Debates of Dec. 8th, 1997

Amendment To The Constitution Of Canada (Newfoundland)

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the amendment to term 17 of the Terms of Union of Newfoundland with Canada. The proposed amendment reads:

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

(2) In and for the Province of Newfoundland, the Legislature shall 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.

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

Although the amendment before us affects only one province, parliament has a duty to study it with the same urgency, diligence and care that are befitting all constitutional amendments.

In response to this challenge, parliament created the special joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on the amendment to term 17 of the terms of union of Newfoundland.

I had the honour to serve on the committee for it gave me the privilege to hear firsthand the witnesses. I must say that witnesses on both sides of the issue were sincere, heartfelt and articulate in defending their points of view. Their testimonies did not make the task of the committee an easy one.

The committee was challenged even more to undertake a careful analysis of the evidence. This issue at hand, amending term 17 of the 1949 terms of union of Newfoundland, gave the federal government and the Parliament of Canada the opportunity to show federal-provincial relations do work and that the Canadian constitution is a living document that provides a mechanism for change when change is deemed essential by the citizenry.

Just as the people of Newfoundland determined their future when the province entered Confederation in 1949, nearly half a century ago, the people of Newfoundland today would like to determine their future in Canada as Canada enters the 21st century. They now see their future being best served by a single, publicly funded school system in which all children, regardless of their religion, attend the same schools. They now see their future being best served by giving the House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador the power to fully manage and integrate the province's existing three school systems.

Indeed they saw that future in March 1992 when the royal commission chaired by Dr. Len Williams released its report “Our Children, Our Future”, an appropriate title for the report. The citizens of Newfoundland expressed this vision of their future through a unanimous vote of the members of the legislative assembly representing all political persuasions.

They have determined to eliminate denominational education as a constitutional right while retaining in the constitution their rights to courses in religion and religious observances as is stipulated in the proposed amendment.

The government conducted a referendum on the issue on September 2, 1997. Although it was not strictly required for the process of constitutional amendment, the referendum was conducted to better gauge the sentiments of its citizens.

The referendum question was precise and clear: “Do you support a single school system where all children, regardless of their religious affiliation, attend the same schools where opportunities for religious education and observances are provided?” The essence of the referendum question fully reflected the actual text of the proposed amendment as passed subsequently by the legislative assembly.

Since the text of the proposed amendment was made known to the people of Newfoundland prior to voting day, I am sure members will share my confidence that 73% of those voting clearly understood the question.

There is no denying that the educational system that has been in place in Newfoundland has enjoyed a history that, for its citizens, has been woven into the very fabric of its culture. It is no wonder then that witnesses, old and young alike, including students from both sides of the issue, displayed tremendous sensitivity and passion in their testimonies.

But we noted that the rationale behind the amendment is to reconcile a system of the past and present with the vision of a better system for the future.

I congratulate the people of Newfoundland and Labrador through the legislative assembly and government for having the genius to cast a constitutional amendment that reflects this vision for the new reality of Newfoundland. I am assured that the proposed amendment complies with the international covenant on civil and political rights and can stand against any challenge under the charter of rights and freedoms.

Let me quote from the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs:

If enacted, term 17 will become part of the Constitution of Canada. Thus, it will be shielded from the well established principle that one part of the Constitution—in this instance, the charter of rights—cannot be used to invalidate or repeal another. As a result, the provisions in subsection 2 and subsection 3 will enjoy a measure of charter immunity.

This principle has been sustained by the Supreme Court of Canada in earlier court decisions and I am assured that the amendment process was fair. I am assured that there is nothing in the proposed amendment to prevent some future government of Newfoundland from funding private schools, should it choose to do so.

I am further assured that the proposed amendment would set no precedent, that future requests for constitutional amendments for any province will be judged, as the present one is, solely on the merits of the facts.

As the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs put it well before the committee, it would be up to the Parliament of the future to consider any future proposal.

We shall not fear to be proud of our national shared values, heritage and traditions, in which Newfoundland is rich. We shall not fear change when change promises a bright future for our children, our youth and our country. We shall not fear to face the future with confidence, secure in our history, generosity and integrity as a people.

Amending term 17 is an appeal to our confidence and understanding of Canadians. It sends the message that confederation works. It sends the message that our democracy is vibrant. It sends the message that when we secure a bright future for one of our provinces we secure a bright future for the whole of Canada.

Let us pass this resolution now before us for greater certainty of the future of all of us.

Message From The Senate

[The Deputy Speaker]

I have the honour to inform the House that messages have been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bills: Bill C-23, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1998; Bill C-11, an act respecting the imposition of duties of customs and other charges, to give effect to the International Convention on the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System, to provide relief against the imposition of certain duties of customs or other charges, to provide for other related matters and to amend or repeal certain acts in consequence thereof.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Amendment To The Constitution Of Canada (Newfoundland)

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say thank you to my colleagues in this House who have taken the very deliberate time to address this issue, to respond to it, and to respond to it intelligently.

There are members in this House who do not necessarily share the the views of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador as reflected in the 73% referendum result in favour of this particular amendment. However, to the members of this House, in particular members on the government benches, I would like to acknowledge that they took the time to understand the issue, to explore it, to research it, to review it properly and to review it the spirit and the context of what Newfoundlanders and Labradorians understood and knew to be true.

There are those in this Chamber who have suggested that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians did not understand the question put to them. Some actually suggested it was beyond their comprehension. I categorically reject that proposal. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador understood this question. They voted solidly in favour of it, in complete comprehension of where it was taking our education system into the future. After years and years of discussion that is exactly the conclusion we arrived at.

I would like to salute the members who did such diligent work in the committee as well as in the House who, not withstanding their own values and beliefs, are co-operating with the people of Newfoundland and Labrador in helping them achieve their beliefs, their will. That is very important to acknowledge in this particular House.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:

December 8, 1997

Mr. Speaker:

I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Charles Gonthier, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 8th day of December, 1997, at 5 p.m., for the purpose of giving royal assent to certain bills.

Your humble and obedient servant,

The House resumed consideration of motion.

Amendment To The Constitution Of Canada (Quebec)

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is the second time I rise to discuss this amendment. The first time was not during the 36th Parliament, but during the 35th Parliament. At the time, I had the honour of presenting the Bloc Quebecois' position on the amendment. The amendment proposed in June 1996 to term 17 of the Constitution was not identical to the one now before us, but its thrust was the same.

At the time, it was believed that the time was right. However, following a sequence of events I will describe later on, the proposed amendment had to come back before the House to be considered again.

I am convinced that, this time, we are proceeding in the appropriate manner and that people in Newfoundland will be pleased, once the members of this House have done their job, to amend their school system as they please.

It is interesting to see how, throughout the process, this extremely important issue for people of Newfoundland was dealt with.

As I said earlier, the issue was already debated in the House in 1996. Before that, a royal commission of inquiry, the Williams royal commission, looked at it in 1992. Then, in June 1995, the government announced it would seek the public's approval to amend term 17, so as to undertake a reform of the education system.

In September 1995, a referendum was held in Newfoundland. As we know, 54% of the population agreed with the proposed amendments, and the amendment came back to this House, to finalize the process.

As you also know, a provincial election was held during that period. A new premier was elected in Newfoundland; he had the same philosophy as his predecessor and carried on the work. As a result, in June 1996, the House of Commons passed the resolution to amend term 17.

There were, however, some challenges in Newfoundland. Certain things occurred within certain religious groups. To speed up the process and clarify the whole issue, the Government of Newfoundland therefore decided to hold a second referendum within two years of the first and on a similar issue so as to enable the province to gain full control over the management of its schools.

This referendum was held on June 2, 1997. This time, 73% voted in favour of the proposal. It is interesting to note certain similarities with the situation in Quebec. I think we can make connections because, on the government side, they do not mind making their own, saying that federalism is flexible and so on. I heard remarks to that effect earlier.

We, on our side, can see similarities with the situation in Quebec in that, on an issue as important as this one, the province put the decision in the hands of the people by holding a referendum. In his speech, my hon. colleague from Témiscamingue mentioned a number of witnesses who testified before the committee and their arguments on this issue. We in Quebec have been hearing similar arguments for some time. Certain people in Newfoundland apparently complained about the question not being clear. I read the question only once and understood it immediately. Let me read again: “Do you support a single school system where all children, regardless of their religious affiliation, attend the same schools where opportunities for religious education and observances are provided, yes or no?”

The answer to this very clear question was also clear. The contents of the question were known ahead of time, but concern may arise from the fact that the wording of the amendment per se to term 17 was made public only on the eve of advance polling.

I can just imagine the comments of the federalists opposite if, in a future Quebec referendum, the partnership project, for example, were to be spelled out only on the eve of the advance polling, even though the question itself had been known for several weeks. I wonder how this government would react. I wonder how the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, among others, would react if we acted in this fashion.

I do not question the process used. I simply want to show that, in this House, when it comes to justifying measures and to implementing certain rules, there seems to be two ways of doing things: one for English Canada and one for Quebec. I think the assessment that was made of the issue and of what happened in Newfoundland is the proper one. We had to give this power, this area of jurisdiction, to the people of Newfoundland.

Other criticisms we heard related to financing. It was said that the two sides, the yes and the no sides, did not have the same means to express their views, because there is no law on financing. In fact, the no side made rather strong criticisms regarding this issue.

The other point is the lack of specific legislation to regulate the referendum. The election act was amended for this process but, again, this drew rather strong criticism. In spite of all this, I do not question the outcome of the exercise. Again, the federalists opposite do not challenge any of this and they accept these rules. I think they had to accept them as part of democracy.

I hope that in Quebec's case—our approach is that much clearer, all our cards are on the table, Quebec's plan to achieve sovereignty is so clear—the government opposite will be as democratic in the next Quebec referendum and will accept what the people decide.

The purpose of the amendment to Term 17, the amendment proposed by the Government of Newfoundland and passed by the Legislative Assembly, is to rationalize the province's educational system and generate savings of $17 million. I think these are substantial savings and that we should listen to what they have to say. If the amendment is passed, there will be one rather than four educational systems, one system for all denominations. Religious instruction will continue to exist where numbers warrant. The number of school boards will be reduced from 27 to 10, and these will be multi-denominational. These reforms are the result of the recommendations by the royal commission of inquiry, as I was saying earlier.

I think that the member for Témiscamingue put it very succinctly at the outset when he said that we in the Bloc Quebecois have made our bed on this score for a number of reasons, the main ones being as follows. First, although term 17 of a schedule to the Constitution was involved, this issue was still completely under provincial jurisdiction, meaning that, for us, education is a provincial matter and that the province alone must have jurisdiction to make any changes and decide on the broad outlines of its system. For us, this was an extremely important element, and one which brought us very quickly over to Newfoundland's side.

Looking at the Constitution, one can see that indeed section 93 states that the legislature in each province may make laws in respect of education. Newfoundland's case is no exception. The power to pass legislation in respect of education belongs to the legislature of that province, the only difference being that Newfoundland assumes that right under term 17.

Also—and I think everyone will agree with this—the provincial leaders and representatives are the ones in the best position to determine what composes an efficient education system in their respective territory.

In addition, this entire process arose out of referendums on an extremely important question for the people of Newfoundland, one on which there was a debate and on which a heavy turnout of Newfoundlanders made a decision on the direction they wanted for their education system.

It would therefore be inappropriate for the hon. members in this House to take a position against the constitutional amendment called for by the Newfoundland legislature. We also know that the Quebec legislative assembly called for similar amendments some time ago. Just as we in the Bloc Quebecois were pleased to co-operate with the Quebec legislature, we are also pleased to co-operate with the Newfoundland legislature in trying to get all of this speeded up and ratified.

Finally, our role as parliamentarians is for the most part one of ratifying what the Newfoundland legislature has done. We have virtually no say in the matter. Newfoundlanders are really the ones who must have full jurisdiction over this.

Our position was along those lines—

A message was delivered by the Usher of the Black Rod as follows:

Mr. Speaker, The Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of his honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.

Accordingly the Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.

And being returned:

[The Deputy Speaker]

I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate chamber the Deputy Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:

Bill C-23, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1998—Chapter No. 35.

Bill C-11, an act respecting the imposition of duties of customs and other charges, to give effect to the International Convention on the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System, to provide relief against the imposition of certain duties of customs or other charges, to provide for other related matters and to amend or repeal certain acts in consequence thereof—Chapter No. 36.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Amendment To The Constitution Of Canada (Newfoundland)

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will conclude. Being interrupted this way cuts off inspiration, but we will get used to it.

As regards the position of the Bloc Quebecois, you have of course guessed that we support the request. The Government and the people of Newfoundland have asked us to ratify a resolution concerning the amendment of term 17 of the Newfoundland's terms of union with Canada.

We consider we should accede to this request, and I encourage all members of this House to do likewise, for two reasons. The first is that the will of the people has been expressed in a referendum. We saw that very clearly. The second is that education is a provincial matter.

The House of Commons must accede to this consensus as it had to for the amendment requested by Quebec on section 93. I dare to hope that the House will do so when the people of Quebec expresses with equal clarity its wish to become a sovereign country.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to comment on the remarks by the member for Berthier—Montcalm. He attempted to draw a parallel between the referendum in Quebec, in essence about separating from Canada, and a referendum in Newfoundland, about building a stronger Canada. I do not agree with that parallel.

However, I thank the hon. member for his support of the resolution now before us and as well his support on the previous resolution affecting Quebec.

I would like to point out for the record that the resolution in Newfoundland was passed unanimously by all political parties from all political persuasions, which is a real milestone. Even after a unanimous decision on the part of the legislative assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador on this particular issue, we cannot make this a parallel because Newfoundland referred this to the Parliament of Canada, as the constitution requires.

The member alluded to two rules, one for the east and one for the west. I only know of one rule: the Constitution of Canada is for all Canadians in all the provinces of our country.

Let me end by saying that when a referendum is for the strengthening of our nation, we must rally together. However, when a referendum is for destroying the very nation that we love, the number one nation in the world, let us rally against it.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, the member perhaps needs to be reminded that the Constitution to which he is referring also did not provide for the addition of a new province and, since we are talking about Newfoundland, for Newfoundland to join Canada, but it happened. What is not excluded from entering is not excluded from leaving either, but that is another problem.

I would also like to remind the member that it is not a question of destroying the country or whatever. What we want to do is to build a country called Quebec, in partnership with Canada. You will be masters of your own destiny, as we will be of ours. I think you have not understood that yet. English Canada is increasingly taking this in. My leader, who is back from western Canada, told me that western Canada is increasingly open to the idea of Quebec becoming a sovereign nation and increasingly interested in starting to look at the possibilities of doing business or continuing to do business with a sovereign Quebec.

The last point I want to make to the member is that, in my view, a referendum is a referendum, meaning that a population decides on its future during this democratic exercise. In the case of Newfoundland, it decided on its future with respect to education. Is the member telling me that education is not an important matter for a province? Is education not something that will have a definite impact on the direction a people will take for generations to come? I think it is extremely important and they accomplished it through a referendum. In this referendum, the population said yes to changes proposed by the government.

It will be the same thing in Quebec. We will have a referendum that will be extremely important for Quebec, because it will determine the course of future generations towards a very specific goal. I hope the referendum will be successful the next time around and that we will have a country called Quebec.

I would like to remind the member that, when a people speaks, when they make known their views using extremely clear rules, as in a referendum, either in Newfoundland or in Quebec, I think that the people have spoken and that they should be taken very seriously. I do not see any distinction between a referendum on a question like the one put to Newfoundland and on a question like that put to Quebec on sovereignty.

[Paul Devillers, Liberal, Simcoe North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's speech. I was a member of the joint committee and we heard testimony from several Newfoundlanders who expressed their concern that certain denominational rights enshrined in the Constitution were about to disappear.

They say they are a minority and, during today's debate, several members of the House also expressed concern about this issue.

I ask the hon. member whether he has concerns about the rights of minorities in the resolution before us today.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, the answer is very simple: no, I do not have any concerns.

I believe that the government first and foremost, that is the Government of Newfoundland and the population of the province, acted very responsibly. I met government officials from Newfoundland, not during the 36th Parliament, but I met Mr. Tobin during the 35th Parliament and we discussed the issue. No, I do not have any concerns.

However, they may want to debate this in that province, at some point. As I said earlier, our role is really to ratify something that was done by the provincial legislature, in an area that comes under the exclusive jurisdiction of the province.

Again, I do not have any concerns. If a debate must take place, it will be among Newfoundlanders. It will definitely not be up to the Canadian Parliament to get involved in this area of jurisdiction.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources.

I would like to say that I am very pleased to take part in this debate on amending term 17 of the Terms of Union of Newfoundland with Canada. This amendment responds to an important need of our fellow citizens of Newfoundland because it will enable them, once it is adopted by Parliament, to proceed with the reform of their educational system.

This debate has been going on for a number of years in the province and the Government of Newfoundland has decided to put it to an end by promoting the secularization of the school system which has long been church run in the province of Newfoundland.

The amendment before us thus proposes a solution that is adapted to the educational context of Newfoundland and it is also the subject of a broad consensus in that province. It is that consensus that led the joint committee on the amendment to term 17 of the terms of union to recommend that the amendment be adopted both here and in the other House. Since it is not every day that we amend the constitution, we must acknowledge that we are experiencing here today in this House an historic moment in the debate.

I would not like to spend my time regurgitating the exhaustive overview of this debate because the House of Commons has already considered this matter on a number of occasions in recent months. I would, however, like to talk about a number of the aspects that I feel merit the amendment transferral from the parliament of Newfoundland, the House of Assembly, and the relevance of the joint committee's recommendation for us to consider.

All those who have taken the time to study the Newfoundland education system in recent years know how strong a call there was by the public in that province for educational reform. That was the conclusion arrived at in 1992 by the Williams royal commission which recommended that the education system in Newfoundland and Labrador be restructured to allow the government to administer it more efficiently.

The next five years were marked by endless bitter debates. We tried an initial revision of term 17 in the last Parliament which was approved via the referendum in the province in 1995. It did not end the debate, so here we are again.

Although the support was 54.4% in the first referendum of September 1995, the adoption of the proposed amendment did not end the debate. A request for an injunction by the representatives of the catholic church was granted by the Newfoundland supreme court on July 8, 1997, thus blocking the reform proposed by the provincial government. To resolve that impasse, Premier Tobin announced on July 31 that a new referendum would be held on September 2 to amend term 17 once again.

However, when he made that announcement he described the need addressed by this constitutional amendment: “During the last five years we have seen every attempt to reconcile these two ideas—educational reform and denominational rights—and it has ended in more confusion and more conflict”.

The text of the amendment submitted to Newfoundlanders for their approval was very clear. It read as follows:

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

(2) In and for the Province of Newfoundland, the Legislature shall 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.

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

To express their opinion on this proposed amendment, Newfoundlanders were asked to vote again on the following question: “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”.

I do not think there is a single member in this House who can contest the clarity of this progress or this process. In this debate we have a responsibility as members of the Parliament of Canada first to ask whether the process used by the provincial government in this matter allowed the population to understand clearly the issue it was being asked to decide upon. Our answer to that must be yes.

As mentioned by the joint committee's report, an expert commissioned by the committee, Ms. Anne Bayefsky, specifically stressed the scope of the consultations held among Newfoundlanders, including minority groups in recent years.

Second, we have a responsibility to ask whether the consensus forged by this referendum is sufficient to proceed with the proposed amendment. Again I say the answer can only be yes. The proposal was supported by 73% of the voters of Newfoundland. It obtained a majority of votes in 47 of the 48 ridings in the province. Even in predominantly catholic areas where the proposal was likely to be more strongly opposed, it garnered significant support.

Around 75% of the catholics in Newfoundland and Labrador live in three regions: St. George's Bay, the Avalon Peninsula and the Burin Peninsula. Those three regions respectively supported the proposal with proportions of 59%, 72% and 72%. Support for the proposal in areas where Pentecostals are concentrated, though much more difficult to assess, was also significant bearing between 57% and 64%.

In addition to that public support, the proposal won the unanimous support of the Newfoundland House of Assembly. Four of the government members, including two cabinet ministers, are of the Pentecostal faith. Those four members who represent ridings in which 25% to 30% of the population are Pentecostal also supported the government's proposal in the House of Assembly. It is also noteworthy that a number of the members who had opposed the proposal during the referendum process nevertheless voted for it in the Newfoundland legislature.

In addition to the clarity of the consultation process and the extensive support for the proposal, there is a third reason why I believe this proposal deserves our support.

Newfoundlanders understand that the proposed changes are designed to establish a new school system, not to abolish any rights of a specific minority. They will allow the province to proceed with long awaited reforms by establishing a single, publicly funded and administered school system. This reform will strike a fair and functional balance.

The new term 17 is in no way designed to take religion out of the schools. It contains a provision obliging the authorities to provide courses in religion, stipulating that religious observances must be permitted in a school where requested by the parents.

Naturally, it cannot be expected that such a major constitutional amendment will garner unanimous public support. Nevertheless, as was recommended by the joint committee, I believe that the consensus which has been forged to date is broad enough and the guarantees to the groups affected are properly sufficient to move ahead with the proposal.

I know that there are those who fear change. However, it is my heartfelt conviction that the children of Newfoundland will be the first to benefit from this measure.

In my view, this debate we are having is meaningful in another way. I am referring to the bilateral nature of the amendment sought under section 43 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Yet I consider that, while this change concerns only Newfoundland, the whole country stands to benefit from it, as it provides Newfoundlanders with a first class tool to further their goal: a single education system better suited to their priorities.

In a word, this constitutional amendment will further enable Newfoundlanders to be Canadians in their own way, as Albertans and Quebeckers are. Our country is enriched by this diversity, and our system of government makes it possible.

In effect, a constitutional amendment, such as the one before us, demonstrates the flexibility of our confederation. The federation is evolving every day and it would be a mistake to see it as something static and impermeable to change. For example, we recently in the House adopted a constitutional amendment proposed by Quebec's national assembly. If it is adopted by the Senate, that amendment would make it possible to establish school boards in that province along linguistic rather than denominational lines.

We have chosen to go step by step. This is a way which serves Canadians well, just as it serves Newfoundlanders in the current debate. That is why I call upon my colleagues in this House from all parties to consider this carefully and to support this amendment to our constitution.

[Peter Goldring, Reform, Edmonton East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on what I believe is an inaccuracy. Perhaps the member opposite could explain it further.

The member commented on a difficulty in estimating the Pentecostal vote in the referendum. I am referring to a brief which was presented by Mark Graesser from the University of Newfoundland. The figures that were quoted in the brief were generally accepted. They were even accepted in the report of the intergovernmental affairs minister.

There were some estimates as to what the votes were. Specifically, the figures with respect to Baie Verte, Lewisporte and Windsor-Springdale would indicate that the support for the referendum in those communities of Pentecostals was 32%, 32% and 30%. The overall support of the Pentecostals was an average of only 32%.

These figures show very specifically that the Pentecostals did not support the referendum. I wonder if the hon. member opposite could explain.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to clear up the confusion in the mind of the hon. member opposite.

My comment was relative to ascertaining the percentage and the clarity of the Roman Catholic vote. If he reads Hansard he will see that in my speech.

There were witnesses who addressed this issue at the joint committee. I would refer the member to the report of the joint committee which was tabled last Friday. He will find the answers in it.

Again, to the member opposite who is a member of the Reform Party, I have difficulty understanding how a member of a grassroots party of the Reform persuasion who is constantly talking about referendum and listening to the people can stand there and be anything other than in support of this motion.

When 73% of the Newfoundland population voting very clearly indicates that they want this change, I am astonished that members of the Reform Party have not spoken earlier today. They are not listening to the very, very clear will not only of the people but of the province.

The legislature in that province unanimously gave its consent and forwarded to this. It is our duty not to do any amendments, not to say no, but to follow through constitutionally with our duty in this House and to listen to the province. The province has the jurisdiction on education. I think it has spoken.

[Peter Goldring, Reform, Edmonton East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, yes, the Reform Party—

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I might be wrong, Mr. Speaker. I seek your direction. However, I understood in the questions and comments that one member could speak only once in response.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Generally speaking, but we also try to have opposite sides being represented. If there is a member on their feet in debate, that is normally the way we have been doing it.

If a member from the same party is on their feet alone, then obviously that person would be asked to speak. If there is an opportunity to actually engage in debate and have a member from another party, it does make sense that that other perspective would be represented.

Therefore on questions and comments, the member for Edmonton East.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Given the fact that this debate has gone on for quite some time, given the fact that we have engaged in healthy debate and an unrestricted debate, I will indeed agree that this is in order.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to follow your line of reasoning with all respect. You invoked the need for debate. In fact, in the first instance when comment started on this issue, the member you just recognized for the second time started the debate.

Then the member from the government side responded to that debate. However for you, Mr. Speaker, to ignore another member of this House of equal value to participate in that debate and recognized the member who had earlier spoken I think is a sign of unfairness to this member, the other person.

[Jason Kenney, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. At the outset of this debate earlier this morning, the hon. Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, whose motion this is, was permitted I think three or four interventions against a member for the Bloc while other members of the opposition were standing up to interject in the same questions and comments period.

Clearly a precedent has been established. The Chair allowed this sort of thing at his or her discretion.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

With respect, I mean absolutely no disrespect for the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, it has been at least in my limited experience that if a member from a party representing a party other than that party of a member who has just spoken, it has been the convention to recognize the other party.

It is certainly no disrespect and it certainly does not indicate that any members are more or less equal. In any event, on questions and comments, the hon. member for Edmonton East.

[Peter Goldring, Reform, Edmonton East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I felt that it was important to answer the question from the member opposite when the member was questioning how the Reform Party could have in its blue book and its policies support for the referendum process and how that is relative and why I might have a differing opinion on this matter seeing that it very clearly was initiated through referendum.

My point is, and I want to explain to the member opposite, that the Reform Party also has policies in dealing with minority education rights. That is my point.