Gerry Byrne

[Amendment To The Constitution Of Canada (Newfoundland), December 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the question from the hon. member from the Reform Party has stimulated another question. Given that constitutions, according to the Reform Party, should be entrenched for all time, should we have a Senate that is impossible to change and should we do away with section 43 amendments as the Reform Party has suggested?

[Amendment To The Constitution Of Canada (Newfoundland), December 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I will draw on my personal knowledge being a Newfoundlander and Labradorian, someone who is very proud of his particular province.

There are no majorities in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. The seven denominations currently holding religious denominational rights entrenched in term 17 make up 95% of the population of the province. Five per cent of the population who represent other denominations have no denominational rights whatsoever.

It is a very critical question. It is a very important question to ask. Is this a question of the majority stomping out the rights of the minority? Is harm being done? No. This is what the committee so thoughtfully provoked to come from the witnesses. This is the testimony we heard.

I know in my heart as a Newfoundlander that this is about providing an opportunity for all denominations for the first time in the history of Newfoundland being a province within Confederation. For the first time all denominations will have equal access to religious instruction of a non-denominational value. No one particular denomination which may be a majority over a minority can dominate. That is a very important principle that we as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians hold dear.

[Amendment To The Constitution Of Canada (Newfoundland), December 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, we are beginning to get to the heart of the matter. It is about Newfoundland and Labrador. It is not about the province of Saskatchewan, the province of Manitoba or the province of New Brunswick. It is about Newfoundland and Labrador.

The president of the home and school federation of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador put it quite clearly when he said “We knew what we were voting for. This is what we wanted”.

We heard expert testimony from other organizations and other institutions across the province. They said, “This is what we as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians want”. Mr. Steve Wolinetz, head of the home and school federation said, “We are religious people in Newfoundland and Labrador. We are a spiritual people. We understood categorically that that is what we were voting for. To subscribe or to make the assertion that this is in context of what should happen in other provinces is fundamentally incorrect. This is what should happen in Newfoundland and Labrador”. There is no suggestion whatsoever that this is what should happen in other provinces.

Quite frankly if someone were to come forward with unanimous consent in another legislature, in another province on a particular issue, then I think that we as parliamentarians would still have to look at that. We would still have to make sure that there was enough consent within the general populace of the province.

This is exactly what the issue is. There was unanimous consent in the provincial legislature of Newfoundland and Labrador. Members of particular denominations, who may or may not have had a particular opinion, voted in favour of this amendment; 47 of 48 districts within the province of Newfoundland and Labrador voted in favour of this particular amendment. That makes it unique to that province.

[Amendment To The Constitution Of Canada (Newfoundland), December 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise to speak to this issue.

As my colleagues may be aware, I had the privilege and the opportunity to sit with my colleague from the Senate as co-chair of the special joint committee on the amendment to the terms of union of Newfoundland affecting term 17. I also have the distinct pleasure to rise to speak this evening.

It is an issue of direct relevance and importance, one that has been decided by the people I represent, the people of Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte and other people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

We had a very engaging debate in the special joint committee on this issue. I was very pleased members from all parties participated in representing all regions of the country. I think it was a valuable experience for all.

We heard from 49 witnesses from various cross-sections throughout Canada. In particular, witnesses from the province of Newfoundland and Labrador came forward to speak their views. I certainly appreciated their knowledge, their competence and their personal feelings regarding this issue. I felt that my colleagues on the committee could not help but be absorbed and engaged by the commentary provided.

We are basically discussing an amendment to term 17 that was put to Newfoundlanders on July 31, 1997. It was quite straightforward in my opinion. The question Newfoundlanders and Labradorians were asked on September 2 was as follows:

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 government stated at that time that the proposed new term 17 would reflect and conform with the position presented in this question. The following was the text of the new term 17 as it was unveiled:

Term 17.1: In lieu of section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867, this section shall apply in respect of the province of Newfoundland.

That is very straightforward. Subsection 2 read:

In and for the province of Newfoundland the Legislature shall have exclusive authority to make laws in relation to education but shall provide for courses in religion that are not specific to a religious denomination.

Subsection 3 read:

Religious observances shall be permitted in a school where requested by parents.

The new term 17 is as clear and straightforward as the question itself. As a Newfoundlander who has participated in the education process as a student, as a Newfoundlander who has participated in the education reform process as a citizen, and as a Newfoundlander who participated in the education reform process as a parliamentarian, I plead with my fellow members of Parliament to respect the wishes of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and to pass without haste this amendment.

We have engaged in the debate for decades. We have thoughtfully provoked the will of the people to come forward and to announce the form of a new education system. That is exactly what the people went to the polls with on September 2. Through very thoughtful and engaged debate we understood the question and we understood the implications. We knew what we were voting for.

I quote the words and thoughts of a denominational education leader, Dr. Melvin Regular of the Pentecostal faith, who said on August 11, 1997 “The clarity of the question makes our task easier”. Pastor Clarence Buckle, as well from the Pentecostal faith, said:

We feel that if the people face the question squarely the question is clear, as we have said, and if they face it squarely the problem faces every one of us, every single citizen of Newfoundland and Labrador. Do we want to contemplate the possibility of having a single school system in the province in which we are not able to provide religious based instruction, activities and observances as Newfoundlanders have enjoyed in the past?

That is evidence to me as a member of Parliament, as a citizen of Newfoundland and Labrador, and as someone who understands the education process quite well in that province that we understood both sides of the question. We understood its implications. We understood exactly what it was asking of us and we voted 73% in favour of the amendment.

To those who would stand to suggest today that we did not understand the question put before us, that it was not simple and was somehow skewed, I say they are incorrect. They are incorrect in their assertion that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians do not understand the democratic process. I firmly believe Newfoundlanders and Labradorians understand quite well the democratic process, that we understand the implications of our actions, and that we do so quite willingly and quite forcefully in the spirit of democracy.

Those who suggest that we do not and cannot control our own destiny are categorically false because Newfoundlanders and Labradorians will participate in this great country as full and equal citizens.

I simply ask the Reform Party and those who would be their servants, those members of the House of Commons who would suggest the question was not correct, to go back to their blue book. I suggest that they re-evaluate the following quotation:

The Reform Party supports the replacement of the various existing formulae for amending different parts of the Constitution with an amending formula that replaced the ratification of power of Parliament and the provincial legislatures with that of the people as expressed in binding referenda.

The vote on this amendment will be the first test of the commitment of Reform members to this idea.

An overwhelming majority of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians endorsed the changes in term 17 in a lawfully held referendum process conducted under the elections act. Moreover, the committee heard testimony that the question was clear and straightforward, and that its clarity and fairness were never issues during the election process.

We also heard very clearly that there was unanimous consent in the legislature of Newfoundland and Labrador to pass this amendment. That is section 43 and that is due process by law, which is what the constitution of the country is all about.

We have a formula in place. It requires the consent of the legislature and the consent of parliament. I firmly believe that there should be respect for our constitution. It is a changing document. It changes the aspirations and the ideals of the people whom it protects.

We have heard that over the course of decades of debate we have engaged in a process that will provide fundamental education reform to our province which we expect and desire.

There are those among us who have suggested that it is improper for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to want to do that because they do not like it and it goes against their particular values as members of Parliament or as parliamentarians from elsewhere.

I assure all members of the House that the issue only affects the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. The issue is based on educational principles that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians hold dear. It is a principle based not just on members of Parliament or members of the legislature. It is based on the people who use the school system, the children. That is the testimony we heard most eloquently and most powerfully from the children.

Those currently in the school system said that they feel there should be religious instruction of a non-denominational nature. They told us that as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians they were spiritual people. They also see the value of learning about all religions. That was a very noble and proud thing to say.

They have confidence in their own denominational faith. They have confidence in their own ability to guide their spiritual growth and development. Newfoundland and Labrador is all about confidence, pride and self-satisfaction that they will participate in the Canadian democracy as full equals, not to be told by others that we do not think of the process or of the implications and that others should do it for us.

I categorically reject that notion.

[Amendment To The Constitution Of Canada (Newfoundland), December 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Given the fact that this debate has gone on for quite some time, given the fact that we have engaged in healthy debate and an unrestricted debate, I will indeed agree that this is in order.

[Amendment To The Constitution Of Canada (Newfoundland), December 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I might be wrong, Mr. Speaker. I seek your direction. However, I understood in the questions and comments that one member could speak only once in response.

[Amendment To The Constitution Of Canada (Newfoundland), December 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say thank you to my colleagues in this House who have taken the very deliberate time to address this issue, to respond to it, and to respond to it intelligently.

There are members in this House who do not necessarily share the the views of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador as reflected in the 73% referendum result in favour of this particular amendment. However, to the members of this House, in particular members on the government benches, I would like to acknowledge that they took the time to understand the issue, to explore it, to research it, to review it properly and to review it the spirit and the context of what Newfoundlanders and Labradorians understood and knew to be true.

There are those in this Chamber who have suggested that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians did not understand the question put to them. Some actually suggested it was beyond their comprehension. I categorically reject that proposal. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador understood this question. They voted solidly in favour of it, in complete comprehension of where it was taking our education system into the future. After years and years of discussion that is exactly the conclusion we arrived at.

I would like to salute the members who did such diligent work in the committee as well as in the House who, not withstanding their own values and beliefs, are co-operating with the people of Newfoundland and Labrador in helping them achieve their beliefs, their will. That is very important to acknowledge in this particular House.

[Amendment To The Constitution Of Canada (Newfoundland), December 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, once again as one of the many Newfoundlanders who have been dealing with this issue probably for decades, I appreciate the intervention of members opposite who obviously do not quite understand this issue. However I respect their opinions.

The question the hon. member raised as being somewhat confusing in his opinion was do they 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 hon. member opposite suggested that the question was unclear. However, I will quote from Dr. Melvin Regular who is head of the denomination education council for the Pentecostal faith. Mr. Regular said that “the clarity of the question makes our task easier”.

This is a total abolition of denominational rights and so we are able to declare with great certainty to the general population that Christian principles in the classroom will erode over time. It appears to me the question was very well understood by members opposite and by members of the denominations.

I ask the hon. member opposite, will he conform to the Reform policies that were articulated in the taxpayers' budget, the blue book or whatever is the Progressive Conservative and Reform mix? The Reform Party supports the replacement of the various existing formulas for amending different parts of the Constitution with an amending formula that replaced the ratification power of Parliament and the provincial legislatures with that of the people as expressed in binding referenda. At a 73% referenda, would the hon. member like to comment?

[Amendment To The Constitution Of Canada (Newfoundland), December 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, as a Roman Catholic Newfoundlander, I appreciate the comments from those outside my province who are suggesting that the will and the wishes of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are easily manipulated. I however do not hold that view.

I feel that the election process was handled with proper regard to the intellect of Newfoundland and Labradorians. I feel very strongly that the hon. member should interject with the fact that perhaps the reason why Newfoundland and Labrador has the third best education system in the country is that the teachers of the province who came before this committee on which we sat hearing evidence for three weeks suggested that this amendment should go ahead.

[Amendment To The Constitution Of Canada (Newfoundland), December 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the intervention of the hon. member for St. John's East. I appreciate his involvement in the committee as a substitute member for the hon. member for St. John's West.

The member rightly referred to testimony which was provided by Messrs. Malcolmson and Fleming regarding certain constitutional aspects of term 17 and, as well, aspects related to the international convenant on human rights.

It was pointed out by the member that the testimony we received was such that in the eyes of the witnesses any constitutional provision that was made post charter, in other words post 1982, could be called into question as to being in violation of the charter because it was not part of the pre-Confederation compromise.

I would like the member to comment if during the course of the testimony, expert witnesses provided opinions as to whether or not the charter itself would be encompassed within the Constitution. The charter itself having been enacted in 1982 is a post-Confederation compromise. The expert witnesses provided testimony that anything that was post Confederation could be in violation with some other aspects of the Canadian Constitution.

The other point I would like the member to comment on in addition to whether or not the charter itself falls within the purview of the Constitution or is not in itself challengeable is whether or not the hon. member believes that the Pentecostal denomination should indeed or actually has denominational rights protected under the charter.

The hon. member is aware that the Pentecost faith denomination received Constitution protection in 1987. I believe it was Mr. Fleming who appeared before the committee and stated emphatically that in his opinion, given the fact that the constitutional protections to the Pentecostal denomination were provided for in 1987, he feels extremely strongly that the Pentecosts should not have any constitutional protection whatsoever.

I would like the member to comment please.