Norman E. Doyle

[Newfoundland School System, October 27th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, let me first say that I am pleased to see that the particular resolution will be sent to a committee of the House. This is the second time in this sitting of the House that I have stood in my place to voice my profound concern for the resolution coming from the Newfoundland House of Assembly.

Just about a year ago the House passed a resolution to amend term 17 of Newfoundland's terms of union with Canada. The amendment at that time diminished the right of parents to have any kind of a meaningful say or role in the religious education of their children.

Today's proposed amendment sponsored by Premier Tobin and the current federal government will eliminate or wipe out forever—and I think that is what we have to be clear on—the right of Newfoundland parents to have any kind of a choice in their children's religious education.

Some people will argue—and it has been argued here today—that in both cases the resolution sent to the House enjoyed majority support of the people in Newfoundland and Labrador as expressed in a referendum. To these people I have to say that a referendum is a very blunt instrument with which to amend the constitutional rights of minorities. In any such battle the minority will lose by definition.

To add insult to injury—and I would like to concentrate for a moment on the referendum process—the Tobin government called the referendum in the middle of summer vacation, which is not against the law. He kept it short. It was only a 31 day period, which is not against the law either. He spent roughly about $350,000 to $400,000 on advertising his position extensively and did not advance even $1 to the no side.

He allowed any citizen in any part of the province to vote anywhere at all in the province. He would not allow scrutineers to be present when the vote was being counted and he released the text of term 17 only 16 hours before the actual vote was taken in the advance polls. That to me is a prime example of somebody wanting their cake and eating it too.

We have to ask what has brought this issue to Ottawa twice in a one year period. As I indicated earlier, there was a stormy debate on the Hill on this matter about a year ago. Premier Wells did hold a referendum and with a 54% vote he sent his amendment off to our nation's capital. That amendment to term 17 saw all schools being declared interdenominational with a provision for unidenominational schools if the numbers warrant it.

Earlier this spring all schools in Newfoundland underwent a school designation process. The parents of nearly 30,000 students voted to keep their children in a unidenominational Pentecostal or a unidenominational Catholic school system. That caused some concern among groups of people and led to a court challenge by a group of parents which ground the school designation process to a complete halt.

As tensions mounted on the issue, our new premier Mr. Tobin saw his chance to take advantage of the public mood and he held his own referendum. And it was very much his own referendum. He picked the time, he wrote the question and he made up the rules. The outcome was a foregone conclusion with 38% of the province voting yes on the premier's proposal.

I have been roundly criticized in my home province for continuing to speak up on behalf of these people who did not vote to give up their rights to have a say in the religious education of their children. The resolution we are dealing with in this House today has passed the Newfoundland House of Assembly unanimously. I do not think it is healthy in a democracy for fundamental constitutional change to be made in the air of parliamentary unanimity. This is especially so when we are about the business in this House of wiping out for ever and a day the constitutional rights of minorities.

When term 17 was last before this House, Cardinal Carter of the Toronto Archdiocese wrote to the Prime Minister. This is a good quote from the letter: “The amendment process under the Constitution requires your government to play the role of guardian of minority rights, and if your government rubber stamps an amended term 17, how can it in principle resist similar requests from voting majorities in Alberta, Quebec and Ontario?” He asks: “Would French language rights survive outside of Quebec if they were subject to a referendum?” He goes on to say again: “There is a natural reality that occurs because of population imbalance and that is why minority rights have to be protected in the Constitution of Canada”.

It seems the cardinal felt there was a danger in altering minority rights in response to public opinion. His concerns are more than justified when we reflect on the atmosphere in which the referendum was held.

Under Premier Wells' amendment, if parents did not have sufficient numbers to set up a full fledged denominational school, they could at least avail themselves of a religious course particular to their own faith. Under the proposed amendment parents will be offered only a generic, state run, state designed religious course. It is basically a sociology course about religion. It will have no basis in Christian religion which is why there is such an outcry from some people on this issue.

The Canadian Constitution as well provides for the freedom of religion. However once this resolution passes, Newfoundland will be the only province in Canada where the state sets the religious education program. We all remember what former Prime Minister Trudeau said in the House that the state has no place in the bedrooms of our nation. In the proposed resolution the state is coming dangerously close to ensconcing itself in the churches of our nation.

Term 17 was placed in our terms of union in recognition of the very prominent role that the various Christian churches played in the development of education in Newfoundland. Term 17 has been amended twice already.

In the mid-eighties it was amended to include constitutional recognition of the Pentecostal faith. There was no fuss at that time because we were including a longstanding reality. In the two referenda since that time the Pentecostal groups have voted overwhelmingly to retain their rights in education. They are a minority. They represent only 7% of the population of Newfoundland. They have voted twice already to retain their rights in education.

Last year's amendment diminished denominational rights, but parents still had a right and they still had a choice with regard to the religious education their children would receive. Should we now one year later be eliminating that right and that choice altogether? Should last year's amendment not have been given a little time to settle into the social order? Should constitutional rights be subject to the ebb and flow of public opinion? The ultimate question is, is a constitutional right for minorities really a right if it can be altered or eliminated so easily?

These are questions which are not being widely asked in my province and I feel that I have a duty to raise them. I feel that this Parliament has an obligation to wrestle with these questions before the final vote is taken. I firmly believe that the latest amendment to term 17 is something we will live to regret in the long run.

Parents in the rest of North America are fighting for the right to bring religion back into the public schools. In Newfoundland we are about the business of kicking religion out of our school system. I am very concerned about this. People have indicated that I should vote with the majority on this issue when it comes time to vote in the House. That would certainly be the easy way out, but I do not think it would be right.

It is a good thing a joint committee of the House and the Senate is being formed to look at the resolution. I sincerely hope there will be an opportunity for the committee to go to Newfoundland to hear the no side, to hear the yes side, to hear all of the concerns that people have about this particular resolution.

I hope all members of the House will look at this particular resolution very carefully and will do some research on denominational rights in Newfoundland and Labrador.

[Supply, October 23rd, 1997]

Why didn't he go?

[Newfoundland, October 6th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, given the fact that the province of Newfoundland and Labrador continues to suffer from having the highest unemployment rate in all of Canada, which at 20 percent is more than double the national average, it is only proper that this Newfoundland tragedy be described for what it really is, a national disgrace.

As such it is indeed deserving of the special attention of the Government of Canada. It is a chronic problem and a lack of a solution to it does nothing for the image of Canada among the leading industrialized nations of the world, of which Canada is one.

Surely a nation that can put a man in space can do something about a long-standing problem a whole lot closer to home. Therefore I call on the prime minister and the Government of Canada to give this issue the attention it needs and the attention it deserves.

[Speech From The Throne, October 2nd, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I do not operate that way. I do not vote the way people want me to vote in this House. I vote according to my conscience and I vote in what I feel are the best interests of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

He talked about a three-legged system yesterday. I think one part of it was the referendum process that these things would have to go through. The other was the rule of law and the other was determined to be within the national interest.

I do not think—

[Speech From The Throne, October 2nd, 1997]

Madam Speaker, that is an interesting comment.

Let me say to the hon. member that he has nothing to be proud of. If he turned down Meech Lake, he has nothing to be proud of. I think history will judge him very harshly. We would not be involved in the national unity debate today had we had a little common sense back in 1990.

It is a very interesting point that the hon. member makes. I suppose it cuts right to the heart of whether a member of the House of Assembly or a member of the House of Commons has to vote in the same way that his constituents vote and whether we should follow them on all occasions. I have to admit that I have done that on more than one occasion, but I have to admit that I have not done that on a couple of occasions as well. It is an issue which we are not going to solve here. It has been ongoing for the last couple of hundred years.

I want to make a couple of points on this particular issue. The 38 percent of the people who voted yes in the referendum in Newfoundland are well represented on this particular issue. We have all of the members of the Newfoundland House of Assembly who are unanimous in their view on that. They are well represented. However I worry sometimes about the minority groups which are not well represented in the House. I think I have a duty and an obligation as a parliamentarian to represent them as well. I think that is a very important point.

There are enough members over there to pass the thing, but I certainly hope they will find a lot of reasons to reflect on this over the coming weeks and probably come to another conclusion.

[Speech From The Throne, October 2nd, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I could almost support that amendment yesterday except for one thing. It mentioned a referendum and I was under the impression that again we would be subjecting the rights of these people, especially minority groups as we have in Newfoundland and Labrador on this particular issue, and condoning the referendum to take these rights away.

Maybe there are times when we should have a referendum to adjust the Constitution of Canada. However, when there is a minority group, then I do not believe that without its consent we should take away those rights. That group would be the loser by definition.

The very fact that those people belong to a minority group should keep them outside of that particular process. Seeing the word referendum to me was an indication that if we had a minority rights issue, we would holus-bolus take it to a referendum to remove those rights. I have a great concern about that.

Other than that I thought the leader of the Reform Party made an excellent speech yesterday. There were many points in his speech which I agreed with. As a matter of fact, I sent him a note requesting a copy of his remarks because it was such a good speech. However, with respect to the referendum process and the taking away of rights of a minority group, that was of great concern to me.

[Speech From The Throne, October 2nd, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to stand in the chamber today as the new member of Parliament for St. John's East. It is a great honour and privilege to be here.

With my first words in Parliament I want to extend my thanks and deep appreciation to the people of St. John's East for having sent me here. Obviously I could not be here without their approval and support. I am very grateful for the opportunity to serve in such a distinguished setting as the House of Commons of Canada.

As previous members have done, I would like to extend to you, Madam Speaker, my congratulations on your appointment. I would also extend to the Speaker my sincere congratulations on his election. I look forward to serving over the next few years under Madam Speaker's watchful gaze.

The riding of St. John's East is no stranger to this debating floor. One of my predecessors was the Hon. Jim McGrath, an individual for whom I had a great deal of respect and admiration. He was a long serving, articulate member of the House. I believe he was here for 20-odd years. Over that time he earned the reputation of being a true parliamentarian.

If I had one goal to set for myself in this chamber it would be that I could contribute to my province, contribute to my nation, in much the same way that Jim McGrath did. I know that is a very difficult task, given the fact that one has to make a lot of sacrifices to be in public life. However, I do know that the sacrifice is worth making if one wants to live in the greatest nation on earth. The privilege which we in this country have is to live in the greatest nation on earth.

I have somewhat of an advantage over some of my colleagues, as I have a bit of experience in political life. I spent about 13 years in the Newfoundland House of Assembly. During that time I ran across many occasions on which I found myself being frustrated with the system. One could be very frustrated in his day to day duties.

I can also inform hon. members that there are many difficulties involved in this job. One of the difficulties happens to be that we may not always find ourselves on the same side of an issue as our constituents. I believe that when we have that kind of experience we feel a sense of alienation from the very people who elected us, simply because we have a great regard for them. However, they may not necessarily agree with our views on how this world should unfold.

During my 13 years in the Newfoundland House of Assembly there were a couple of occasions on which I found myself in that kind of spot. One issue which stands out in my memory happened in 1990 when we were involved in the Meech Lake debate. I found myself on the opposite side of the issue. I recall speaking publicly in the Newfoundland House of Assembly in support of Meech. I felt strongly about that particular issue.

I had been listening to people like Peter Lougheed, Grant Devine, Joe Ghiz, David Peterson and Bill Bennett, people whom we all respect and admire. I had been convinced by these people that it was in the greater public good for us to vote for Meech Lake. I think if we had shown a little tolerance, a little respect for the people with whom we share a common border we might not be involved in the national unity debate in which we are involved today.

I remember well feeling the wrath of many people in the provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador because I voted in that way. Many of them had been persuaded by former Premier Wells that if we voted for Meech Lake it might put the nation on a road we would soon regret.

Meech lake is gone and so is Premier Wells. I guess history will have to judge, make a pronouncement in due course on the validity of the arguments he presented. I happen to feel that the people who stood in the way of Meech Lake back in 1990 will be judged very harshly by history.

My colleague, the member for Burin—St. George's, was in the house of assembly with me at that time. I take a great deal of satisfaction from knowing I voted in a way I felt was right for my province and for the nation. I have no regrets about that, even though the people of the province may not have felt that way on the issue. That is all history.

The strange thing about history is that the more things change, the more they stay the same. I am only a couple of months into my term of office and I find myself on the opposite side of another important issue in my province, the education debate.

Hon. members are fully aware that a few months ago there was a referendum in Newfoundland. The premier of the province received a mandate and 38 percent of the eligible voters in the province gave complete support to the premier to exercise a mandate to change the denominational educational system in Newfoundland to a full blown public secular system.

Last evening we had the Quebec amendment before us. Very shortly the new term 17 will come to the Chamber. That will mean a constitutional amendment which will wipe out, not adjust, the rights of certain classes of people in Newfoundland to education in their particular school system.

Given the tolerant nature of the people of Newfoundland and of people across the country, I find that to be a little disappointing, to say the least. I have very grave difficulty with the wiping out the rights of these classes of people. There were those who had these rights since 1949 and those since 1980. Two separate groups of people were given rights under the Constitution of Canada.

Why do they feel that way? Christian based religion has always played a very important part in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and in Newfoundland society in general. The churches started schools and hospitals in Newfoundland. Denominational education has been very important to the people. Denominational education was front and centre in another debate long before you and I came to the Chamber, Mr. Speaker. It was front and centre in 1949 when we joined Confederation with Canada.

It was a very important part of the debate. We became a province of Canada under the umbrella of a negotiated set of rules call the terms of union. One of those terms happened to be term 17 which gave rights to certain classes of people to their own religious school system. It gave rights to certain classes of people by religious affiliation. Term 17 has been amended twice.

It was amended back in the 1980s when I was part of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. As a province we extended to the Pentecostal Assemblies of Newfoundland and Labrador rights under the Constitution of Canada that they would be able to have their own particular school system. That was not a long time ago, just back in 1980.

Now here we are. We are going for a third amendment to the Constitution of Canada, a new term 17 that will wipe out or completely extinguish the long held rights of these people to their own educational system.

I have been very vocal and very upset about the issue over the last couple of months. How did we ever get to this point? Hon. members know more about the last amendment we had before the House. They were here and I was not. It called for a diminishing of rights in education. To his credit Clyde Wells at least made some provision for those classes of people who wanted to retain their rights in education.

The provision was fair for those people. The amendment came to the House of Commons. All schools were to be declared interdenominational schools but where numbers warranted people would have the right to retain their rights in the educational system of the province.

There was a stormy debate in the House of Commons. It went to the Senate. There was a veto in the Senate but it passed. I cannot say the churches were completely happy with that, but as we say in Newfoundland a half a loaf is better than none. They still retained their rights in the educational system of our province, including the right to teach their children in their particular faith beliefs.

We are back at it again in this Chamber even though over the last number of months in my province approximately 54,000 or 55,000 people voted to retain their rights in education and to keep their 28,000 children in their particular school systems.

The amendment that came to the House of Commons and was passed had to be implemented in Newfoundland. As with any new amendment there is bound to be a bumpy start. It had a bumpy start in Newfoundland as well. The rights of these people were affected even after that constitutional amendment.

On the west coast of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador some disagreement came about which had to go to court. The judge happened to say to those people that their rights had been affected, trampled upon. Therefore the judge granted an injunction to make sure their rights got back on track again.

Something totally unbelievable happened after that. Premier Tobin seized upon the public frustration and called a referendum. It was a 30 day referendum in which he decided the court case was over. They were never going to be able to do that again, so he ensured their rights were wiped out totally and completely, totally extinguished. I find that to be totally intolerable.

I know one is not allowed to say an individual in the House committed a cowardly act. I know that is an unparliamentary term, but I will say that Mr. Tobin seized upon an opportunity that he should not have seized upon. As a result he has less intestinal fortitude than a model leader of a province should have. I find that to be terribly disappointing.

He called a 30 day referendum, whipped up public sentiment, went to the polls and won. How did he win? I think it is necessary to tell members of the House how he won. When he decided to call his referendum, term 17, a new term to be enshrined in the Constitution of Canada, was released to the public 16 hours before the advanced polls opened.

A new term 17 to amend the Constitution of Canada is something that is very important to the people of my province. They had 16 hours notice to examine that term before the advanced polls opened. I find that to be totally intolerable.

On top of that, the premier of the province spent $350,000 on a campaign and never advanced one penny to the opponents of the cause. I find that to be intolerable as well.

It is in that kind of highly charged atmosphere that Premier Tobin will bring forth his version of term 17 to this honourable House. He will wipe out forever and a day the long held rights of these groups of people, people who have held those rights since 1949 and others who have held them since 1980.

I hold that to be a very sacred right but it is not a popular view to hold right now in my province. I think it is a sacred right. It is a sacred right that these parents hold as well, a constitutional right protected under term 17.

That right will be wiped out by parliament in association with the house of assembly of Newfoundland. I have problems with what we will be doing here. I have problems with what we will be doing to those people who want to exercise that right, and there are many who want to do so. I have very serious concerns about the tolerance lacking in all of us when we use this Chamber to take away a religious right that is sacred and protected by the Constitution of Canada. That is what we are about to do.

I have problems when we submit the rights of a minority to the judgment of the majority. The minority by definition is the loser so how can the minority win?

There is a school of thought in the country that says a referendum is a very blunt instrument with which to adjust or take away the rights of minority groups. There is also the school of thought that says we should not amend the same constitutional clause of the Constitution of Canada twice in rapid succession. Constitutional provisions need time to settle into the social order. We are changing the same clause of the Constitution of Canada twice in the space of one year. What time did it have to settle into the social order? None.

I sometimes wonder what it means to have a constitutional right if it can be made subject to the ebb and flow of public sentiment. That is very serious. When we as a nation or as a province decide to do that we do a grave disservice to the people not only of my province but everywhere else.

To pass this kind of constitutional amendment twice in one year will send a very bad signal to other minority groups throughout the country.

That right of these parents to educate their children in the way they want to educate their children in my view is a sacred right and it should not be interfered with. We should never, under any circumstances—perhaps that is too far to go. Perhaps there are circumstances under which we can take away minority rights but I do not think it should ever be done without the consent of those people who are directly affected by that.

We have not sought to get any kind of permission from the people who hold those sacred rights. There are 52,000 of those people who hold those rights, who have already registered their children.

I remember the Pentecostal Assemblies a week before the referendum took place had a poll conducted of that 7 percent population that is represented as Pentecostal and 95 percent of those people said “no, we do not want that”. But we are ignoring their rights. That is not the popular view for me to take in my province right now, but I feel very strongly that ignoring the rights of those people will set a very bad precedent for other minority groups in this country.

I realize that Madam Speaker is about to cut me off so I will just say I appreciate the opportunity to say these few words.