Debates of Dec. 8th, 1997

Amendment To The Constitution Of Canada (Newfoundland)

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

We will give the last few seconds to the member for Kelowna.

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it would not only create chaos, it would also create a society in which there is so much conflict that nothing would get done.

What it would do is open the road for tyranny to take place. In fact, it is a perfect building block for tyrants to become the governor of the country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I feel privileged to have the opportunity to participate in this debate.

This is an issue for me where I have probably as many friends on the opposite side as I have on the side I am on.

I have always held the view that being a member of Parliament is a temporal experience. We are only here, even if we are really lucky, for perhaps a couple of terms and then we are back to our communities, back with our families on a more regular basis. We have to sit alone at times and say what did we do when we were here. Did we stick to our core values, our core principles or did we forget about them and sort of go along with the flow?

It is terrific to have an opportunity in a debate like this where it is a free vote. It does take some of the pressure away. Being government members, we have to be extremely sensitive that the consensus the government has built or the trust the government has built to move the agenda of the nation forward is not fractured in any way, shape or form. But on this motion I feel we should be concerned.

I have just been given notice, Mr. Speaker, that I will be sharing my time with the member for Ottawa—Vanier.

My feeling about this issue is I do not want to get hung up on the numbers, whether they were 75% or 25% in terms of the vote. I said earlier in the debate today that I have always taken the view that we are here to speak for those people who do not have a voice.

This is an easy town for those who are advantaged. The lobbying, the hustle, the resources if you are from an advantaged or favoured group or organization are really not much contest. The real challenge for us as members of Parliament is when a big wave is coming at you and it seems that you are out of step with that wave but you must remember that we are sent here primarily to speak for that person who really does not have a voice.

I have a view that there are a number of people, and I am not judging those who take a different path, who share the path that I am on and who would like to preserve the traditional denominational system that was in Newfoundland.

I realize quite frankly that if the economy of Newfoundland were a lot better this would not be a big issue. I can say that because I can remember many months ago discussing the economics of this issue with the premier of Newfoundland. He said to me this is a very expensive system that we have here in Newfoundland. It is a unique expensive decision. If we had lots of money this probably would not be such a big issue.

I agree with my friend from Kelowna that we are sometimes driven here by economics much more than values. We are much more driven by secularization. That is the current wave that is going through our system right now.

I had the privilege, and I consider it a real privilege, to have been associated with a teaching order of priests who started in this country 147 years ago, the Basilian Fathers. They came from France. They were invited by the bishop of Toronto, Bishop De Charbonnel, and they came to teach poor illiterate Irish immigrants. Over the last 147 years the Basilian Fathers have developed teaching institutions in every region of this country.

I was privileged to have the opportunity to attend St. Michael's college school in Toronto and I later attended the Basilian university in Houston, Texas, St. Thomas. I would be walking away from the 10 year experience I had with the Basilian Fathers and all the other lay educators that were associated with the Basilians if I supported this amendment.

I believe that a Catholic education is not just about teaching the intellect, it is about teaching the whole person. We are all human, we all make mistakes, we all fall. But there was a tremendous experience in being in an environment where the whole person was being developed.

A denominational institution is different from a non-denominational institution. I have been associated with both at the university level. I think that we have a responsibility and a duty here when we see a right being diminished to say hold on, do we really need to do this?

If I were to say 75% of the people voted for it and all the members of the legislature voted for it, then I would be walking away from all those educators who were a part of my life. I would be walking away from those educators who are a part of my son's life. I do not think that would be sticking to my core principles or values.

Quite frankly, this movement of secularization that is going through our country right now is all in the name of fiscal expediency. We tend to cut, shave and eliminate because we do not have the resources. My goodness, some of the founders of these traditional educational institutions had more creativity. Some of them actually taught in barns and did not have half as much as some of our school boards have today. However that total experience, the teaching of the whole person was important.

Clause 2 of this term 17 amendment states that the state will take over the management of the religious opportunity. It just missed the whole point. This is not about teaching a religious course. A Catholic education is an experience from the moment students arrive in the morning until the time they hang up their football cleats in the locker room. It is the fact that they can walk down a hall to a chapel. It is the fact that there is a daily mass. It does not mean they have to go every day, but it is part of the total environment.

The thing that really burns me deeply about this amendment is that we are showing a lack of respect for the thousands and thousands of men and women who dedicated their lives to the Catholic institutions, the human capital who really became the backbone of this country, be they Jesuits, Basilians or Sisters of St. Joseph's, and the ongoing litany of people who worked for $5 a week. For that reason I will not be supporting this amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to acknowledge the very special and meaningful conversations the hon. member and I have had regarding this issue. I respect his position on this. He spoke very eloquently and from the heart about a number of his own personal experiences. It has been most important and valuable to me to hear how he feels about it. I too went through the Catholic school system. I have a slightly different view than the hon. member, which we both acknowledge.

There are those in Newfoundland and Labrador who have been educated through the integrated education system. The integrated education system is a denominational system. It is basically the Anglican, United and Salvation Army churches that have come together and have provided religious education and as well religious instruction in a way which is not denominationally based. In fact it is a denominational education classification but it offers instruction which is not denominationally based.

I wish to point out something about the students who went to an integrated school next door. I found the moral integrity, the values that those students held and their personal development to be quite sound and strong. Frankly, they are very productive citizens in society. They are participating in a good structure of society.

Does the hon. member have any particular opinion about whether or not it is absolutely essential that denominations and denominations only participate in religious instruction? I found an example which we used in Newfoundland and Labrador in providing the current drafting of the term 17 amendment, the integrated education system, and it works quite well.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Resources. I concur that we have exchanged productively on this issue.

I am not standing here in judgment of any system that is in place right now. What I am concerned about and feel strongly about is a system that was part of the arc of Confederation, to quote Senator Connolly, and that it was a right that was part of putting this whole nation together. I see that right being diminished. I feel there is the possibility that this thought process of secularization could expand and move to different regions of the country.

Having said all of that, in no way, shape or form am I judging the character or the contribution to society and to the country that any other educational system provides. It is just that I happen to be partial to the institution which I had the opportunity to participate in. I know there are many others who have participated in similar institutions across Canada who share this view.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in sharing my conclusions, I would like to address three points dealing essentially with the motion before us. The first one is the education of French speaking Newfoundlanders; the second, public support for this amendment; and finally, our role as parliamentarians, members of the Parliament of Canada and the House of Commons, with regard to this issue.

On the education of French speaking Newfoundlanders, last year, when the House first considered this issue as part of an amendment to term 17 of the Terms of Union of Newfoundland with Canada, I indicated that my support was largely based on the fact that, in the process, the Government of Newfoundland would be fulfilling its responsibilities under section 23 of the charter.

It will be recalled that, with passage of the Constitutional Act in 1982, section 23 of the charter guaranteed official language minorities everywhere in the country, from sea to sea to sea, the right to education in their language. That took a while to happen in Newfoundland. Here we are in 1997 finally seeing them respect that right.

Dare I speculate that the need, desire or will of the Newfoundland government to get term 17 of its union with Canada modified is in part what made it aware it might get a poorer reception in Parliament—if I can use that expression here—if it were not respecting the commitments under section 23 of the charter?

In this connection I would like to quote a portion of a letter from Johanne Lacelle to the co-chair of the joint committee. She was writing on behalf of the Fédération des parents francophones de Terre-Neuve et du Labrador. She said “Since June 1997—not long ago—francophones in the province have a shools act guaranteeing complete control over our school system. At last we can say that language rights are henceforth going to be in line with section 23 of the charter. School administration is now in the hands of the francophones. From now on, under this act, the schools will have the status of non-denominational schools, in line with the proposed reform the province is calling for”.

From this letter and the fact that the Fédération did not wish to appear, did not feel the need to appear, I think we may conclude and state that the francophones of Newfoundland have the management of their school system under control, and we hope that they may use this to promote the growth of their community in, as she so aptly put it, nondenominational schools. This is another element. I do not think that we have said sufficiently in debates in committee and here that the francophone population of Newfoundland seems to agree to having their children educated in nondenominational schools.

As to the matter of popular will, in committee several questions were raised regarding public consultation. Some fairly sharp criticism was directed at the process, the referendum question and the way it was held. The results were often interpreted to mean that the minorities had not agreed to the change. I have a question on that, which has not really been raised up to now. In my opinion, we should give it some thought. It concerns the fact that the denominational classes, if I can call them that, did not insist that the vote be taken along religious lines.

If they had wanted to demonstrate without a shadow of a doubt that their own denomination were opposed to the changes and if they thought they had a sufficiently large number of people within their own denomination that would vote against it, then it behooved the representatives of these denominations to ask that the vote be done by denominational class, and that was not done. We were told in committee by the minister responsible for education that that offer was put on the table, not for this current vote but for the previous one. The offer was not taken up nor was it asked for during the last vote that occurred in early September as a result of the campaign in August.

This is a situation in which those who argue that the minorities did not give their consent to this could have found a way to demonstrate that, yet they failed to even ask for that to be done. They could have been clamouring for this to be done, to have all the Pentecostal votes identified. When someone voted they could have said that they were Catholic or that they were such and such. We do that all the time in Ontario municipal elections when we cast a ballot, yet that was not put forward. It was not requested. I suspect that suggests quite a bit.

We can read into this what we wish. I have read into it that perhaps there is a consensus, even within the denominations, for a change to the system in many instances. Perhaps not in all of them, but in some of them I would suspect that the reason there of no insistence for such a vote was because the result may have been somewhat other than some people of those denominations would have wanted to see.

I wanted to put this on the floor so that members who are opposing it on the grounds that the minorities did not give their consent can reflect on it.

Finally, I want to address what our role is as parliamentarians. It is definitely not to rubber stamp. I am very pleased that the three votes in which I have been involved in my short time here which have dealt with constitutional amendments using section 43 of the 1982 act have all been free votes. It speaks very well of the seriousness with which we address these issues. We rise above partisan considerations. Free votes force members to think about the issue. It removes the cushion, if you will, of the whipped vote. We have to be accountable for our votes. I believe that is the way which we as parliamentarians should address a constitutional change.

Although our role is not to rubber stamp, it is certainly not to be systematically opposed. I have had a chance in recent weeks to sit on two committees, the one studying the bilateral constitutional amendment for the Quebec school boards and this one. I have been pleased with the approach taken by all parties and all representatives of both Houses.

This method of helping our country, of ensuring that some systems and some of our institutions evolve, is very good. Perhaps it has not been anticipated to be that useful, but it is certainly turning out to be that way. I want to encourage the parliaments of Canada to realize that there are certain ways of making systems and some of our institutions progress.

It is not our duty, as I have pointed out, to systematically oppose or blindly approve recommendations put to us. But, having sat on the committee, listened to witnesses and considered all the arguments, I think we can say without fear of error that the amendment is put to us with the approval of the people of Newfoundland and certainly the unanimous approval of the Newfoundland legislature, which is not to be sniffed at, and is one of the most important factors to be considered.

That having been said, I have absolutely no qualms about supporting and encouraging my colleagues to support the proposal before us.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it will come as no great surprise when I tell you that, like my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois and other parties in the House, I will be enthusiastically supporting the constitutional amendment before us.

I wish to emphasize that this is a constitutional amendment. It would obviously be misleading to those listening if the full significance of the debate today, and for a number of days now, were not made clear. When we speak about a constitutional amendment, the first thing that should be said is that a constitution is the supreme law of a nation. There are two kinds of constitution. Canada has what is described as a written constitution. There are basically five ways of amending it. The constitutional amendment before us is made possible through section 43.

Section 43, the constitutional amendment we are debating, is a bilateral constitutional amendment. This means that it is possible for a province, in an area under its jurisdiction, therefore in an area mentioned in section 92 or section 93, to amend the text of the Constitution with the consent of both Houses.

I think it is also worth pointing out that federalism has three main features. A system is described as federal when there is a constitution and a division of powers between lower and higher levels. The third feature is obviously a court of justice that arbitrates disputes or challenges that may arise between partners in the Constitution. This gives us some idea of the system in which we live.

The Government of Newfoundland, headed by the former Minister of Fisheries and Oceans of this government, is asking to be allowed, for all intents and purposes, to establish a public school system. Some people might be tempted to do certain things, but not you, Mr. Speaker, because I know you are a sensible and informed person. I remind our viewers that, throughout your childhood, not that long ago, you took great pleasure in reading constitutional law treaties. This kept you away from the more “in” crowd, but turned you into a well-informed legal expert.

This having been said, the issue here is really to establish a public, non-denominational school system in Newfoundland, the last province to join Confederation, in 1949, under the leadership of Joey Smallwood.

When we consider these issues, we have to keep two things in mind. Confederation was initially made up of four provinces. All the provinces that joined afterwards had clauses protecting minority rights regarding schools. The provinces can be divided in two large groups: those that adhered to section 93, and those that obtained other specific rights. In the case of Newfoundland, it is not section 93 that applies, but term 17.

It should also be mentioned that, as regards term 17, which is the clause governing the terms of the union of Newfoundland with the Dominion of Canada—as our country was called back then—there are three major aspects. First, as we mentioned, term 17 refers to an exclusively denominational school system. Just think of what Quebec did in the sixties—this incredible period of change called the quiet revolution, after an English speaking journalist coined the phrase. Quebec asked the clergy to withdraw from the school system, which is what is now happening in Newfoundland. Indeed, the idea is not only to create non-denominational structures, but to establish a public school system. In other words, linguistic rights are not the issue here. These are not religious rights. We will come back to this later, but these are indeed rights related to access to education and the organization of a public system.

First, this was a province that did not have a public education system when it signed the treaty in 1867. Second, there were seven major denominations representing 90% of the population. I can name them to show the extent of the denominations involved.

There was, of course, the Anglicans, the Presbyterians, the Salvation Army, the United Church, the Pentecostals, the Roman Catholics and the Seventh-Day Adventists. You can easily imagine how this kind of religious mosaic resulted in a rather fragmented school system. In this respect, one of the forms this fragmentation took, which may seem unimportant but can be extremely important in relation to the students' quality of life, was described by parents in the evidence they presented, which I would now like to share with you.

This evidence can be found in the report tabled by the joint committee. I will repeat for the benefit of our viewers that there are two kinds of parliamentary committees: the standing committees such as the justice committee, the agriculture committee and the environment committee, which are mandated to review certain bills, and the joint committees made up of representatives of this House and the other place, better known as the Senate.

Let me read the testimony of a parent reminding us of one of the problems posed, if only from a transportation point of view, by maintaining a system with seven different denominations, in which there are essentially no neighbourhood schools. The fact that you live next to a school does not mean that your child can enrol in that particular school, since enrolment is based on the religion declared by the parents.

One of the parents in the Education First group told of the case of a child who could walk to primary school. Now that she is in seventh grade, however, she has to leave home at 7.30 a.m. and take the bus. Within ten minutes she passes a Catholic school. After 20 minutes, she goes past another school. Both offer seventh grade. Finally she goes past a third school, which offers grades seven to nine, before she reaches her school an hour after leaving home.

So one of the striking elements in the organization of the Newfoundland system is the distances children face in registering not at a neighbourhood school, but at one that provides religious education in the faith of their parents. This is what they are going to put an end to.

Those who would be tempted to think this is a recent debate in Newfoundland should remember that it has gone on since 1990. It is not recent. Its roots warrant mentioning.

In 1990, a commission of inquiry was set up to consider the future of the Newfoundland education system. You know, Mr. Speaker, how important education is to a society. You know, because your education is not lacking, you have a higher education. I have been told in fact that you were always at the top of your class. I have not checked personally, but you are sufficiently talented for me to believe it. Education is important. It is important because it helps socialize, but it inculcates values. When we want to find out a society's most commonly held values, we must look to the schools. Not only do they teach values, but they foster learning. And generally, not just any sort of learning, but learning that provides a competitive edge on the job market and that provides access to the labour force.

It is vital to a society. I think the Government of Newfoundland, for partisan considerations, is right to be concerned about the efficiency of its school system. That is what the commission of inquiry said. In the early 1990s, it concluded that it was important for the future, for the future of the young students of Newfoundland, for there to be an integrated system with shared schools.

After that came a lengthy process. First of all, in 1995-96, there was a first referendum. You know what aphrodisiac powers that word has in this House, it is a word that gets the government all excited. Governments get excited any chance they get, and we are dealing now with one that gets really hot and bothered at the mere mention of the word referendum.

So, there was a first one, to be followed by a second in which Mr. Tobin's government attempted to strike a compromise between a system of education I would qualify as a hybrid, a combination of separate schools and the right of certain religious denominations to be heard. In that referendum, 54% supported the government resolution.

Why do I feel obliged to specify this? First of all, because I am reminding you that this is a debate that has been discussed in Newfoundland since the early 1990s. Second, because there have been consultations of all sorts. There were public hearings, two referendums, not one but two. The first was in 1995, at which time 54% of Newfoundlanders voted yes.

It is interesting, strictly from the constitutional point of view, because I would remind you that what we are dealing with here is a constitutional amendment. It is therefore an amendment that will change the most important document of a country, its supreme law, its constitution. The government of the time, the same one as today, responded favourably to this constitutional amendment.

But it is interesting to recall that it was not two-thirds, not 70% of Newfoundlanders, who voted yes, but 54% at the outside. The government, led by the same Prime Minister guiding our destinies today, followed up on this resolution. It wrote to the Premier of Newfoundland to tell him that, in January 1996, it would introduce a resolution asking parliamentarians in the House of Commons and the Senate to approve the resolution.

I want to remind you that this therefore means that the figure of 50% is acceptable in a referendum because, in a democracy, whatever is said and done, it is the majority that rules. When the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs ventures to tell us, in his sometimes high and mighty way, that 50% is not enough in the case of Quebec, of national unity, I think we must remind him, in all fairness, that there is a precedent.

There was a referendum in 1995. Naturally, there was a debate in the House in 1996, and we went along, both in the House of Commons and in the Senate, with the resolution introduced by the government. This was followed by a court challenge by two religious denominations in Newfoundland. They challenged not stricto sensu the constitutional amendment, but the new public education act.

There was an injunction. We know how radical a process that is, with its immediate impact. The supreme court of Newfoundland ruled in their favour. This had the result of halting the process of reform in which the Newfoundland government of Brian Tobin was intensely involved.

In this context, the premier then and now, the former Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, whom you remember fondly, I believe, Mr. Speaker, decided to hold a referendum on September 2.

The referendum was on a clear question, a question such as we like them, that is a question which is immediately understandable when you read it, a question which is unequivocal. So, allow me to read it for the benefit of those who may not have done so. The provincial government complied with the conditions of the injunction. It announced on July 31, 1997, through its most important citizen, the premier of the province, that a referendum would be held on September 2, and that the question would be: “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?” The question was clear.

Of course, the question triggered a debate. The debate was not like the one in Quebec, since there is no requirement under Newfoundland's referendum act, which is in fact an election act, because there is no specific referendum act. So, a debate took place, thus giving the public an opportunity to discuss what was at stake.

When the referendum was over—and I hope this will happen to us some day—73% of voters had said yes. So, 73% of them authorized the Tobin government to conduct an in-depth review of the school system with a view to establishing amalgamated, non-denominational schools where religious education will be permitted as requested by parents. That is where we are at.

Following this referendum, as required by procedure, another resolution was tabled by the executive, which had to be debated by both Parliaments. This debate led to the establishment of a joint committee and, today, as parliamentarians, we must vote either in favour of or against this resolution. It is interesting because the Newfoundland situation reminds us of the need to modernize the school system, of course, but also of minority rights. It does not deal substantially with linguistic rights, section 23 of the Constitution Act, 1867, or even religious rights. It deals with the right to reorganize the school system.

In spite of the fact that consultations, two referendums, were held and that this debate had been going on since 1990, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, with his stubbornness that borders on neurosis at times, nevertheless insisted on consultations being conducted. We went along with this little game and were represented in the process by the dynamic Bloc Quebecois member for Témiscamingue.

We will support this amendment because we believe that, in a democracy, the voice of reason is always that of the majority. In this case, we are talking about an indisputable majority, since 73% approved the government resolution. I know that, in a not so distant future, when we consider other referendum results, we will remember the precedents created on this occasion.

[Peter Goldring, Reform, Edmonton East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member. In 1987 the Premier of Newfoundland made specific requests in the Legislative Assembly of Newfoundland to constitutionally entrench the rights of the Pentecostals forever. He made a permanent gesture for the Pentecostals in the province of Newfoundland.

Would the member comment on his impression of what a permanent constitutional entrenchment would be and whether the permanent constitutional entrenchment of a minority as in the case of the Pentecostals should be extinguished by the majority?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the hon. member's interest in these matters, and I thank him.

The Pentecostals make up 7% of the population of Newfoundland. It could no doubt be recalled that, where constitutional law is concerned, a minority cannot be subordinated to a majority. I am prepared to admit, with the hon. member, that there is an obligation in a civilized society to ensure that minorities are adequately protected.

What is involved here, however, is the right of a government to modernize its educational system, because this is first and foremost an amendment to ensure that the Newfoundland school system will enter the 21st century as more modern, more efficient, more responsive to the needs of the labour market.

I am tempted to answer my colleague's question with another question. Does he believe that constitutions are immutable? I myself believe that they must adjust to society, that constitutions must adjust to individuals. There is no reason to believe that a constitution or a constitutional amendment is immutable. Such logic would tie our hands and preclude any possibility of change.

What has to be taken into consideration, what we must ask ourselves as parliamentarians, is the following: Did the Pentecostals have the opportunity to make their points of view known? Are there sufficient guarantees that minorities were consulted and are in favour of the constitutional amendment?

I would remind the hon. member that the two Pentecostal MLAs in Newfoundland voted in favour of the government resolution. I believe that this is the best guarantee available to us to conclude that a democratic debate has taken place and that all minorities had a chance to make their views heard.

[Peter Goldring, Reform, Edmonton East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will answer the hon. member's question. If the minority is being particularly entrenched in the constitution in a special fashion, which it was by the Newfoundland legislature, particularly mentioning Pentecostal and to be entrenched forever, the way to remove that entrenchment would be to consult that minority and have that minority's agreement or consent in some form to remove it.

Because it is specifically toward that minority I would think that minority must be approached to remove it.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I understand my colleague's point of view. It is a testament to his sensitivity.

I want to remind him that, when his leader spoke, not so long ago, about Quebec's section 93 amendment, one of the pre-conditions he set for parliamentary approval of a constitutional amendment was that a referendum be held, that there be extensive public consultations. I believe that these conditions have been met in the case before us.

Finally, I have trouble seeing how the Reform Party's logic will allow it to vote in favour of a constitutional amendment since, even in very extreme cases, less ambiguous cases where there was public debate, where two referendums were held, where 73% of people voted in favour, and there are not many democracies that can lay claim to that high a percentage of voters in favour of any subject, they are not persuaded.

So I ask my Reform colleague what will be the standard, the criterion that will satisfy these people constitutionally that they may approve an amendment requested by a province if, when 73% of the public has voted in favour, they rise in the House and say nay?

[Elinor Caplan, Liberal, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and participate in today's very important debate.

I was a member of the special committee that studied term 17, that listened to representations from the people of Newfoundland and from others who are concerned about the amendment that is before this House. I thought I would begin my remarks today by sharing with this House and the people who are watching the debate some of the things that I learned while I was on the committee.

How did we get to where we are today? Why is Newfoundland and Labrador requesting this change to their terms of agreement, specifically to term 17? The reason that they are requesting this is because they want to change their school system. I found that Newfoundland and Labrador is the only jurisdiction in Canada, in fact the only jurisdiction in North America, that does not have a public school system.

Newfoundland and Labrador does not have a non-denominational school system. If you want to go to school in Newfoundland and Labrador, you must attend one of the schools run by one of the church groups that has denominational rights in Newfoundland.

Is there anything wrong with that? Well, it has caused problems in Newfoundland and Labrador. It has caused problems because often children or the parents of those children want the child to be able to go to the school across the street, but in order to register for a school in Newfoundland and Labrador, you have to take your birth certificate. You have to tell them what religion you are and the schools will accommodate first all of the children from that religious community and then, if there is space available, they will accept the children who are not from that denomination.

You have the situation where too often, too commonly, children are forced on to buses, pass several schools and can sit on that bus half an hour to an hour. We heard of students who spend three hours of their school day sitting on buses. We heard of students who could not participate in extra-curricular activities unless they could arrange for a lift home after school.

The people of Newfoundland and Labrador have been debating the type of school system that they want for their children for over 10 years. We heard from people who made representations to our committee that it has been a difficult and divisive debate. We heard that eight years ago there was a royal commission and we were told that the recommendation of that royal commission some eight years ago was in fact the change that is before this House of Commons, this Parliament, this Senate.

Think about that. Ten years ago the debate began. Eight years ago a royal commission recommended that term 17 be changed so that Newfoundland and Labrador could have a non-denominational school system. What happened in those intervening years since that royal commission?

What happened was debate, hot and heavy, passionate debate. That debate culminated and a compromise was proposed by the former premier Clyde Wells, someone who I did not always agree with, I have to tell this House. We did not see eye to eye on everything.

Premier Wells proposed a compromise and the debate that ensued on the compromise was a difficult and divisive debate. A strange thing happened in Newfoundland and Labrador. That debate became a non-partisan debate and at the end of that debate on the compromise, after listening to all sides, after a referendum that we heard at committee was confusing because it was by its very nature a compromise, we heard that there was a unanimous free vote in the Newfoundland and Labrador House of Assembly.

As the compromise solution, the previous changes to term 17, was being implemented, problems arose.

Some of those who opposed the compromise took the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to court. In the court's wisdom, the compromise was struck down. The premier of Newfoundland, now Premier Tobin, went back to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador on July 31, 1997, days after the court struck down the decision on the previous amendment on term 17. Within days he said we were going to have a clear question. We are going to ask the people of Newfoundland and Labrador if they are prepared to support a change, a very significant change. We are going to ask them if they support a change from a denominational school system to a non-denominational public school system. We are going to ask them if they want to have religious course offered within that school system, but they will be non-specific, non-denominational religious courses on world religion. That was a very clear question.

What I discovered was that the same percentage of people in Newfoundland and Labrador who voted in the referendum that was held on September 2 voted in the last federal election. It is true the voter turnout was not high. It was not 80% or 70%, but it was a clear majority. Fifty-three per cent of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador went out to vote in this most important referendum, a similar number and a similar percentage as had voted last June 2 in the federal election.

Of the people in Newfoundland and Labrador who went to vote on September 2, 73% of them supported the clear question which was asked in the referendum by their government. They said we support change in Newfoundland, we support a change from denominational schools to public non-denominational schools. They said that clearly, they said it loudly and they said it after almost 10 years of public discussion and public debate.

What I found most compelling as I listened carefully to the passionate and anguished presentations that came before our committee was that the ensuing debate in the national assembly was again a non-partisan debate. No one questioned the other's motives. No one attempted to take political advantage. Everyone said, what is in the interests of our students? What is in the interests of quality education for those students? In Newfoundland and Labrador, which is not the richest province in this land, they said what is in the interest of cost effective quality education in Newfoundland?

We heard that time and again from people who came before the committee. What the people of Newfoundland and Labrador voted for was an end to the chaos, an end to the debate which had divided communities, an the end to the debate which was divisive and difficult for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

What they came before our committee and asked for was a resolution. Those people who came before the committee were not unanimous in their support. In all of my almost 20 years in public life, I rarely have seen an issue where there is unanimous support. In fact I have said, Mr. Speaker, you do not have to say it is a controversial issue because if it is not controversial, it is not an issue. If there is unanimous support, it is not an issue. What makes it an issue is that not everyone agrees.

They come to this House on this day and say can we in Canada be responsive to a province that has had a history such as Newfoundland and Labrador, which is unique, different? Certainly Newfoundland and Labrador's history when it comes to education is different from that of any other province in this country.

I have said to my constituents in Thornhill, to those who have expressed concerns about what is happening in Newfoundland and Labrador, that there are more differences than there are similarities between the situation in Newfoundland and Labrador and the situation in Ontario.

I do not believe that what we are doing in this Parliament is going to in any way set a precedent for any other province, particularly the province of Ontario. I do not believe it. I do not believe it because Ontario has a very different history than Newfoundland and Labrador.

Ontario has a very different education system than exists in Newfoundland and Labrador today. Ontario does not have the same kind of terms of union that Newfoundland and Labrador are trying to change.

To those people who are raising concerns that what we do in this House on term 17 may in the future have some negative implications for other provinces, may in the future have established a precedent, I say to them that the only precedent that changes to term 17 will create in my opinion is the precedent that says in Canada changes to our constitution are possible.

Our constitution is a living document. It is not carved in stone. It can be responsive to the needs of individual provinces. It can respond and it can be flexible. It is not difficult to understand why there are those who, for their own reasons, resist change.

Certainly I understand that those who have the power to control the school systems do not want to see that changed. I understand that. It is difficult to make change in a constitution.

This country has struggled with the desire for that change over the course of its history, but if ever there was a clear example of when this Parliament should be responsive to a request from the provinces, if there was ever an example of due process having taken place, of the expression of will from the people at a non-partisan free vote again in the Newfoundland House of Assembly, this change to term 17 is the very best example.

After the referendum where 73% of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador said that they want this change on a clear question, there was a non-partisan free vote, unanimous, in the Newfoundland and Labrador House of Assembly.

The Conservatives supported it. The NDP supported it. The one independent member of the Newfoundland and Labrador House of Assembly who represents a significant Métis and aboriginal constituency supported it. Yes, the Liberal government and all the members of that House, be they Pentecostals, be they catholics, be they any religion under the sun or no religion, they all supported this.

Do members know why? I believe it is because they all want what is best for the students of Newfoundland and Labrador. They want to be able to use their resources in the most cost-effective way that will give their students the best possible quality education and the best possible chance for success in the future.

I urge the members of this House to listen to the voice that has been tortured. We heard from one delegation that they had been tortured in this debate for a decade.

Let us help them put this into their history. If we do not pass this resolution expeditiously in the House they will not be prepared to look after their students come next September. It is irresponsible not to move forward if we care about the students of Newfoundland and Labrador, if we care that they will have the opportunity to receive the best quality, cost effective education that can be provided in that province. Let us give those kids a chance. Let the province get past this.

After sitting on the committee, I believe its majority report is the best thing for Canada and for Newfoundland and Labrador. I hope members of the House will support it.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I need a little clarification. The hon. member opposite indicated that someone was tortured. I hope that was not in the physical sense. Hopefully it was only in the mental sense. Since it was a phrase used in the middle of her ideas without connecting ideas, who specifically was tortured and by whom?

[Elinor Caplan, Liberal, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to clarify this point for the member. If he checks the committee proceedings he will see that a delegation of parents came before the committee and said that they felt this debate had tortured the community.

Yes, it was mental torture. It was anguish and it was anxiety. It was worry about the students and their future. It was about the divisiveness within the community which divided friends. It was cruel, mental torture.

I am not saying it. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador, the parents who came before the committee, used that word. They also used the words “chaos” and “divisiveness”. These difficult expressive words spoke volumes.

I hope the member who asked this important question will talk to his colleagues so that we can respond in a positive way to those people in Newfoundland and Labrador who have felt tortured by this debate and help them to put this in their history books and move beyond it.

[Jason Kenney, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise in debate on the resolution to amend term 17. I sat as an associate member on the joint special parliamentary committee dealing with this term. I would first like to recognize that it is an extraordinarily difficult issue requiring the wisdom of Solomon to determine how to vote on this matter. I appreciate the fact that it appears to be a free vote in every caucus.

In my remarks I will not be speaking on behalf of my party but rather with respect to my own conscience as it was formed in the process of those hearings and through the contact I have had with many people in Newfoundland.

I would like to comment on the very passionate remarks of the hon. member who preceded me. She spoke about deep divisions in Newfoundland and the witnesses who appeared at the joint committee speaking about the “torture” they underwent over this ongoing and divisive debate.

Many of the witnesses that appeared before the committee expressed deep and passionately held views in opposition to this proposed term. They are among the minority, perhaps the minority of the minority but a minority nevertheless, who feel that this amendment would alienate from them a constitutional right which is central to their privileges as citizens of Canada and of Newfoundland and Labrador.

By no means is there unanimity in Newfoundland with respect to this amendment. In fact every Newfoundlander I have heard from directly as a member of Parliament has been encouraging me to exercise our constitutional authority to oppose this application.

I rise not to oppose a unanimous consensus of the province of Newfoundland but rather to speak on behalf of the small number of people in that province who feel their minority rights are being trounced upon by the process in which we are now engaged.

What does this amendment do? It replaces the original term 17 that was entered into the constitution at the time of confederation of Newfoundland and Labrador in 1949, with a new term which would continue to recognize education as a provincial responsibility, and quite rightly so, and which would remove forever and extinguish permanently the denominational right to govern schools and school systems in a denominational character that was enshrined in 1949.

It would replace those rights with a general guarantee of access to courses in religion that are not specific to a religious denomination and in section 3 to religious observances that shall be permitted in a school where requested by parents. Let us be quite clear about what this does. It removes a right.

Some of the proponents of this amendment will say that we are not talking about minority rights because, after all, 97% of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians come under the coverage of the seven denominations affected. I think that is really pettifogging. I think it is quibbling with constitutional concepts. Whether it is minority rights, religious rights, acquired rights, vested rights or entrenched rights does not matter one whit.

To quote from an esteemed member of the House, the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis, in the debate on a similar initiative in the Quebec legislature many years ago, “rights are rights are rights”. I do not care how we cut them up, how we parse them, what terminology we apply, we are talking about guarantees that were extended to certain communities in the formation of the country, in this case in the incorporation of Newfoundland into this great country.

What kind of rights are we talking about when it comes to the rights of parents to direct their children in a particular religious tradition? The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and many proponents of this amendment have said that the right to publicly funded denominational education does not constitute a fundamental right as long as parents have access to that kind of education, be it privately funded or otherwise.

In other words, they say that this is not like the right to exercise religion or the right to freedom of expression, which they argue are fundamental rights. Instead they suggest we are dealing with an entitlement, namely the entitlement to use the public purse to finance denominational education.

I beg to differ, and in so doing I would like to refer to the universal declaration of human rights from 1948, a document which came out of the atrocious circumstances and the lessons of the second world war. The world gathered together in an effort to define once and for all what constituted basic human rights. Article 26 of that declaration stated that everyone “has the right to education. Education shall be free at least in the elementary and fundamental stages”.

It went on to say under subsection 2 that “education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms”. Under section 3 it stated that “parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children”. It defines education as education that shall be free; in other words, publicly funded education at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. It went on to say that such education will be directed by parents who have a prior right to choose what kind of education they shall receive.

This principle was further enunciated in the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights in 1966, wherein article 13 recognized “the right of everyone to education”. It further stated that primary education shall be compulsory and available free to all, and that the states and parties to the covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.

I refer to the 1976 international covenant on civil and political rights which stated in article 18 that everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. Under section 4 it stated that the states and parties to the present covenant undertook to have respect for the liberty of parents, and when applicable legal guardians, to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.

The point is that we are not talking about a mere privilege or a mere entitlement. The right to direct education, as has been understood through these international covenants, means the right to access publicly funded education, free education at least at the elementary stage, which reflects the convictions of parents.

The abolition of the denominational school guarantees in term 17 means the abolition of those rights as defined by these international covenants. I think that is very grave indeed.

That is why we need a very high standard to alienate such rights. I would argue that the only such standard would be that the groups affected, be they minorities or majorities, indicate their consent to the removal of such rights. I submit that in the referendum, the unanimous vote of the Newfoundland legislature notwithstanding, such consent was not absolutely clear. Why do I say that?

We are dealing not with one monolithic group of citizens affected. We are dealing with eight denominational groups that are affected. Each one of those groups has a claim to this fundamental right. It would not be appropriate for a majority of people from different denominations to alienate the rights of a minority of others.

For instance, it was generally accepted in the hearings of the joint committee that the Pentecostal people of Newfoundland and Labrador did not give their consent in the referendum and did not give it in the consultations, and that they voted in the majority in the referendum against the application.

There was also considerable debate as to whether or not the considerably large catholic community of Newfoundland supported this amendment. While there is some evidence that a majority of nominal catholics may have done so in the referendum, there is no way to measure whether a majority of practising catholics gave such assent. One thing that is evident is that the institutional church, the Newfoundland Conference of Catholic Bishops, is clearly outspokenly opposed to this amendment.

I would also mention parenthetically that it was very unfortunate the joint committee chose not to hear representatives of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops and representatives of other organizations such as the Catholic Civil Rights League that would have spoken to the national implications of this amendment. Why else do I question the assertion that the affected groups have given their assent to this amendment?

I think the referendum was conducted in an atrocious manner. By that I do not mean to say the people of Newfoundland did not know what they were voting on or were somehow voting in mass sequence. That is not my suggestion.

My suggestion is that the Government of Newfoundland was irresponsible in the manner in which it conducted this referendum and that it conducted it contrary to the basic principles of direct democracy reflected in referenda statutes throughout the world.

Among other things it has been noted in the debate today that the question was released only 32 days before the referendum. The legal text was released two days before the advance polls opened and only a week before the vote itself occurred. I recall in debate on the Charlottetown accord during the referendum in 1992 that Canadians from coast to coast expressed huge anger that they had not seen the legal text of that accord three or four weeks before the referendum.

In this case, Newfoundlanders did not see it until a couple of days before they went to the polls. And most importantly, when the legal text was released it reflected a substantive difference from the question that was put on the ballot and to Newfoundlanders four weeks before that time.

The question stated: 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 observance are provided? I am reading from an advertisement the government put out called “A Straightforward Referendum Question” and it seems straightforward enough.

But when the government released the legal text, section 2 of the proposed new term 17 made it clear that such courses in religion are not specific to a religious denomination, an essential qualifier, a caveat which was not reflected in the question. Section 3 of the legal text states that religious observances shall be permitted in the school requested by parents, presumably qualified as well as religious observances that are not specific to a particular denomination.

Many Newfoundlanders who approached me and the committee said that the question they were asked implied that the protection of religious education meant the kind of religious education they conventionally understood to be religious, namely denominational education. But the government pulled a fast one by saying that such education would not be denominational in character. I and many people in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador believe that non-denominational religious education really is not religious education and therefore the question was misleading.

I also object to the government's direct intervention in the referendum. The government used the apparatus of the state and public tax dollars to support the yes side of the referendum. One principle which is consistent to direct democracy legislation around the world is that the state must remain neutral on these matters.

The government, that is to say the premier, his cabinet and his caucus, may take a particular position and can get on their soapbox, television or on talk shows and argue their position persuasively. But to use tax dollars for the benefit of one side is to unfairly outweigh the outcome, and more importantly is to infringe on the basic principle of liberal democracy as best expressed by Thomas Jefferson in the preamble to the Virginia Statute on Religious Freedom which states that to compel a man to finance ideas which he abhors is both sinful and tyrannical.

That principle was enshrined at the birth of liberal democracy, that the state must remain neutral when it comes to basic political and moral differences. That was a principle not recognized by the Government of Newfoundland which spent $350,000 tax dollars on one side of the referendum while the no advocates had no such access to public resources.

I say this as a very strong advocate of direct democracy and referenda, someone who is somewhat of an amateur student of direct democracy. I find this offensive. If we blindly assume the legitimacy of this referendum, we are lowering the standard of what constitutes legitimate conduct in a referendum and it is not something I think we should do.

Many of those who have argued in favour of this amendment say that what it really tries to do is to enshrine pluralism, to reflect the important Canadian value of pluralism in the education system in Newfoundland. They claim that among other things there are groups such Baptists and the Jewish community who have no access to denominational education under the original term 17.

I agree it is a legitimate concern. But the proper remedy to that problem is not to extinguish the rights for those who currently hold those rights. It is to expand those rights. A liberal democracy does not create equality by removing rights for some. It creates greater equality by extending those rights to all.

What the Newfoundland government ought to have done in this case in my view is to propose an amendment to the term which would have included a generic right to denominational education. That would have satisfied the interests of equality but instead some people will end up paying the price by not having access to such education.

Those who will pay the price the most are poor people. I want to make this point. The wealthy can afford to send their children to private schools but it is the most disadvantaged, and we know that Newfoundland is a disadvantaged province, where parents cannot afford the extra $2,000, $3,000 or $4,000 to send their children to a private school which is in keeping with their values.

So what about the courses in religion and religious observances provided for in the proposed new term? My concern and that of many Newfoundlanders is that these courses in religion, these non-denominational generic courses will in fact be specific to a particular world view, a world view that might generally be called the secularist world view, a world view which sees no important ultimate distinctions in the truth claims of various religions.

In other words the courses that are implied by this term will not be courses in religion as conventionally understood. They could very well become courses in religious syncretism and indifferentism undergirded by a philosophy of moral relativism. That is to say philosophies which negate the possibility of objective ultimate truth on matters of life and death, on metaphysical matters, on matters of religion.

To tell a Catholic parent or a Pentecostal parent or some other parent who comes from a particular religious tradition that they will have access to religious education and that they should not worry is not adequate. They are concerned that their moral views will be offended by their children by schools providing this—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Elk Island.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am intrigued with the path the member is taking on this argument. It is one I think has been quite widely missed in the debate so far this day. That is the intense belief system that people have and want to teach to their children. I wonder if he would enlarge more on that aspect of it.

[Jason Kenney, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, yes I can enlarge on it. The point is that religious syncretism which is implied by the new non-denominational courses in religion under the proposed new term is contrary to the basic values that many families hold. The values they hold are to look at the world from a particular religious perspective rooted in tradition in many cases going back 2,000 years.

For those people to have to send their children to a school where they are going to be taught that there really is no difference between the religions, that all the truth claims of all the religions are irrelevant and illegitimate, that they can pick and choose between the moral values which will guide their lives is offensive. That is why so many parents oppose this.

I would like to make one other point in reference to the hon. member's question. This is the point of pluralism. What we are doing with this amendment is to impose a monistic system of education, that is to say, a one world view system of education which is inimical to the pluralism which is supposedly a value that is so important to this country.

Pluralism means in the words of Edmund Burke that you have many different little platoons in civil society, people coming together around common convictions in different church groups. That is what is reflected in the current education system in Newfoundland.

What we want is pluralism, not a monolithic cookie cutter stereotype system where all children are forced to have the same kind of educational experience.

A vote against term 17, the proposed new term, is a vote for pluralism and therefore I submit a vote for the ultimate Canadian value.

[Paul Devillers, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member in his comments made reference to section 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

I draw his attention to page 10 of the unanimous report of the joint committee where it clarifies that Professor Anne Bayefsky, the constitutional expert who gave evidence before the committee indicated that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights does not say a state party to the treaty is required to provide public funding for denominational rights. I think that is contrary to what I understood him to say in his speech.

Also the member made reference to a right is a right is a right. Is he implying then that the Constitution can only be amended in the case of unanimity and if so, what is the purpose of section 43 of the Constitution Act, 1982 that provides for bilateral amendments?

[Jason Kenney, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, first of all with respect to Professor Bayefsky's position as quoted in the majority report, I disagree with her.

Referring to the other two covenants which I referenced, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says that education shall be free and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights says that primary education shall be compulsory and available, free to all. In the proper context, it is understood that the right to education is a right that is exercisable by all parents, including poor parents which means through the assistance of the state.

With respect to the second question, no, I do not believe that unanimity is required to make an amendment to the Constitution. I indicated during my remarks that the threshold I thought was necessary to remove rights given to a particular group was that that group clearly and expressly support such removal of rights.

That was not clear by this blanket referendum process which was conducted in Newfoundland. We cannot discern from the results whether or not and which groups gave their assent. We are saying that generally a social majority can alienate the rights of a social minority. That is a troubling precedent which all members of this place should be concerned about not only for the educational rights in their provinces, but the other rights afforded by the Constitution.

I would also like to point out that Professor Bayefsky and other constitutional authorities who appeared before the committee argued persuasively that this amendment would subject the new term 17 to the application of the charter of rights and freedoms and therefore any religious observances or courses which took on anything close to denominational character would be imperilled by the jurisprudence with respect to religious education in both the Zylberberg and civil liberties cases out of Ontario. Essentially these are cases which say that we cannot have publicly funded denominational education under the charter because of its equality rights.

I am glad the hon. member raised the arguments of that esteemed constitutional scholar. They are arguments which give further cause for concern in terms of denominational education.

[Maurice Vellacott, Reform, Wanuskewin, SK]

Mr. Speaker, Reform has proposed three tests. There has been much discussion over the course of this day in regard to them. I note that members on the opposite side of the House and the other parties adjacent to us have either inferred or explicitly referred to them. I use them as a bit of a guide for my remarks this evening. I also suggest, as I first make remarks on the democratic consent, that with this first criteria I differ with some of my colleagues. It does not trump the other two.

First, on remarks of democratic consent. On September 2, 1997 it appears the Brian Tobin Liberal government of Newfoundland and Labrador took a very knee jerk, malicious approach. It was a very spiteful response to the provincial government ruling that it was not appropriately implementing term 17. As well, we have learned from the Quebec situation that a referendum may be democratic in theory, but demagogic in reality when the form of the question is abused.

Here was a government that was slapped on the wrist, then like a spoiled boy decided it did not want to play. It wanted to walk away instead of working it out. It sprung this referendum on July 31, 1997. The Newfoundland government could have amended the legislation to provide a more workable process for implementing term 17.

The court decision handed down brought into effect the second referendum call at the end of the month. There was no debate in the house of assembly prior to this announcement, no hearings on the proposed amendment. I would suggest that that would have been helpful in getting the issues out, getting them into the public debate arena.

The Tobin government only unveiled, and it has been mentioned often, the proposed new term 17 two days before the advance poll and one week before the vote. As other colleagues have referred, it was substantially different from the form of the question which was put on term 17 on the polling day.

I am not of the view that the technical and legal language needs to be on the ballot. I am of the belief that the technical and legal language needs to concur with the form of the question. This is not the case. This is bordering on fraudulent. It is deceptive. It is trickery. It leaves open to question whether there was an informed consent of the electorate in general and the affected minorities in particular.

I quickly note, as others have, that the government used hundreds of thousands of dollars to promote the yes side and granted not a penny to the no side. I have looked at some of the government advertising. Who is not for children and opportunity and advancement and all of these wonderful things? That is the nature of the government paid advertising, its issues of motherhood and apple pie, but no dollars granted to the no side. Also being referred to is the fact that there were no scrutineers.

It is my belief, as commented by others, that if we are taking this thing of referendum seriously, as the Reform Party does and we are out in the forefront on this one, then we need to be putting a fair question. We need proper electoral safeguards, scrutineers, et cetera, and equal funding for both the yes and no sides or no funding at all. It is an old saying that justice must not only be done, but it must also be seen to be done.

Second, it has not yet been demonstrated that the revised term 17 meets the test of the rule of law. The rule of law requires that the Newfoundland government demonstrate that its proposed reforms do not prejudicially affect the previously granted rights of those who desire a religious orientation in the education of their children.

The Newfoundland government could have addressed this. It had every opportunity by obtaining a ruling, a reference from the Supreme Court of Canada clearly establishing that its proposed amendment does not prejudicially affect previous rights granted. Why get into this? The government had this opportunity. It is not an issue of whether these rights are discriminatory or not. The fact is these rights were granted.

I want to talk from an historical precedent point of view how there could no longer or necessarily be discrimination in regard to these matters. The first education act in Newfoundland was passed in 1836 and granted public funding to the Newfoundland School Society, Roman Catholics and nine school boards.

It was amended in 1874 to permit proportional funding to all religious groups which at that time included Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Methodists, Presbyterians and Congregationalists. In 1892 and 1913 respectively other groups were brought in. Then the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada were granted full partnership in funding in 1954 and added into the constitution in 1987.

My point is that there is no doubt an increasing number of families in the province who would not be members of traditional Roman Catholic or protestant faith groups but the right of such parents to educate their children according to their own faith and convictions ought to be upheld, as should be the right of Roman Catholic and protestant parents.

There is nothing that precludes there being more groups brought in. The solution proposed by this term 17 will not accommodate greater diversity but rather imposes an approach which marginalizes religion and excludes it from the general curriculum.

We should be expanding, as my hon. colleague said just moments ago, the educational rights instead of extinguishing rights. If there are disenfranchised groups that wish to be accommodated, that can be accomplished without eroding the constitutional protection which other minority religious groups enjoy.

There are also ways of addressing current inefficiencies in the educational system which would not require a constitutional amendment.

By press release dated April 24, 1996, the minister of education and training announced that a framework agreement had been negotiated between the province and denominations. That agreement indicates that the government's concerns can be addressed without the constitutional amendment requested. In fact, the churches had co-operated with educational reform.

Premier Tobin made the comment that they were trying to frustrate the process of education reform. Not so, Premier Tobin. In fact, these churches had willingly embraced reform. They had entered into dozens of joint school arrangements. They had closed and consolidated other schools, 30-some for the Roman Catholics and 7 Pentecostal in the past year.

They co-operated with the government in a reduction of school boards from the original 267 to the present 10. They participated in the government operated provincial school construction board which controls all school construction except that school bus reform is necessary. On and on we go.

They in fact endorsed 90% of the commission's recommendations and urged the government to get on with implementing them.

It is clear that the Pentecostals and Roman Catholics will be negatively affected, detrimentally affected by the new religion program in term 17 before us.

This offer of a religion program developed by the Department of Education is a cruel joke. It will be a neutered, generic, no-name brand sociology religion class. At its worst, it will be hostile to theistic religions.

The present Newfoundland government has displayed such disdain for religious education that there is no reason to hope that it will suddenly become conscientious for the rights of parents in matters of religion.

The provincial Department of Education writing the content for the religion course is like putting the fox in charge of the chicken coop. It is a cruel joke. I am of the view that this amendment is not in the best interests of Canadians.

Premier Brian Peckford in the Hansard record of April 10, 1987 speaks warmly and extols the Pentecostal Assemblies of Newfoundland, the way they operated their schools, their uniqueness in terms of their putting forth values, instilling manners and courtesy and respect for others and family values and so on. He in fact warns them not to let go of that, not to let that be deluded over time.

Premier Brian Peckford mentions the fact of that danger and makes very clear that they should be regarded as a shining light for others to adopt and to ensure that that was also part of their overall educational system and philosophy. In righting the wrong, he says of the past that he has great pleasure in recommending the inclusion of the Pentecostal Assemblies of Newfoundland.

That being said, who should run the schools? Who should decide on the nature of a child's schooling? I do not recognize the province's exclusive authority to decide the education of my child for Newfoundland or any other province.

It is parents who have the primary responsibility for the education of their children. It is therefore a right to be able to choose a type of education that they desire for their children.

More to the point, they should be entitled to take the funds to pay for that child's education with them, whether directly as in a voucher system or indirectly by funding schools based on the number of pupils they enroll, a system known as capitation.

That approach is finding favour around the world, not only in free market Britain or New Zealand as expected, but also in socialist countries Sweden and Denmark.

The Canadian public would be better served by acknowledging parental choice of a school where their children can be educated in keeping with their world view and values for the good of Canadian society. The Newfoundland referendum is suspect all around. Rather than extinguishing minority rights in this respect, I believe we should be enhancing them and expanding them.

After serious and careful deliberation, much consultation and conservation with others, I stand opposed to term 17 as it is before us today.

[Deepak Obhrai, Reform, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today after hearing compelling arguments put forward by members on both sides of this issue.

Having listened to my colleagues it is a very difficult situation for me to make a decision on. I have thought and thought about it. Especially being a minority myself, this is a very important question for me. Are we trampling on minority rights? There is always the possibility that a majority can trample minority rights, and being a minority this is a very important issue for me. I have looked at the issue very seriously. I sat in the House and heard all members talking about the pros and cons.

Where do I stand on the matter? After listening to everybody and looking at what we have stated as our policy, I have learned over several years that amending the constitution is never an easy undertaking. Nor should it be.

The constitution contains the principles and underpinning upon which we govern and are governed. Its influence on the daily activities of Canadians is all encompassing. Therefore our constitution must reflect the will of the people.

Some who have not followed the issue closely may wonder what exactly is happening with this amendment. Basically by amending term 17, the Newfoundland and Labrador school system would change its common denominational nature within the province, allowing the province to move to a single, publicly funded school system.

It should be noted that even with these changes this amendment would not take religion out of the schools. Term 17 contains a provision which guarantees that religion must be taught and that religious observance must be permitted in schools where requested by parents.

My colleagues feel this is not exactly guaranteeing minority rights that were guaranteed at the time Newfoundland joined Confederation. I agree that is true, but does it really take away a minority right? That is the question I was wondering about. I personally feel that it does not take away a minority right. It is there. It may not be in the same manner as it was before but it is there. Therefore I feel that the basic principle of a minority right being taken away is not a major issue.

On the other hand, children would not be forced to participate in such activities if the parents or themselves did not wish that. These issues are very emotional ones which go to the basic values of individuals. Each time this has been debated in this place we have heard very eloquent and heartfelt arguments on both sides as to why or why not we as parliamentarians should support or oppose this resolution.

As a new parliamentarian I have heard from several concerned individuals on both sides of the issue. This is a decision that one cannot enter into lightly. I have spent a great deal of time thinking about it. After thinking very hard on the issue I have come to the conclusion that I am in favour of this resolution. I feel that it follows the democratic will of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

My colleagues have stated that the question put forward was not clear and was changed and that the referendum did not meet the criteria of a real referendum.

I would submit that this debate has gone on in Newfoundland and it is the people of Newfoundland who are ultimately responsible for making this decision. In the second referendum over 73% of the people agreed on this issue. I can share some of the concerns my colleagues have expressed and I would agree with their sentiment. However, they have gone through two referendums in Newfoundland and in the second referendum the percentage increased. Therefore I am quite satisfied this was a legitimate referendum.

One of the first and foremost principles of our party is the equality of provinces and respect for provincial jurisdiction. We support each and every province's having equality of status and equal powers and Parliament and the Government of Canada's treating all the provinces equally. Term 17 deals with the provincial power over education and the amendment allows the house of assembly to decide.

I agree with my colleague who said education should be the responsibility of parents. The primary responsibility of education must fall on parents. The parents who live in Newfoundland have made a decision through the referendum that this is the way they want to do it.

Another principle deals with respect for the equality of all citizens. We are in favour of citizens having equal rights under the law. Under the current system with term 17 there are not equal rights for all citizens. What is at issue here is whether the existing rights have to be swept away or whether they could be accommodated in some other manner.

Another guiding principle refers to the basic right of freedoms of conscience and religion. At issue here is whether the right to denominational schools is an element of this freedom or not. Under the new amended term 17 education in religion is not specific to any denomination but what is guaranteed is the right to religious observance for all.

The last two principles deal with the will of the majority while at the same time respecting the rights of minorities. At issue here is whether the procedures of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador were fair and whether the rights and interests of minorities were safeguarded, as I alluded to in the beginning.

There have been arguments on both sides that have dealt with the fairness of the procedures used by the government in obtaining its mandate to reform the school system. On one side it has been argued that the government did not give the citizens enough time to make an informed decision, that it was a short campaign during the summer months and that the text of the referendum question was released only a week prior to the referendum date. The government actively campaigned for the amendment, as my colleague mentioned.

On the other side, this was the second referendum in a two year period, which supported the changes to the educational system in the province. The second referendum received a substantially higher percentage of support than the first one. As I mentioned earlier, the referendum question was supported basically in every part of the province and gained the unanimous support of the house of assembly.

When it comes down to whether the importance we attach to democratic consent and respecting the will of the majority outweighs our concern about the impact of this amendment on denominational rights in Newfoundland, I think it does. That is why I will be supporting this resolution.

[Maurice Vellacott, Reform, Wanuskewin, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my hon. colleague. It is in the nature of going back in a time capsule, one might say.

With this matter of a referendum, important as it is to each one of us, are there not some limitations? Are there not some bottom lines? We can go back in time to our neighbours to the south during the time when there was slavery in their country. Had there been a vote at the time about whether to allow the slaves rights or to keep them in that subjugated, suppressed state, and if the vote had left them without rights and kept them subjugated, would the member have been in agreement with that kind of referendum?

As a preface I would say that I stand opposed to that. It does not matter that there may have been a democratic “referenda” issue there, I would stand opposed. There are bottom lines. I am personally interested in how the member would have voted on such an issue.

Second, is this extended to all areas or are there some bottom lines with respect to this?

[Deepak Obhrai, Reform, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there are some good analogies there.

To answer the question, in the case of slavery, that referendum was taking away the basic human rights of someone, treating someone as inferior.

In this case we are talking about a change in the system, not about taking away the rights of somebody. We are talking about changes. That is the way I view it. I do not view it as somebody's basic human rights in the province being attacked. All it is doing is changing the basic system which the people of Newfoundland people think would be far more effective for them and at the same time is giving them religious rights.

It is not taking away religious rights or the right to send my child to a religious school. I can keep my child at home and teach him religion. So there are two basic, strong fundamental factors here.

The bottom line is that in this referendum I do not view that a right has been snatched away from someone in Newfoundland. I feel that the referendum has asked them if they want a change in the system. That is the way I view it.

[Peter Goldring, Reform, Edmonton East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member knows of my concerns and the concerns of others about minority rights. We heard earlier that the francophones had set up, with full rights, a school system managed by the francophones, non-denominational. But in accordance with term 17 in and for the province of Newfoundland, the legislature shall have exclusive authority to make laws in relation to education.

Could the member possibly comment on whether he thinks these rights could be affected by the slippery slope of the general, gradual reduction of rights. Would that have any effect on the francophone school board? Clearly that school—