Mr. Speaker, it will come as no great surprise when I tell you that, like my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois and other parties in the House, I will be enthusiastically supporting the constitutional amendment before us.
I wish to emphasize that this is a constitutional amendment. It would obviously be misleading to those listening if the full significance of the debate today, and for a number of days now, were not made clear. When we speak about a constitutional amendment, the first thing that should be said is that a constitution is the supreme law of a nation. There are two kinds of constitution. Canada has what is described as a written constitution. There are basically five ways of amending it. The constitutional amendment before us is made possible through section 43.
Section 43, the constitutional amendment we are debating, is a bilateral constitutional amendment. This means that it is possible for a province, in an area under its jurisdiction, therefore in an area mentioned in section 92 or section 93, to amend the text of the Constitution with the consent of both Houses.
I think it is also worth pointing out that federalism has three main features. A system is described as federal when there is a constitution and a division of powers between lower and higher levels. The third feature is obviously a court of justice that arbitrates disputes or challenges that may arise between partners in the Constitution. This gives us some idea of the system in which we live.
The Government of Newfoundland, headed by the former Minister of Fisheries and Oceans of this government, is asking to be allowed, for all intents and purposes, to establish a public school system. Some people might be tempted to do certain things, but not you, Mr. Speaker, because I know you are a sensible and informed person. I remind our viewers that, throughout your childhood, not that long ago, you took great pleasure in reading constitutional law treaties. This kept you away from the more “in” crowd, but turned you into a well-informed legal expert.
This having been said, the issue here is really to establish a public, non-denominational school system in Newfoundland, the last province to join Confederation, in 1949, under the leadership of Joey Smallwood.
When we consider these issues, we have to keep two things in mind. Confederation was initially made up of four provinces. All the provinces that joined afterwards had clauses protecting minority rights regarding schools. The provinces can be divided in two large groups: those that adhered to section 93, and those that obtained other specific rights. In the case of Newfoundland, it is not section 93 that applies, but term 17.
It should also be mentioned that, as regards term 17, which is the clause governing the terms of the union of Newfoundland with the Dominion of Canada—as our country was called back then—there are three major aspects. First, as we mentioned, term 17 refers to an exclusively denominational school system. Just think of what Quebec did in the sixties—this incredible period of change called the quiet revolution, after an English speaking journalist coined the phrase. Quebec asked the clergy to withdraw from the school system, which is what is now happening in Newfoundland. Indeed, the idea is not only to create non-denominational structures, but to establish a public school system. In other words, linguistic rights are not the issue here. These are not religious rights. We will come back to this later, but these are indeed rights related to access to education and the organization of a public system.
First, this was a province that did not have a public education system when it signed the treaty in 1867. Second, there were seven major denominations representing 90% of the population. I can name them to show the extent of the denominations involved.
There was, of course, the Anglicans, the Presbyterians, the Salvation Army, the United Church, the Pentecostals, the Roman Catholics and the Seventh-Day Adventists. You can easily imagine how this kind of religious mosaic resulted in a rather fragmented school system. In this respect, one of the forms this fragmentation took, which may seem unimportant but can be extremely important in relation to the students' quality of life, was described by parents in the evidence they presented, which I would now like to share with you.
This evidence can be found in the report tabled by the joint committee. I will repeat for the benefit of our viewers that there are two kinds of parliamentary committees: the standing committees such as the justice committee, the agriculture committee and the environment committee, which are mandated to review certain bills, and the joint committees made up of representatives of this House and the other place, better known as the Senate.
Let me read the testimony of a parent reminding us of one of the problems posed, if only from a transportation point of view, by maintaining a system with seven different denominations, in which there are essentially no neighbourhood schools. The fact that you live next to a school does not mean that your child can enrol in that particular school, since enrolment is based on the religion declared by the parents.
One of the parents in the Education First group told of the case of a child who could walk to primary school. Now that she is in seventh grade, however, she has to leave home at 7.30 a.m. and take the bus. Within ten minutes she passes a Catholic school. After 20 minutes, she goes past another school. Both offer seventh grade. Finally she goes past a third school, which offers grades seven to nine, before she reaches her school an hour after leaving home.
So one of the striking elements in the organization of the Newfoundland system is the distances children face in registering not at a neighbourhood school, but at one that provides religious education in the faith of their parents. This is what they are going to put an end to.
Those who would be tempted to think this is a recent debate in Newfoundland should remember that it has gone on since 1990. It is not recent. Its roots warrant mentioning.
In 1990, a commission of inquiry was set up to consider the future of the Newfoundland education system. You know, Mr. Speaker, how important education is to a society. You know, because your education is not lacking, you have a higher education. I have been told in fact that you were always at the top of your class. I have not checked personally, but you are sufficiently talented for me to believe it. Education is important. It is important because it helps socialize, but it inculcates values. When we want to find out a society's most commonly held values, we must look to the schools. Not only do they teach values, but they foster learning. And generally, not just any sort of learning, but learning that provides a competitive edge on the job market and that provides access to the labour force.
It is vital to a society. I think the Government of Newfoundland, for partisan considerations, is right to be concerned about the efficiency of its school system. That is what the commission of inquiry said. In the early 1990s, it concluded that it was important for the future, for the future of the young students of Newfoundland, for there to be an integrated system with shared schools.
After that came a lengthy process. First of all, in 1995-96, there was a first referendum. You know what aphrodisiac powers that word has in this House, it is a word that gets the government all excited. Governments get excited any chance they get, and we are dealing now with one that gets really hot and bothered at the mere mention of the word referendum.
So, there was a first one, to be followed by a second in which Mr. Tobin's government attempted to strike a compromise between a system of education I would qualify as a hybrid, a combination of separate schools and the right of certain religious denominations to be heard. In that referendum, 54% supported the government resolution.
Why do I feel obliged to specify this? First of all, because I am reminding you that this is a debate that has been discussed in Newfoundland since the early 1990s. Second, because there have been consultations of all sorts. There were public hearings, two referendums, not one but two. The first was in 1995, at which time 54% of Newfoundlanders voted yes.
It is interesting, strictly from the constitutional point of view, because I would remind you that what we are dealing with here is a constitutional amendment. It is therefore an amendment that will change the most important document of a country, its supreme law, its constitution. The government of the time, the same one as today, responded favourably to this constitutional amendment.
But it is interesting to recall that it was not two-thirds, not 70% of Newfoundlanders, who voted yes, but 54% at the outside. The government, led by the same Prime Minister guiding our destinies today, followed up on this resolution. It wrote to the Premier of Newfoundland to tell him that, in January 1996, it would introduce a resolution asking parliamentarians in the House of Commons and the Senate to approve the resolution.
I want to remind you that this therefore means that the figure of 50% is acceptable in a referendum because, in a democracy, whatever is said and done, it is the majority that rules. When the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs ventures to tell us, in his sometimes high and mighty way, that 50% is not enough in the case of Quebec, of national unity, I think we must remind him, in all fairness, that there is a precedent.
There was a referendum in 1995. Naturally, there was a debate in the House in 1996, and we went along, both in the House of Commons and in the Senate, with the resolution introduced by the government. This was followed by a court challenge by two religious denominations in Newfoundland. They challenged not stricto sensu the constitutional amendment, but the new public education act.
There was an injunction. We know how radical a process that is, with its immediate impact. The supreme court of Newfoundland ruled in their favour. This had the result of halting the process of reform in which the Newfoundland government of Brian Tobin was intensely involved.
In this context, the premier then and now, the former Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, whom you remember fondly, I believe, Mr. Speaker, decided to hold a referendum on September 2.
The referendum was on a clear question, a question such as we like them, that is a question which is immediately understandable when you read it, a question which is unequivocal. So, allow me to read it for the benefit of those who may not have done so. The provincial government complied with the conditions of the injunction. It announced on July 31, 1997, through its most important citizen, the premier of the province, that a referendum would be held on September 2, and that the question would be: “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 question was clear.
Of course, the question triggered a debate. The debate was not like the one in Quebec, since there is no requirement under Newfoundland's referendum act, which is in fact an election act, because there is no specific referendum act. So, a debate took place, thus giving the public an opportunity to discuss what was at stake.
When the referendum was over—and I hope this will happen to us some day—73% of voters had said yes. So, 73% of them authorized the Tobin government to conduct an in-depth review of the school system with a view to establishing amalgamated, non-denominational schools where religious education will be permitted as requested by parents. That is where we are at.
Following this referendum, as required by procedure, another resolution was tabled by the executive, which had to be debated by both Parliaments. This debate led to the establishment of a joint committee and, today, as parliamentarians, we must vote either in favour of or against this resolution. It is interesting because the Newfoundland situation reminds us of the need to modernize the school system, of course, but also of minority rights. It does not deal substantially with linguistic rights, section 23 of the Constitution Act, 1867, or even religious rights. It deals with the right to reorganize the school system.
In spite of the fact that consultations, two referendums, were held and that this debate had been going on since 1990, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, with his stubbornness that borders on neurosis at times, nevertheless insisted on consultations being conducted. We went along with this little game and were represented in the process by the dynamic Bloc Quebecois member for Témiscamingue.
We will support this amendment because we believe that, in a democracy, the voice of reason is always that of the majority. In this case, we are talking about an indisputable majority, since 73% approved the government resolution. I know that, in a not so distant future, when we consider other referendum results, we will remember the precedents created on this occasion.
