Paul Devillers

[Amendment To The Constitution Of Canada (Quebec), November 17th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak to the resolution today. I feel it represents a positive step for Canadians in many ways.

As a member of the joint committee that considered the resolution to amend section 93 of the Constitution I had the opportunity to listen first hand to the concerns of the Quebecois and Canadians. I found this personal testimony on the realities of Quebec society at the end of the 20th century to be very instructive. As a result of 30 years of discussion the amendment will reflect the pluralism of Quebec society.

Many of my colleagues will be discussing the substantive and emotive elements of the proposed resolution. I would like to speak on the procedural elements of the resolution as I feel they explain many of the questions surrounding the change. Finally I would like to add some personal reflections on the issue.

Let me begin my presentation with a discussion on the bilateral nature of the proposed amendment. The Constitution Act, 1982, provides for amendments in section 43 “in relation to any provision that applies to one or more but not all provinces”. Procedurally such an amendment requires the resolution of three bodies: the Senate, the House of Commons and the provincial legislative assembly requesting the amendment. We are in the process of ensuring those basic procedural requirements.

Let us go beyond the basics of the procedural elements. The joint committee heard that the political validity of the resolution of any of these three bodies depended on the evidence of consensus. The Quebec legislative assembly passed its resolutions unanimously. This may be evidence of some consensus, as the legislative assembly includes members of minority communities in Quebec.

However, I feel we must look further for evidence of consensus. Particularly when a legislature is considering changes to constitutional guarantees of rights, it is critical that the minority affected by the change be aware of the proposal. Further I believe it is critical that a majority of the minority affected be supportive of the proposal.

In the case of the amendment to section 93 of the Constitution Act I believe that a majority of the minority affected support the amendment. This conclusion is based on evidence I heard during the committee hearings. Anglophones, Catholics, Protestants and non-denominational groups were in support of the change.

I draw the attention of the House particularly to the support of the Anglican bishops and the Canadian Jewish Congress for the amendment. The Catholic bishops were not opposed. The Right Reverend Andrew Hutchison, Bishop of Montreal for the Anglican Church of Canada, stated in his letter attached to the report tabled in the House:

Our conviction is that the state must exemplify and uphold the principle of equality before the law in dealing with the major religious traditions that have long been part of our Quebec community.

Therefore not only does the Anglican church support the resolution on the basis of religious education being a family matter, but it feels that all major religious traditions must be treated equally in Quebec.

I am proud the government decided to hold committee hearings and invite testimony about the resolution. After having attended all the hearings I am personally satisfied there is a consensus on the amendment. I am satisfied a majority of the minority affected by the change support it. As a franco-Ontarian the support of the majority of the minority is what I expect from any province that intends to change its minority rights guarantees in any area.

Before I move to the next section of my presentation I invite my Reform colleagues to consider the following. The Right Reverend Andrew Hutchison of the Anglican church stated that its support of the amendment was based on its firm conviction that religious education of children was primarily a family responsibility.

Given the Reform stand on the importance of traditional families and family values, why is it not supporting the amendment? The amendment is an opportunity to reinforce the role of the family in the moral and religious education of children.

I would like to mention here the impact of this discussion on my own riding. Anybody familiar with Ontario history knows the Penetanguishene area has been troubled by school issues in the 1960s and 1970s. To give you an idea of the situation in my own region, let me remind you we have seven schools in Penetanguishene. Just imagine. Seven schools for a population of 7,000. We have English and French public schools, English and French Catholic schools, and one English Protestant school and school board.

I am well aware of the divisions this plethora of school boards can create in a minority community. That is why I understand and support this initiative that will allow the minority community in Quebec to unite. I think this amendment will help minority communities in Quebec to consolidate and benefit from it.

Members in several parties in the House are afraid that this will create a legal and political precedent for the abolition of the rights of official language and religious minorities. I would like to address this concern if I may.

I agree that this will create a political precedent in amending official language and religious minority rights, but I think it will be a good precedent. Any other government—and I am thinking of Ontario premier Mike Harris who would like to somehow amend the rights of Franco-Ontarians and Catholics—would have to meet the same criteria. It will have to demonstrate that the proposed amendment is supported by a majority of the members of the minority affected.

Furthermore, this support should be confirmed not only by a vote of the provincial legislature but also by witnesses before a Canadian parliamentary committee. This is another reason why I am proud of the decision by this government to conduct hearings. It created a precedent for any future government which could be less vigilant than this one.

Finally, this constitutional amendment proves beyond any doubt that a people's needs and desires can be accommodated within the federal system. I am glad we can show Quebeckers how the Canadian Parliament has played a productive role in this amendment. After a 30-year-old debate in Quebec society, this amendment will soon be a reality. Can we learn from this in the debate on national unity? I hope so.

After 30 years of debate on national unity we could perhaps solve the problem through a constitutional amendment or some other means. Federalists and Quebec separatists will perhaps finally opt for a unanimous vote on a resolution proposal. Perhaps the other provinces will see this amendment as the result of co-operation.

If this could be a side effect of this amendment, we would have done a good job. For all these reasons, I urge my colleagues in this House to support this resolution.

[Distinct Society, November 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond on behalf of the government to the motion tabled by the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan.

This motion highlights the differing viewpoints between the government and the hon. member with respect to national unity. As was clearly indicated in the Speech from the Throne, the government has made this issue its top priority for its current mandate. We want to proceed with national reconciliation. We believe the Calgary declaration is an important step in that direction.

The nine premiers would not support the spirit of the hon. member's motion either. Even though the results of the consultations they will be holding with their respective populations are not yet in, it already appears that the majority of Canadians support the major principles of the Calgary declaration.

The first part of the motion the member is asking us to consider concerns equality among provinces and Canadians in general. I would reassure my colleague that equality is a principle shared by all Canadians and supported fully by the our government. The first two clauses of the Calgary declaration are devoted to it.

The principle of equality is at the heart of our identity. It is a bulwark of our culture and our identity as Canadians. It is the very essence of our democratic system. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms clearly recognizes it in section 15, which guarantees equality of Canadians before the law. In this regard, clause 1 of the Calgary declaration provides that all Canadians are equal and that their rights are protected by law.

We are also in agreement with respect to the equality status of the provinces. There are not two or three types of status for provinces. In the Canadian federation, provinces have equal status. All provinces can exercise the same powers. I would remind my colleague from Nanaimo—Cowichan of what clause 2 of the Calgary declaration has to say on the matter. “ All provinces, while diverse in their characteristics, have equal status”.

Nevertheless some provinces may show more of a desire than others to exercise some of these powers. In fact, over the years, some provinces have used certain powers while others have chosen not to do so. For example, all provinces have the power to administer the collection of individual income tax, but only Quebec does so and has the necessary personnel and infrastructure.

In 1965 all provinces had the right to opt out of certain national established programs and receive appropriate compensation, including tax points. Only Quebec chose to do so, which is why the federal tax rate is lower in Quebec than in the other provinces.

Only Quebec has exercised its constitutional right to set up its own pension plan. The other provinces are covered by the Canada pension plan.

Those powers that Quebec has exercised have always been available to the other provinces. That the Government of Quebec has exercised them while others have chosen not to does not confer special status on the province. That is why clause 6 of the Calgary declaration stipulates that if any future constitutional amendment confers powers on one province, those powers would have to be available to all provinces. Thus equality does not mean uniformity, nor does equality of treatment mean uniformity of treatment.

Let us consider an example that concerns the province of the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan. When the government works with the Government of British Columbia to support Pacific salmon fishers, that does not give the province an additional right in comparison with other provinces. Rather, it means that only British Columbia has a Pacific salmon fishery.

That same flexible approach also applies to tax breaks for Alberta for oil sands development, and yet these two examples do not make our fellow citizens in Alberta or British Columbia Canadians plus.

Neither case involves special privileges, but rather different contexts. Governments must recognize that all provinces and all citizens are equal, but must also respond to a variety of needs and circumstances. The flexibility of the Canadian federation is thus expressed, by accommodating differences without compromising the principle of equality.

I would even add that each province can occupy all of its space within the federation in its full specificity and Canada is the richer for it.

Equalization is another example. Under that program the federal government makes payments to some provinces but not to others. That does not mean that inequalities are being created among the provinces. Rather it means that all citizens have access to comparable services, no matter what region they live in.

The essential difference between our party's view and my colleague's motion is that for him equality seems to mean uniformity, whereas we believe that these two concepts do not necessarily mean the same thing. To impose uniformity of treatment in a country such as ours is to deny one of its greatest treasures, its diversity. That will never be the policy of the Liberal Party of Canada.

My colleague maintains that recognizing the specificity of a province in the Constitution would run counter to the principle of equality of provinces and citizens. As I have already stated, we all agree with the principle of equality among citizens and provinces. The government, however, rejects the one size fits all approach. That is why we support recognizing the unique character of Quebec as proposed in the declaration of the nine premiers.

The Calgary declaration defines the unique character of Quebec society in terms of its French speaking majority, its culture and its tradition of civil law. That definition reminds us that Quebec is different from the other provinces in many ways, one characteristic being that it contains within its territory the only French speaking majority on the North American continent.

I would remind my colleague that although the expression “unique character” has only recently entered the political vocabulary, all of our constitutional laws have contained implicit recognition of the distinct character of Quebec's identity from the Quebec Act of 1774 to the Constitution Act of 1982, including the Constitutional Act of 1791 and the Constitution Act of 1867.

In fact the Constitution Act of 1867 recognized Quebec's special legal system and even then contained provisions regarding bilingualism and the appointment of supreme court justices.

I would add that the constitutional recognition of the unique character of Quebec would merely formalize an existing practice in the courts, an opinion that is shared by the former chief justice of the supreme court, the Right Hon. Brian Dickson.

The unique character of Quebec society is an obvious observation which is taken into account in current practice. So how would recognizing it jeopardize the equality of citizens and provinces? Simply put, in no way.

The Calgary declaration is not a constitutional amendment. It is a statement of principles. However if recognition of the unique character of Quebec society were to be entrenched in the Constitution, that recognition would be framed as an interpretive clause like the current section 27 of the charter of rights which recognizes the multicultural character of Canada's heritage. Fifteen years after the charter was adopted, can any Canadian say that his or her rights have been threatened by that clause?

In addition to honouring the universal principle of equality, such recognition will serve the unity of the country well. As I have already said, our government made national unity its top priority in this term of office. And whatever helps the cause will receive our support.

This is why we support the Calgary declaration. We recognize that it is a positive step by proposing a framework for discussions that reflect Canadian realities and values.

I would like to finish with a quote that Canadians believe, as Alberta's premier Ralph Klein has said, in a Canada where all provinces have equal status, but a Canada that allows Quebec to protect those things that make it such a unique part of our national character, a tolerant and diverse nation where we are all equal as Canadians no matter where we live but where the word equality is not used as a blanket to smother diversity. I believe that is what Canadians believe.

[National Unity, October 31st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I have just said that at this time the government, the Prime Minister has no concrete plans, but that there are still possibilities.

[National Unity, October 31st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada considers the Calgary declaration to be a significant step forward in dealing with the situation of Canadian unity. It is a provincial initiative taken by the provinces. Each of the provinces, save Quebec, has been working toward setting up the consultation. With respect to Quebec the Government of Canada has not taken a position on consulting the Quebec people, but that is an option.

[Newfoundland School System, October 27th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, in his comments the hon. member referred to the amendments of Leader of the Official Opposition and his position.

In his comments the Leader of the Opposition referred to a court reference, whether the issue should be referred to the courts. I wonder if the hon. member could share with the House his thoughts on whether there should be a court reference. Or, should it depend on what the committee hears by way of expert legal and constitutional opinion?

Is the member prepared to accept the committee's decision on that, or does the New Democratic Party have a position with respect to the court reference?

[Newfoundland School System, October 27th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to this motion.

Unfortunately the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is not here to introduce the motion personally because of the weather conditions. He is in transit and has not arrived. However, it is his desire, with the unanimous consent of the House, to speak to the motion later in the day if that is possible.

I am pleased to rise in support of the motion to set up a parliamentary committee to review the proposal to replace the present denominational school system in Newfoundland with a single non-denominational public school system.

Over the years, a consensus developed around the need to modernize the school system's administrative structure. This consensus was confirmed by a referendum. We know, therefore, that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians strongly and democratically support this amendment proposal. In the September 1997 referendum, the proposal carried in 47 of Newfoundland's 48 electoral districts. Not less than 73% of voters said yes to changes proposed by the province's government.

In addition, analysis of the referendum results leads us to believe that the proposal has the support of denominational minorities. The people of Newfoundland voted on a clear and concise question and expressed the desire to steer the province's school system in a new direction.

As premier Tobin indicated, this referendum has produced a clear, strong and outstanding degree of consensus. I think it would be fair to say that, in the wake of the referendum, this consensus has expanded. The Newfoundland legislature unanimously voted in favour of the constitutional amendment proposal, in spite of the fact that some of its members had voted against on referendum day.

Indeed, every member of the legislative assembly who had noted no in the referendum eventually endorsed the resolution. One of them, namely the provincial Leader of the Opposition, explaining his decision, said: “The people of the province have spoken in a very clear, very definitive way, and we have an obligation here to respect the wishes that have been carried out in a democratic manner.”

I believe that, given its commitment to the democratic process and to democratic values, this House should strike a parliamentary committee to examine the issue. Parliamentary committees are key elements in this process and the democratic tradition in Canada. They give experts, groups and individual citizens an opportunity to express their views and help the people and their elected representatives better understand larger issues.

On an issue as important as schools, it is doubly important to hear a wide range of opinions at the federal level. Our children are basically our future. If we want Canada to remain competitive and to continue to be renowned around the world for its quality of life, we must make sure that our children receive the best education possible.

That is the challenge facing us. One might say there is no greater challenge for a country than ensuring that its children acquire the knowledge, abilities and skills required to excel in a world that is increasing complex and shrinking at the same time.

In addition, we have a moral obligation to give the best to our children. As Lutheran theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer said: “What it does for its children is the touchstone of any society's morality.” That is why this government is working with the provinces to end the scourge of child poverty. That is also why, when a society achieves a clear consensus about what the administrative framework for the education of children should be, governments have a responsibility to respond in an appropriate, measured fashion, in accordance with the established democratic procedure.

How do the people of Newfoundland want their school system to be organized? Well, as mentioned in the referendum question, they want 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.

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians clearly did not vote to drive God out of their schools. Of course, non-elected church leaders will no longer have a special place in the new school system. Like the members of the legislature, who will have the overall responsibility for education, school boards will be elected by parents and other members of the public in Newfoundland and Labrador and will be accountable to them.

But this does not mean that religion will no longer be welcome in the schools of Newfoundland. On the contrary, there will be a mandatory provision guaranteeing that courses in religion will be taught in schools. And religious observances, such as saying the Lord's Prayer or displaying Nativity scenes, will be held when requested by parents, and members of the clergy will be permitted to visit schools.

However, according to legal opinions obtained by the Government of Newfoundland, children will not be required to attend religious classes or to participate in religious observances if their parents do not wish them to do so. The whole idea of these reforms is to provide parents with greater control over their children's education.

These are the changes to the school system that were approved by the people of Newfoundland and their democratic representatives in the legislature. This is the new system which, according to them, will best meet the particular needs of Newfoundland.

This is a fundamental point. As the royal commission that looked into the province's school system at the beginning of the decade pointed out: “Perhaps more than any other institution, the education system is closely linked to the society and world that shape it and that it, in turn, will come to shape as well”.

The Newfoundland school system should reflect the situation and needs of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, just as the Ontario system should reflect that of Ontarians.

The fact of the matter is that Newfoundland always had a unique school system. For instance, it is currently the only system where all schools are denominational schools. The education reform was bogged down for years, but Newfoundlanders and Labradorians finally endorsed a set of changes that will ensure that their school system can satisfy their changing needs.

It is important to realize that the changes contemplated by Newfoundland do not set a precedent for any other province. Naturally, what works in Newfoundland and meets the needs of children in that province may not be adapted to the needs of children in Alberta, Quebec or the Yukon. In our federal system, each province may choose the school system that best reflects its particular situation and needs.

I am sure that the fact that the changes contemplated by the Government of Newfoundland do not affect in any way minority rights to education in other provinces will be raised and reinforced during the proceedings of the joint committee.

The Government of Canada indicated time and again that, beyond this, should any province seek an amendment to its terms of union or to section 93 of the Constitution, the federal government will want to see, as in this case, a reasonable level of support among the denominations concerned.

In Newfoundland, 72% of voters in regions as profoundly Roman Catholic as the Burin Peninsula and the Avalon Peninsula voted yes. While it is difficult to assess the level of support of the Pentecostal community because of how scattered it is, all four Pentecostal members of the legislative assembly endorsed the resolution to amend Term 17.

It should also be noted that, as I said, all schools in Newfoundland being denominational schools, every denomination, not only Roman Catholic and Pentecostal, will be affected by these changes.

The royal commission I referred to earlier noted that the school system in Newfoundland had been established in response to specific needs in very difficult circumstances and that its development these past 30 years had been characterized by adapting, adjusting and restructuring on the basis of changing times, conditions and priorities.

The people of Newfoundland and Labrador recently expressed the desire to see their school system continue to adjust to changing times and priorities.

Our federal system too has shown it is capable of adjusting to the changing needs of Canadians. Our federation has changed since 1867 in order to take up new challenges and to reflect new priorities. This federal government is working with its provincial partners on a number of fronts to carry on this modernization process. Much can be accomplished and was indeed accomplished through administrative agreements or through the exercise or non-exercise of powers, without changing one iota in our Constitution.

We must not make the mistake of thinking that the Constitution is or should be a static document. It is not. Rather, it is a living document that can be adjusted to reflect our changing times. The changes requested by Newfoundlanders and Labradorians would require a constitutional amendment, and the level of support shown for the proposal to amend Term 17 leads me to believe that such an amendment may be totally appropriate.

The proposed joint committee will provide an excellent forum where my fellow parliamentarians can decide for themselves the merit of the amendment proposal, which would enable Newfoundland to carry out in its education system reforms it has been wanting to carry out for a long time.

That is why I hope the House will approve today the setting-up of this committee. I invite my colleagues to support the motion before us.

[Appointment Of A Special Joint Committee, October 1st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in support of the motion to strike a parliamentary committee to review the proposed constitutional amendment to reorganizing Quebec's school boards along linguistic lines.

We know that the proposed amendment enjoys a reasonable degree of support from those who will be affected by it. Indeed, the reports and consultations that have taken place in Quebec show that a consensus has emerged. Quebeckers clearly feel that, while denominational school boards adequately reflected the reality of Quebec before the quiet revolution, today linguistic school boards would correspond more closely with the values and sociological realities of the province.

It is clear that Catholic and Protestant Quebeckers, anglophones and francophones alike, share this point of view. When a society reaches a clear consensus regarding the administrative structures required to educate its children, it is then up to the government to react.

Accordingly, in April of this year, the National Assembly of Quebec voted unanimously in favour of a constitutional amendment that would replace the Catholic and Protestant school boards with francophone and anglophone boards.

The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs wasted no time presenting an identical resolution in this House on April 22. We were then prevented by the federal election from setting up a committee to examine the constitutional amendment, but we are in a position to do so now.

Some may wonder whether it is necessary to set up such a committee, given the unanimous vote in the Quebec National Assembly and the consensus that exists in Quebec in favour of this amendment. To these people I would point out the importance, in a democracy, of hearing from everyone. It is clear that, although the great majority of Quebeckers support the proposal, some people who favour linguistic school boards are less certain that a constitutional amendment is the route to go.

Democracy requires that all citizens be able to express their views on the important issues of the day. Parliamentary committees have been part of the Canadian democratic tradition precisely so that experts, groups and citizens may express their points of view and so that citizens and their elected representatives can reach a better understanding of important issues.

The official opposition in the National Assembly asked that similar hearings be held in Quebec, but its request was turned down. The decision by the Government of Quebec not to set up a parliamentary committee to discuss the switch to a non-denominational school system makes it doubly important today to vote in favour of creating such a committee.

A parliamentary committee will allow those with qualms about the proposed changes to voice them and it will give those who advocate the new system an opportunity to allay these concerns.

If a stronger consensus in favour of a constitutional amendment thus emerges it will be surely helpful to the Quebec government as it charts a new course for the educational structures in the province.

I have mentioned the concerns of those within Quebec about the proposed amendment but I should like to take a moment to address briefly the concerns of other Canadians, Canadians who wonder what implications this constitutional amendment might have for them. In particular, I think that for those Canadians in other provinces who enjoy rights to denominational schools there has been some concern expressed, for example, by certain Catholic groups in my home province of Ontario. This is another reason to support the striking of a parliamentary committee.

I am sure that in its discussions the fact that the changes proposed by the Government of Quebec have no bearing on minority educational rights in other provinces will be raised and reinforced.

It is important that we stress today very clearly that this amendment would be a bilateral one involving the governments of Canada and Quebec City. As the Minister for Intergovernmental Affairs mentioned, it is a proposal that has been endorsed by the Catholic committee for the superior council of education, the federation of school boards, the federation of parents committees and teachers associations representing all the teachers of the province.

It is clear that should another province bring forward a request to replace its denominational school system or to otherwise change the constitutional guarantees of its minorities the Government of Canada would once again insist that a reasonable degree of support be demonstrated by the affected minorities.

The proposed amendment responds to the particular reality of Quebec. It is one of the strengths of our federation that it is flexible enough to accommodate the different and diverse needs of each of our provinces. What is appropriate for Quebec may not necessarily be appropriate for Alberta or Ontario or vice versa.

Our federal system allows us to rally our forces for the common good, but it is flexible enough to facilitate the full expression of regional identities.

Similarly, our Constitution is not a strait-jacket that prevents change. Rather, it is a framework that allows change to take place in an orderly and timely manner. It is an evolving reflection of who we are as Canadians.

Quebec, no less than the other provinces, flourishes within our federation and it will continue to do so in the future.

This brings me to a point mentioned earlier, but which certainly deserves to be re-examined. I am afraid that these secessionist leaders who contend that our Constitution of 1982 hinders Quebec's development will have to find other arguments. After all, this constitutional amendment, which would allow the government of Quebec to change the very foundations of its education system, was made possible by the patriation of the Constitution.

If the Constitution had not been patriated 15 years ago, this debate would be taking place in the shadow of Big Ben and not of the Peace Tower.

It all goes to show that our federation has evolved a great deal. It is still evolving. As our government stressed in the recent Speech from the Throne, we are committed to working collaboratively with our provincial partners to strengthen and modernize country. The proposed amendment clearly demonstrates that we can work side by side with the Quebec government to modernize the federation, a federation which belongs to us all.

[Ralph Campbell, October 1st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to pay tribute to Ralph Campbell, a constituent in my riding, for his work as a volunteer with Canadian Executive Services Organization.

CESO is a non-profit, volunteer based organization which transfers Canadian expertise to businesses, communities and organizations in Canada and abroad. As a volunteer with CESO International Services, Mr. Campbell contributed to a review of the Asian Institute of Technology's administration procedures. The institute is located in Bangkok, Thailand.

On behalf of all Canadians, I congratulate Mr. Campbell for the altruism he has shown in contributing to the economic development of Thailand.

[Speech From The Throne, September 25th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois' strategy in this debate is clearly to ask all Liberal members the same question. Of course, we use inclusive terms such as “society”. The word “people” has several connotations which may give rights in international law, but we use the word “society” because it is more inclusive.

[Speech From The Throne, September 25th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to indicate that the hon. member has some tremendous shoes to fill in representing the riding of Kings—Hants. The former member, John Murphy, served that riding extremely well. I visited the riding with John and know it well so I wish the member the best of luck in that endeavour.

His question concerned the vision the government intends to show over the next four years. That is the subject matter of this debate. The Speech from the Throne is the blueprint. There is much that I and others have pointed out in our speeches which addresses that question. For instance, the new commitment of another $850 million to the child tax credit is something that will address the concerns that were addressed by the member in the prelude to his question. That is but one example of the vision that we need to show.