Debates of Dec. 8th, 1997

Amendment To The Constitution Of Canada (Newfoundland)

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

We will give the hon. member for Calgary East a minute to respond to that question.

[Deepak Obhrai, Reform, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think so. I still say that this is a change, not taking rights away. I still feel that parents in Newfoundland have the basic right to educate their children in the manner they want.

I know that in Calgary those who do not agree with that are teaching their children at home. Basically I am looking at this through the referendum and the desire of parents of Newfoundland who are asking for a change to be made to better administer the system. As a person who belongs to a minority I would be the first to raise the flag if I felt a minority right was disappearing. I do not feel a minority right is disappearing.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to take part in this debate. It has been a long day. There has been much lively debate since the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs opened the debate at noon hour. I think it has been a very interesting and honest debate.

Members on all sides of the House have taken part and have expressed their views and opinions. That is the way it should be when we are considering a matter as serious as constitutional amendment.

We have to look at a number of issues in making our decision. The first has been raised by many members speaking on the issue today, that is to answer the question of whether the process was fair. I am referring to the process whereby the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador proposed the resolution that it passed unanimously on a free vote in the legislature of Newfoundland and Labrador. We need to review that.

It was my pleasure to be a member of the special joint committee that studied this matter. I would like to make reference to one of the witnesses who appeared before the committee, Mr. David Schneiderman, executive director of the Centre for Constitutional Studies at the University of Alberta. Professor Schneiderman indicated to the committee that certain fundamental questions must be asked in determining whether the process was a fair one.

He asked: “Was there an opportunity for debate and deliberation among the general public?” The committee had no difficulty coming to the conclusion that there had been because testimony before it revealed that this debate had been going on for quite some time in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Further he asked: “Could the same result have been achieved through non-constitutional means?” We are dealing with a request to amend the constitution, which has the effect of extinguishing denominational rights. Whether we are for or against it, it needs to be accomplished by constitutional means.

The next question was: “Was the subject matter of the amendment the subject of an election or referendum?” We know there have been two referenda with respect to this issue.

The last question was: “Were the communities of interest most directly affected consulted and given an opportunity for meaningful participation?” On that point the committee came to the conclusion that all parties on all sides of the issue over a period of years and leading up to the final referendum of this year certainly had those opportunities.

The majority of the committee had very little difficulty in coming to its conclusion. Members of the government and two of the four opposition parties came to the conclusion that the process was fair.

During the debate and also by persons and groups that appeared before the committee, it was further indicated that the process was tainted in that the government participated in the referendum. I submit that is only reasonable. The legislation of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador was at stake. There is a duty on a government proposing legislation to support it. I do not see how that allegation could cause any concern as to the fairness and reasonableness of the process.

Earlier in debate the member for St. John's East indicated his concern that the charter would apply to the new amended term 17 and consequently the provisions of 17(2) and 17(3) which provide for courses in religion and religious observances at the request of the parents would be struck down. The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs in his submission earlier today gave the opinion that clearly term 17 as amended would enjoy the protection from the charter.

For the benefit of the member for St. John's East I would also make reference to one of the expert and legal opinions that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador obtained answering the question could a provision of the charter or another part of the Constitution invalidate the rights set out in term 17. The answer was no.

The Supreme Court of Canada has stated that one constitutional provision cannot be used to invalidate a provision in another part of the Constitution. Term 17 is part of the Constitution of Canada. In provinces where the courts have ruled that religious observances such as the Lord's Prayer cannot be held in the public school, there is no constitutional protection comparable to that in term 17.

That opinion was provided to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador not by a Liberal or someone that could be questioned, but rather by a former cabinet minister, the Hon. John Crosbie. Therefore, I think the member for St. John's East would give that legal opinion some recognition.

In today's debate, we are hearing a lot about minority rights, namely whether the amendments to term 17 are really a matter of minority rights. We must remember that the situation in Newfoundland and Labrador is not the same as in the other provinces. First, Newfoundland and Labrador never had a public school system. It is very difficult to determine who makes up the minorities and the majority. For there to be a minority, there has to be a majority.

It is very difficult in Newfoundland and Labrador where, before the latest amendments to term 17, some 96 per cent of the population enjoyed denominational rights. Some of these denominations were included in a school system, but only about 4 per cent of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador did not have denominational rights. It is a bit difficult to say today that in the effort to amend term 17 the rights of minorities are at stake.

In addition, regarding the results of the referendum, it is very difficult to know how the various groups voted. There was no way to find out. In fact, when Minister Grimes, the Newfoundland and Labrador minister of education, appeared before the committee, he indicated that, in the first referendum in 1995, the premier at the time, Clyde Wells, wrote to all denominational groups, to all the leaders of religious groups, including the Catholics and the Pentacostals, to ask them if they agreed with a proposal to have every voter indicate their religion upon arriving at the polling station so that the voting pattern of each religious group could be known.

Minister Grimes told us that Premier Wells never did get a response. When Premier Tobin proposed the second referendum, there was no question of it because it had already been determined that the leaders of the churches were not interested in finding out how their members were going to vote.

As well, it can be seen that the Catholics, at 37%, are the most numerous of all the denominational groups. It is still hard to grasp how that group can be described as a minority, when it represents 37% of the population.

In the case of the Catholics, it is fairly evident in my opinion with the Catholics representing 37% of the population, if they had turned out and voted en masse to protect their denominational rights, they may not have won the referendum but certainly the result would not have been 73%. The Pentecostal community represents 7% of the population. It is more difficult to determine what the turnout was there. In fact we had much speculation about it at the committee but there is no way of determining for certain.

Appendix 1 to the committee's report is the results of the Newfoundland referendum of September 1997. It is broken down by percentage of the population who voted, the percentage of people who voted yes, the percentage of people who voted no, the percentage of the Roman Catholic population and the Pentecostal population for each of the various polling stations.

Looking at it quickly, one can see that in the areas where the Pentecostal population is the highest represented, for instance Baie Verte where the population is 25%, the one that strikes me the most, is the voter turnout was 45.2% which is below the average. In a polling station where the Pentacostals were fairly well represented the turnout of the vote was not any higher. In fact the percentage of the vote for yes was 57.9.

Similarly in Exploits, there was 26% Pentecostal population, 53% turnout which was about on the average, but again 63% voted yes. The riding of Lewisporte, 34% Pentecostal population, 57% a little over the average turnout and 59% of the voters voted yes.

Even in the ridings where the Pentacostals were more highly represented than in other ridings, one can see that there is still fairly strong support for the resolution.

It is very difficult to subscribe to the argument that what we are dealing with is a minority rights issue, that the rights of the minority are not being respected. I do not consider it a minority rights issue. I consider it a question of denominational rights which had been entrenched in the Constitution. Yes, one should not go about the business of amending the Constitution without giving it serious consideration, but I do not see in this case that it is a question where minority rights are being disregarded and the will of the majority is being imposed over them.

Indeed this is a very tough decision. It is a very tough issue. Certainly the members of the committee, including those who supported the majority report to make a recommendation to the House and to the Senate that the requested resolution be passed, had a great deal of empathy and sympathy for those people who came before the committee and indicated that they did not wish to see these denominational rights extinguished.

I was impressed by the evidence that we heard at the committee by the Newfoundland Human Rights Association and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. These two groups exist to defend minority rights, to defend minorities. Both of these groups were strong advocates in supporting the resolution. I do not see where it can really be seen to be an abuse of minority rights when the very associations that are there to protect minority rights are indeed supporting it.

They were quite candid in giving their testimony before the committee. They said that they were in a very unusual position for them. They usually oppose government legislation or government resolutions, they rarely ever defend them. But in this case, they took that position.

I was impressed earlier this afternoon when the Leader of the Official Opposition made his intervention on this issue. He expressed those same concerns of sympathy and empathy for the people and the groups whose rights would be extinguished by this. There is no doubt that everyone understood that. If anyone heard or read Premier Tobin's speech on the night that he announced the referendum, it was very clear and everyone knew that denominational rights were being extinguished.

In spite of that, the Leader of the Official Opposition has taken the position that in this case because freedom of religion will still exist, because of the respect for the will of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador he personally is taking the position of supporting this.

I think it is a very difficult process that many of us have had to go through but sometimes in your gut you just know the right thing to do. I think those of us who are prepared to support this resolution have come to that position through that process.

The last point I want to deal with was the question of precedent. The concern is that by the Parliament of Canada, the House of Commons and the Senate supporting this resolution and in effect extinguishing denominational rights, we are setting a precedent that would apply to other provinces should they make similar requests. This is something the government has been very clear on, that any further requests for constitutional amendments will be looked at on their own merits.

I would submit there is no other province that has an education system similar in any way to that of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is a totally different situation and there is no point in getting into the niceties between legal and political precedents. I do not see where there would be anything that anyone could bring forward to argue that because this constitutional amendment is being granted for Newfoundland and Labrador the Parliament of Canada is bound in any way to grant a similar amendment for dealing with educational rights, denominational rights in other provinces.

For those reasons, I encourage all members to support the resolution.

[Peter Goldring, Reform, Edmonton East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to expand on the statement of the hon. member. He was talking about clarification he could not find or that the committee could not find the clarification for how the Pentecostals voted.

On the sheet that the hon. member was referring to, which was produced by Mark Graesser from the Department of Political Sciences Memorial University of Newfoundland, it is very clear. If we extend over to the third column, it indicates very clearly that in Baie Verte, Exploits, Lewisporte and Windsor-Springdale, the areas mentioned, the Pentecostal votes in those communities were respectively 32%, 32%, 32% and 30% voting in the “yes” column. I think it is of import to point out that the Pentecostals in those communities voted substantially against this resolution and that their “yes” vote was in the neighbourhood of 30%.

As a matter of fact, throughout the province the “yes” vote was calculated to be only 32%.

[Paul Devillers, Liberal, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I did indicate in my comments that indeed there was much speculation. In fact, there was a witness who came and presented the report that the member refers to. Again, that is not proof positive, and that is the point that I was making.

It is an extrapolation from the official figures that were reported in the referendum and it is taken by riding-riding. This individual's credentials I do not quarrel with, but again it is an extrapolation, it is an estimate, it is not proof positive.

That was my point, that no one can say for certain, with 100% certainty if the original proposal that Premier Clyde Wells at the time had put forward in identifying the ballots: a Pentecostal voter gets a green ballot, a Roman Catholic voter gets a red ballot—if that system had been used, if that system had been acceptable to the leaders of the various denominations, then we would have more certainty.

The point still remains that even if the Pentecostal community did not vote for it, it is not a question of a minority right, in my estimation, because they would be the only ones with the denominational rights left. The same report indicated I think that the Roman Catholics had voted 61% or something in favour, again an extrapolation. There is no certainty, but the same method was used to determine it.

Even if we know for certain that the Pentecostals did not support it, I think this amendment should still go forward, the whole scheme. I do not think they are a minority in the traditional minority/majority right, but the whole scheme of denominational schools in Newfoundland and Labrador would no longer be applicable with only one of the original seven denominations still having rights.

[Peter Goldring, Reform, Edmonton East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my point of bringing this up was to indicate that if the figures were being used for the first part to establish the 59% of votes from those various communities suggesting that they voted too, therefore we should also utilize a third column of figures that definitely indicates that only 30% of Pentecostals voted in favour of this.

In other words, if the first two columns are okay, the third column must be okay.

[Paul Devillers, Liberal, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is confused as to what I was referring to. I am referring to appendix 1 which is in the report, which is from the Newfoundland Referendum September 1997. It is the official results. He is referring to Mr. Graesser's report, which is a separate document. We are not referring to the same document.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, even though I have 20 minutes available, I think probably I will use less. I just appreciate not having the stricture of having to quit at 10 minutes after instead of 12 after in case I am in the middle of an important statement.

Education has to be one of the most important things to parents and to families. There is no doubt that the education that children receive from the time they are very young until they are really old and graduate from university that every day at school there is an influence on their lives, not only academically but also in terms of their growth as citizens and their growth as individuals.

I remember—and this will date me—about 30 years ago or a little less, the debate hot in the schools at that time was whether sex education ought to be in the schools. I taught mathematics at the college level while some of my colleagues taught physics. One of my colleagues, in addressing that question, said “Well, of course, sex should be taught in the schools. If the schools do as good a job of teaching that as they do of teaching math and physics then the children will lose all interest in it”. I do not think that is probably true, but that was his statement at the time.

This leads me into the part that I want to talk about in this debate, and that is that there is so much more to education than simply the academics. There are many studies that show this. All of us who have had children have observed it and anyone with common sense would agree that children behave not only in the way they are taught but also in the examples that are given to them. The values and beliefs that are held by the significant adults in their lives are going to be the values that the children adopt in their own lives. That is very true and there are very few exceptions to that.

Of course, there are some. In my own case, I went through a few years at the latter end of my teens when I rejected the values of my parents. I rejected their religious faith and ran away from home when I was 17. I know members will not believe that but I really did. Eventually I was reconciled not only to my parents but also to God and my life has been totally different since then. This was a very important and integral part of my life.

I believe very strongly that for parents who want to have a Christian education or some other values-based education in their children's lives that they should have the right to do so. I do not believe that it is the role of any government, be it federal, provincial or municipal, to take away from parents their rights and responsibilities to provide for the education and training of their children.

I again emphasize that I believe that those are two things that work together but are not synonymous since training and education are two different things.

I believe that in this debate one of the questions which we must answer is to what degree is that right being taken away. This is a real tug of war in this debate because on one hand we want to vote for it. There are many strong, compelling arguments to vote for this amendment but there are also some very compelling arguments to vote against it.

One of the reasons to vote for it is that this levels the playing field. The fact of the matter is that in Newfoundland there were certain groups that had the right to run the schools and their children could go to those schools while other groups were excluded from it. In a sense that is a reason to vote for this amendment. It will provide them all with an opportunity to send their children to the school of their choice.

It reminds me of the old days when Henry Ford started the Ford Motor Company. I do not know if you remember, Mr. Speaker, but I remember when the Model Ts first came out the advertising was “You can have a Model T in any colour you want so long as the colour you want is black”. This is exactly the same as the public school systems. Everybody can go to the public school of their own free will because that is the only one that is going to be available.

I do not think that is a right decision to make. I speak not only to the province of Newfoundland, I also speak to the province of Alberta where this debate is currently going on in terms of funding of schools which are not part of the public school system, and to every province in this country.

I really wish that we would truly recognize the rights of parents on all the different positions they hold on this issue to have the right to choose for their children the kind of training they want. While I say that parents have this right and responsibility, and it is not to be taken lightly, I believe that the role of government is to provide the freedom for parents to make that choice.

There is one thing to say. Any parents who really feel strongly about this issue can start their own schools and run them as private schools with no other funding. I have been in that position. My wife and I chose to send two of our children to a private school. At first that private school received no funding. Now it receives about 20% to 25% of the funding that public schools in Alberta receive. We made that sacrifice because to us it was very important, but we had to make a considerable financial sacrifice in order to provide that education.

One could argue that I did not have full exercise of freedom because there was a price for it. For example, we might say that we have the freedom of movement across this country, but if one of the provinces were to put up a tollgate and charge everyone $1,000 to come into that province, then we could say that now the freedom is somewhat curtailed. It is a little less freedom than before. We still have the freedom to go there but we have to plunk down the bucks.

I contend that people who make choices about their children's education should have a free choice. I do not mind a certain amount of financial commitment having to be made for that. It deepens the commitment if nothing else. At the same time I believe the people who make those choices should not be cut out of the educational funding dollar.

There is an argument that public funds should not be used to support private schools. This Liberal government uses that terminology too yet it quite clearly uses public funds to support private business. I cannot forget about Bombardier which is a private business. The government gives piles of public funds to it. I am saying that is really no different. In the case of schools, the parents are taxpayers.

I will use this analogy. Let us visualize it as a big barrel. All of the taxpayers put their money into the barrel for the education of the children in this province. Why should some parents be able to take the money out of the barrel to provide education for their children? In our province of Alberta it happens to be people who choose the secular based education in the public school system in which God or any mention of religion is anathema, or they can choose another system if they are catholic. They have the right and others do not. To me that is curtailment of a freedom of choice which I think we should really value in this country. I am saying the same thing for the province of Newfoundland.

I would have been delighted to vote for this measure if the provincial government of Newfoundland had instituted a plan like a voucher system in which there is public money from the taxpayers. If there is a group of parents that can set up a school for their children based on their deep values then that public money or at least a large proportion of it should be available for that education system. To me that would have solved the problem of whether their rights were prejudicially affected.

I really do not believe we should be forcing people to go to a religious school if they are not so inclined, but at the same time we need to recognize that the secular school where there is no religion is also teaching a form of religion and the message to the students has to be confusing.

Why is it that at home we deal with the reality of the existence of God? Why is it that at home we are taught to integrate this belief into all areas of our life whereas in school it cannot be mentioned? To me that is a contradiction and one which we should be correcting, and one which the Newfoundland government had an opportunity to correct. I wish it would have done it.

I think the point has been made that the parents have the primary right and responsibility. The government's responsibility should be to provide the opportunity for the parents to exercise that right without undue financial penalty.

Last, I believe also that there is really no such thing as a values free education. I am thinking of this training. The member for Broadview—Greenwood put it well. He came from the Catholic tradition. He pointed out in a way I can certainly relate to, and I put this so it is properly understood, there are some people whose religious belief and faith is more nominal. They have the label, they live good lives and there is no problem with it. But there are others for whom it is a deeply held value and one which they are not content to take lightly. They integrate it into their own lives and they want to do this also with their children. In saying that, I think we need to provide the ability for parents to do this without great financial penalty.

There are some for whom this is not important. I believe in our present society they are probably in the majority. We have become secularized. I was talking to a person the other day and we got on to this subject. He is about my age and so we have all this wisdom. We can look behind us and see the ripples and the waves from the boat that has just gone by. We look back and we can see how it used to be calm waters and now it seems to be a little more stormy. He said one of the big reasons for the increase in crime and for the increase in some of our societal values toward women and toward children which are so disturbing to us all is the secularization of our society. We have basically in our society written out that impact which a deep religious faith has and did have for many years in the majority of Canadians. This is unfortunate.

Had the Government of Newfoundland taken what I urge all provinces to do, arrange their administration of school funding so that it would bypass that built-in bias, I would have total freedom to go through this because there is so much in this amendment that is plausible and positive.

However, because I am not convinced at all that the rights of these parents which were put into the constitution have been prejudicially affected, I believe that they are losing rights. Consequently I cannot support this motion.

In thinking about the courses they are going to have in these schools where they want them, courses about religion, I thought of an analogy. I taught young people all my life, and this was my job when I taught at the college level. Take one of these young people and say instead of ever getting married what we are going to do is teach you all about marriage. We will have courses about marriage. We will have courses about how men and women relate to each other, how they should get along and all these other things. But you will never be able to get together with another person and form a marriage bond.

Really in a way a course about religion is about at the same level. It will talk about it but it does not give the children a clear example of what it means to be deeply committed to a faith in God or to a faith in whatever it is the particular group is promoting.

With that I rest my case. I urge all members in the House to think carefully about what choices they are making when they vote for this. I believe that we should defeat this amendment and send it back to the people in Newfoundland, to the government in Newfoundland so they can fix this inequity. Then when they bring it back we would be pleased to support it if they showed that they did not prejudicially affect the parents who are quite clearly prejudicially affected by this amendment and by the changes the provincial government is proposing.

[Maurice Vellacott, Reform, Wanuskewin, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my hon. colleague with respect to the analogy he fleshed out for us. In Newfoundland and elsewhere parents do have the right to send their children to another school, as he so rightly said. I have found that low income people are not able to do that. They simply do not have the means to pay the taxes and send their children to a private school. What has been the member's experience with respect to that?

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the question of my colleague about the financial penalty, the people who do not have the financial ability. We made some sacrifices in our family which meant almost no vacations. It meant driving old cars. In fact, I still have my 1959 Meteor. I do not drive it anymore. But it meant keeping a car four times as long. I am still driving my 1982 Chevy Suburban. We made those sacrifices because the money had to go to tuition.

I was on the board of the school I attended and we made the decision that in order to make it easier for children to attend our school, we would try to reduce the financial barriers. We set up a tuition plan so that for a family with more children the tuition rates were steeply reduced. As a matter of fact, if there happened to be a family with more than four children, after the fourth child's tuition was paid the rest were free. They were allowed into the so-called family plan.

Certainly that should not be necessary. It is a great hardship for these private schools to endure the costs when there is a very uneven playing field. That was our solution.

[Grant McNally, Reform, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Mr. Speaker, since the hour is growing late I will try to keep my comments rather short.

A number of points my colleague from Elk Island raised I would echo as well. Being a former teacher, education is very important and being the father of four children, education is very important. In fact, my wife and I have made the decision to home school our children in order to impart the values we feel are important. Notwithstanding that others choose other options, which is totally within the rights of an individual, we have made the decision for ourselves.

I must turn to the point of minority rights in the debate which was raised by a number of my colleagues. This amendment would extinguish, in my mind beyond a shadow of a doubt, rights currently granted to individuals in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Yes, referendums have been held and democratic consent has been given, yet we must consider the minorities in this case, the people whose rights would be extinguished by this amendment.

As my colleague mentioned, the idea of including religious courses as an option to replace these denominational schools simply does not have the same impact as having a denominational or a complete religious orientation at a school.

I went to a private Christian college at great expense. I had to work hard during the summers to go there. However, what I learned there was a way of looking at the world, a world view, not simply religion second hand but trying to integrate that into every walk of my own life. I know how much of an impact that had on me. I see this also as being important that the children of Newfoundland have that opportunity under the existing system. This amendment would alter that opportunity.

Also, the notion of schools of choice was mentioned and that providing funding to the institutions where the children go would be a good solution to this problem. That is a provincial responsibility. It might be a solution to look at in this debate.

As we know, the moneys that would go with a child to the school of choice would help to increase the accountability factor of that school. It would also give the parents the right and opportunity to send their child to the school of their choice.

I have listened with great interest to the tone of the debate throughout the day. I have noticed that there are members who are for and against this amendment from the government benches as well as the opposition benches. It has been a good debate. Members have had the opportunity to express their views in a non-partisan nature. I have appreciate the opportunity.

I will conclude my remarks by stating again that I believe this would extinguish the rights currently held by individuals in Newfoundland and Labrador and that is why I cannot support the amendment and will be voting against it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make one brief point. The hon. member indicated in his speech that he attended a Christian college and he wished this option would be available for the people of Newfoundland. It will be. There is nothing in this amendment which will prevent private Christian or private schools of any sort. I just wanted to bring that to the member's attention.

[Grant McNally, Reform, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for pointing that out. I guess I did not make myself very clear on that point.

My point was much larger. It was that the opportunity which I had shaped my world view, the way that I interact with individuals and the frame through which I see life in general. I am basically saying that there would be a difference in the religion courses offered in Newfoundland versus a holistic or religious perspective which would incorporate all aspects of a child's education.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this extraordinarily important issue.

We are often cautioned when we are growing up never to mix religion and politics, and that is precisely what we are doing in this debate. Having said that, I am going to plunge head long into it.

The issue, of course, is the extinguishment of the right to education in denominational schools in Newfoundland, denominational schools which until this point have received public funding. I stand four-square against what the Government of Newfoundland is proposing and what many hon. members of the House are prepared to accept.

I want to tell the House why I oppose term 17. I propose it primarily because I believe it really does shrink the ambit of personal freedom in this country. On so many occasions we see our freedoms being eroded, taken away from us. I can point to any number of examples.

We can look at the charter itself. In 1982, when the charter came in, we saw all kinds of new things added to the charter of rights and freedoms which a lot of Canadians would probably disagree with.

In section 22 affirmative action is proposed. That is something I disagree with. It limits our freedoms.

We see an erosion of our economic freedom when the government claws away more money all the time. That means we have fewer options. In fact, we have fewer options to send our children to the schools we wish to send them to, including private schools and religious schools.

In this case we are seeing the extinguishment of really what amounts to a very ancient right, a right which the Government of Newfoundland secured for its people in 1949 when it entered Confederation. It was an issue that was extraordinarily important to the people of Newfoundland when they entered Confederation.

In many ways the people and the Government of Newfoundland at the time were much more forward thinking than the rest of the country. They had essentially secured the ability of people to send their children to the school that best reflected their beliefs.

It is extraordinarily important whether somebody has a secular world view or whether, and probably especially, somebody has strong religious convictions. The ability to steep their children in the faith of their fathers and grandfathers, their forefathers, is extraordinarily important.

For people with strong convictions that is essentially being wiped out by what is being proposed. People will have the right in law if they can find the money, even though as I pointed out before the government has taxed so much of it away. They still had the right but it makes it extraordinarily difficult for people to do that.

I should declare my bias. I have two children in a separate school, a catholic school in Alberta. I am pleased that I have the ability to do that. It means a lot to me. The ability to teach children not only at home but through a chosen school system the values of right and wrong, the old fashioned idea of virtues, is very important. My friend from Elk Island did an admirable job of pointing how important that is today.

Not long ago I read an article by Richard John Neuhaus, a theologian who pointed out that one of the quickest ways to essentially kill religion in a country was not necessarily to deprive the fundamental freedoms but actually to find ways to kill the institutions. The way to kill the institutions is to deprive them of the things they traditionally have done, the very practical things that they do every day, things like providing education for people.

If that right is essentially taken away it goes a long way toward killing those religions. Frankly that is what has happened to a large degree over the last probably 40 or 50 years as governments got bigger and crowded religious institutions out of some of the things they did in the past.

We have seen those institutions become sort of less valuable in a practical sense to their communities. We have seen them shrink as a result. That concerns me greatly. That is exactly what is happening in Newfoundland.

I like the idea that my friend offered and that others have suggested. It is time to start to empower people at the local level to allow them to choose the education system that reflects their values, their world views. We now have a system that will effectively represent one world view, that is the secular world view.

That is fine. We do not have a problem with people choosing to put their children in that situation. It is absolutely up to them as far as I am concerned, but I believe we should all have the right to send our children to a school that reflects that world view.

I believe like my friend that it is time to examine the whole idea of vouchers. The province of Alberta has gone to a chartered school system which goes some distance toward that goal, if not quite all the way.

We have a necessary revolution in education when we already had an orderly evolution occurring. We already had the Pentecostal schools and the Catholic schools agreeing to some reforms. That was starting to happen.

The governments at the time had gone through this twice. This is the second time we went into a referendum with the government asking for a constitutional amendment to fix the problem. Instead of co-operation, partnership and working with the schools, the Government of Newfoundland acted with a sledgehammer when it really was not necessary.

As members have pointed out when we start to change a constitution it is an extraordinarily serious business. It could have ramifications far beyond the ones being suggested for Newfoundland. It could have ramifications for other minorities. People have pointed this out. It is an extraordinarily important point to make again.

The last thing we want to do in a country like Canada is to use a democratic tool to effectively wipe out a minority right. That is really what we are doing in Canada today. It raises the point whether or not we can use what is traditionally a democratic tool, a referendum, to determine something like a minority right. It may be democratic, but a more important question is whether it is just. I am not convinced it is just in this situation.

Is this whole idea is necessary? Is it necessary to have a constitutional amendment? For 1,000 years the church has preserved education. Where do people think education came from? It did not come from Brian Tobin. It did not come from Clyde Wells. It has been preserved by the churches over the last 1,000 or 1,500 years.

They were the repositories for all the knowledge accumulated from Greece, Rome and the early church. They were the repositories of knowledge. They were the ones that established the great universities. They were the ones that added to the body of knowledge, people like St. Augustine, St. Thomas and St. Anselm on up through the reformation. All their ideas became part of the great body of knowledge that helped form our modern society. They were the ones that helped give birth to the whole idea of having rights entrenched in a constitution.

If we look at the American experience, very much was influenced by the religious ideas that had accumulated until that time. The preamble to our charter says “Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law”.

If this country were founded upon a principle that recognizes the supremacy of God, where do we think the idea came from? It did not come from the public school. It did not come from Brian Tobin. It came from denominational schooling and from parents who we believe are the ones who should be driving what kind of values their children learn.

Education would occur from the churches and from denominational schools as it has for the last thousands of years. Reform was already under way. Things were changing. Schools were doing their best to ensure that there was efficiency and that people were getting the best bang for their buck. What the government has done goes well beyond what was necessary to achieve the reforms it was seeking.

Forgive me if this seems a little ancillary, but we often talk in this place about how we are a multicultural society. We are a pluralistic society. I hear it all the time. We have a department of multiculturalism. While I disagree with what the government means by multiculturalism, I think we have a multicultural society.

My people come from Norway, Ireland, Holland and England. That is my background. We have a multicultural society. We have all kinds of religions that come here from all over the world. We all believe we should celebrate that. We believe it is important to be pluralistic. We need to find ways to accommodate that.

We have that in the current system in Newfoundland. We have pluralism. We have ability for people to celebrate their faiths through the education system and still pick up a good understanding of all things that traditionally constitute an education. They have the ability to teach children the world view that is so incredibly important to them. Unfortunately the government does not seem to see this as an issue of pluralism or multiculturalism. In fact, what we are seeing now is them suggesting through their support of this that all of these multicultural values or pluralism that we think are important are going to be essentially extinguished, at least in the context of this debate in Newfoundland, in favour of a system where we have one big central school system that effectively diminishes all that.

We travel the world to see all these different cultures and religions and we are doing what we can in this particular instance to effectively diminish them in Canada. I think we are making a big mistake.

I want to answer some of the objections that have been raised by people who are in support of term 17. The first was that it was a democratic process that brought about the government's initiative to introduce the amended term 17. I do not disagree with this. It was a democratic initiative. I am not going to get into a fight about whether or not 32 days was long enough and all those kinds of things. I want to put the question: Is it possible to make a determination on minority rights using a referendum? I do not think it is. It certainly is not possible, I do not think, when we are talking about getting a bare plurality.

At some point maybe someone down the road in the past should have said that when it comes to issues like minority rights we must have a higher standard. Maybe it has to be two-thirds, I do not know. However, I would argue that in this particular case it is extraordinarily difficult to make the argument that someone can extinguish minority rights on the basis of the voice of the majority.

I heard my friend across the way say “But, you know, in such and such a district, which was mostly Pentecostal, people did not show up in the numbers to vote that they should have”, and blah, blah, blah. However, that is not the point.

The point is that people who believe strongly in these things came out and voted against it. To these people, these rights are real rights, not abstract rights. They are rights that mean a tremendous amount to them. Therefore, can we really extinguish them? Can the people who do not have religious convictions or strong religious convictions just arbitrarily say “I don't believe in these things, therefore I am going to wipe out your rights?” I do not think they can. It is not fair and it is not right. I disagree with the whole process.

Again, some people say this was necessary for school reform. Maybe I have tilled that ground already, but I do not think it was. It reminds me of a quote from Alexis de Tocqueville, the gentleman who wrote Democracy in America . I remember he was commenting one time on the French Revolution. He said “We were already speaking of the French aristocracy. We were already half way down the stairs when they came up and threw us out the window to get us to the ground a little faster”.

That is what happened in this particular case. The reform was already well under way. The government just could not wait. It could not co-operate with the denominational schools and decided that it would just bring in the sledge-hammer and put an end to and extinguish ancient rights, rights that are very important to people.

I can tell members how important they are. I have had letters, as I am sure my friends have had as well, from people in Newfoundland who are begging us not to extinguish those rights because they mean so much to them.

Some people argue that religion has no place in the school system. I think my friend from Elk Island touched on this but I must say it again. I would argue that people always bring some kind of a belief system to the table. They bring a world view to the table. Now we are going to be in a situation where all the people of Newfoundland essentially pay to support one world view, a secular world view, that is taught in the schools. As my friend said, it simply cannot be otherwise. If we are going to teach people something, they are going to end up learning a set of values.

We say parents should be the ones who determine what those values are. When it is their tax dollars, that money should be used to teach their children their beliefs and their world view. That is what we believe. I am speaking on behalf not of my party but on behalf of some of my friends who I think support the same point of view as I do.

The fourth point is that some people say this does not prejudiciously affect rights granted in 1949 because they are going to offer religious observances and religion classes.

I will argue that there is a world of difference between comparative religion and allowing somebody to be imbued with the values that permeate a whole school and reflect the actual faith that the students' parents believe so strongly in. To sit like a sociologist and say here is what Muslims believe, here is what Hindus believe, here is what people at the Solar Temple believe, here is what Christians believe, and here is what people who are whatever believe, and to say are the differences not interesting, is 180 degrees away from what people believe in who want to have their children go to a denominational school. It is a completely different thing.

People send their children to a denominational school not to learn about religions but to get the faith, to be imbued in the faith. They send them there to learn the virtues that are part of the faith. They learn about right and wrong. They do not go to those schools to learn about comparative religion. That is fine and that is probably a good thing to learn but it is not the same thing at all.

Religious observances are fine but in a denominational school religious observance happens every day. We do not wait for the three or four days when the rest of the secular world celebrates religious holidays. Religious observances are essentially every day. While those things are nice tokens, I think they are virtually meaningless to people who hold their religion seriously.

I will deal with a fifth point which I have heard myself. Some people say that denominational schools cause divisions. Some people are taught something which is quite different from what other people are taught and this sets up divisions. But all freedoms do that. Freedom of speech causes divisions. People disagree. This is also true for freedom of belief and freedom of conscience. All these freedoms cause divisions.

Under the charter we recognize in Canada that religion plays an extraordinarily important role. That is under the charter which a Liberal government brought in. The current Prime Minister was justice minister when the government brought the charter in. It included in the preamble “whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God”.

I do not think it is unreasonable to allow schools to teach about the principles upon which our country is founded. That is all we are asking for. For that reason I am asking members to oppose term 17 as it is amended and to consider very carefully the effect this initiative will have on minority rights.

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

Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member for stating his bias from the beginning. However, I remind him that this debate is not about Catholic education in Alberta. It is about the denominational school systems in Newfoundland and Labrador. We have to keep that in mind when we are dealing with this issue and the express wishes of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The member referred to multiculturalism and pluralism. The member for Calgary Southeast also referred to pluralism. They said that a secular school system somehow flies in the face of our Canadian value of pluralism. I suggest the contrary.

The system promoted by the member is one that provides for segregation as opposed to integration. A Canadian value that is more respected is that children of all the various denominations and religions can go to school together, live together and experience life together. That is something that Canadians with Canadian values would like to see.

The member referred to a way to get rid of religion is to kill the institutions. I honestly think that was an exaggeration. I do not think there is anyone who would seriously suggest that this honest effort by the Government of Newfoundland supported by all the opposition parties in the legislature of Newfoundland and supported by 73% of the people who showed up to vote in the referendum could really be described as an attempt to kill the institutions or to kill religion.

I think the member does the people and the Government of Newfoundland a disservice when he uses that kind of language.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, dealing with the last point first, I am not suggesting that what is being done in Newfoundland is being done maliciously, not at all. I think they are missing a very obvious point, that if we effectively take away something the churches have done for a long time, which is to provide for religious education in Newfoundland, then effectively we are taking them out of the lives of people in a very meaningful way.

When we take away all these things that the churches used to do, practical things, things that affected people every day, then effectively we are removing them from people's lives in a very important way. I do think it has an impact on them ultimately. I think it makes them less relevant overall. We have seen the churches in decline over the past many years. Religion cannot survive and it is not just a matter of conscience. It cannot survive in the public square alone with the state.

I believe that the best possible situation is when there are large institutions that serve as a check against a big government. It is a good idea to have vibrant and strong churches. I think that is a really good idea. They serve as a check on some of the things the government wants to do.

We have seen other controversial issues come before this place. We have seen churches stand up and say, “We really disagree with that”. I think that is good and that is healthy. But when we start to marginalize the churches by taking away these abilities that they have had until now, then effectively we are making them less effective. I do not think that is good.

Again, I am not saying it is a malicious thing. I am not saying they are trying to do that. It is something that is a very unfortunate effect though of what the government is doing.

The second point is that segregation will divide people. I would point out that one of the things churches teach, and I am sure my friend will remember this from his own religious upbringing, is that churches teach people to love their neighbour. That is something churches typically teach. That is something we will find in denominational schools, love your neighbour as yourself. I do not think that is particularly harmful. I think it is good.

All those things, those virtues that are taught by churches through denominational education strengthen the social fabric of the country. They make us better neighbours. They make us better citizens. They do all kinds of good things that would not get done if it was not for the churches.

I disagree completely with what my friend has said. I would argue that sometimes by neglect, by not teaching positive things we end up allowing negative things to become part of what our children believe.

I have forgotten the first point that my friend across the way made so I will sit down now, Mr. Speaker. I did not write it down but if he wants to ask again, he is welcome to do that.

[Jason Kenney, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the opportunity to comment on the comment made by the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. His comment regarding pluralism really strikes at the heart of this matter.

There is a fashionable idea among secular small l liberals, and I do not mean to include the hon. member in that category. The idea among secular liberal intellectuals is that pluralism really consists of removing differences and creating a kind of monolithic secular culture and society unleavened by the differences of world view between people of different faiths.

That is not pluralism. It is by definition monism. It is a monolithic view of society and culture which is not informed by differences of conviction and differences of religious world views. That is precisely what is being assaulted. That authentic pluralism, which the current Newfoundland school system is an exemplar of, is being undermined by this amendment.

I find this most worrisome. In the final paragraph of the report of the special joint committee, it quotes an unnamed Newfoundland school student saying: “I think that is the kind of religious course that we should be offered in schools”—namely a non-denominational one—“ethical choice in comparative religion”—and the committee adds—“because most of the wars and disturbances between countries, most civil wars are brought upon on the basis of different religions”.

I wonder if the hon. member could comment on this. It is just absolute nonsense.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I really must rise to the bait.

First, I do believe that what the Government of Newfoundland is proposing will lead to a bland homogeneity that we will all regret some day. I have heard this red herring before.

When we cast back over the 20th century and look at the great disasters that have occurred around the world, they were not in the name of religion. Quite the contrary. They are quite contrary to what all religions believe.

Look at the first world war and the second world war. Look at what happened in the Soviet Union. Fifty million people lost their lives because of an ideology, not because of a religion. Look at Pol Pot and what has occurred in Cambodia where two million people lost their lives, not because of religion. Look at Hitler. We look at an ideology again and millions of people lost their lives, not because of religion, to the contrary.

I would argue that even a religious war proves what people have always said, that people have a fundamental flaw in their character, original sin and all that kind of thing which is why I believe it is a good idea to teach people about these things. It helps to remind them that there is a problem of original sin and we have to be on guard for it. That has been reflected in a lot of the disasters in the 20th century.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Pursuant to the order made earlier today, the motion is deemed to have been put to a vote and the recorded division is deemed to have been requested and deferred until Tuesday, December 9, 1997, at the end of Government Orders.

(Division deemed requested and deferred)

[The Deputy Speaker]

It being 10.42 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 10.46 p.m.)