Debates of Dec. 8th, 1997

Amendment To The Constitution Of Canada (Newfoundland)

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I fail to understand how non-inclusive are the minority rights of the member opposite. I think of the seven religions represented, as I stated earlier today to the member. The Muslims are not included. People of the Jewish faith are not included. Hindus are not included. Even atheists are not included.

This situation is like choosing which minorities to represent. Parliament does not have the ability to cover everybody. We do not have any taxing authority or public financing authority for the elementary and secondary school levels in another province. Education is an absolute provincial jurisdiction.

We are recognizing the will of the people of Newfoundland expressed in a very clear question voted on by a 73% majority in that province and in the unanimous consent of the provincial legislature. They are coming to us on a section of our constitution which allows us to do this in a bilateral way. There is no comparable effect on another province.

It is important for my voters in Ontario to understand. I answer the hon. member opposite by saying that I think he is choosing his minority rights and excluding others.

[Rey D. Pagtakhan, Liberal, Winnipeg North—St. Paul, MB]

Could I have unanimous consent to ask a question?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister has requested unanimous consent to put a question. Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for the unanimous consent.

I refer to the report before us. Mr. David Schneiderman, executive director of the Centre for Constitutional Studies at the University of Alberta, said before the committee, on which the member who raised the issue sat, that the consent of adversely affected minorities was not always required for an amendment to proceed. What is important is whether the minority had been consulted or had participated. Obviously by voting for it or against it the minority affected had participated.

Therefore, by voting against it, is consent unreasonably withheld in light of the majority opinion? I thought I should call this to the attention of my colleagues and I thank the House for its unanimous consent.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue, because the comment was directed to her dissertation, has an opportunity to respond.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think I have spoken enough and my colleague is anxiously awaiting his turn.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise to speak to this issue.

As my colleagues may be aware, I had the privilege and the opportunity to sit with my colleague from the Senate as co-chair of the special joint committee on the amendment to the terms of union of Newfoundland affecting term 17. I also have the distinct pleasure to rise to speak this evening.

It is an issue of direct relevance and importance, one that has been decided by the people I represent, the people of Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte and other people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

We had a very engaging debate in the special joint committee on this issue. I was very pleased members from all parties participated in representing all regions of the country. I think it was a valuable experience for all.

We heard from 49 witnesses from various cross-sections throughout Canada. In particular, witnesses from the province of Newfoundland and Labrador came forward to speak their views. I certainly appreciated their knowledge, their competence and their personal feelings regarding this issue. I felt that my colleagues on the committee could not help but be absorbed and engaged by the commentary provided.

We are basically discussing an amendment to term 17 that was put to Newfoundlanders on July 31, 1997. It was quite straightforward in my opinion. The question Newfoundlanders and Labradorians were asked on September 2 was as follows:

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 government stated at that time that the proposed new term 17 would reflect and conform with the position presented in this question. The following was the text of the new term 17 as it was unveiled:

Term 17.1: In lieu of section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867, this section shall apply in respect of the province of Newfoundland.

That is very straightforward. Subsection 2 read:

In and for the province of Newfoundland the Legislature shall have exclusive authority to make laws in relation to education but shall provide for courses in religion that are not specific to a religious denomination.

Subsection 3 read:

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

The new term 17 is as clear and straightforward as the question itself. As a Newfoundlander who has participated in the education process as a student, as a Newfoundlander who has participated in the education reform process as a citizen, and as a Newfoundlander who participated in the education reform process as a parliamentarian, I plead with my fellow members of Parliament to respect the wishes of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and to pass without haste this amendment.

We have engaged in the debate for decades. We have thoughtfully provoked the will of the people to come forward and to announce the form of a new education system. That is exactly what the people went to the polls with on September 2. Through very thoughtful and engaged debate we understood the question and we understood the implications. We knew what we were voting for.

I quote the words and thoughts of a denominational education leader, Dr. Melvin Regular of the Pentecostal faith, who said on August 11, 1997 “The clarity of the question makes our task easier”. Pastor Clarence Buckle, as well from the Pentecostal faith, said:

We feel that if the people face the question squarely the question is clear, as we have said, and if they face it squarely the problem faces every one of us, every single citizen of Newfoundland and Labrador. Do we want to contemplate the possibility of having a single school system in the province in which we are not able to provide religious based instruction, activities and observances as Newfoundlanders have enjoyed in the past?

That is evidence to me as a member of Parliament, as a citizen of Newfoundland and Labrador, and as someone who understands the education process quite well in that province that we understood both sides of the question. We understood its implications. We understood exactly what it was asking of us and we voted 73% in favour of the amendment.

To those who would stand to suggest today that we did not understand the question put before us, that it was not simple and was somehow skewed, I say they are incorrect. They are incorrect in their assertion that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians do not understand the democratic process. I firmly believe Newfoundlanders and Labradorians understand quite well the democratic process, that we understand the implications of our actions, and that we do so quite willingly and quite forcefully in the spirit of democracy.

Those who suggest that we do not and cannot control our own destiny are categorically false because Newfoundlanders and Labradorians will participate in this great country as full and equal citizens.

I simply ask the Reform Party and those who would be their servants, those members of the House of Commons who would suggest the question was not correct, to go back to their blue book. I suggest that they re-evaluate the following quotation:

The Reform Party supports the replacement of the various existing formulae for amending different parts of the Constitution with an amending formula that replaced the ratification of power of Parliament and the provincial legislatures with that of the people as expressed in binding referenda.

The vote on this amendment will be the first test of the commitment of Reform members to this idea.

An overwhelming majority of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians endorsed the changes in term 17 in a lawfully held referendum process conducted under the elections act. Moreover, the committee heard testimony that the question was clear and straightforward, and that its clarity and fairness were never issues during the election process.

We also heard very clearly that there was unanimous consent in the legislature of Newfoundland and Labrador to pass this amendment. That is section 43 and that is due process by law, which is what the constitution of the country is all about.

We have a formula in place. It requires the consent of the legislature and the consent of parliament. I firmly believe that there should be respect for our constitution. It is a changing document. It changes the aspirations and the ideals of the people whom it protects.

We have heard that over the course of decades of debate we have engaged in a process that will provide fundamental education reform to our province which we expect and desire.

There are those among us who have suggested that it is improper for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to want to do that because they do not like it and it goes against their particular values as members of Parliament or as parliamentarians from elsewhere.

I assure all members of the House that the issue only affects the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. The issue is based on educational principles that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians hold dear. It is a principle based not just on members of Parliament or members of the legislature. It is based on the people who use the school system, the children. That is the testimony we heard most eloquently and most powerfully from the children.

Those currently in the school system said that they feel there should be religious instruction of a non-denominational nature. They told us that as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians they were spiritual people. They also see the value of learning about all religions. That was a very noble and proud thing to say.

They have confidence in their own denominational faith. They have confidence in their own ability to guide their spiritual growth and development. Newfoundland and Labrador is all about confidence, pride and self-satisfaction that they will participate in the Canadian democracy as full equals, not to be told by others that we do not think of the process or of the implications and that others should do it for us.

I categorically reject that notion.

[Roy H. Bailey, Reform, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member used percentage figures in his address. I have worked in this business for many years, in fact a lifetime. If the constituency I represent were to hold a referendum today, it would be more than 73% in favour of going with one school system. I would have to say to constituents in Weyburn, Estevan and Radville who have enjoyed a private school system, that they have to give it up because 73% of the people said they had to do so.

I understand and appreciate what the member and others have said, but do not ask me to make the same application as you are making in the House to the province of Saskatchewan.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I remind all members to address other members through the Chair.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are beginning to get to the heart of the matter. It is about Newfoundland and Labrador. It is not about the province of Saskatchewan, the province of Manitoba or the province of New Brunswick. It is about Newfoundland and Labrador.

The president of the home and school federation of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador put it quite clearly when he said “We knew what we were voting for. This is what we wanted”.

We heard expert testimony from other organizations and other institutions across the province. They said, “This is what we as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians want”. Mr. Steve Wolinetz, head of the home and school federation said, “We are religious people in Newfoundland and Labrador. We are a spiritual people. We understood categorically that that is what we were voting for. To subscribe or to make the assertion that this is in context of what should happen in other provinces is fundamentally incorrect. This is what should happen in Newfoundland and Labrador”. There is no suggestion whatsoever that this is what should happen in other provinces.

Quite frankly if someone were to come forward with unanimous consent in another legislature, in another province on a particular issue, then I think that we as parliamentarians would still have to look at that. We would still have to make sure that there was enough consent within the general populace of the province.

This is exactly what the issue is. There was unanimous consent in the provincial legislature of Newfoundland and Labrador. Members of particular denominations, who may or may not have had a particular opinion, voted in favour of this amendment; 47 of 48 districts within the province of Newfoundland and Labrador voted in favour of this particular amendment. That makes it unique to that province.

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

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary was the Commons chair of the special joint committee. We heard much debate and we have heard more debate here today on the question of minority rights. As a Newfoundlander I wonder if he could tell us in this debate on denominational rights, who is the minority and who is the majority?

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

Mr. Speaker, I will draw on my personal knowledge being a Newfoundlander and Labradorian, someone who is very proud of his particular province.

There are no majorities in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. The seven denominations currently holding religious denominational rights entrenched in term 17 make up 95% of the population of the province. Five per cent of the population who represent other denominations have no denominational rights whatsoever.

It is a very critical question. It is a very important question to ask. Is this a question of the majority stomping out the rights of the minority? Is harm being done? No. This is what the committee so thoughtfully provoked to come from the witnesses. This is the testimony we heard.

I know in my heart as a Newfoundlander that this is about providing an opportunity for all denominations for the first time in the history of Newfoundland being a province within Confederation. For the first time all denominations will have equal access to religious instruction of a non-denominational value. No one particular denomination which may be a majority over a minority can dominate. That is a very important principle that we as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians hold dear.

[Bill Matthews, Progressive Conservative, Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few remarks on this very important issue for Newfoundland and Labrador.

There is not much more left to be said that has not already been said today and which has already been said in this House a number of times before. As a Newfoundlander and Labradorian, I have been wrestling with this issue for many years. I was an educator before I entered public life in 1982.

I debated this issue in the house of assembly, the Newfoundland legislature a number of years ago when then Premier Wells and his administration tried to move forward with educational reform in our province. To some degree they were partially successful. Then again Premier Wells' administration really did try to compromise. They tried to get an agreement between the churches and the government that hopefully was a workable solution, but we found out after it really was not a workable solution.

What we witnessed in 1997 in the September 2 referendum vote was a degree of frustration among Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. They wanted this issue dealt with. That was certainly reflected in the 73% yes vote, frustration. They thought they had dealt with it in 1995 when 54.4% of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians voted yes. They thought the issue had been put to bed then. They thought we were going to move forward with educational reform within our province.

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians wanted to improve the quality of education inside the four walls of the classroom. That is what educational reform in Newfoundland and Labrador is about. It is not about turf wars or power struggles. To the ordinary Newfoundlander and Labradorian educational reform is about improving the quality of education within the classrooms of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Reference has been made to the quality of education by a number of speakers today. Some have suggested that we rank third in the country. Unless we are number one and the best that we can be, then we will always have to strive to improve the quality of education.

There has been a big change in Newfoundland and Labrador over the last 10 or 12 years. There have been big shifts in population, demographics, out migration. Our student-teacher ratio has changed. Our student population has declined for a number of reasons. One is out migration and another is declining birth rate.

Our student population has shrunk so dramatically over the last 10 years that it has caused a different environment. There are situations where so few students attend some schools that consequently staffing allocations were affected and students could not access the programs they needed to pursue post-secondary careers. In essence, in many cases the post-secondary choices of students were very restricted by the course offerings in their schools. This is where we are in our province and that is why Newfoundlanders and Labradorians desire educational reform.

Some people questioned whether the 53% turnout in the last referendum was high enough. It was democratic. People were afforded the opportunity to speak on the issue. The wording was very clear. I held back on the issue for quite a while. People tried to pressure me in one way or another, that I should be behind the yes forces or that I should be behind the no forces. I told them that until I saw the precise wording of the new amendment, I would not make a decision. And I did not make a decision until I saw it and felt comfortable with it. But once I did see it, the wording was clear and I felt comfortable with the decision that I would support it and vote yes.

I have said before that if on June 2 there had been a 20% turnout of voters in the federal general election and 11% of them had voted for me, I would have been so grateful and thankful. I would not have found anything wrong with 11% of the votes. I would not have questioned it at all. If I was willing to accept that kind of a vote on June 2, how can I question 73% of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who voted yes on September 2?

In the federal riding of Burin—St. George's there are six provincial districts and part of another in that great geographic area that takes in the entire south coast of Newfoundland and Labrador. Well over 70% of the people in that riding voted yes. All of the provincial members representing that riding in the Newfoundland and Labrador house of assembly voted yes. How can anyone expect me to come here tomorrow and vote any differently?

I understand that people have different points of view and different opinions, that they grew up in different ways, et cetera. I understand all of that and I respect everything that has been said here today and that will be said here later tonight. But the message is clear. Newfoundlanders and Labradorians want this Parliament to deal with the issue in what they perceive to be a positive manner, and that is to vote yes. Let there be no mistake about what Newfoundlanders and Labradorians want in this issue. They want this issue dealt with. It has gone on for eight or nine years. We thought it had been dealt with but it really was not dealt with.

In December 1992 in the Newfoundland legislature Premier Wells spoke on this very issue. All the church leaders of the province were sitting in the Speaker's gallery. I remember it very well. At that point Premier Wells thought they could reach a consensus, that they could reach an understanding on this issue. They thought they had done so but we have seen what has happened since.

In my view this issue is about governance. It is about governing the province of Newfoundland and Labrador which the present government was elected to do. The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador was hamstrung. It was handcuffed. It could not make the decisions about the education system of Newfoundland and Labrador that it was duly elected to make as the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

If I were the premier of Newfoundland and Labrador or a part of the government administration for Newfoundland and Labrador, I would have done exactly what Premier Tobin and his administration did on this issue. They were not able to run the education system in Newfoundland and Labrador. That is the truth of the matter. They were not able to govern. They were not able to make decisions because every time they tried to make a decision or made a decision, someone challenged them and they could not move forward on education.

We saw it all this past year when schools were supposed to be closed and teachers were supposed to be redistributed in the province. Then it all went back up and we had to reopen schools. It has turned out to be a nightmare in Newfoundland and Labrador over the past eight or nine years as we have tried to get some sense of direction and bring about educational reform for the benefit of those people for whom we should have been debating it throughout those years, the students of Newfoundland and Labrador.

It got off track. The debate was not about improving the quality of education in all of those schools throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. The issue got lost. It was seldom mentioned. It turned into turf wars. I feel very strongly that the government had no choice but to deal with it. As part of the process the government went to the people for the second time.

Do not forget this was the second time that a majority of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador voted for educational reform, and this time overwhelmingly. So the people gave their blessing to this reform and to this question. I do not want to belabour the point here today and go on about it for the length of my time. I just want to say to hon. members here that I respect all their opinions and I respect the way they will vote.

It is interesting to note that within every caucus of every party represented in this House there will be people who will vote yes and people who will vote no. That tells us something about this whole process. It tells us about how seriously people take these matters. That is very good and I am proud of that. I am proud to be part of this Chamber and this Parliament which is so democratic and which is filled with people who are so strong in their convictions. I say that quite seriously here tonight. It is very interesting for me to be here and to witness this.

On behalf of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and particularly the Newfoundlanders and Labradorians I represent in Burin—St. George's, there is no question about what I will be doing tomorrow or whenever the vote is taken. I will be voting yes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his eloquent position on the issue and his support for the issue. He has reassured us that for Newfoundlanders the question was very clear and that governance by a province on an exclusive area of provincial jurisdiction has to be given due recognition by the federal government.

I make only one plea to the member. The members of the Progressive Conservative opposition in the Senate who sat on the committee dissociated themselves from the report and the recommendations contained therein. Because of what I believe will be his persuasion, the member might be able to convince the members of the Tory caucus in the Senate. Since he has come from the same caucus perhaps the member could make an undertaking today that he will exercise all efforts to ensure that support comes equally from that caucus in the other House.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Before the hon. member for Burin—St. George's responds, there are three other members who have indicated that they would like to intervene.

It will go in this order: the hon. member for Calgary Southeast, the hon. member for Broadview—Greenwood and back to the hon. member for Edmonton East. If we keep our comments short and to the point we will get them all in.

In response, the hon. member for Burin—St. George's.

[Bill Matthews, Progressive Conservative, Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I really want an opportunity to respond to that question, but the member made a suggestion and I will do my best.

Yes, I will use whatever persuasive powers I have to convince the other chamber to approve this without delay.

I have said from day one, when I made my position public on this issue, that I would not in any way be party to any tactic or any group or organization which tried to delay or stall this issue and I remain firm in my position tonight.

[Jason Kenney, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member for his remarks and particularly for congratulating other members from other parts of the country in taking this matter seriously. This is a matter which affects the Canadian constitution and I think that all legislators, rightfully, should be concerned about it, whether they are for it or against it.

My question for the hon. member relates to the public mood in Newfoundland. He referred to the fact that people are tired of the debate which has gone on for nine years, the fact that it seems to drag on and on, and that people want to get it over with. Is it possible that some people voted yes in the referendum which was held earlier this year in order to get the matter done and dealt with? Were they more motivated by that than they were in considering the long term ramifications? In other words, was the referendum result, at least in part, a result of public anxiety about the process and wanting to get it done without having a full, thoughtful consideration of the consequences of voting yes?

[Bill Matthews, Progressive Conservative, Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I would not want in any way to attempt to diminish the understanding that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians had on this issue. They were well versed on it. They were better versed than anyone else in this country, quite naturally, because they were living it. They have lived it for eight or nine years.

To be very honest, which we all should be, I would say that there certainly were people who voted yes in the referendum because they were frustrated. They thought it had been dealt with in 1995 and then found out that it had not been, and here we go again.

I would have to be honest and say yes, there were Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who voted yes out of frustration. They wanted it to be dealt with. They wanted the educational reform of Newfoundland and Labrador to move forward and, quite naturally, I think there were some who felt like that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I had the great fortune of being taught by the Basilian fathers during most of my high school and university education; an order of priests who have set up academic institutions right across the country. They have always believed that education is more than the pure academic, that it is the development of the whole person. In other words, from the moment we arrived in the school during the day there could be a prayer or there could be chapel. There was a prayer before the football game or the hockey game. It was a total immersion into the catholic experience.

Does the hon. member for Burin—St. George's not feel a bit concerned that this responsibility is now being handed over totally to the state?

[Bill Matthews, Progressive Conservative, Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the hon. member and his concerns.

Again to be honest, yes, I do have some concerns about that. We are talking about a very important issue. For me it comes down to the quality of education in Newfoundland and Labrador. We have gone through very tough economic times. We have gone through severe population changes, out-migration and other things. We have to weigh all these things in the equation before we come to a decision.

Education takes place every minute that we are awake. Some of the things which the hon. member alluded to such as prayer and other observances certainly can take place outside school. I am sure that will continue to happen.

If parents request it, then they will have religious observances within the school. They cannot be denied.

I do not know if I have answered the member in the way that he wanted but yes, I do have some concern about that. Again, the wording is quite clear in that there will be religious education courses developed and offered in the schools, but the courses will not be specific to any denomination. I think that is probably what the hon. member's concern is.

I am not as concerned about that, obviously, as the hon. member is.

[Peter Goldring, Reform, Edmonton East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to comment. I certainly believe, as does everybody, that Newfoundland conducts affairs democratically. Two referendums have been held, one with a vote of 73%. That is a powerful message being passed along through.

I want to refer the hon. member to another democratic instance in 1987. That is when the premier of Newfoundland the legislative assembly of Newfoundland made permanent, forever, entrenched rights of Pentecostals.

I want to know how the member responds to this, how he feels about something that is specifically entrenched, as Premier Peckford's idea was, how this could now be affected when obviously from polls and polling only 30% of Pentecostals agree with changing their rights.

[Bill Matthews, Progressive Conservative, Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, again it is very difficult to sort of respond. Yes, in 1987 the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador initiated a constitutional change that included the Pentecostal Assemblies. There is no question about this.

This is 10 years later. I guess if we could predict 10 years in advance on any issue what the situation would be, then we would avoid a lot of the problems, a lot of the very difficult decisions that we have to make in this country and in our province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

While the government of the day in 1987 thought that it was right and proper to include those rights in the Canadian constitution for the Pentecostal assemblies, there has been a lot of change since then.

As I mentioned, there have been a lot of changes in our province. There was the dollar crunch. The student population has declined tremendously.

The government of the province must have the right to govern and to make decisions. If the people do not like the decisions made, they deal with the government the time after.

I guess all I can say on that is that times have changed big time in Newfoundland and Labrador in 10 years, as they will be in 2007 from what they are today.

Maybe we will be changing it back in 2007, who knows. If I could look that far into the future with a crystal ball—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

We have a quick question, 30 seconds and a 30 second response.

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

Mr. Speaker, the question from the hon. member from the Reform Party has stimulated another question. Given that constitutions, according to the Reform Party, should be entrenched for all time, should we have a Senate that is impossible to change and should we do away with section 43 amendments as the Reform Party has suggested?