Mr. Speaker, it is the second time I rise to discuss this amendment. The first time was not during the 36th Parliament, but during the 35th Parliament. At the time, I had the honour of presenting the Bloc Quebecois' position on the amendment. The amendment proposed in June 1996 to term 17 of the Constitution was not identical to the one now before us, but its thrust was the same.
At the time, it was believed that the time was right. However, following a sequence of events I will describe later on, the proposed amendment had to come back before the House to be considered again.
I am convinced that, this time, we are proceeding in the appropriate manner and that people in Newfoundland will be pleased, once the members of this House have done their job, to amend their school system as they please.
It is interesting to see how, throughout the process, this extremely important issue for people of Newfoundland was dealt with.
As I said earlier, the issue was already debated in the House in 1996. Before that, a royal commission of inquiry, the Williams royal commission, looked at it in 1992. Then, in June 1995, the government announced it would seek the public's approval to amend term 17, so as to undertake a reform of the education system.
In September 1995, a referendum was held in Newfoundland. As we know, 54% of the population agreed with the proposed amendments, and the amendment came back to this House, to finalize the process.
As you also know, a provincial election was held during that period. A new premier was elected in Newfoundland; he had the same philosophy as his predecessor and carried on the work. As a result, in June 1996, the House of Commons passed the resolution to amend term 17.
There were, however, some challenges in Newfoundland. Certain things occurred within certain religious groups. To speed up the process and clarify the whole issue, the Government of Newfoundland therefore decided to hold a second referendum within two years of the first and on a similar issue so as to enable the province to gain full control over the management of its schools.
This referendum was held on June 2, 1997. This time, 73% voted in favour of the proposal. It is interesting to note certain similarities with the situation in Quebec. I think we can make connections because, on the government side, they do not mind making their own, saying that federalism is flexible and so on. I heard remarks to that effect earlier.
We, on our side, can see similarities with the situation in Quebec in that, on an issue as important as this one, the province put the decision in the hands of the people by holding a referendum. In his speech, my hon. colleague from Témiscamingue mentioned a number of witnesses who testified before the committee and their arguments on this issue. We in Quebec have been hearing similar arguments for some time. Certain people in Newfoundland apparently complained about the question not being clear. I read the question only once and understood it immediately. Let me read again: “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, yes or no?”
The answer to this very clear question was also clear. The contents of the question were known ahead of time, but concern may arise from the fact that the wording of the amendment per se to term 17 was made public only on the eve of advance polling.
I can just imagine the comments of the federalists opposite if, in a future Quebec referendum, the partnership project, for example, were to be spelled out only on the eve of the advance polling, even though the question itself had been known for several weeks. I wonder how this government would react. I wonder how the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, among others, would react if we acted in this fashion.
I do not question the process used. I simply want to show that, in this House, when it comes to justifying measures and to implementing certain rules, there seems to be two ways of doing things: one for English Canada and one for Quebec. I think the assessment that was made of the issue and of what happened in Newfoundland is the proper one. We had to give this power, this area of jurisdiction, to the people of Newfoundland.
Other criticisms we heard related to financing. It was said that the two sides, the yes and the no sides, did not have the same means to express their views, because there is no law on financing. In fact, the no side made rather strong criticisms regarding this issue.
The other point is the lack of specific legislation to regulate the referendum. The election act was amended for this process but, again, this drew rather strong criticism. In spite of all this, I do not question the outcome of the exercise. Again, the federalists opposite do not challenge any of this and they accept these rules. I think they had to accept them as part of democracy.
I hope that in Quebec's case—our approach is that much clearer, all our cards are on the table, Quebec's plan to achieve sovereignty is so clear—the government opposite will be as democratic in the next Quebec referendum and will accept what the people decide.
The purpose of the amendment to Term 17, the amendment proposed by the Government of Newfoundland and passed by the Legislative Assembly, is to rationalize the province's educational system and generate savings of $17 million. I think these are substantial savings and that we should listen to what they have to say. If the amendment is passed, there will be one rather than four educational systems, one system for all denominations. Religious instruction will continue to exist where numbers warrant. The number of school boards will be reduced from 27 to 10, and these will be multi-denominational. These reforms are the result of the recommendations by the royal commission of inquiry, as I was saying earlier.
I think that the member for Témiscamingue put it very succinctly at the outset when he said that we in the Bloc Quebecois have made our bed on this score for a number of reasons, the main ones being as follows. First, although term 17 of a schedule to the Constitution was involved, this issue was still completely under provincial jurisdiction, meaning that, for us, education is a provincial matter and that the province alone must have jurisdiction to make any changes and decide on the broad outlines of its system. For us, this was an extremely important element, and one which brought us very quickly over to Newfoundland's side.
Looking at the Constitution, one can see that indeed section 93 states that the legislature in each province may make laws in respect of education. Newfoundland's case is no exception. The power to pass legislation in respect of education belongs to the legislature of that province, the only difference being that Newfoundland assumes that right under term 17.
Also—and I think everyone will agree with this—the provincial leaders and representatives are the ones in the best position to determine what composes an efficient education system in their respective territory.
In addition, this entire process arose out of referendums on an extremely important question for the people of Newfoundland, one on which there was a debate and on which a heavy turnout of Newfoundlanders made a decision on the direction they wanted for their education system.
It would therefore be inappropriate for the hon. members in this House to take a position against the constitutional amendment called for by the Newfoundland legislature. We also know that the Quebec legislative assembly called for similar amendments some time ago. Just as we in the Bloc Quebecois were pleased to co-operate with the Quebec legislature, we are also pleased to co-operate with the Newfoundland legislature in trying to get all of this speeded up and ratified.
Finally, our role as parliamentarians is for the most part one of ratifying what the Newfoundland legislature has done. We have virtually no say in the matter. Newfoundlanders are really the ones who must have full jurisdiction over this.
Our position was along those lines—
A message was delivered by the Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Mr. Speaker, The Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of his honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly the Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
