reject it outright, but we want to examine it in its entirety.

We also want to make sure that the rule of law has been followed. The rule of law protects minority rights from the sort of thing I have been talking about. It makes sure that somebody through with a good line and a promise to save you a dollar does not run roughshod over the rights of others. “Just vote for this and I can guarantee it”. It gets passed quickly and people come back later and say “My goodness, which rights did we trample on? What have we done here?”

Once that amendment is made we have something that is very difficult to change, as it should be. We want to make sure that if it is changed it passes the rule of law. That is why we want and would have preferred to have had the Newfoundland government refer this to the supreme court for a ruling before it proceeded. It should determine if it prejudicially affects the interests of minorities, not just an opinion of a legal firm. We would have liked to have had the court say “Yes, we have examined this and the rule of law has been carefully guarded with regard to minority rights”.

We are not convinced that a Senate-House of Commons committee is the best place to hear this. Increasingly the government has tended to use the Senate to introduce bills. Four or five bills have been introduced in the Senate. We are quite annoyed that the Senate is hearing bills which should properly come through this place, the place of the common people.

A motion like this that gives added legitimacy to the Senate, when its legitimacy is probably at an all-time low, is a mistake. That is why in the amendment we suggest that it should be placed here before the people in this common house in order to discuss the issues of the common people. It should not be sent to the house of lords where they have an appointment for life and a pension to boot. We find that offensive.

The true democratic act is to put it before the people who are accountable to their constituents. The people who are accountable are the members of this House. They are not in the other place where the only accountability is to the party which sent you there. That is not accountability. That is a parking spot. This is why we would rather have this changed to bring it before the House for resolution.

We would also like to see a free vote on this. It was mentioned by an hon. member opposite that it passed the Newfoundland legislature unanimously. That is encouraging. I am sure the committee will take that into account. I can guarantee that it will not be unanimous in this place. Members of all parties will carefully weigh this before they vote yea or nay for a variety of reasons, some of which have been brought out by the member from Delta—South Richmond and others who have pointed out flaws in the system.

The very least we should be entitled to on an issue of this magnitude is a free vote. We cannot be all powerful and all knowing. We are not the great and wonderful Oz. We are people who bring different points of view to the discussion. We have had different discussions with people from Newfoundland and other groups that are concerned. We should be encouraged to have a free vote on all sides of the House so that we can get a true perspective of our constituents' feelings, if they have strong feelings, as well as those of the people of Newfoundland.

I hope people understand a little better from the debate today what a referendum process should look like. There are various foibles or landmines, as it were, which can happen during the referendum process.

A referendum does not solve all problems. It is part of a process of several steps in gaining democratic consent, looking after the national interest, protecting the rights of minorities and protecting the rule of law. This amendment is supposed to do all of those things. I believe it will do it very well.

I encourage all members, in a free vote, to support the amendment, move on to the main motion and send this off to committee where we can do a better job, not only here, but as the amendment indicates, we will be able to travel to the province of Newfoundland to deal with it there, with the people who are most affected. Let us not just talk about it here, let us go to the people who will be affected by this and hold public hearings to get their input.

[Rob Anders, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a tough question for my hon. colleague. I wonder if he finds it strange that both the Liberals and the Tories find all sorts of problems with the propriety of the referendum. They say there were problems with the democratic consent and that the Government of Newfoundland far outspent its objectors.

I think back to the 1992 Charlottetown accord. The federal government at that time outspent objectors 13 to 1 and yet lost the referendum.

I would like my hon. colleague to comment on the fact that the Liberals, and especially the Tories, are questioning the democratic consent and the propriety of a referendum in which the government severely outspent its objectors.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, sometimes members of the Reform Party have a certain satisfaction at having been on the right side of the Charlottetown accord. There is a certain satisfaction in knowing that we were on the right side of the democratic consent. The people of Canada, if they are given enough time and information, and in some cases a political vehicle, will decide on the right side.

It was a wonderful thing during the Charlottetown accord to see people for probably the first time in a lifetime actually discussing the Constitution of the country. It was a beautiful thing. It was the first time in my life that anyone had said: What about this provision? What about the Senate? What is its role? How can it be improved? What about the number of seats? Should certain provinces have a veto?

It was a wonderful thing to openly discuss that without any fear. It was a wonderful way to get public input and to educate people. It was a good process. Those were the days.

I have a couple of questions with respect to the referendum which was held in Newfoundland. Why were there two referenda? We were promised that the first one would be the referendum to end it all. Everything was done properly. Why then did we need the second referendum? It is not a matter of referenda until we get the answer we want. It has to be done right at the outset.

We are not saying it should not be referred to and examined by a committee. That is the question that should be asked in committee. That is the question that should be taken to the people of Newfoundland for consideration. That is the question on which we should have a free vote. It is not that it is right or wrong, but it is a question that deserves to be put.

As has already been mentioned by an hon. member, after all of the publicity and all the brow beating, only 53% of the people came out. I wonder why that is. I am not from Newfoundland, so I do not know. I would like to travel there to find out. Was there a problem with the process? Perhaps not. Perhaps everyone is happy with it. In that case we probably will hear that in spades when we travel to Newfoundland.

In something as delicate as the future of how their children will be educated, I question that only half the people thought it was important enough to cast a vote. That is why the question was raised on this side of the House. That is why our amendment deals with this idea of going to the people, checking it out in committee by asking all these questions that have been laid out in the amendment so that we can do it properly, do it right and do it only one time instead of coming back and rehashing it again.

[John Cummins, Reform, Delta—South Richmond, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make two points relating to my friend's comments. The first one is that opposition to or support for a particular point of view in a referendum cannot always be bought and sold.

The classic case in point was in British Columbia during the Charlottetown referendum where Rafe Mair influenced a great number of people with his comments on that issue. I think it would be very difficult to put a value on it. But the concern that we have is that if the government is getting in there, supporting somebody on one side or the other, that it is unfair and that is just not the way it is supposed to be.

The other point that my colleague from Fraser Valley made is worth repeating. It is the notion of a free vote on this matter. That is very important. If we are going to make constitutional change we do not want any hint that somehow or other the result happened because of a political deal, that it was a backroom deal by the political elite.

The issue must be a free vote. We must insist on a free vote. In a matter of this kind we have to stand up and let our constituents know just where we stand on it. We should not be hiding behind a party whip.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the observations of my colleague from Delta are right. I just hate to come right out and say it. Referendums cannot be bought easily but referendums can be massaged, depending on how it is put to the people, the timing of the vote, the wording of the question, last minute changes, release of new information, all those things. One could jack that around, especially the time factor, if one does not give the time required.

Overall the referendum process is a good way of getting a barometer of people's feelings on a particular issue. They need information, the pitfalls and so on to make sure that the referendum is fair and above board.

One of the reasons I think the member from Delta is concerned about a free vote is because a little too often people are shuffled off from this place. They go to become premiers of the Atlantic provinces, where the cards and the chips are called in at that time.

The caution here is, why is it when members are part of the government side, they then go on to the happy hunting ground, taking their pension with them and become maritime premiers. We have had three of them now. They continue to roll back here. They continue to say “How is it going, how is the old boys club, is there anything else we can do for you? I will tell you this. You give us the HST and we won't complain. You give us a billion dollars and we'll shut up”. All that stuff starts going on. Pretty soon we question even something like this referendum result. After all, it was the former fisheries minister who wandered off and became the premier, but I wonder if he is still tied in any way to the government side?

It is speculation on my part but I do wonder. That is one of the reasons why many of us say let us go to the people of Newfoundland and ask them directly. We will not just ask the premier. We will get opinions from the people who are sending their children to these schools and we will take them at face value.

[Bob Kilger, Liberal, Stormont—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Following discussion among representatives of all the parties in the House, I believe you will find consent for the following motion. I move:

That at the conclusion of today's debate on the amendment to government business No. 5, the Speaker shall put the question on the said amendment, a recorded division shall be deemed requested and deferred until the expiry of government orders on Tuesday, October 28, 1997.

That on Tuesday, October 28, 1997, immediately following the recorded division on the amendment to government business No. 5, the Speaker shall put the question on the main motion, without further debate or amendment.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Resuming debate. Has the member on his feet spoken to this this afternoon?

[An hon. member]

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Has the other member on his feet spoken to this today?

[An hon. member]

Only three times, Mr. Speaker.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The Chair recognizes on debate the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

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

Mr. Speaker, I just want to make one observation. Sitting in the last row you can see all the rows in front of you on the other side of the House. It was encouraging this afternoon to hear the last eight speakers all agree. I hope that people on the government side of the House will take notice of that.