Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak after the hon. member for St. Boniface, whose speech I really appreciated. I know he has always shown great concern about all the French speaking Canadians from sea to sea, whether we agree or not, as is the case with the Bloc Quebecois, with that. I think however that we should point out to those who are listening that what we have before us is not a bill, but rather a constitutional resolution that has to be approved by this House and the other place, according to a very specific process, as described in our own constitutional regulations under section 43.
I will come back to the rights of French speaking Canadians, because it is of course an issue we are all concerned about, but I would like all those who take part in this debate to keep in mind that what we have before us, the starting point of the motion before us, was a democratic referendum held according to rules accepted by all of us. In a democracy like ours, we have the responsibility to recognize that the best choice is the people's choice.
I am not among those who believe that when we do not agree with the option chosen by the majority in a referendum, we can take issue over the complexity of the referendum question, as some people have gotten used to do in Quebec. It is as if a province, whether it is Quebec with the self-determination issue or Newfoundland with the education system and Term 17, can go through a referendum, with all the rallying and the effort it requires, without the citizens getting all the information they need.
There are two premises to my speech. First, that it is possible under our constitutional rules, the rules that we were in some respects critical of in Quebec, since we did not sign the Constitution Act, 1982, but it must be recognized that, in this Parliament, under the existing rules, it is possible under the terms of section 43 for a province to ask the federal government to sign a bilateral agreement to amend certain provisions of specific concern to it. This is certainly the case for the conditions of admission into Confederation of Newfoundland in 1949.
You will recall that, on three occasions in recent years, we have seen, particularly those who have more experience than I do in this House, an amending process under section 43. I want to remind those listening today of this so that there is no confusion.
Under section 43, there was a constitutional amendment putting Newfoundland's Pentecostal schools, one of eight religious denominations now recognized, on an equal footing with the seven others in 1987. This meant that they were recognized as full managers in
the educational system, with all that that implies in the allocation of resources.
There was a second, more recent, constitutional amendment in 1993. In fact, members of the Bloc Quebecois took part in the debate at that time, but not yours truly. The 1993 amendment sought to guarantee the linguistic equality of French and English in the province of New Brunswick, which, as a result, became the second officially bilingual province in Canada, after Quebec.
The third amendment, I remember it well, I took part in the debate, dealt with the erosion of the insular nature of Prince Edward Island which was to be linked to the mainland by an interprovincial bridge. Therefore, in recent history, the possibility of amending the Constitution was given to Parliament on three occasions.
I have not been feeling very well these past few days, but nothing will prevent me from taking part in this debate. We must start from the premise that a referendum was held in Newfoundland. We are not in a situation whereby authority has been usurped. There was a referendum and the issue has been discussed in Newfoundland for some time now. It has been the subject of official talks since 1992.
A referendum was held under the auspices of the province; I am somewhat surprised that, except for the justice minister, none of the speakers taking part in the debate since this morning has taken the time, for the benefit of the viewers, to read the question.
I do not think, on the face of it-and I will read the question-the wording of the question was particularly clear, particularly enlightening.
The question read as follows:
Do you support revising term 17 in the manner proposed by the government to enable reform of the denominational education system?
There was no beating around the bush, the question mentioned solely Term 17 regarding the denominational education system. This is what brings the Bloc Quebecois to support the resolution. We have two good reasons. The first one is the fact that there was a referendum. A referendum is a consultation tool which is called for by the Reform Party, which is recognized by government and which is sought by the Bloc Quebecois.
The referendum-and I think it is important to remember that-allowed the people of Newfoundland to say what they wanted. We note that only 52 per cent of registered voters exercised their right. Of course this is not very much when you compare it to the extraordinary exercise in democracy in Quebec a few months ago, where more than 90 per cent of the people exercised their right to vote.
But again, in a democracy, the best choice is always the one made by the people. And 54 per cent of the people of Newfoundland who were eligible to vote according to the rules said they preferred a review of the education system. That is why the Bloc Quebecois supports the motion. We support it because there was a referendum whose results may not have been spectacular, but did yield a majority opinion. And, once again, every scheme and trick can never make us forget that, in our rule, in international law as well as within Canadian boundaries, when there is a referendum and when there is a general election, the rule that must apply is 50 per cent plus one.
So, as far as legitimacy is concerned, those who do not wish to have this amendment agreed to cannot in any way challenge this.
Second, what we are talking about here is a matter under provincial jurisdiction. It deals with the way the province that was the last to join Confederation wants to organize its school system. Of course, it has connections with minority rights. But it seems to me this is also a distinct issue, because minority rights, particularly the right to public services, is inscribed in section 23 of the Canadian charter.
It is certainly not I who will tell you today that I consider Canada to be a model of services towards francophones outside Quebec. We are well aware that there are some difficulties in the western provinces. I spent the week before last in British Columbia, and I know very well that, in British Columbia as well as in Newfoundland, people are far from being well served in terms of the education rights in the language of the minority. That is what I believe makes Canada, in its present configuration, a most unlikely country. But the fact that certain minorities have difficulty obtaining services, and particularly having their right to education in their own language, cannot be negated by the fact that, as we speak, in 1996-and this should be first and foremost in our thoughts-not one single school in Newfoundland is not a denominational school.
Can you imagine, in our modern world where education must be connected with the labour market and with our plans as a society, not having one single secular or non-denominational school in a province like Newfoundland, one of Canada's gateways? In Newfoundland, school organization is still based on denominations.
Personally, I think it does not make any sense, in a society, to organize the provision of educational services on the basis of religious conviction. I am by no means inferring that I am not a God-fearing man myself or that religion does not have its place in
schools, but I do believe that no school system should be organized on the basis of religious affiliation, whatever the denomination.
What is going on in Newfoundland in particular is an aberration. It is incredible that such a situation still exists. For the benefit of our listeners, I would like to point out that it has not been so since the beginning of time. There was a commission of inquiry on this. It seems to me that when there is a board of inquiry, it means that a public debate takes place, that experts give their opinions and that the public can be heard.
The board, which started its work in 1992, came to the conclusion, understandably so, that Newfoundland could not modernize its structure unless its school system underwent major changes. The proposed review seeks to eliminate a structure with four different school systems managed by seven religious denominations. How could one not be concerned? How could one not have questions about the fact that, in Newfoundland, seven denominations, and I will name them, coexist through four different school systems, with all the confusion and duplication that this situation implies?
Just imagine. A young schoolboy gets up in the morning and gets on a school bus that drives by three schools, but they are not his school. He has to travel further away because the school system is based on denominational and not on secular criteria.
The seven denominations include the Church of England, the Pentecostal Assemblies, the Presbyterian Church, the Roman Catholic Church, the Salvation Army, the Church o the Seventh-day Adventists and the United Church of Canada.
I am convinced that all those denominations have a value system that are quite be beneficial to kids. I am convinced as well that people in the school system are profoundly dedicated and very much involved, but it does not make sense from the point of view of resource duplication, and it is not a modern way of structuring a school system.
Who better to address this issue in the House of Commons than the Bloc members, especially those representing the Montreal region. As you kow, I am a member from Montreal.
