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.