Mr. Speaker, I will not be using my entire allotted time because I feel that the issue has been given a fair amount of attention and that many of the key issues have been explored in depth. I would suggest that all members of the House read the majority and minority reports put forward by the joint committee addressing the issue. In these reports my colleagues will find arguments both for and against the proposed amendment.
I support the proposed amendment to section 93 created and passed unanimously by the Quebec National Assembly. I will ultimately be voting in favour of the amendment as recommended by the Special Joint Committee on Quebec Schools.
The Reform caucus believes in free votes when it comes to matters that involve certain moral considerations. While I believe the issue is primarily a legal one, I appreciate the opportunity to be able to respectfully disagree with some of my colleagues.
While I have not polled my constituents directly on the issue, it is my belief that our party's commitment to returning education to the exclusive domain of the provinces would move all of them to support the amendment as well. Furthermore the amendment affects only the province of Quebec in any direct and meaningful way, which is why I believe the constituents of Edmonton—Strathcona have shown little interest in the matter.
The message I have heard is that what Quebec does with its schools should be its own business, provided fundamental rights are not violated.
Putting aside the issue of provincial jurisdiction before making my decision on the matter, I asked myself three questions which I believe are fundamental to the proposal.
The first question I asked was of a legal nature. Is section 43 the right way to approach the amendment, or should the general amending formula be used in the matter?
The second question I asked was political. Is there some evidence that the elimination of section 93 as it applies to Quebec has broad based support?
I also asked a related question. Is there support for the establishment of linguistic school boards in Quebec?
The final question I asked was a moral one. Does section 93 protect religious freedoms, and would these freedoms suffer in Quebec with the passing of the proposed amendment?
I would like to address the use of the section 43 amending formula. There is some concern it is inappropriate when applied to the proposed amendment to section 93. Instead it is argued that a general amending formula, or the 7 and 50 formula, should be used to facilitate the changes to denominational schools.
It is not only argued that this would be more appropriate, but also that it is the only legal approach to the proposed constitutional change.
Ideally the question should have been put to the supreme court as was called for by the Leader of the Official Opposition. However it did not happen and we must now deal with the question in the House.
From the perspective of a constitutional layman it would seem that section 43 is appropriate in this matter. The section 43 amending formula is used for constitutional amendments that apply only to a single province. In this case the single province is Quebec.
The counter argument has been made that the elimination of section 93 will lead to the elimination of denominational schools across Canada because section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms will prevent public funding for these schools. Because of this, it is argued that the general amending formula involving all provinces should be used.
However the amendment to section 93 is not the removal of section 93 from the Constitution. It is an amendment that affects only Quebec in any direct and meaningful way. It may admittedly create a precedent for other provinces, but whether or not the other provinces choose to act on this precedent is entirely their choice. Therefore the specific proposed amendment cannot be said to affect religious educational freedom in the rest of Canada.
For this reason I believe that section 43 is applicable in this case.
On the matter of consensus, Quebec seems strongly in favour of setting up linguistic school boards. Even if it seems less likely that it supports the proposed amendment to section 93, such support probably exists.
I am pleased consultations were held in Quebec on establishing linguistic school boards. I was disappointed, however, that they were not held specifically on the proposal to eliminate section 93 as it applies to Quebec. My question to my colleagues is as follows, however: Since it is clear that most Quebeckers are in favour of establishing linguistic school boards, why are they so concerned about how the end they also want is achieved? In other words, I do not think it really matters to most Quebeckers just how the linguistic school boards are set up, as long as they are.
To get back to the matter of consensus, many groups stated that section 93 protects minority rights. They said, on the one hand, that most Quebeckers object to the proposed amendment and, on the other, that the amendment is an example of a majority oppressing a minority. We could say that minority rights are an issue here, but this argument cannot be used in conjunction with the argument that there is no consensus on the amendment.
To put the matter of consensus to rest, I would point out that the unanimous consent the National Assembly accorded the proposed resolution indicates that there is vast support for it. It is unlikely that all politicians from all parties would ignore public opinion. Every time parties agree on an issue, I think it is because the issue raises little controversy. That may not always be true, but I think it is in the present case.
Let us move on to another point. If the proposed amendment is passed, I fear Quebec and the rest of Canada will lose the right to freedom of religion.
That is really the crux of the matter. If freedom of religion were infringed on, a consensus among Quebeckers would not be justified at all.
Having heard the testimony received by the committee, I believe that section 93 is not essential to protect freedom of religion. In fact, it could run counter to this objective.
In a pluralistic society like ours, should the government collect money from Muslims, for instance, in support of Catholic religious teaching? I think not. Under section 93, however, the government could continue to support Christian religious teaching at the expense of other faiths. Is that how we want to promote freedom of religion in our schools?
Our party is often cautioned against using hypothetical cases to make a point. I will make an exception today.
Let us say that section 93 is designed to protect the freedom of speech instead of denominational education. If section 93 protected freedom of speech, but this right was granted only to Protestants and Catholics, one could argue that it recognizes a privilege, not a right, enjoyed only by these two groups. Rights must be universal, otherwise they cannot be considered as rights. Therefore, the exclusive right conferred by section 93 is prejudicial in that it actually impinges on the right to religious teaching.
In addition, sections 21 and 36 of Bill 109 in Quebec provide for religious teaching where numbers warrant. It appears to be necessary to carry out reforms to ensure that the wish to receive religious teaching is duly recognized and taken into account. However, this seems to be another administrative problem that could easily be resolved at the public's request.
A provincial campaign to promote the right to choose among schools whose funding is prorated, or chartered schools, is the only way to help ensure that religious teaching remains an option and this can only be achieved by repealing section 93.
To conclude, I think that matters relating to education should be exclusively under provincial jurisdiction. I think that the amending formula used to expedite the adoption of this bill is a lawful one. I believe there is in Quebec a political will to establish linguistic school boards. And I know that religious freedom in Quebec will not be threatened if section 93 is repealed. I am therefore in favour of this amendment.
I strongly recommend that my colleagues, the hon. members of this House, respect the wish of the Quebec National Assembly and heed the advice of the joint committee. I urge them to vote for the proposed amendment.
