Debates of Dec. 8th, 1997

Amendment To The Constitution Of Canada (Newfoundland)

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Broadview—Greenwood.

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

Mr. Speaker, as a member on this side of the House, I salute the member for Saint John. I will be taking the same position that she will on this amendment.

The member is a seasoned politician in this country and she knows the campaign skills of the premier of Newfoundland, Brian Tobin. It was my colleague Brian Tobin who organized the 10,000 buses in less than 72 hours that helped to save this country.

Does the member of Parliament who has this experience in campaign organizing not believe that the expertise of Premier Tobin, probably one of the best political organizers in Canada, went a long way in making sure these percentages were such as they were?

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, yes, I certainly do. There is no question about that. I know myself, when I was mayor of the city of Saint John, I used to go to Mr. Tobin when he was in opposition to help me win certain things for my city. However, I have to say that the way in which it was handled was unbelievable.

They would not permit any scrutineers to be present in the balloting booths during the voting process or during the counting of the ballots or to oversee the measures taken for the security of the ballot boxes. Never have I seen anything like that.

I want to thank the hon. member for saying that he is there with us all the way. I appreciate that.

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

Mr. Speaker, as a Roman Catholic Newfoundlander, I appreciate the comments from those outside my province who are suggesting that the will and the wishes of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are easily manipulated. I however do not hold that view.

I feel that the election process was handled with proper regard to the intellect of Newfoundland and Labradorians. I feel very strongly that the hon. member should interject with the fact that perhaps the reason why Newfoundland and Labrador has the third best education system in the country is that the teachers of the province who came before this committee on which we sat hearing evidence for three weeks suggested that this amendment should go ahead.

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that if I were a teacher, knowing the Premier of Newfoundland as well as I do, under his government I would not dare oppose anything he said or I would not have a job tomorrow. There is no wonder they went before them and said yes. I would not lay too much on that one.

I have to say this. I am pleased but I want to say one thing to the hon. member from Newfoundland. I had a letter sent to me from a man whom I highly respect and I am sure members do as well. That man is from Saint John, New Brunswick. He is head of our catholic church and he said that, if this goes through, there is no protection for any minorities including—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Resuming debate.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Laval West.

It is my pleasure to join the debate on this very important issue today. This debate represents the second time in this 36th Parliament that this House has been asked to vote on constitutional amendments to reform school systems.

I believe that this coincidence marks a first for successive constitutional amendments. Let me also add as an aside that this coincidence certainly speaks volumes to those who say that our system of government is unresponsive and that our constitution is inflexible. To the contrary.

That being said, let me first deal with the process necessary to enact this constitutional amendment. Section 43 of the constitution provides that bilateral amendments can be made with the consent of the legislature of the provinces affected and of this House.

The Newfoundland legislature gave its consent by a unanimous vote on September 5, 1997. I realize that it is too much to hope that this place would also show its unanimous support for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador in their desire to modernize their education system.

However, let me mention some interesting facts about the vote in the Newfoundland legislature. There were members of the legislature who campaigned against the resolution in the preceding referendum. Once the results of the referendum were in, they voted for it in accordance with the democratically expressed wishes of their constituents.

MLAs who are members of communities affected by this resolution voted for it. They included Roman Catholics, Anglicans and Pentecostals. As federal politicians from across the country, we must remember that these provincial MLAs and their constituents are responsible to the very people affected by this resolution and to the very people who, furthermore, have directly been consulted about this issue through provincial election and through the schools referendum. Those MLAs and their constituents have voted in favour of this amendment.

I feel we must very clear on the role that federal MPs should play in this debate on a subject of provincial jurisdiction. As an Ontario MP, for example, I would not appreciate members of Parliament from Alberta or Nova Scotia telling me what was best or good for the people of Waterloo—Wellington. I would ask my hon. colleagues in this House to consider this in placing their vote on this issue.

I am sure that some of my colleagues will also be speaking to the appropriate role of federal politicians in a debate of this importance. One hundred and thirty years after Confederation it is appropriate that federal politicians do not play a paternalistic role in constitutional amendments. I would argue that it is not appropriate that any member of this place cast their vote based on their decision that this resolution is or is not good for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I would argue rather that as federal politicians we need to consider the following issues. First, have the the people of Newfoundland and Labrador been consulted on this issue? Second, have the communities directly affected by this change and challenge been consulted? Third, have these communities consented to this change? The answer, as members know, is affirmative to all these questions.

I am relying on the report of the special joint committee on this issue, as tabled in this House. In that multiparty report, the committee recommends the resolution and states “the consensus in Newfoundland and Labrador is such that the federal Houses of Parliament should endorse the amendment”.

The committee heard from two witnesses whom I consider to be experts on minority rights. The Newfoundland and Labrador Human Rights Association stated the following about minority rights: “After 150 years it does not seem unreasonable to stop and consider our denominational system in the context of a society that is no longer exclusively Christian and a society where the religious rights of all citizens are protected by section 2 of the charter of rights and freedoms”.

The second witness whom I would like to try and bring to the attention of this House is Mr. Allan Borovoy of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. Mr. Borovoy, as members know, has a reputation as an astute and dedicated advocate of civil liberties and has appeared before committees of this House on many occasions.

The report of the special joint committee quotes from Mr. Borovoy, page 9: “The state of equality and fairness can only benefit by the abolition of special preferences for any denominational groups even if those denominations happen to comprise a large percentage of the population. This is an advance, as far as we are concerned, for the state of religious equality and fairness”.

Who does not have these minority rights? These people are the true minorities of Newfoundland and Labrador. The Jewish community does not have denominational schools at this time. The Baptist community, representing .2% of the population, does not have denominational schools. The Pentecostal community, representing 7% of the population, does have denominational schools.

This situation may represent a historic compromise among religious groups but it cannot be considered a true minority-majority situation, nor an equitable use of scarce educational dollars.

As in any debate on minority-majority distinction, many numbers are thrown out justifying each side of the debate. In supporting this resolution personally, I am relying on the following facts. The first is that 96% of the population have denominational privileges. Second, 74% of the population supported this resolution in a referendum.

That brings me to my last point. Recently Mr. Clyde Wells, the former premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, was in Ottawa and spoke to this issue at a debate organized by my colleagues across the way.

Mr. Wells made the following points: There are 573,000 people in Newfoundland, roughly the same size as my part of Ontario, Waterloo region and Wellington county, and yet there are more school boards per capita than in almost anywhere else in this country. Newfoundland has currently divided its educational budget among 27 school boards in 700 communities along 10,000 miles of coastline. Why is there such duplication and overlap in this province which is already reeling from economic troubles? What is the logical solution to this situation?

I submit to this House that the logical solution is the present resolution. This resolution represents a compromise of years of public debate, a democratic referendum result of 74% and a unanimous vote in the provincial legislature.

The federal government will continue to look after the interests of all Canadians. Canada's past was remarkable, its future will be even more so.

For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support this very important resolution.

[Jason Kenney, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a comment and a question.

The comment is that the hon. member remarked on how education is a matter of provincial jurisdiction. I think he threw some question on the fact of whether some of us should even be debating this given that it is such a matter of provincial jurisdiction.

The proposed amendment is before this place precisely because the Fathers of Confederation originally in section 93 of the BNA and then in term 17 of 1949 decided that while education ought to be a provincial responsibility, this place, this Parliament ought to be the ultimate protector of the minority against the wishes of the majority when it comes to the nature, character and guarantees for denominational education.

My question follows from that. The hon. member also suggested that there are certain minority groups, sectarian groups such as Jews and others, who are left out of the denominational education provisions in the original term 17.

Would the hon. member agree with me and many Newfoundlanders that the best way to repair that inequity is not to collapse the rights for some, but to expand the rights so that they include all? Would the hon. member support an effort to broaden the effect of term 17 so that it would provide the right to access denominational, publicly funded schools for all sectarian minorities and not just those so specified in the original term?

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly thank the hon. member opposite for the question. As a former secondary school teacher, I am well aware of the jurisdictional split with respect to the provinces and the federal government on the issue of education. I am quite cognizant of what needs to take place.

I think the key in all of this is the fact that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador were consulted and they spoke very loud in terms of what they wanted. I think it is very important to listen to what they had to say. In fact, that is precisely why this resolution is proceeding, because we listened closely.

In the interests of fairness and equity, this resolution now should proceed accordingly.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentioned the fact that he would not like someone from another province interfering and that he would not want to interfere in the business of another province, or something of that nature.

I would like to inform the hon. member that the question of the constitution is a Canadian concept. It does not belong to just one province. As a result, I have received a number of letters, in bundles of 25 and 49, from a minority group in Saskatchewan asking if the passing of this particular motion in any way endangers their minority position of operating a separate religious school in Saskatchewan.

As was said, the majority of people have made a distinct decision in Nova Scotia. What happens if that same concept was moved to the province of Alberta? I am asking the member, could I really say that the passage of this bill will have no effect on that minority group in Saskatchewan?

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the hon. member that I think we are dealing with the situation in Newfoundland and Labrador today, not Nova Scotia.

It seems to me that it was important that MLAs who in some cases campaigned against the resolution came in to the legislature of Newfoundland and Labrador and voted as they should, as their constituents wanted after having canvassed the province in a referendum with great interest . Clearly, this is a very important debate. I think it is appropriate that we now move on to ensure this is done for all Canadians and especially the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member to please answer the question.

The point is that there is a political precedent being set here. There is no legal precedent and I think everybody knows that is the case. Is there a political precedent and will it guarantee, as my hon. colleague has suggested, that this will not in any way jeopardize minority rights in other provinces?

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question. I think the short answer is no. We are responding to a request from the people of Newfoundland and Labrador who have spoken out very loudly in terms of what they want. It is important that we listen to them and do the right thing, which in this case is to proceed with the resolution.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval West, QC]

Mr. Speaker, allow me to add my voice and speak in this debate on the proposed amendment to term 17 of the Terms of Union of Newfoundland with Canada.

This is not the first time that this matter is brought to our attention. I will therefore limit my comments to particular aspects of this debate, whose final stage is beginning in this House.

The discussions around this issue these past few years clearly show that the vast majority of Newfoundlanders want to reform their education system.

This is the context in which, in 1990, the Government of Newfoundland appointed a royal commission chaired by Dr. Len Williams, a former teacher, principal and president of the provincial teachers association.

In its report published two years later, the royal commission specifically recommended restructuring the education system in Newfoundland and Labrador. In addition, one of its recommendations concerned the establishment of a single interdenominational school system comprising the four separate denominational systems already in place.

Seen as a compromise, an initial amendment to term 17 approved by the people in a referendum two years ago was unable to rally all stakeholders in the Newfoundland educational community.

In addition, an injunction which was sought by representatives of the catholic church was granted by the Newfoundland supreme court. The consequence of the injunction was that it stalled the entire education reform process in the province.

We know what happened next. On July 31 Premier Tobin announced that a referendum would be held and in that public consultation 73% of Newfoundlanders supported the proposed amendment to term 17. This proposal carried in 47 of the 48 ridings in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The debate on the Newfoundland school issue is not a new one. Discussions, at times heated and passionate, have been going on for some time. That is why all I can tell those who claim that the people of Newfoundland had but a few days to read the question is that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have in fact been discussing this issue for years. It is perfectly normal for any religious minority to try to protect its rights and to get the best possible protection for its rights. And its officials have a duty to do so.

I believe however that the constitutional amendment proposal received from the Newfoundland government does not threaten in any way the situation of the various religious denominations in that province.

I must stress the fact that this amendment is in no way intended to ban religious education from the classroom in Newfoundland.

On the contrary, it ensures that religious education will be provided because, and I quote “religious observances shall be permitted in a school where requested by parents”. That is what subsection 17.3 proposes.

It is true that the new text specifies that religious instruction will be of a non-denominational nature. Nevertheless the new term respects the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and international human rights conventions. I would like to insist on the fact that it in no way forces children to take courses or to follow religious practices to which their parents would object.

The Government of Newfoundland has told us that it is open to the role the churches are called on to play in the new education system. Although the attribution of that role is not guaranteed in the constitution it does not diminish its importance.

The substantial support garnered by the proposal should convince everyone of the merit of this initiative, which does not aim to give one denomination an advantage over another but simply to give the Government of Newfoundland the opportunity to provide the province's children with a better quality of education.

We do not negate, quite the contrary, that children already receive a good education. However we have been told that the books in the schools date back to 1975. One of the witnesses told us that she found in the library at her child's school that its most recent book on the history of Canada dated back to 1975. Obviously a great deal of reform needs to be done to that system.

Some people expressed concerns about minority rights and their protection under the proposed amendment. The hearings of the special joint committee on the amendment to term 17 nevertheless revealed to the members of the committee looking into the matter that these concerns were not shared by the people representing various organizations.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Human Rights Association rightly stressed the protection enjoyed by the various religious groups under section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Fédération des parents francophones de Terre-Neuve et du Labrador was satisfied with the protection afforded it under section 23 of the charter with respect to its language rights and with the policy of the Newfoundland government in this regard.

The president of the Labrador Metis Association endorsed the constitutional amendment. The committee's report indicates that nothing in the proposal would threaten native rights.

Our government is delighted by the clear support for this amendment by the people of Newfoundland. We believe that the consultation process was fair, that the aim of this proposition was clear to all, that the question put to the public in the September 2 referendum contained no ambiguity and that ample support has been gathered for the amendment.

Newfoundlanders and their government's request before parliament is a reflection of their will to move ahead on this matter. Our government believes it has a duty to support this initiative, not only because of the popular support the proposal has obtained but in particular because Newfoundlanders, with the support of parliament, will be able to count on an education system that will reflect their specificity and take account of their priorities in this area.

Young Newfoundlanders will be the first to benefit.

I also see in this question one more testimonial to the flexibility of our federation. I am the member for Laval West, and we are well aware of the questions with which attempts are made to divide people on constitutional issues.

The bilateral amendment process will make it possible for Newfoundland to reform its education system. This is the same process which should enable Quebec to carry out its own education reforms, once the Senate has made its decision.

Our political system thus enables each partner in our federation to have tools adapted to its own needs.

For all these reasons, I invite my colleagues in this House to vote in favour of this constitutional amendment aimed at putting into place a unique Newfoundland school system.

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is an experienced legislator, perhaps not in this House but in another house, and is no doubt aware the curriculum that exists in the province of Ontario does not teach particular principles, values or ethics to children in grades 1 to 9. In fact that curriculum suggests that a menu of values and principles be adopted, depending on what children think ought to be right for them. There is no particular shared position.

Does the member suggest the religious education that will take place in Newfoundland under the new terms will be a menu of values and principles so that there is no particular common consensus? In other words it will be difficult to determine what is right or wrong, given the curriculum.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval West, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the question my hon. colleague has asked is a fundamental one. It is my opinion, having worked for a number of years in favour of minority rights, in Quebec in particular, that where values are concerned, these do not differ regardless of our religion or nationality. Whether Christian, Sikh, Muslim, Pentecostal or Roman Catholic, there is no difference. I sincerely believe that all people share the same values with respect to the fundamental rights of Canadians and the right to religion and the vital element of respect of others.

Where Newfoundland is concerned, what its Minister of Education told us very clearly is that his department, and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, were prepared to allow parents so desiring, not only religious instruction but also that “religious observances shall be permitted in a school where requested by parents”. That is a direct quote from term 17, as proposed by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is therefore seen as willing, not to teach just anything, but to respond to the specific needs of parents on the one hand and to comply with the fundamental values accepted by all religions with members in Newfoundland and Labrador on the other.

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I understand my hon. colleague correctly when she says the religious observances will be at the request of a parent. However the proposed amendment in term 17 does not extend to the provision of religious education. She is perhaps in error and should reread that provision in the amendment.

Since the member thinks that everybody agrees on all this, would she then contradict Justice Wilson who said that there should not be any one concept of the good life?

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval West, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is not a question here of presenting just one concept of religion, life or philosophy with a capital P. The object here is to meet the particular needs of the population of Newfoundland and Labrador, which has its own unique character, as do we all in our various provinces.

Within that population, there are groups with particular religious requirements. According to the Minister of Education, who appeared before the committee, the religious instruction to be provided by schools in Newfoundland is very simple. It would present the various concepts of religion, the fundamental values.

But, when it comes to fundamental values, I would like my colleague to tell me how the values of Roman Catholics are different from those of members of the Pentecostal Church, or those of the Jewish faith. We all have values that are recognized as being humanitarian values respecting the rights of others.

[Peter Goldring, Reform, Edmonton East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Dauphin—Swan River.

Today we again speak of Canada's constitutional change. Today we speak of Newfoundland's term 17 amendment. Last month the House addressed Quebec's section 93 to permit the arrangement of the education system along linguistic rather than religious lines.

In terms of the significance of these debates on both constitutional amendments this has been an historic session. I am so very honoured to represent Edmonton East in this debate. I am particularly honoured as the representative of my constituents to have been a member of the official opposition on both joint committees at which these amendments were debated.

I take pride in being a Canadian in a country where any so-called commoner can aspire to a legislative role. Two short years ago, devoid of political stripe, I held my breath with millions of others as Canada barely survived Quebec's referendum vote. Today I take part in a debate on the Constitution that guides our nation's laws and which helps to bind us together as a country.

Constitutional amendments affect us all. They alter our national rule book which forms the guiding principles for our provinces, territories and our nation.

Our Constitution is not carved in stone. Our Constitution is penned on fragile pulp. Our Constitution has a permanency of time. Our Constitution is the will of our nation's constructors. Our Constitution forms a framework supporting our national fabric. Our Constitution has the respect of our judiciary and our courts. Our Constitution supports provincial aspirations.

Should constitutions for all in Canada retain a permanency at the will of our elected majority if the majority be polled by national referendum? The answer to this question is a resounding yes. Democracy and Canada are synonymous.

The key to my previous question was the term “for all”. Our Constitution is important as a protection of the rights of all persons. We must also remember that constitutions also exist to protect the some. It is the some or the minority provisions that elevate Canada in the eyes of the world, that set Canada gloriously aside from all other nations on earth.

I have great concern at this moment that what is before us is wrong. Should we extinguish a minority with the power and might of all? The process must include an expression of the will and in particular of the acceptance of the minority in order to consider the extinguishment of constitutionally protected minority rights.

It has been made abundantly clear through the course of the special joint committee meetings which I participated in that at least one of the minority groups, the Pentecostals, are not in favour of having their constitutionally entrenched minority rights extinguished by the majority. It is this matter that I do find troubling and I express my concerns that it may be precedent setting.

Minority rights have been entrenched in our Constitution to both reflect our diversities and to protect them. Members must carefully consider whether this request to extinguish minority rights is the beginning of the slippery slope starting a slide toward general ambivalence with respect to the protection of minority rights, be they constitutionally protected or otherwise.

I urge all members to please vote with their conscience. We parliamentarians must always remember we are charged with the awesome task of being the defenders of the rights of all of our citizens, be they minority rights or otherwise.

I am not persuaded that this change should be made now. It has not passed the litmus test of satisfying all of three questions: Does this constitutional amendment have the democratic agreement of the people? Does this constitutional amendment conform to the rule of law? Are the rights of minorities protected? The question that is not satisfied is the protection of minority rights.

The Newfoundland government held a referendum on the issue of school reform. I am concerned however that the actual wording of the question was not finalized and published until 16 hours before the advance vote. Government paid advertising was not clear and specific on the implications of voter choices but instead was warm and fuzzy causing difficulties in responding no.

I would have been more comfortable if the Government of Newfoundland had obtained a ruling from the supreme court on whether the rights and privileges of minorities are prejudiced in any way. The question of minority rights strikes at the fabric and soul of Canadians. The rights of minorities for education has been a well established fact in Newfoundland for years. How well a country protects its minority citizens from the tyranny of the majority is a measure of the quality of its democracy.

The protections in the Constitution are clear with respect to the education rights of linguistic minorities. Court rulings in Alberta in 1990 and in Manitoba in 1993 based on constitutional interpretations clearly established the protections for francophone minorities in those provinces affecting numbers as small as 300 persons. We have not been as vigilant in our protection of religious minority rights.

A petition was signed in 1993 by 50,000 Catholics requesting that Catholic religious education be maintained. Fifty thousand parents stated, “We support Catholic schools and want to keep them”. The petition was tabled by Dr. Ben Fagan at the special joint committee which studied the amendment to term 17 of the terms of union of Newfoundland, a committee which I was privileged to be a member of. In my view this remarkable expression of minority collective will should not be ignored.

I also note that the protections for the education rights of Pentecostals are not yet 10 years old. Former Premier Peckford extolled the virtues of Pentecostal schooling and encouraged the legislature to enshrine for all time Pentecostal education rights. He said: “Today we are going to make sacrosanct, if you will, make guaranteed in the Constitution of Canada, the recognition of educational rights to the Pentecostal Assemblies of Newfoundland and Labrador”.

He went on to further state: “I would only add one more thing. As time goes on I would hope that the Pentecostal Assemblies of Newfoundland with their start into education over the last couple of decades will not be tempted and will not fall to temptation, that what they have now as an approach and a philosophy to education will not get diluted over time as we progress as people”.

All available information indicates that the majority of Pentecostals do not support the constitutional amendment. In fact a petition tabled by Dr. Regular at the special joint committee was signed by 4,300 people opposing the amendment. Again this is a remarkable indication by Pentecostals of their wish to retain their denominational education rights which were so very recently accorded to them under constitutional protection.

It has been demonstrated that there is a will by Catholics and an overwhelming will by the Pentecostals to retain their rights to denominational education. It is very troubling that consideration of this will was not asked to be expressed denominationally in the public referendum. We parliamentarians must be ever so sure that what we say and do is acceptable to our collective conscience and in accordance with our nation's constitutional contract with its citizens. Let us not fail in this purpose.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very interested because I feel that issues of minority rights are important issues to be discussed. When I researched this area in this and the last Parliament it struck me that since Confederation there were only seven religions in the province of Newfoundland, seven minority rights groups in the hon. member's terms, involved in the funding of the education system.

To my mind there are more than seven religions currently in Canada. There have probably been more than seven religions in the past since Confederation in the province of Newfoundland. There could be people of Muslim background and faith, Hindu, or Jewish people wanting to educate their children. There are even people who exist in Canada whether we like it or not who are atheist and do not want religious education. Those are different minorities that have existed since 1949 and they certainly exist today.

When the hon. member talks about the status quo and the protection of minority rights, what about the rights of these people to have their faith or lack of it incorporated into a system? What happened in the past in the cases of children with different religious persuasions was that they had to be educated in schools that did not cater to them or did not have a comprehensive ability to deal with the religion they were involved in at home and in their lives.

I put that question very respectfully to the member opposite. What would he do about that, knowing full well that we do not have the jurisdiction nor do we have the infinite funding for all types of religions in their school systems?

[Peter Goldring, Reform, Edmonton East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is an important question. It certainly leads us to believe that those types of questions should be answered.

The number of denominations mentioned in the Constitution is limited and can be seen to be not fair. However, it is my feeling and the feeling of many that rather than throw out the constitutional provisions and protections we have, that we address that issue, negotiate that concern and come to some other solution. However throwing out the baby with the bath water by extinguishing rights across the board without the permission and polling of the group affected is not the way to approach the matter.

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

Mr. Speaker, once again as one of the many Newfoundlanders who have been dealing with this issue probably for decades, I appreciate the intervention of members opposite who obviously do not quite understand this issue. However I respect their opinions.

The question the hon. member raised as being somewhat confusing in his opinion was do they 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 hon. member opposite suggested that the question was unclear. However, I will quote from Dr. Melvin Regular who is head of the denomination education council for the Pentecostal faith. Mr. Regular said that “the clarity of the question makes our task easier”.

This is a total abolition of denominational rights and so we are able to declare with great certainty to the general population that Christian principles in the classroom will erode over time. It appears to me the question was very well understood by members opposite and by members of the denominations.

I ask the hon. member opposite, will he conform to the Reform policies that were articulated in the taxpayers' budget, the blue book or whatever is the Progressive Conservative and Reform mix? The Reform Party supports the replacement of the various existing formulas for amending different parts of the Constitution with an amending formula that replaced the ratification power of Parliament and the provincial legislatures with that of the people as expressed in binding referenda. At a 73% referenda, would the hon. member like to comment?

[Peter Goldring, Reform, Edmonton East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, when I was alluding to the confusion of the question I referred to the question that was stated by the hon. member opposite.

Seven days prior to the referendum, the interpretation of this question was dramatically changed by the introduction of term 17 itself where it specifically stated that it would be non-specific to religious denominations. That dramatically changed the initial question that had been in the advertisements for a period of three weeks.

With regard to Reform policy, it has been clearly stated in the Reform policy blue book that the Reform Party supports minority education rights. It is our feeling however that minority education rights could be altered or affected possibly by provincial agreement. This unilateral action to extinguish it was not the intention of the blue book policy.

[Inky Mark, Reform, Dauphin—Swan River, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this very important debate on the amendment of term 17.

I found making a decision on this to be very difficult, so difficult that actually last week I had indicated to my own caucus that I would oppose the amendment but since then, I have changed my mind. I believe that this is about the future of Newfoundland much more than about the past. I support the motion to amend term 17. I am certainly concerned about the rights of minorities, distinguishing rights if that is what they have, and about the flexibility of the Canadian constitution. We need to examine the type of educational system that is best suited for the future of Newfoundland.

I have no doubt that having been a teacher for 27 years in the public education system will certainly bias my decision to some point, but the question I focus on in making this decision is how the amendment will affect the future and welfare of students of Newfoundland schools. Does the amendment put the future of the students first and foremost?

As has been mentioned by members of the House, it is difficult being an MP from outside Newfoundland to deal with a Newfoundland issue that has been ongoing for many years. It is difficult to step into the shoes of a Newfoundlander.

Because education is a mandate of the province, I would have preferred solutions to have been found in Newfoundland. I would have been happier if the issue had not reached this House so that the people and legislature of Newfoundland would have come up with a solution.

In Manitoba we have a voluntary separate school system, but most students attend a public school system much like that of the rest of the country. The funding for separate schools, many of which are religion based, is voluntary on the part of the government. Some of them receive about one-third funding.

In Manitoba all facets of education rests with the province: the school boards, teacher certification, all school funding and the curriculum. It is ironic that with new provincial reforms in the Manitoba school educational system there tends to be a new direction of focus to give parents more rights in terms of determining the schools their children attend, the type of instruction afforded to them and the language of instruction.

In this case, if we amend term 17 we are literally taking away religious education in Newfoundland as has been previously practised by the minorities.

In Manitoba there is no compulsory religious education. As well there is no religious observance practised in schools. In the early 1980s Manitoba indicated that the Lord's Prayer was no longer a requirement in the public classroom. Students who object to the singing of O Canada have the right to leave the classroom.

The province of Newfoundland has been struggling toward a non-denominational educational system for the last 25 years. As I indicated earlier, who knows? If this process had continued, perhaps the legislature would have worked a little harder and it could have essentially had a public system much like those of other provinces.

At the same time we realize it is very difficult for most other Canadians to understand and realize that a province such as Newfoundland in 1997 does not have a public school system.

Most students are attending interdenominational protestant schools in Newfoundland. I personally believe amending term 17 will level the playing field for everyone concerned, both students and teachers. No one will be treated as a minority.

In other words, the whole issue of equality will be exercised to a greater extent. Teachers will be hired and fired on their professional merit, not on religious association. I am told a generic course in religion will be provided to students and all stakeholders will be consulted on its development. Religious observance shall be permitted in schools where requested by parents. Academic educational opportunities of Newfoundland students will improve. As well an efficient and cost effective system will be created. All this was recommended by the royal commission and has been uttered by other members of the House.

The churches were asked to work together to create an interdenominational system but after two years it failed.

A constitution tends to be regarded as a badge of nationhood. As such it may reflect the values a country regards as important and show how these values are to be protected, for example, as in our charter of rights and freedoms.

Not all countries have the same type of constitution. Canada's constitution is flexible and not rigid. Regarding term 17, which only applies to Newfoundland, it was twice amended under section 43 by the bilateral amending formula.

I agree with Ms. Anne Bayefsky, an international law expert, that constitutions must be flexible and, as befits the description of a living tree, modernized and made responsive to the needs of the community over time.

I am concerned about the lack of funding for parents who choose to educate their children in a separate system such as religious schools. Funding will not be guaranteed under the amendment as proposed. Parents should have the option of sending their children to a separate school system and I believe that funding should be carried with the student.

In Manitoba parents have the option of home schooling, separate schooling or public schooling. Outside Newfoundland the numbers are growing in separate schools as well as in home schooling.

Religion is deeply entrenched in the educational system of Newfoundland. No doubt many minorities see the amendment as a threat to their constitutional right. Change is never easy. Through referendum the people of Newfoundland have spoken loud and clear. There is no doubt they want change.

This amendment will set the stage for future educational opportunities in Newfoundland. The children of Newfoundland deserve the best education the province can afford to provide. I support the amendment to term 17.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister.

It is a privilege to speak to this very important subject. It is more in sadness than enthusiasm that I rise to speak to it. To me it represents the death knell of faith based education.

Many parents believe that faith based education is fundamental to who they are as people and who they are as parents. In reality, we are now replacing faith based education with the religion of secularism. At its core the religion of secularism is no more and no less a religion than Christianity, Judaism or Islam. It has its set of priests, an orthodoxy which is political correctness, and its rituals.

If Newfoundlanders expect that by replacing their current orthodoxy with a secular orthodoxy they will in some manner improve their educational system, I am afraid the good people of Newfoundland will be sadly disappointed.

To argue that parents will be able to influence the direction of their children's education is not a hope based on reality. It is an illusion. Parents of Newfoundland should consult with their fellow citizens in Ontario about how much influence they have in the direction of their children's education.

The government argues four main points: overwhelming democratic endorsement, reasonable support among affected minorities, religious observances in the schools protected and no effect on other provinces.

Points one and two are really one point. Notwithstanding the imperfection of the referendum process, the affected minorities have given a form of consent upon which the Parliament of Canada can act. There was a unanimous resolution in the house of assembly. There were two referendums. There has been extensive debate and there was a sincere effort to establish a consensus among the affected minorities.

The efforts of the Newfoundland and Labrador government to obtain consensus and demonstrate consensus to the Parliament of Canada are in distinct contrast to the efforts of the Government of Quebec. A request for an amendment a few weeks ago was based on a form of obtaining consensus that reflected more of a political demand than any efforts to address the concerns of the affected minority.

The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has met the test which can reasonably be expected of a government when requesting amendment to the constitution which affects minority rights.

The government's third argument is that religious observance is protected. This assertion misses the point and is specious. It is cold comfort to those who fundamentally believe that faith should be at the core of their child's learning.

Religion, properly understood, is not a tag on at the end of a school day. Rather it permeates the learning process. It is part of the math course, the physics course and English language courses. Late Professor Emeritus Northrop Frye of the University of Toronto used to say, at the beginning of his very famous course on the Bible and the English language, that you do not really understand English language culture unless you understand the Bible.

Similarly Jews, Muslims, Hindus, et cetera, see their beliefs in a deity as essential to their learning. Those parents will be in some manner doubly taxed. First they will have to support the secularist based faith and then additionally fund educational systems which teach their faith.

To offer religious observances as a tag on at the end of the day is more of an insult than anything else and will be subject to charter challenges. Parents of faith will once again wonder whether Canada has freedom of religion or freedom from religion.

The government's final point is that it will have no precedential value or effect on other provinces. This is a dubious argument. We do not have seat of your pants federalism is this country. Each bilateral amendment is necessarily looked at by other provinces for precedents. It is fundamental English common law that law is created by precedent.

The government has set very low standards for democratic consensus in Quebec which has been greatly exceeded by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. Constitutional lawyers will scrutinize the process and the standards when giving advice to their government clients. Even the manner and wording of referendums will be examined for their precedential value. It may lend new meaning to a real and clear question. It also lends meaning to what constitutes consensus.

Notwithstanding my reservations I will support the amendment. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador have spoken. While I may be skeptical of the path which they have chosen, the Parliament of Canada should respect their choice.